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