Lost Civilizations: Pyramids, Atlantis, and the Shifting Crust (Part II)

This series of videos is a precursor of the book “Atlantis is Here”. The video starts with the simple question why Greenland is covered in ice. This simple question has never been sufficiently answered by mainstream science.

New, ground breaking research has found out that Earth Crust Shifts, Ice Ages, and ancient structures like pyramids and temples are closely related. This new theory proves mathematically 4 former geographic poles with certainties from 99.99% and higher.

The certainties of the position of the last two poles are incredibly high: 1 to many trillions that the found orientation clusters of ancient structures on Greenland are coincidentally formed.

The crust never shifted so wildly as Hapgood suggested in his theory. The earth had major shifts over the last 340,000 years. Hapgood also suggested that the crust shifted in the longitudinal direction. That also didn’t took place. The crust shifted in the latitudinal direction, which is a direct cause of the fact that earth is a rotating sphere. Every reaction to an external force takes place in the perpendicular direction of the rotational direction. The force in this case is oscillating gravity field when the Earth is in a high eccentric orbit around the Sun. That is the reason why the two graphs, eccentricity and ice ages, match perfectly to each other.

This video has been brought out as a precursor of the book, because I think it is important to know for the general public. It will still take at least a year for the book to come out.

Own Hosted Version:

Youtube Version:

Climate Change Caused by CO2 – Is it True?

The climate debate has become hotter than ever. There are many Internet forums where supporters and opponents of carbon induced global warming incessantly bombard each other with arguments. It has become a jammed trench warfare. Is that because both sides have not included the ultimate driver of climate change?

Global Climate Change Map

Fig. 1: This map gives a good indication what happened over the last decades. Some areas are heating up, while some are cooling down. The Southern hemisphere cools down, the Northern hemisphere warms up. The global result seems to be a global warming up. The cause? | © 2016 by Buildreps

What is Climate?

Where is climate actually made of? Let’s see. Temperature, humidity, wind speed, rainfall, and sunny hours give a good indication of what climate actually is. When the patterns of these five variables permanently change on a significant scale we could speak of a changing climate. Is this ever done properly on a global scale? No, never. It’s because earth’s climate system is an amazing complex system, and still far beyond the reach of human comprehension.

Is our climate really changing? And if that is so why could it be changing?

Own Research Versus Copy-Paste Believes

It is widely believed, also in the climate change discussions, that we can control the climate like in our cars by reducing CO2 emissions. But a glimpse on the historical data shows us that the temperatures changed constantly over the history. Who or what made this CO2 a few hundreds of thousands of years ago? Or is CO2 the effect and not the cause? Because that would explain more then vice versa.

Is our climate changing? And when that appears to be the case, what is the cause? Are we able to find out ourselves what is really going on? Yes, we can. But that requires a lot of work. Not many people are willing to do that for just a song.

Northern Versus Southern Hemisphere

Fig. 2: The Northern hemisphere warms up, and the Southern hemisphere cools down. The net result of both, based on about 100 weather stations, is a global warming over a period of about 50 years. Is that true? | © 2016 by Buildrep

The Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change

The relation between CO2 and temperature is obvious. Whether we look at recent records, or at ice core data, the relation is always present.

Fig. 3: The amount of sun spots and the Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) show a clear relation. But sun spots can only account for temperature swings up to plus/minus 1 degree Celsius.

What can we say more than the simple conclusion that CO2 is responsible for climbing temperatures? But is that conclusion really so simple? The relations are so obvious that only a fool dares to say that CO2 is not responsible for climate change.

Some cases of cause and effect are simple and obvious: does asbestos cause cancer, or does cancer causes asbestos? Because asbestos preceded the cancer, it is the cause.

But not all cases are so obvious. Does CO2 cause climate change or does climate change cause CO2?

Another case of cause and effect; are the wheels of a car responsible for the turning of the steering wheel or is it vice versa? There might be some odd cases where former situation counts. The steering mechanism is so tightly connected to eachother, that if we wouldn’t know better, we would have a very hard time to find out objectively what is the cause and what the effect. The tolerance in the system, when we change direction would be the only way to find out the cause.

This is called hysteresis.

The thing that lags behind would be ipso facto the effect. Grasping this principle is crucial, also for our climate.

Fig. 4: The relation between CO2 and temperature change is obvious. Denying there is a relation equals to stupidity. But the real question must be; is CO2 the cause of temperature change or is it the effect? 

The Elephant in the Room: CO2 Lags Behind

If we analyse the data by zooming in we see that CO2 lags behind on temperatures. Who knows that? The climate scientists know about it, but ignore this problem stubbornly. It is the elephant in the room.

Earth’s climate system is a feedback system. There are causes and there are effects. We must distinguish these two to understand the working of such complicated mechanisms.

When the alleged cause is lagging behind we cannot say it is the effect. So, when you want to make something responsible as a cause, but that “thing” is lagging behind, we have clearly looking at the effect and at the cause.

We could concoct something unimaginably complicated system in order to fake CO2 as the effect. But why would we do that? Only scientists with a false agenda do these kind of things.

To become aware of the fact that CO2 is lagging behind you must zoom in on the data.

It is crucial to grasp that if you want to know which is causing what, you need much data where the direction changes, like the graph below. The lag between input and output is called hysteresis.

In the graph below there is not one single example where CO2 is not lagging behind on changes of temperature. The odds for that correlation to be coincidental is 2.33×10-10 or 0.00000000233%. We can say with 100% certainty that CO2 is NOT responsible for climate change, hence it is the effect which correlates with changing temperatures.

Temperature Leads CO2 by an Average of About 2,000 Years

Fig. 5: The Vostok Data from Antarctica show a clear relation between temperature and CO2 levels. The CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures about 2,000 years. In simple words, CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature changes by definition. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Reasons Why Temperatures Increase in Urbanized Zones

About 85% of the measuring stations are on land, while land covers just about 33% of the planet. It is not difficult to see that when we use these data we introduce major errors when we try to calculate an average global temperature.

About 50% of the stations which are used to measure global temperature are situated on airports. Many of these stations are incorrectly located, which means they collect heat from the exhaust of airplanes or from the tarmac runway. Since the air traffic has increased, the heat collection by the sensors from the jet exhausts increases as well. The short, intense heat bursts of the engines accumulate to serious errors in many of the measurements.

Most other stations are located in expanding urbanized areas. The measurements are affected by growing traffic and growing heat radiation of buildings over the last decennials. The explosive growth of air conditioners on buildings added an enormous heat source to cities that also influenced the measurements of urban situated weather stations.

The measurements from some of the stations in large urbanized areas have to be corrected by other nearby remote stations before they can be used to present a global warming map. And even if we do this, we still present only the temperatures at ground level. We have no idea what happens high up in the atmosphere, and deep down in the oceans.

How Accurate Are the Temperature Measurements?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the amount of weather stations dropped

Fig. 6: There is a striking relation between the dropping amount of weather stations and the global rising temperature. After the collapse of the USSR about half of the cold stations fell into disuse, and so the data as well.

dramatically from about 12,000 in 1990 to about 6,000 stations in 1995. In the same period the alleged global temperature started to rise like a rocket taking off.

  • Cause: the “cold” stations were gone from the statistics. Mainly the warm urbanized stations remained.
  • Effect: the statistics started to present a distorted picture of the global temperatures.

Recently a far better way of collecting data has come into use: Remote Sensing Systems, or shortly RSS. Satellites gather data over large areas by using microwave sensors. This data is much more reliable and much better to process than the old fashioned weather stations where most of the climate models are still based on.

If you don’t trust the results presented here, you can verify it yourself at the site of Remote Sensing Systems.

Important to note is that RSS successfully monitored the temperatures of the whole atmosphere, but it suddenly stopped to gather data in 2015 after the budgets were cut by NASA. RSS as a more reliable tool to observe the climatic system did NOT support the false agenda of climate change driven by CO2. That’s something to think about…

A Temperature Scan of the Whole Atmosphere

Fig. 7: Over the last two decades the WHOLE atmosphere unmistakably cools down. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2 deg C over the last 20 years. | © 2016 by Buildreps

RSS Results Over the Last Two Decades

Zone (m)
+/- deg/yr
Net Ratio +/- deg/yr

The Atmosphere as a WHOLE is Cooling Down

Over the last two decades is the atmosphere as a whole unmistakeably cooling down. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2°C over the last 20 years. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere.

The greenhouse gases may trap partially the collected warmth in the troposphere, but when the temperature difference (ΔT) between the lower and higher atmosphere increases, the troposphere will cool down. The cause: the second law of thermodynamics (energy flows from hot to cold) is much stronger than the greenhouse effect.

The CO2 levels will still rise for the next decades to come, while the temperature curves of the ground stations will level off. Many people will start to realize they are lie upon by the scientific community and the environmental groups. Questions start to rise: who is working for who and who is in charge of this false agenda?

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

A fairly unknown phenomenon in the climate discussion is the PDO cycle, which offers a

Fig. 9: PDO Cycles over the last century.

short-term (<60 yrs) explanation for the small temperature variations (and so for the release or absorption of CO2 by the oceans).

The Pacific Ocean covers a whopping 33% of earth’s surface. Even the minutest cooling or warming of this vast ocean has colossal impact on the release or absorption of CO2. That also explains why CO2 is lagging behind on the temperatures as shown above.

The most likely driver of the PDO are the Bretagnon cycles that oscillates over the much larger Halstatt cycles. Both these cycles are Sun cycles.

What else is the best candidate for the temperature changes than the Sun itself?

Midterm Hallstatt cycles and Short-term Bretagnon Wave Oscillation

Fig. 10: The Hallstatt cycles and the Bretagnon wave cycles offer the best explanation of the PDO cycles. PDO at its turn causes absorption and release of CO2 of the oceans.

Where Does All the CO2 Come From?

The increase of CO2 from 290 ppm to about 400 ppm over the last 100 years is caused by the warming of the oceans. The oceans contain about 98% of all the carbon in the biosphere. The release of CO2 is partially caused by the above mentioned sun cycles, and by the rebound effect of the last (little) ice age, which was in fact a crustal deformation.

What many people don’t know is that especially seawater is able to dissolve huge amounts of CO2. When temperatures of seawater drops it will dissolve more CO2. Logically, is this CO2 again released when the oceans temperature rise again. There is ipso facto a strong correlation between temperatures and CO2. But the water temperature of the ocean decides which levels of CO2 are released to the atmosphere.

This is in a nutshell what happened after the ice age ended. The ocean temperatures bounced back up again. On top of that accumulate a few midterm oscillations that cause constant small swings around the “setpoint”. This is why CO2 is lagging behind on temperatures.

The small CO2 variations we saw over the last three decennials are caused by ocean currents driven by a varying sun activity. The midterm variations, like the medieval Winter, were caused by the Halstatt cycle. The large CO2 increase over the last 12,000 years is the rebound effect of the last ice age.

CO2 Induced Climate Change Hysteria Debunked in Just 12 Minutes

What Caused the Large Temperature Changes?

The biggest question which is now left: what caused the very large long-term temperature swings of the last glaciations?

  • Sun spots? No.
  • El Nino and El Nina? No.
  • Bretagnon oscillations? No.
  • PDO? No.
  • Hallstatt cycles? No.
  • Earth Crust Deformations? Yes!

Earth Crust Shifts are rejected and even ridiculed by geologists, while they offer the only real explanation for the very large long-term temperature swings around the “setpoint”.

What happens with ice core samples with the assumption that the crust was fixed? The interpretations will lead to conclusions of very large temperature swings, which in fact never took place. Shifts in climatic zones, which are not recognized as such, lead automatically to the idea that the Earth was in a series of ice ages, while there is never any mechanism found what could such events.

Read the article on the main page and you might understand how it works. Earth crust deformations were responsible for large climatic changes over the many hundreds of thousands of years. They were caused by the high eccentric orbits of Earth around the Sun (large tidal oscillation). That is the reason why ice ages relate so well to the eccentricity.

We are today still in the rebound of the last crustal deformation which stopped 26,000 years ago. This rebound effect causes the temperature still to rise a little bit, which on its turn causes the warming of the oceans, which on its turn releases CO2. This is the chain of cause and effect.

That’s how it works.

© 2016-2018 by Buildreps

Lost Civilizations and Earth Crust Shifts

Fig. 1: Life is fragile, and in the same time indestructible. Huge catastrophes swept away life on Earth many times. Gravity and motion are the main drivers of life on earth, but also the main cause of death and extinction.

The Theory of Earth Crust Displacements

After reading the title, you might ask “do we have earth crust displacements then?” The answer on this question will be given in this very comprehensive, and maybe from time to time tough article.

The theory of earth crust displacements has been dumped into the corners of pseudo science in the early 60s after Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was confirmed by evidence found on the ocean floors.

Professor Charles Hapgood claimed that the earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and light (part of the lithosphere), could shift over the hot, molten magma layer (astenosphere) on which it is believed to be floating. It was later said by scientists that there is no force strong enough to make such radical movements of the crust possible, and that only the very slow tectonic plate movements forms the earth’s crust, and thus the climatic events.

There is indeed no force strong enough to make very swift radical movements possible like Hapgood suggest, but he was ultimately true that Earth crust displacements are possible.

Fig. 2: Solar heat at high latitudes is reduced in two ways: light travels a longer path through the atmosphere AND the incoming light is spread over a larger surface.

The Ruling Theories Result in Too Many Contradictions

At first hand seems the current ruling scientific view viable for most of the phenomena we witness on earth. The geological record provides irrefutable evidence that dramatic climate fluctuations have occurred throughout our planet’s history.


Charles Hapgood delivered a lifetime achievement with his book Earth’s Shifting Crust – A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science. His book is interesting to read, written in simple language.

Geological evidence suggests that the climate had very mild periods, virtually from pole to pole. But how is that even possible when the sun is considered to be the only heat source? How can the sun heat the poles? This idea seems to be only possible when the earth would be heated from within, through convection.

Hapgood’s conclusions show enough reasons to do profound research on this issue, to find the truth.

Fig. 3: The eccentricity of the last ice age, more than a thousand miles off, is shouting for a rational explanation, while most scientists still believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Radical Changes Require Radical Forces or Vice Versa

While reading Hapgood’s book, you become convinced that Earth crust displacements are the only credible explanation for many phenomena like:

  1. the sudden waxing and waning of glaciations,
  2. the eccentricity of recent ice caps in relation to the geo poles,
  3. that Greenland was about 450,000 years ago really green, and covered in rich flora,
  4. the sudden extinction of flora and fauna,
  5. the sudden emergence of new species.

Hapgood’s treatise is much more detailed and profound then just the few actualities shown here. His style of research was original, intelligent, and very controversial. You can also call it out-of-the-mainstream ideas.

Fig. 4: Ice depositions grow usually centric around the pole, unless a phenomena like the Warm Gulfstream makes it acentric like you can see on the North pole in March. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why the Eccentric Ice Caps Requires an Explanation

When we look at the North pole in March, we see that the Gulf Stream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially N2 and N4. The Gulf Stream is very powerful.

What would happen when there wasn’t a Gulf Stream present?

The ice formation around the North pole would then become almost symmetric, and the Greenland Sea and Northern Atlantic would be completely frozen in Winter.

One could try to argue that during the last ice age there must have been a warm Gulf stream along the coasts of Alaska and Eastern Russia, pushing itself through the Bering Strait, making this ice formation around the pole acentric. But the seaway between Alaska and Russia is far to narrow for a Gulf Stream to pass through and become large enough to cause such a large asymmetry. This seaway was not even present during the last glaciation cycle due to the low sea level – there was a land bridge between North America and Russia.

It is crucial to understand that energy always flows from high to low, and not vice versa. The Warm Gulf stream is running in that region because it is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics – restoring an energetic imbalance after a crustal dislocation. This process is still running today – the melting of Greenland.

The Warm Gulfstream will decrease in intensity after the situation at the North pole is returned to normal, and that is after the Greenland ice sheet is almost completely molten, which will still take some 4,000 years.

Fig. 5: The amount of incoming solar energy at the poles depends strongly on latitude AND season.

Why Science is Not Always Rational

One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that Antarctica once had abundant subtropical flora and fauna, some 50 million years ago.

Science also tells us that Antarctica would be at its current location at that time. This leads us to the question: where was the solar light coming from to make this abundant, subtropical lifeforms possible? Mirrors in space maybe?

No, scientists came up with an even more ludicrous theory.

During six months there is hardly any solar light on Antarctica. The Milankovitch cycles are much too weak to explain anything regarding this issue (making the South pole lightly turn to the sun).

Scientists came up with the idea how trees and plants must have adapted to an almost complete lack of sun light. How does that work without photosynthesis?

Why don’t we see this adaptation happening today? Why do we still have taigas, tundras, and steppes and no tropical rain forests in Northern Siberia or Alaska? Or why don’t we see any trees growing on top of the Himalayas?

What we see happening here is that if one possibility is moved from the scene – crustal dislocations – they are replaced by the only left possibility – plants growing without solar light. These are irrational, unreliable, and adhoc theories. The tragic is that the general public believes these fantasies as to be true, which are broadcasted by the mainstream media, inflated with beautiful animations, like fairytales for adults.

There is no other way to explain these facts than with crustal dislocations.


Fig. 6: The Pangaea Theory.

More About the Pangaea Theory

The Pangaea theory was devised to explain how species migrated between the different continents.

Alfred Wegener, who was the (official) founder of the idea, saw that continents once could have fitted into eachother, like you can see on the photo on the right. It is believed to be 250 million years ago.

It is thought to be a cyclical event. Meaning, there could have been more “Pangaeas” before this one.

It is a simple, visually based theory that comes at hand, for the palaeontologists, to explain many things, like in this case the migration of species. Geologists later confirmed the theory after finding fault lines on ocean floors, driven apart by forces from within earth.

Why the Pangaea Theory is Incomplete

The theory tells us that Pangaea started to break apart, but not why and how it broke apart. A theory that lacks to explain why or how it happened is incomplete.

The theory can also be used at will. For example, it explains how different species could spread over the continents. But it can also explain why we find similar dolmens or pyramids on every continent, or name any other similar cultural phenomenon. Why is that? Because humans could spread all over the world and built their stone structures when Pangaea was still intact?

But because Pangaea was 250 million years ago, it is then dismissed as impossible. Which is using a theory according to whether it suits the inventors. This shows an inherent falsity at the core of science, which might be caused by the compartmentalization of science. Spreading of species is explained, while spreading of cultural similarities is instantaneously dismissed.

When the spreading of dolmens and pyramids all over the world is regarded as coincidence, why can’t we then regard spreading of species around the world as coincidence?

Continental drift is a fact, but Pangaea is an idea that cannot be verified by evidence or by any mathematical model. It is an immature visually based idea.

The Framework for Any Glaciation Theory

Hapgood mentions in his book, William Lee Stokes, a well known geologist and palaeontologist, who provided a framework that every theory has to meet when it wants to explain glaciations. A theory that neglects one or more items on this list can be regarded as unviable or incomplete.

  1. An initiating event or condition.
  2. A mechanism for cyclic repetitions or oscillations within the general period of glaciation.
  3. A terminating condition or event.
  4. It should not rely upon unprovable, unobservable, or unpredictable conditions when well-known or more simple ones will suffice.
  5. It must solve the problem of increased precipitation with colder climate.
  6. The facts call for a mechanism that either increases the precipitation or lowers the temperature very gradually over a period of thousands of years.

Hapgood believed that the theory of ice deposition at the poles could make the crust shift. Maybe it can play part in an increasing imbalance of the crust, but it cannot be the main cause of crustal dislocations. Why not?

Fig. 7: Hammer throwing is a good example where eccentric forces are used to move an object from A to B.

Why Ice Deposition at the Poles Cannot Cause Large Crustal Dislocations

Asymmetrical ice depositions around the poles cause theoretically very large tangential pointed forces.

Since earth is a sphere, these eccentric forces can theoretically, when they occur around the poles, and are large enough, shift the crust (lithosphere) over the syrupy magma layer (asthenosphere).

Hapgood believed that the last ice ages at the Northern hemisphere caused the earth crust to shift. This idea was also formed after looking at the growing eccentricity on Antarctica.

But Hapgood’s theory is deeply conflicting in itself, and contains a circular reasoning:

A) If we look at the Northern ice sheet during the last ice age, with the idea that the geo pole was where it currently is, we see a very large eccentricity (see fig. 3). This eccentricity could be, according to Hapgood, responsible for a crustal shift. Because ice forms centric around the poles, how can it be responsible for imbalances?

B) How could this pole move from Greenland to its current location? Because we cannot seem to solve this large eccentricity other then positing the thesis that the pole was on Greenland a priori, we then automatically balance the ice sheet around the pole, making any eccentric forces impossible.

C) How could it then cause a crustal shift? Because the eccentric forces were neutralizing each other when the pole was on Greenland.

D) How can it be that Antarctica was moving to the geo pole? It was then making a counter movement, and thus proving that the contrary was happening.

You see here that the reasoning conflicts, hence dismissing the possibility that the ice sheets itself cause crustal displacements.

Milankovitch Cycles – A More Consistent Clue

Without any doubt was Hapgood right about radical, violent crustal dislocations. But his theory was incomplete, and moreover, it simply ignored many contemporary, clearly proven theories.

Milankovitch, for example, discovered already in the 1920s that the orbital cycles – eccentricity, obliquity, and precession – seemed to be in accordance with glacial cycles.

This lead to a typical ‘short circuit’ theory that the Milankovitch cycles in itself were responsible for the ice ages, although science still very poorly understands why Milankovitch’s cycles influence the climate on earth.

A Large ‘e’ Stands For Large Annual Gravitational Swings

Fig. 8: The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the annual gravitational changes become. These fluctuations cause very large tidal oscillation, and causes crustal deformations which we call “ice ages”. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why Eccentricity is the Main Key to Understand Glaciations

The only factor in the Milankovitch cycles that seems to influence the amount of received solar energy is the changing eccentricity of earth’s orbit.

A sphere, which the earth is, doesn’t receive less energy when it is tilted or when it wobbles in any way. It still receives the same amount of solar energy. Eccentricity seems then to be the only key left to explain glaciations.

And even this phenomenon, when regarded over a period of one year doesn’t show changing incoming solar energy. Why not? Because the average distance to the sun doesn’t change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays the same. And since glaciations cover periods of tens of thousands of years, there’s no way to explain how the amount of incoming solar energy ever can change.

We can easily see there’s a huge dilemma here, because the curve fittings of the Milankovitch cycles and glaciation cycles show a perfect match.

Temperature Proxies (δ18O) and Eccentricity

Fig. 9: D18O records found on the ocean floors are a very good proxies for temperature indicators of the past. The similarities between D18O and eccentric orbit is crystal clear. C=cold, W =warm. | © 2016 by Buildreps

What is the Relation Between δ18O and Eccentricity?

The δ18O samples (Foraminifera shells) taken from the ocean floor serve as very good temperature indicators. It is not difficult to overlook the similarity of patterns between the two curves. The curves have to be well superimposed to make the similarities clear.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the lows of the black curve. δ18O is somewhat tricky. Low values stand for high temperatures and vice versa. The explanation behind this mechanism can be explained as: If the eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun runs above a certain value, the temperature proxies start to drop radically (temperature goes up).

But why? Since the annual solar energy doesn’t change?

What Paleontologists measured was not the real temperature, but the proxy of that temperature. When the proxies (the shells) were moved from one region (latitude) to another, this is not visible, and could easily be misinterpreted as a temperature change. While in fact the sample were displaced to another climatic zone.

The crust was heavily deformed as a response to the increasing tidal forces which was the effect of a large eccentric orbit. The proxies reacted on that crustal shift. A change in latitude means a change in temperature.

Mind you that this possibility has been ignored by both geologists and paleontologists, which is a tragic error.

Another Proxy – δD and Eccentricity

Fig. 10: The relations between eccentricity in earth’s orbit and glaciations are clear. Eccentric relates to glaciation cycles. Glaciation cycles are caused by tidal oscillation, deforming the Earth’s crust.| © 2016 by Buildreps

Another Proxy

Another proxy from the ice cores of Dome-C on Antarctica shows the same kind of pattern, although this proxy works different, it also relates to temperature change.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the highs of the blue curve.

It is clear, and not very difficult to verify, that the eccentricity of earth’s orbit triggers an event that is interpreted by scientist as a glaciation, while it was a crustal shift.

It is not unthinkable though that a large eccentric orbit ‘massages’ earth’s interior more strongly, so that the earth starts to warm up from the inside. Convection from the inside might warm the crust a little. It can also make the syrupy astenosphere more fluid, which might cause the crust to ‘moonwalk’ over the magma, under influence of a large tidal oscillation. One thing is sure – science really has to get to work, and stop this silly whining over carbon induced warming.

The smaller temperature changes in between the large peaks can be easily explained by many less impactive events like varying solar activity, Heinrich events, changes in ocean circulation, etcetera.

Additional Effects – Annual Extreme Weathering

Fig. 11: Because the earth axis is tilted a large eccentricity has profound effects on temperature changes. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why These Extremes Cause Crustal Shifts

When the eccentricity of earth’s orbit increases, it doesn’t influence the annual amount of received solar energy, but it does influence gravitation between the earth and the sun significantly.

  1. The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the temperature differences over one year. To understand the effects, look at deserts – hot at daylight, cold at night, resulting in erosive, rock splitting conditions.
  2. Depending of the tilt and precession during an extreme eccentricity, some parts of the globe are subjected to more extremes than other parts. Resulting in local expansion (heating) and local contraction (cooling).
  3. The closer earth gets to the sun, the harder the sun is pulling. This causes extreme tidal oscillations.

This latter effect is the main driver behind crustal deformations. Once the tidal forces are large enough, the lithosphere is able to break loose from its syrupy under layer, and starts to dislocate.

This phenomenon might also trigger dislocations of the outer (liquid metal) core, a phenomenon that we currently witness as a wandering magnetic pole.

How Earth’s Rotation Currently Varies

Fig. 12: The annual variation in rotation speed is the result of the current eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun. It is 2 milliseconds per year.

Current Fluctuations of Earth’s Rotation

The graph above shows how annually the earth’s rotation varies just a little bit. This variation is induced by the changing distance to the sun, which is also determined by the collective momentum of our entire solar system. When the earth gets somewhat closer to the sun, the rotation slows down with about 2 milliseconds. When it moves further away, the rotation speed goes up again.

The overall loss in speed, visible in the graph by the overall downward trend, is energy which is transferred to the moon. The result is that the moon slowly moves away from the earth, while increasing its rotational speed.

This coherent system is mathematically amazing complex, and still very poorly understood by science.

The variation in annual rotation speed seems very tiny, but it represents an amazing amount of energy: 9.93·1021 Joule [1]. The total global energy consumption in 2015 is estimated to be about 6.5·1020 Joule. This unnoticeable small fraction in Earth’s rotational variations is about 15 times more powerful than the total global energy consumption.

Sometimes you have to see things in their true perspectives.

[1]: Erot = ½·I·(ω12– ω22); I = 8.04×1037kg·m2; ω1 = 7.2934778604×10-5 rad/s; ω2 = 7.2934780297×10-5 rad/s

Earth’s Inner is a Composition of Layers

Fig. 13: Earth’s solid inner layers are hydraulic connected by two liquid layers. The solid parts can move separately from each other when the tidal forces become large enough. | © 2016 by Buildreps
Fig. 14: The Earth’s layered structure: 1=inner core (solid); 2=outer core (liquid); 3=lower mantle (solid); 4=upper mantle (syrupy); 5=lithosphere (solid); 6=crust (solid, part of the lithosphere)

Rotation Speed of the Earth Varies

Once you understand that the rotation speed of the earth partially depends on the distance to the sun, it is not difficult to see that this influences the force on the different shells of earth’s inner.

Many people regard the earth as one solid object, while it consists of three solid shells that are rotational connected to eachother by two liquid intermediate layers.

All three solid components will react differently to increasing tidal oscillation.


Because their densities are very different. The inner core is very heavy, while the crust is very light. This results in different reactions to an eccentric orbit.

Eccentricity and glaciations are clearly one and the same.

The Ultimate Cause of Crustal Shifts

When the tidal oscillations exceeds a certain threshold, one or more of the solid layers can lose its connections with one of the liquid layers. This happens when one of the liquid layers is not able to transfer the momentum between one of the solid layers.

And this oscillation forcecauses the earth’s crust to shift and deform.

As with a spinning top, when a force is exercised in one direction, it will react perpendicular to that force. This is why we see that the crust has shifted mainly in latitudinal direction, and not in longitudinal direction.

The most inner core is solid and very heavy, it won’t react as fiercely to tidal oscillations as the very light and brittle outer shell, the crust. The crust is connected to a tough syrupy asthaenosphere that won’t loose its grip that easy.



© 2016-2018 by Buildreps

First published: March 2, 2016