THE Ice Age (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Chad]

If the roads don't pre-date Giza (and assuming we have not been at this present pole position previously) then the Giza builders must have known about pole shifts and been able to calculate future positions...

The alignment of Giza was in that case predictive.

[Chad]

Maybe the present pole position is the default position and any shifts that occur are always 23(ish) degrees away from default...

In other words all previous pole positions lie around the present Arctic circle... with intermediate returns to the central default position.

[Chad]

[Ishmael]

Well to be precise, we are talking about pole changes and follow-on magnetic-pole changes, as the magnetic pole (according to theory, pace Harper), chases after the polar axis.

[Ishmael]

Orthodoxy holds that there was a glacial age approximately 12,000 years ago in which both North America and Northern Eurasia were covered in thick ice. Orthodoxy can't explain why this happened.

We can.

Our theory is that the axis of the earth actually shifted to place the north pole under Norway and then under Hudson Bay.Our theory has a couple of drawbacks.

1. It requires an energy input to move the pole. Mick has answered this with his SLOT theory. I have answered it by providing a much much much more powerful force -- one I will not reveal here as yet.
   
2. The ice, according to us, was in retreat in Eurasia when it was in full bloom over Hudson Bay. Our theory then requires modification of the orthodox timing. One singular event becomes two consecutive events.

Lets assume that either Mick or I have adequately accounted for the first problem and focus on the second.

[Ishmael]

If orthodoxy is correct in claiming the glaciation of the north was contemporaneous for both sides of the planet, we can't explain this simply by shifting the pole from one spot to another.

But, paradoxically, we can still explain it with a pole shift.

The answer to this riddle, however, will require me to give up part of the observation regarding Roman Roads that sparked this particular line of inquiry.

Is there anyone yet who can guess?

How can we shift the north pole and thereby extend the glacial zone to cover the whole of the northern hemisphere?

[Ishmael]

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

Actually, the sequence was slightly more complex than you have characterised. When a pole shifts there are three zones
1. a whole bunch of new iced land around the new pole
2. a whole bunch of new ice-free land nearest the old pole but furthest from the new pole
3. a whole bunch of still-ice where land is sufficiently near the new pole that the accumulated ice is high enough to stay ice despite being moderately distant from the the new pole.

Greenland is an example of the third state. Obviously (and ludicrously unapparently to orthodoxy) there is no way that Greenland should be glaciated since it is as far from the Pole as is Siberia, Canada and Scandinavia. But it is because it was equidistant from the three Poles so never had a chance to thaw out. (People may remember that Greenland doesn't actually exist, it is merely defined as the remnant ice created by the three poles overlapping.)

Britain was iced up until 12000 BP because it was affected by both the first two poles but freed by the shift from Hudson's Bay to the present position.

I say all this because Ishmael is proposing something even bigger which strictly speaking is not required and therefore should not be proposed. But let us see!

[Ishmael]

[Ishmael]

BTW Mick -- you are the one who really should already have guessed the answer. You already said it -- a long time ago. You simply never considered the implications of your statement.

[Hatty]

[Ishmael]

[Chad]

You could leave the pole where it is and increase the axial tilt... thereby increasing the size of the Arctic circle.

But the extra winter ice would simply be melted by the extra summer heat... unless you could get rid of summer by... (I think I will leave it there).

Come to think of it, if you got rid of seasonal changes you would not need to increase the tilt at all... you could have a northern hemisphere ice age and an ice free Antarctic.

[Chad]

Take a look at the current pole positions:



Perfect... they couldn't be more optimally positioned.

Everything is balanced; aesthetically pleasing... The North Pole slap-bang in the centre of the circular(ish) Arctic Ocean, with land as evenly distributed around it as possible... and the South Pole likewise slap-bang in the centre of the circular Antarctic continent.

This can not be coincidence... either the geography is shaped by the position of the poles or the poles are positioned to fit this unique geography... They fit together like hand in glove.

This has to be the optimum, default position for the poles and any shift from this position would undoubtedly result in instability... and a desire (so long as any pole shifts are within the system's recovery range) to return to the stable default position.

The OCD in me tells me I am right about this... and if god is anything like me, he would not allow it to be otherwise.