Why is There an Ice Sheet on Greenland?
Greenland is the largest island on earth, situated east of Canada, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. About 80% of the island is covered by the massive Greenland Ice Sheet with an average thickness of about 1,667 meters. If this ice sheet would melt completely off, the sea level will rise with about 7 meters (23 feet).
Drill samples have shown that the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 110,000 years old. Other estimates claim that the ice sheet is 400,000 years old. How did this ice sheet become so thick, while the surrounding countries with mountain ranges, like Alaska, Canada and Russia, have no ice sheet? Even Iceland isn’t fully covered in ice. Moreover is the exact age of the ice sheet unclear. What do we really know?
This article will explore this issue partially which will be published in a series of articles.
Whiteland or Greenland?
Where the name Greenland comes from, while it’s completely white, is unsure. But it is said to have come from early Norwegian settlers.
According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure more settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. It was maybe also a kind of incantation to make the cold island more livable.
Sages and legends often contain parts of some truth. The current scientific view is that Greenland was actually green some 450,000 years ago. That’s quite some time for a legend to bridge, isn’t it?
What happened to Greenland that it’s now covered with an insane thick icecap?
Models Say There Can’t be Ice
Greenland’s ice sheet has puzzled scientists for many decades, which have led to complete ridiculous, even unscientific theories. Geoscientists who are in the search for a logical and consistent explanation are limited by their own set of beliefs and institutions. This limitation leads sometimes to the strangest conclusions.
There have been many reports in the media about the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet, but there is still great uncertainty as to why there is an ice sheet on Greenland at all.
There are mathematical models that cover Greenland with an ice sheet, but they also cover the other continents in ice as well. There’s no model possible that covers only Greenland.
What changed in Earth’s history to make this happen?
Latest Official Version
The reason for that [the ice sheet] is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.
The Fact is: There Are no Conclusive Models Found Yet
There are in fact several competing theories why Greenland is covered in ice, ranging from:
- changes in ocean circulation,
- the increasing height of the Rocky Mountains,
- changes in the Earth’s orbit,
- natural changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. Even the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near strong enough to explain the ice coverage of Greenland.
While the results of the computations suggest that climatic shifts associated with changes in ocean circulation and tectonic uplift did affect the amount of ice cover, and that the ice waxed and waned with changes in the Earth’s orbit, none of these changes were large enough to contribute significantly to the long-term growth of the Greenland ice sheet.
Their conclusion was that the huge ice cap could only grow when Greenland would be “roofed” with a giant bubble of low CO2 levels covering the whole island. Of course, that sounds reasonable. How to transport all the vaporized seawater to Greenland without interfering with the CO2 bubble? How did that bubble came there? Which mechanism kept it in place for over hundreds of thousands of years? Not a very scientific approach.
In other words: none of the current theories appear to be valid.
Try to be honest to yourself. Everyone who has a good intuition sees immediately that it’s strange that on the Northern hemisphere only Greenland is covered with an ice sheet. Not just a bit of ice. A massive ice layer, while there’s nothing on Alaska, Canada and Russia.
Are Temperature Fluctuations Correctly Interpreted?
No Ice Sheets on Other Mountain Ranges
It isn’t a logical starting point in any case. The ice sheet around the Greenland Summit, that’s about in the middle of the sheet, is about 3,000 meters thick. The altitude is also about 3,000 meters. The mountains must have been pushed down how much? At which point are they trading places, or was it a slow sliding scale?
If that would be the main driver, why are there no fat ice sheets on the Brooks Mountain Range, the Innuitian Mountains, the Mackenzie Mountains, the Ural Mountains, the Central Siberian Plateau, and the Verkhoyansk range? Even the mountains on Svalbard aren’t covered in thick ice sheets.
Scientists will probably think of very difficult explanations for this, but they then tend to forget about Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation with the least assumptions is the best theory.
Why no Ice Sheets on Alaska, Canada or Russia?
The latest official theory why Greenland is covered in ice, includes the assumption that Greenland was covered with high mountains. These high mountains were formed by tectonic forces pointed towards the location of Greenland. The relative thin crust was easier foldable which made the formation of mountains easier.
The mountain peaks would start to accumulate an ice sheet after Greenland shifted 18° further up North to its current location, according to this new theory. It cannot be stated clear enough that this is completely irrational science.
Why would only Greenland shift Northward? And the rest stays in place? Seriously?
Why this accumulation of ice didn’t happen in similar regions in Alaska, Canada or Russia, where the much colder land climate even more encourages the build-up of an ice sheet, remains completely out of the scope of this theory.
This theory seems to be rather adhoc because it doesn’t cover the complete subject of ice sheet formation around the Arctic.
Are Earth Crust Shifts Possible?
The late Professor Hapgood first coined the idea of Earth Crust Displacements in 1958, and even published complete books and theories around this issue. Hapgood also explained how crustal shifts were powered, namely that the deposition of ice around the poles caused eccentricities. These eccentricities cause a centrifugal force on the crust and could lead to shifts.
This view is though inconsistent, and not completely in line with what we see happening today at Antarctica. The centrifugal forces caused by the ice sheet on Antarctica today is about 2 times larger than the forces during the last ice age. We would be shifting as we speak. So, what could power crustal shifts is unsure, but it could be driven by a combination of inner and outer events.
The fact is that crustal shifts are the only possibility to cover Greenland with an ice sheet, and that we are now looking at the remains of crustal shifts. But to claim how this works is yet too early.
Never exclude anything in advance. Earth Crust Shifts must be part of the vocabulary of any sane geologist to explain events that otherwise become unexplainable. Looking for the cause of the event is yet another thing, which might be even much harder.
The formation of our world is not only done by one big crustal force, but at least by two:
- Earth Crust Displacements
- Tectonic Plate Movements
How Ice Forms Around the Poles
Ice has the natural tendency to grow and to melt approximately concentrically around the poles. This tendency is not influenced by any wobble, since this wobble still occurs equally around the geographical pole.
The ice sheet on Greenland shouldn’t be there if the geographical pole always had been were it is today. There is simply no scientific explanation possible without the introduction of a radical shifting mechanism of the Earth’s crust.
Understanding why the ice sheet was formed on Greenland helps us to understand the possible response of the ice sheet to future climate changes, and if the current climate change is completely wrongly interpreted.
Ice Formation is Concentric Around Poles
Why Ice Formation is Concentric
The North pole map at the end of the Winter shows a large amount of sea ice which is almost centrical formed around the geographical pole. In winter time, the sea ice in the Arctic ocean gets trapped between Canada, Russia and Greenland (N1), and forms a dense pack of sea ice. This pack of ice can’t go anywhere, while the ice between Greenland and Norway floats into the Greenland Sea and the Norwegian sea, and finally melts. The Gulf Stream plays a major role in this process.
This is the reason why on the North pole the ice is not as symmetrically accumulated as on the South pole.
When we look at Antarctica, we see that the sea ice around Antarctica can freely float away into the Southern part of the oceans, and is almost symmetrically formed around the geographical South pole.
The slight acentric accumulation of ice on the South pole is caused by the predominant ice mass in the sectors S2 and S3, which is a major chilling factor in the formation of local sea ice.
Was the Former North Pole on Greenland?
The center point of the last ice age was on Greenland. Greenland was located on the North pole due to crustal dislocation. That is the reason why only Greenland is still covered in ice. The reason why the ice sheet on Greenland is melting, is because it has been shifted about 1,500 km South, from its former polar position to its current position.
The ice sheet melts so slowly because Greenland still lies for a great deal within the polar circle. The outer edges of the sheet are melting much faster then the elevated centre near Summit. The overall balance is negative.
The only sure conclusion we can draw is that ice always forms symmetrically around the pole, unless there is a reason, a strong mechanism, that makes it asymmetric.
Which mechanism could have been strong enough to cause such an asymmetry during the last ice age? Now try to keep the explanations as simple as possible, without limiting yourself by your own paradigm.
That the former North Pole was located on Greenland can also be proved by calculations.
Milankovitch Cycles (W/m2 at 65ºN) Are No Cause of Glaciations
Former Geographical Pole
Greenland was situated at the (geo) North Pole between 110,000 and 200,000 years ago. There’s even hardly any doubt about the location. The region of Greenland is in line with the orientation of about 224 ancient pyramids and temples.
That is no coincidence. There is about 1.34-1869 % chance (practically it’s 0) that an arrangement of this magnitude happens accidentally, which is a sure confirmation of something very significant. You have about trillions times trillions times more chance on winning the Power ball. Imagine that!
Our ancestors oriented their structures to a geo pole that appeared to be at that time at another location: Greenland.
This completely new theory explains in the simplest possible way why there is still a thick ice sheet on Greenland. This also explains why there’s even an ice sheet present, while there’s nothing of the ice sheet left on Russia or Canada.
The ice sheet gets thicker the closer we get to the pole. That is what we see on Antarctica today. The current North pole and the former North pole are shifted under an angle of about 14° in latitudinal direction. But the shift didn’t take place overnight. The shift took place over a period of about 80,000 years, between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago.
How the Melting Rate of the Ice Sheet Proceeds
The Ice Sheet Will Wax and Wane
Of course will the ice sheet wax and wane a little bit from year to year, from decade to decade, or even from century to century. That’s because Greenland has moved to a part of the Arctic where the temperature’s yo-yoing around zero. But the overall picture is clear. It melts substantially, when measured over a period of a thousand years.
The melting energy comes for less than 0.1% from the airflow, and for 99.9% from the warm Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is present around Greenland to restore the balance after the balance disturbing crustal shift that took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago (the crust shifted average about 18.5 m/yr over a period of 80,000 years in the latitudinal direction). The ice sheet melts therefore from below, and hardly from above.
This melting mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. The melting process is fueled by (the balance restoring) El Niño.
The temperatures of the elevated centre part of Greenland is always far beneath zero, while the lower outer edges of Greenland are nearly half of the time way above zero. To model this process is not so easy, even with the understanding what the origin (North pole) of ice sheet was.
If you would zoom in on the smooth graph above that presents a period of about 20,000 years you’ll find an erratic pattern. Climate sceptics will try to zoom in on parts of the erratic pattern and claim that the sheet is growing. That’s an obvious wrong interpretation of a long slow process.
Original Thickness of the Greenland Ice Sheet
The fact that the ice sheet on Greenland is still melting, and the former ice sheets of the last glaciation on Russia, Canada and America are long gone, means that the ice sheet on Greenland must have been very thick.
The core temperature of the Greenland ice sheet was much lower as well, because it was situated at the North pole. The other ice sheets on Canada and Russia weren’t as cold as the one on Greenland. The immense thickness and the very low temperature of the Greenland ice sheet, combined with its current polar location (it’s still cold), makes it melt at a very low rate.
This ice sheet will melt anyway, whatever we do. Zero Carbon emission or much Carbon emission. No scientist has ever proven a that CO2 can cause a global temperature change of between 10 to 15°C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, sure, but a very weak one, and it has been made responsible for something it is incapable of doing. CO2 is the effect, not the cause. CO2 lags behind because it is released by warming oceans and absorbed by cooling oceans, that’s why it lags behind on global temperatures changes.
Calculations, resulting in the graph above, show that the original ice sheet was 32% thicker when it lied on the North Pole, average around 2,200 meters thick. The thickest part of the ice sheet was centered around the pole, and was between 4,000 and 4,500 meters thick.
Rationality: Why Greenland is Covered in Ice
The Greenland Ice Sheet Will Melt In Any Case
The estimation of the IPCC concerning the current melting speed of the Greenland ice sheet are in line with the calculations based upon a shifting crust which took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago. Only with this difference that the origin of the ice sheet of Greenland has been determined, and that makes a world of a difference.
The extrapolations of the IPCC concerning the melting rate are exaggerated and based on too many unscientific assumptions.
The ice sheet won’t melt within just a few hundred years. There’s even not enough energy to change ice into water, called heat of fusion, within this short time frame.
When all ice on Greenland is molten into the oceans in about 4,000 years, it will influence the climate on earth dramatically. The risen sea level will influence all coastlines. The energy that was required to melt the ice sheet cannot go anywhere else than into warming the whole atmosphere and the oceans.
The Northern hemisphere will heat up, the Southern hemisphere will cool down. This is a logical part of earth’s balancing mechanism, otherwise it wouldn’t have survived billions of years. But how this exactly will work out is yet unknown.
Evidence for Earth Crust Shifts
Paleomagnetism delivers proof for crustal shift, although scientists may not even recognize it as such.
Scientists assume when they look at the samples of alleged magnetic pole reversals, that the magnetic pole was the only variable that changed, while there’s no way to tell from the samples what has changed – the magnetic pole or the crust. Because the magnetic pole obviously moves, it doesn’t mean the other variable, the crust, is obviously fixed. That’s an unscientific, assumptive error.
It was both that moved. And it can be partially fixed by using the orientation of ancient structures, which show us the way in which position the crust was over the last 400,000 years.
The penny still hasn’t dropped in many scientists that magnetic reversals are in fact evidence for Earth Crust Shifts. Only because we cannot simply solve two variables from just one equation, the assumption is conveniently made that it was only one variable – magnetic reversal. An error which is caused by intellectual laziness, lack of imagination, and a too low consciousness of geoscientists.
Even More Evidence
A next article shows the amazing orientation patterns of more than 500 ancient structures spread around the world. These 500 pyramids point to three different clear locations on Greenland.
And exactly at the same point that was already embraced by the ice sheets of the last glacial cycle. This doesn’t only show an amazing outlining of pyramids around the world, but also that these pyramids are much older than always assumed.
We can find the exact location of the Greenland pole by performing spherical triangulations with the orientation of ancient structures around the world. It has similarities with the way sailors used to find their way on the seas.
Is it Important to Know?
Why it is important to know that the former North pole was once on Greenland? Because this notion has a huge impact on the climate models, and even on the current weather models.
All models somehow try to explain the presence of the ice sheet on Greenland from its current position, and not from the position where it came from, and that the reason is why it is melting in the first place.
As long as the current climate models haven’t included the correct starting parameters, they will all be wrong in their long term predictions.
This is why it is important to know that the former North pole was on Greenland. This theme will be explained in an upcoming new series of articles together with the used data.
A shifting mechanism has serious implications for the Carbon dating method as proposed by Libby in 1947, since the biosphere is not as stable as always assumed. This dating method has become the standard dating technique for organic materials found around ancient sites. It is by definition unreliable when a crustal shifting mechanism is rejected.
But this dating method (the 14C) can be mathematically repaired when we remodel it with the correct parameters from i.a. the crustal dislocations in it. This is a monumental undertaking similar as the remodeling of the paleomagnetic data. But it has to be done to complete the whole picture.
This is why it is important to know, since the theory repairs our view on our planet and our history.
© 2015-2017 by Buildreps
First publication: 09 December 2015
- How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?
Determining the age of a pyramid is not as easy as it seems. Stones cannot be dated in any way to determine the age of the structure. The most common way is to date artefacts found in and around pyramids. But does that say anything about the structure itself?