What caused it to Snow for 1000 years. The Math and the Aftermath.
Think BIG picture! You cannot judge how big a forest is while you are surrounded by trees! That the ice was about one mile thick across the North American continent a million years ago is established fact.
How many periods of glaciation is less well established, but the occasional gigantic lakes and subsequent floods is well known, the dry Falls being the most notable example of what water can do.
So, it snowed just about every day and just about everywhere for 1000 years, which is my suggestion, and not established fact! So, let me examine the math without doing any math.
The Arctic Ocean begins to warm up. This leads to more evaporation. This in turn leads to more snow at first on the Alaskan highlands, spreading further East as time goes by. The sea levels begin to drop.
Now it did NOT dump snow that compacted down into ice one mile thick over night as it were. The evaporation build up is slow, so it snowed less initially before it began to snow in earnest. This I have averaged out as twenty to forty yards of snow ALL over the North American continent every year for 1000 years.
This snow compacts down to ice which eventually reaches a depth of one mile averaged over the entire continent, down to around 48 degrees of latitude. This means that the North American continent was essentially a flat plain with some mountain peaks in Alaska sticking up above the plain of ice that stretched all the way to the Denmark Straight, off Greenland!
The Arctic Ocean is ice free all the year; it is warm, even hot water! The sea levels have dropped sufficiently to expose the land bridge across the Bearing Straight. As the sea levels dropped the area that the water covered grows smaller and the area of land to be covered by snow grows, a positive feed back of small proportions therefore exists.
The Gulf stream is weakened and eventually it does not reach the UK hence the late onset of glaciation in the UK/Doggerland. Now the drop in sea levels equates to an amount of snow that compacts down to ice, quite slowly, all driven by the WEATHER!
This means irregular dumps of snow, but the evaporation of the Arctic Ocean is just about constant, but slightly increasing due to water level drop and increased geothermal heating of the smaller ocean.
The snow that compacts down to ice has to follow gravitational forces as well, so glaciation spreads from West to East aided and abetted by the weather and soon the entire North American continent is snow covered all the year and the build-up can really accelerate.
More snow -covered land all the year long equates to less effective sunlight due to the Earths Albedo changes. Just how long this took is debateable, my estimate is between 30 and 100 years.
Eventually the North American continent is covered from West to East by ice over one mile thick, very slow-moving ice as the land does not slope like Norway hence no really deep fjords. It is likely that the ice dropped sharply around that 48-degree meridian varying greatly summer to winter, and year by year, again influenced by the weather.
The warm waters of the Arctic Ocean keep that shore line free of ice for a few miles inland and again a steep ice slope forms as one goes inland.
Then the geothermal activity ceases. The Arctic ice an begins to cool taking millennia to reduce to the point where ice can form and then another thermal run-away condition starts as the earth’s albedo decreases. But ice does NOT cause it to snow any where as much and a long slow thaw begins in the south. Soon there is melt weather laying atop the ice.
Now water does NOT reflect the sun’s rays like ice and snow so that water gets deeper and warmer and yet deeper and soon there is a gigantic lake just waiting for the ice dam to break. When that happens a mega flood ensues, creating the dry falls amongst other features.
Now that geothermal activity may well be intermittent thus, we get ice ages and mini – ice ages and periods where the ice retreats and we get a period of interglacial, just like today! Now as an aside I want to draw your attention to the Grand Canyon and the Snake River Gorge.
The Grand Canyon has been formed by the Colorado river, why is it so wide? The Snake River Gorge is also the result of water erosion, why is it so narrow? The Grand Canyon was formed over many millions of years as the land rose the water deepened the bottom, but why is it so wide as well as deep?
The Snake River Gorge also formed over many millions of years, is very deep, but not very wide, why? It has to do with water volume and rock hardness but why such a dramatic difference? Think BIG picture! You cannot judge how big a forest is while you are surrounded by trees!
Michael Logician
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend the Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
you wrote: “That the ice was about one mile thick across the North American continent a million years ago is established fact.” Absolutely not true even if could be true!!! For we (humans) have never seen (observed) a kilometer thick ice (snow) sheet!!!
Waste of anyone’s time to read further.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Keith Peregrine
| #
Isostacy. Fact: Glacial rebound.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The average thickness of the ice on Greenland is 2.8 km. You identify yourself as a scientist but whenever you read something that disagrees with your beliefs you stop reading and pronounce it as false. Not what a scientist does.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Thank you for correcting that which I had not read and should have. Also thank you for causing me to read about recent observations about Greenland’s ice cap; which I wrongly assumed was solid ice.
From a National Geographic article (9/118/2019) by Madeleine Stone I quote.
““We’re watching an ice sheet rapidly transform its state in front of our eyes, which is terrifying,” says lead study author Mike MacFerrin, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. It’s easy to think of Greenland as a solid, impenetrable hunk of ice. But in reality about 80 percent of the ice sheet’s surface is like a snowcone: A dusting of fresh snowfall covers a thick layer of old snow, called firn, that’s slowly being compressed into glacier ice but still contains plenty of air pockets. When the top of this snow cone melts in the summer, liquid water percolates down into the firn, which soaks it up like a 100-foot-thick sponge. MacFerrin and his colleagues got their first hint that the firn may be losing its absorbency in the spring of 2012, when they were drilling boreholes through the firn in southwest Greenland. They started finding dense, compacted layers of ice in core after core, just below the seasonal snow layer. It was, MacFerrin says, as if a “turtle shell” had formed over the firn.
“MacFerrin and his colleagues immediately wondered whether that shell might be preventing meltwater from percolating into the firn.
“That was May of 2012,” MacFerrin says. “And July was this record-breaking melt year, and we got our answer very quickly.” That summer, for the first time on record, meltwater from this part of Greenland visibly started to flow away as runoff. Realizing they had witnessed something significant, the researchers set about drilling more cores over a larger region to see how extensive the ice shell was. They discovered that it spanned a transect 25 miles long and was having widespread effects on local hydrology.”
“But more runoff is only one potential consequence of the transformation taking place in Greenland’s ice. Kristin Poinar, a glaciologist at the University of Buffalo who wasn’t involved in the study, pointed out that slabs of solid ice aren’t nearly as reflective as bright white snowfall.
“And so, if we start getting these ice slabs forming near the ice sheet’s surface, it could potentially…cause the ice sheet to absorb more solar radiation and warm up,” she says. “And that would create more ice slabs.”
And runoff from ice slabs doesn’t have to flow into the ocean, said Indrani Das, a glaciologist at Columbia University who wasn’t involved in the study. She worries about how it could seep into the large crevasses that exist at lower elevations on the ice sheet. From there, the runoff could, potentially, flow all the way down to bedrock, lubricating the zone where the ice makes contact with it. That could make the ice sheet flow faster,” Das says, which could cause glaciers to spill their contents into the ocean more quickly, like ice cream sliding off a piece of cake.”
To learn it helps to ask questions. No question can be a wrong question. Does a snow surface ‘naturally’ absorb solar radiation which melts the surface snow? According to “MacFerrin and his colleagues immediately wondered whether that shell might be preventing meltwater from percolating into the firn.”; the answer is yes. Where does this melt water eventually end up as it percolates into the firn year after year for thousands (maybe even a million) of years? My answer: Maybe ‘way down to bedrock where melt water lubricates the ice base causing the ice sheet flow faster.
However, the first question, which came to me as I read about MacFerrin finding dense, compacted layers of ice in core after core, just below the seasonal snow layer, was: If there is global warming, why did the formation of this solid ice ‘shell’ didn’t occur when it was colder?
Before I had read Herb’s comment I had studied that atmospheric sounding data from the site at (near?) the top of Greenland’s high plateau. But now I cannot access this site so can accurately quote what I found. (Certainly do not trust my memory). So when I get access I will report to complete this comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I am a logician, no science involved here. For ice to be one ,mile thick in central park demands an explanation!
My POPOSITION explains that!, what ever does that transition explain Our star is not a variable type F but some aberration!:
T
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
There have been several periods of glaciation that seem to occur at regular intervals. Any explanation should not be postulated on the basis of the last occurrence but the recurring nature of the phenomena and what gives it its periodicity. I don’t think meteor impacts or tectonic activity would produce the recurring pattern.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You did not give us any clue as to period of the regular intervals or to the reference to this information.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Michael Clarke has achieved his stated objective as stated in Part 1. Which was to create a discussion. I made my initial comment because as Ddwieland questioned: “I didn’t read the entire article, but judging by the first part it’s satire, isn’t it?”.I do not write satire because someone might believe that which I wrote. Hence, my initial comment was to warn a unsuspecting reader to not necessarily believe what Michael had written.
And I judge that most all the comments, that have been made, reflect thoughtful reasoning; whether right or wrong.
Relative to my last comment, I could not access the Greenland sounding site this morning..
However, I have waiting for someone to make comment about (https://principia-scientific.com/astronaut-explorer-sets-record-dive-to-deepest-point-on-earth/). And Mervyn now has: “Rich boys and their toys… accomplishing nothing of significance and relevance.”
Explorers and adventurers risk their lives to accomplish something which no one has accomplished. And in doing so they learn (experience) that which no one else has. Thereby contributing to our knowledge. Explorers and adventurers are exceptional people as Nansen was who built a ship (boat?) to freeze in an ice floe of the Arctic Ocean and to drift (to the North Pole in 1893. As Hillary did on his several adventures. As Garriott reported in the above mentioned PSI article.
For a fact is that I learned ‘important stuff’ from this article. About which I will not comment here; but at the linked site at some later time. To give some of you serious commenters time to look it over and report what you learned that you consider important. Discussions are the way most of us learn, hence Michael’s objective to create a discussion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Have too not looked at the slte marked by ICE drawn rocks across the national park!
New York?
Jerry is convinced that the world is 6000 years old.!
Reply
Andrew Rowlands
| #
I read this, and it makes little sense to me. ‘Think big picture’ was mentioned several times, with no explanation as to what that meant.
Reply
Protestant
| #
I was wondering the same thing, and looking forward to some explanation about the mysterious Grand Canyon, but he only offered “the big picture” again before disappearing.
Reply
Maurice Lavigne
| #
This is really a “flight of fancy” by somebody not grounded in science. And it doesn’t belong here.
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
I didn’t read the entire article, but judging by the first part it’s satire, isn’t it? I take it as a parody of the climate alarmist “explanation” of what human activity is doing to “endanger the planet”. This is hilarious sophistry.
Reply
Michael Timothy
| #
I’m sure Newton and Copernicus and Hutton and Brian Atwater and so many others were told the same thing. I remember being taught as a schoolboy that the reason the Earth has mountains was due to the planet, specifically the crust, shrinking as a result of it’s cooling for billions of years, such as an apple or plum losing moisture when drying. Continental drift was considered a “flight of fancy” and unprovable at the time. I’ve followed Mr. Clarke through his articles on this subject and he has made it very clear that he is presenting a working hypothesis based upon observation and conjecture. In that regard Mr. Clarke’s position IS grounded in science and MOST CERTAINLY does belong here. Personally I find his train of thought fascinating and certainly feasible as I have considered and investigated some of the evidences he has presented albeit I am not a credentialed expert of the field. Residing in the Puget Sound region of the Pacific Northwest for decades I observe every day the effects of both continental drift and historic glaciation. What does not belong here is intellectual snobbery such as you, Sir, have displayed.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Thank you for your discussion of a difficult sublect. The facts are clear, the ice was one mile thick across the North American continent a million years ago. A blink of an eye in real terms.
How or why the earth became such a snowball planet is not even discussed.
This piece is a discussion paper upon how the Earth became locked in ICE!
Reply
Binra
| #
Processes of distancing or dissociation in time – such as uniform or punctuated gradualism identifies in are an inbuilt bias through which to form theories that restate the core belief.
‘Millions of years’ are fine to hold in mind as the sense of time, but also operate the ‘religion’ of distantiation from trauma or catastrophic experience. Lockdown into narratives of distancing masked as new narratives that filter or rule out questioning the predicates.
That said, if the North Pole was at whatever time – over North America, then some other things would line up. The idea of a catastrophic event that marked the end of a period of abundance and the reset of life on Earth may have focussed on or at least included N America. Catastrophe is associated with more than dissociation.
The articles on this site seem to be mainstream-model ‘science’. A Bought Corporate Technologism, masked in ‘scientism’ operates just as some are becoming aware of in ‘medical’ areas. The corruption is pervasive and systemic. This is not to say that research is without value! But that the questions being pursued and the ability to read and question the empirical evidence will be biased by scientific ‘correctness’, reputation and funding.
The propensity of the human mind to identify in narratives of self-reinforcement would not be wrong if the ‘self’ was indeed true! Hence to bring our questions, methods and results to self-honesty – which was once thought to be guaranteed by critical peer review!
Plasma discharge events play a underlying matrix to thermodynamic processes in an Electric Universe. Under extremely intense conditions of charge imbalance the coronal loop we see on our Sun has a destructive counterpart on Earth – but for the most part we have ‘storm systems’, and other observable processes that we automatically fit into the science of our current experience of our world. http://www.thunderbolts.info offers a way to start looking at Everything without the distancing, lockdown and masking of a mind set in externalising its conflicts in recoil from the Life it thinks to be apart from and set over (and against). Coherent result is a worthy outcome to questioning. Science in truth is Natural Philosophy – and NOT a weaponising and marketising tool for possession and control (masking as virtue).
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
It was NOT a catalamisnic event. It was just normal plate tectonics!
The Arctic Ocean became warmer even hot!
That is all it takes to trigger the climate change that caused it to snow for 1000 years!
How else do you explain ICE one mile thick across New York?!?!?!?!
Reply
Gambeir
| #
Thank you Binra,
I am in complete agreement. It’s nothing but fascism masked as science.
“A Bought Corporate Technologism, masked in ‘scientism’ operates just as some are becoming aware of in ‘medical’ areas. The corruption is pervasive and systemic. This is not to say that research is without value! But that the questions being pursued and the ability to read and question the empirical evidence will be biased by scientific ‘correctness’, reputation and funding.”
The big picture (which a lot of these comments are not truly examining) is that climate changes are; A, natural and normal. B, that these changes come about as a result of forces far beyond the ability of humankind to change, let alone influence, and that the causation of climate changes are exclusively caused by changes to the solar system itself and are therefore of a galactic nature.
For example, the recent discovery of Ice on the planet Mercury proves we have very little real understanding of cause and effects. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercury.html
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/mercurys-polar-ice-defiesthe-odds/
According to the voice of officaldoom, NASA:
“”Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “ https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html
However they then make the following leap and continue with this statement;
Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”
Assuming this is true, which is highly unlikely, the real problem would be the cherry picking and refusal to entertain any other hypothesis which collide with the interests of billionaires and supposedly advanced technology. In reality the greatest and largest changes which humans have created and which could possibly result in climate changes involves radio frequencies/microwaves.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Have now read all of your ‘non-fact’.
Based on what I have now written at the link to which I have directed attention, I needed to read all that you had written.
It is okay to consider what is not yet known to be observed fact, but it is not okay to ignore what is ‘observed fact’. Like, beyond (higher latitudes) the polar circles the nighttime period is about 6 months long and the daytime period is about 6 months long. Like, despite known localized volcanic islands in the oceans, the temperature on the bottom of the Mariana Trench at the equator is nearly zero Celsius. Like we know that Arctic water around the numerous Canadian islands to the west of Greenland become covered with ice while the water at the ice base has a negative Celsius temperature.
You wrote: “So, let me examine the math without doing any math.” I do not need to do any calculations to conclude that the cooling of the ocean’s surface via emission of IR radiation near and within the polar circles offsets, primarily during a hemisphere’s winter season offsets any localized heating wherever at the bottoms of the oceans. This as the cold, dense water is moved by the centrifugal effect of the rotating earth toward the equator. And I do not need to do any calculation to conclude there must be some sort of movement of the warm surface water and warm humid atmosphere water toward the poles where localized weather systems are common at the 40 and 50 degree latitudes. Even during the winter season of North and South Dakota and eastern Minnesota. And on the west coasts of Oregon, Washington, and maybe even British Colombia.
You cannot ignore what we do know (observe) as you evaluate the possibility of what be reasoned but yet not been proven to be wrong by some reproducible observation.
Congratulation, you have certainly created a discussion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
You have it all wrong Jerry, the waters of the arctic ocean got HOT which is what it caused it to snow for 1000 years!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
This is a discussion paper!
Regards ice was one mile thick across the America continent is a FACT, look at the striations in New York’s central park!
It is not a keep of faith to begive that the arctic ocean became warm enough to cause it to snow for 1000 years,
HOW ELSE DO YOU EXPLAIN ALL THAT ICE?
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I am a logician and not a scientist. I think BIG picture rather and small.
To take North America from a sweet and fertile land that the ancient behemoths inhabited into a cold frozen state takes a lot of change. I am merely suggesting a means towards that dramatic change,
A simple but reasonable cause,
The Arctic Ocean became WARM!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
And do you forget the finger lakes of upstate New York. One of which has a salt mine beneath it. Have to go to have dinner now.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Finger Lakes are a blot on the landscape
Think BIG PICTURE!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I See a lot of comments but no discussion!
This is an IDEA of how the Earth became a frozen for a million years with a few periods of interglacial which we are currently experiencing!
Think BIG picture!.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Do NOT forget that our Sun has been having Maunder Minimums for 4.5 Billion years. that does not cause it to snow for 1000 years!!!!!!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I am a logician not a scientist.
I see things that others do not see.
The FACT that New York was once buried beneath ice one mile thick is FACT!
The Earth has undergone many changes over the millennia.
I am just proposing a cause and event that explains the very recent ice ages!
One Million years is the blink of the eye regarding the history of EARTH!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
So what else could have caused ICE one mile thick to have covered New York Sates?
I am a logician, I pick up rocks I look under them I examine the cause and effects. What I am proposing may be fantasy, but it holds water, well ice!
The Earths recent history is complicated. The fact that our sun is a variable star complicates things even further BUT for it to have such dramatic cause and events believes credulity. Our Sun undergoes and m ximums and mininmes that last a few years. for a Maunder Mininum to last 10000 years is nd not feasible, while plate tectonics is To Suggests that our Sun threw a wobbly and dimed for a cdntryt or two causing yhose ice ages is nonesence. Our SUN is a stable star, the Earth is an unstable folloerer,
Changs in our sun takee millenia to become effective, Changes in our Earth’s environment tahe just a moment in time.
0This is not scientce it is Logic. What else could havd caused ti to snow s much?
reasonable!
I am not well so cannot continyer this discussion.
Think BIG pictrure!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I am floating an idea that heat rather than cold caused the icegeses.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hw else can you explain a period of millioons of years since the Dianasuros extinction?
A smell chane in the Earths plate or a Huge change in our eatrthes envitrronment?
Did our sun throw a wobbley and not shine as hot for a few years or did plate tectonics have a aprt in the ice ages>
I have put out here a suggestion, you have naysayed it but not ofeered an alternative.
One million years ago our earth underwent a radical change All I attempted to do was offer a path to that change.
Now I am not well, I am ill, I will attempt to respond, but do not hold your breath as mine is failing fast.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Let me be blunt about this. 65 million years agio the age of the dinasuruses endedn and the age of the mamles began. Our Earth has existed for ever!! with changes along the way.
The Ice ages that have occured are a very recent past, JUST one million years recent past!
I have pulled togehthere some facts an some supositions that explain that recent past. There is NO history to pioint out that recent past.
Now if you want to point out that our star is a variable I will agree, but for it to have ailed for so long beggars belie. If you want to cite a cosmic event then the same objection applies. For ICE one mile thich to exist over New York Sate just One Million years ago there has to bbe a reason!
I am a logician and logic tells me that threre ccan be no other way that our earth can switch from normal to cold.
So please explain to me how you would explain that change!
I am going blind, I am not well..
please forgive thhe spelling errors.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I forgot to add just how much a degree or to would make this discurrion plausible. The Arctic Ocean is essentially land locked. The Arctic Ocean is very shallow.
The Articc oeran is there radey fo exploration, If the worlds ocean dropped by 1000 yards or so for ONE hundred thoussand year os so several times then those shorelines must exist, go look fot them. I am a LOGICIAN I do NOT fabricate evidence!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and PSI Readers,
Michael wrote: “The Arctic Ocean is very shallow”. Not exactly correct. It has a deep board trench, more than 4000m deep, the edge of which is below the North Pole. And over which the ice floes seem to drift from the ocean’s northwest coast toward Greenland. And relative to accurate definition shallow needs to be defined. But if shallow is a factor, maybe the deep trench is a factor. A factor of what I really do not know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
My brother, almost 90, died last year and he, and his family were not sorry but were a sad they could no long have conversations with him. So I will miss you when you are gone. You wrote: “This is not science.[small s]. it is Logic [large, capital, L]. You wrote: “Our Earth has existed for ever!!”; not according to what has been observed via the Hubble Telescope. And Not what is written in the 1st Chapter of the book titled the ‘Holy Bible’. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” NIV
We have discussed this light by which we look back in time with the Hubble Telescope. To see what might be described as formless but not totally empty. The BIG mystery, which we discussed, is what is this ‘LIGHT’, of so long ago, which allows us to see so far back into time???
If what you write makes you feel better, keep on writing until the end.
Have a better life hereafter, Jerry
Near the end you are pushing the BIG Picture, Michael 6.023 X 10^23 if Big Number of the number of wat
Reply
Lit
| #
I like the fastest process possible as explanation. Big meteor punches a hole in the crust somewhere in the arctic, sea water comes in contact with the mantle causing enormous evaporation that lasts until the mantle is cooled down in that spot. Result: giant icecap melting away slowly.
Pure speculation on my part.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lit,
“Pure speculation on my part”. That’s true of all of us. Even though only a true SCIENTIST is willing to admit it. For this SCIENTIST knows that the only truth one can observe is what is absolutely not the TRUTH.
So lets examine what you proposed. What do we observe now? For now is the only time we can actually observe and maybe a little unquestionable history of the observations of the past.
”
I like the fastest process possible as explanation. ” Don’t we term events that occur the ‘fastest’ possible–EXPLOSIONS? “Result: giant icecap melting away slowly.” Given what you propose happens very rapidly to the solid crust at the bottom of the ocean, can we really expect that the giant icecap hasn’t been blown to bits very rapidly as the result of the explosion?. First things first?
But if we look at the crust we see amazing things must have happened some time in the past which required an amorous amount of energy to cause. Continental Drift seems to require amorous amounts of energy and it seems is still is observed to be occurring; but occurring very slowly as a result of what is observed to be occurring in small areas locally.
When I followed the Mosaic Project I saw a faster form of continental drift as ‘leads’ (cracks in the ice sheet) spontaneously and rapidly froze over. But we know that liquid water expands as it slowly freezes; thus pushing the crack even wider. Or does it only hold the crack which formed rapidly apart. And the constant energy involved in forming the crack due to the horizontal centrifugal effect the must be occurring because of 24hr period of the earth’s rotation and the fact the Earth is a near sphere but also that its surface is nearly flat in the polar regions.
What do you reason about my pondering?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
The glaciation 1 million years ago was the latest glacier period. The covering of New York (down to the Delaware Water Gap) was the last advancement of ice in the glacier period, of which there have been 10 (about 1 every 100,000 years.) advancing and retreating of the ice during that the period.
That length of time is not a pattern of the Earth or solar system and seems to short for a galactic period. I would suggest that the timing is the result of some structure of a star cluster (Our solar system, Andromeda system, and others) which movement (rotation) causes a change in the density of the energy in our solar system just as the rotation of the Earth causes a density change in our magnetic field due to the strength of the sun’s magnetic field.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Hope you can still read this as I demonstrate again and again how slow I am.
For if your want to consider the BIG PICTURE you only need to go to (https://fever.byrd.osu.edu/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.98,39.98,335).
Have a good day (if you can read this), Jerry
Reply