deleted

i would disagree, just do a quick search on google for evidence of our understanding of the ice age...
The only differences seem to be on the small <i>nuances</i>, and of course from new wild theories that are proposed.
(it is good science to question)...but generally there seems to be consensus on most points.

Did you have a particular problem (that i`m not aware of) in mind?

The Jarkov Mammoth may have been covered by mud after solifluction, and the remains of plants from dry places may have been transported to the site by wind.

There were periods ,AFAIK, when the Taimyr did experience climate variations and perhaps it could be described as a cool dry place

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

However this is not my field.
can Anyone else help?

Yes, let's talk about my home planet

www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2000/pdf/1930.pdf
In this paper, Polar Wandering on Mars authored by K.F. Sprenke and L.L. Baker, we see Fig. 1 showing a proposed wandering path for the south pole. It's a pdf or I would import the graphic. The authors think that at one time Mars had an internal active dynamo (ancient past). They do not think Mars has had any polar reversals.

Here: http://www.nature.com/nsu/nsu_pf/020318/020318-7.html
there is a good photo of the ice on the North Martian pole.

www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/2142.pdf
Modeling and paleomagnetic Pole Positions for two magnetic anomalies in the Northern Polar Region of Mars

http://library.thinkquest.org/23682/polarwand.html
A thinkquest website (high school students) on Martian polar wandering.

I live along the North American southernmost Glacial point, and there are some bolders out my back door that are certainly to large to have come down from northern Canada by themselves (which is where they are from, geologically speaking).

So, It seems we all agree that the glaciers moved south. It sounds like the question is if they grew because the planet was more cold, or if they simply shifted around, but stayed about the same size (which would largely require a stable temperature).

I would then propose that if the southern most reach of the northern Earth ice cap during the last ice age was similar to the southern most reach of the same northern ice cap on the other side of the planet, we would have shown that the ice caps was growing, and not just moving. Anyone know the latitudinal reach of glaciers in Siberia?

Also, by looking at the fossil record, the amount of liquid water during the last ice age was significantly reduced IIRC, so either it was frozen in the ice caps, or suspended in the air.
It could also be that the tropical-like plant life seen in the above links was due to a significant *dicotomy* of the world wide temperature- it wasn't colder here on earth, but temperature difference between equatorial and polar regions resulted in colder northern and hotter southern areas in the northern hemisphere- of course also reflected in the southern hemisphere. This would have resulted in a band of very warm tropical area i a band around the plant, boarderd by very cold glacial areas to either side. The air masses would likely not mix much, given their different desities, so you could possibly produce a very nice jetstream around the center of the planet. maybe that's exactly what caused the jetstream as we see it today...

Fossil evidence in more northern areas does not support this idea-
Interesting, though.

hmmm
I did some further readig into Siberia's Glatiation history, and it appears that you are correct, the last major glatial maximum left Siberia largley uneffected. The link in the mammoth thread referencing beetle carapaces is an interesting read- the author provides good evidence to support her theory of a much warmer climat in Siberia during the time period in question. At the end of the paper, however, she runs her argument into the ground by suddenly jumping to a number of largley unfounded conclusions about mamoths and their requirements for survival, while largley ignoring metobolic thoeries and migration patterns of modern elephants. It seems wise that you suggested that the paper not be given much creedence.
I would say that the tropical wether patters would not also displace because of solar radiation levels along the equator. AFAIK, there was no noticable change to the earth's rotational axis during the time period in question, and therefore the chances of the northern hemishpere dropping in tempurature while the southern hemishere incresed in tempurature (due to a southerly tropical shift) would be very doubtfull.

I am begining to wonder about water currents and air currents. the areas of high glatiation during the last ice age sem to largley match moist air areas in following with the modern jet stream of air.
Also, the possibility of ice caps blocking ocean current could result in wa rm/cold pockets of ocean water which may have helped to stabalize the temperature of local areas for a short time, at least.

http://www.challenger.virgin.net/Content/Route_jet.htm

note the lower latitude of the modern jet stream over siberia/alaska (low areas of glatiation), in comparison to the northern upshift of the Jet stream in the eastern North America/Western eurasia area (both areas of higher glatiation.

I had not considered the plant/large herbavore ratio in tundra areas before, it is an good question to ask. I would throw in to the equation- what about plants that generate their own heat? might that have offset the available plant matter during the given time frame? what heat generating plants live in the area? what sort of extinction has that area seen? what plant subspecies may have been lost?

got to go, be back later.

if we were to show polar migration via ice sheet paths, first we would need to show that the ice sheets moved, instead of the comonly accepted growth theory. You have shown that the northrn cap may very well have slid towards eastern NA/Greenland/Europe, and away from Siberia.
You have given one short link referenecing the presence of ice on the european oposite site, New Zeland, at the same time as europe's last glacial maximum.

so we have three points of reference, one of which is so far unverified (the New Zeland one. I'm looking for an australia verification now.). We need a fourth point, whic you mentioned above- south america. If S America has evidence that it was warmer during the period in question (21k-17k years ago or so), then there is pretty solid argument for polar drift.

vegitation of south america
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~tjms/sa18k.gif
key
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~tjms/adams3.html
suggests that alot of southern SAmerica was under ice 18,000 years ago. not promising for the argument of polar drift

middle latitude SAmerica environ during LGM:
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/pcaw/abstracts/Baker.pdf
note that it was *wetter*, not specifically *warmer*

history of vegitation in SAmerica
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen...THAMERICA.html
completely disagrees w/ the link above- says colder and drier during LGM

a ton of useful info- alot of which seems to point at a classical ice age, but with some unforseen effects, such as a drier lowevelation areas around the world:
http://www-lsce.cea.fr/pmip/publications/pub21k.shtml

more world wide vegitatio maps during the LGM:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html


an interesting link about siberia during last glacial maximum:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~tjms/eurasia.html


While you have pointed out a number of very interesting faults in the classical ice age theory, there is enough evidence to counter the "polar drift" hypothosys that it seems very unlikely. I would expect the southern south American tip to be drier and warmer than it apears to have been. I would say that there is enough evidence that point toward a ice cap shift to suggest that something was happening that is not explained by the classical theory. some sort of drift seems to have been occuring (proved by your link in the begining of the thread), and something odd was certainly going on in siberia (mammoth presence, pollen types, beetles and so forth)

Maybe we should re-think the theory to include all of the avaiable data. Let's say first that the poles drifted, and the ice caps followed, as you suggest. Why might S America not be warmer, in simliar fasion to Siberia? water cutternts? the smaller land mass invoved? The proximity to a wester source of water (from the direction of the wind, and therefore the weather?
Now thet's assume that the polar dift didn't happen, and the ice age, as it is commonly considered, did occur. Why was Siberia warmer? Was it warmer? I seems it was warmer (given all of your links), so what could cause a pocket of northern warm termpuratures? Maybe the expanstion of the Chinese deserts pushed warm air upwards, preventing the complete freeze of Siberia. South America had no such deserts- it's tropical rainforests gealously guard warmth and prevent windstorms from ripping across the landscape. Maybe the Siberian difference was caused by air patterns?
to be completely balanced, what about Africa? It seems in balance w/ S America, dry and cold in the southern areas. what does this suggest?


also- heat producing plants:
skunk cabage, the most famous example
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/arbore...March%2021.htm

this is just interesting:
http://www.archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Ant..._Bestiary.html

ice ages occur about every 5,000 to 7,000 years, and happen because of polar reversals, where the because of the collaspe of the electro magnetic feild, and the atmosphere, the cold of space come into the earth and frezee the oceans creating a world wide ice age. much of the earth is covered in ice as the water covers some 72% of the earths surface, and that is what a real ice age is, they last about 400 years, in which when the magnetic feild returns at the 45 degree, the ice begins to melt causeing a flood, this how the grand caynon was carved out as well large bolders moved to various places with various odd shpes ect... .


the event of polar caps is new to the earth probally as new as the last polar reversal, this is due to the event that the earth had a larger atmosphere, with helium and hydrogen layers and serveral more,layers ect... which trap the warmth of earth and cause a florescent lighting, making day light near 24 hours, in this atmosphere there is no polar caps and for this reason we find tropical plants over the current polar regions.

dinosaurs in antartica ect.......

the reason we have polar caps today is that atmophere has been burned off, and the emf field lines compresses the atmophere and allows space to come into the atmopshere and causeing the polar caps, the polar caps follow the motion of the emf feild, and the polar caps appear more prominet where the atmosphere is thinner. the event of polar caps in this manner have changed since the last polar reversal, and have moved from the 45 degree lat, by 100 degree east, mongolia china to current location 82 degree lat by 120 west. in gernal the polar caps have been moving in a sprial around the earth approaching the earths center of axis. this is simular to drawing a line on a map from mongolia china to northern most canada, accross russia. this has bee the path of the polar caps as well the magnetic pole.

it is in general easy to see why europeans would adopt the idea of the ice age as the polar caps have been headed torwars them from accross the russian plains, and would have frozen the ice land passage to green land, untill reacing present above canada.

the ice ages occur when the magnetic poles of earth collaspe and reverse, and atmophere collaspes.


DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Well it is not a matter of story but a matter of fact.

The events of a polar reversal are seen on the sun, and therefore the effects that a pole reversal are known and reconfigured for earth, this is not a story but a fact, and requires no refference to some other person, as the record of pole reversal on the sun and its effects have been known for more than two decades. If you need confirmation of this fact there is plenty of data and many NASA's web sites, and astonomy sites.
In this case the sun is a different body of mass than the earth, regardless they generate a magnetic feild that yeilds a magnetic reversal, here the properties of a magnetic feild are not going to change.
The event of magnetic reversal on the sun demonstrate that the sun shrinks by ten %, just before the reversal happens every 11 years. In addtion just after the sun shrinks the suns surface becomes wild, and the poles split into about 10 pieces in each heimsphere. At which point the sun greatly cools on the surface and the wild storms decrease. It is at this time that sun has its own ice age, which last about 90 days.
The interpitation of the events of a magnetic reversal as seen on the sun aplly to all planets that have a magnetic feild, this includes earth. Why? because they are magnetic feilds and have the same properties, this is true for and object that has a magnetic feild. The difference between a planet and a magnetic rock is that the planets have a rotation axis which effects the oreintation of the magnetic feild.
What cause a magnetic feild reversal is exactly this rotational axis of the planet which draws the magnetic feild torwards the axis when the magnetic feild reaches this axis it collaspes. This the reason that the poles do not travel in a striaght line to the axis, simply it rotates being drawn in by the axis. As the earths rotates east the magnetic pole is pulled in from its own motion west, this cause a curviture resulting in the present recorded motion of the poles. Why upward to the geographical pole, because this is near the center of the forces of the axis rotation.
This casues the poles to make a sprial around the earth finally reaching the axis. This meatod of motion can be seen on the sun as well in the magnetic pole motion of the sun.
Understanding this that the magnetic poles are inducted by the axis of the earths rotation, and the events of what occurs on the sun in temiture reduction and atomsphere reduction by 10% this can be established as the effect that will occur on earth. When the poles collaspe the surface temp will decrease causeing a ice age during the time the earth is with out a magnetic feild.
Why because the absence of a magentic feild will reduce the energy back ground of the earth which is about 288K. In addtions the abssence of magnetic feild will reduce the induction of light entering the earths atomsphere and direct light will be the sorce of light, consider the event, The light recived from the sun is about 4,000 angstroms, and the emf feild is about 4,000 angstroms the light recived is carried on that emf feild. This is known by the polarization of light seen coming from the sun into the atmosphere, where direct sun light is only distributed to the equator, the rest is diverted to the poles, changing degree of polarity as it reachs the higher latituted. If you question this consider the event of polarized light coming from a polrized glass or lense, sun glasses, camara lenses ect........ a magnetic feild polerizes light.
The event of the earths magnetic feild allows light to be distributed to other parts of the earth causing it to warm, and light it self increases the emf feild where coupling occurs, allowing warming of earth, without this distribution, light is distributed more intently at the equator, creating great differencesof temptuire in the latitudes, and the surge of the emf by coupling with that of arriving light is nothing.
In addtion the event of the emf feild to lift the atomsphere and stir the atmosphere is nothing as there is no magnetic feild. this results in collaspe of the atomsphere.(see Van Allen belts, and polarity of nitrogen and oxyegen CRC). It is at this point that the atompshere of space, cold tempiture of space seeps into the atomspher of space cooling the earth, here also the energy stored in the emf of earth orbiting the earth and colleting surge from the sun and traping energy disappear.

These reasons are the cause of the ice age.

If you have questions to the validity of such you need to ask your self is a magnetic feild increased by addtion of electro magnetic energy such as light, two magnetic make a stronger magnetic, sun light is converted in to energy, and light is a elecro magnetic force.
you may aslo want to ask will does water freeze in the refigerator, where the tempiture has changed, ect......

In gerneral you need to just know that what the effects are when there is no magnetic felid, in any case of study you will find that there are drastic chagnes in energy, for a example a elecrto magnetic when cut from electricty will drop what ever it holds, as the energy is lost.


What about every 5,000 tp 7,000 years a ice age occurs, this know by tracking the motion of the magnetic feild which is made possible by such agencys as CGS, and the USGS, satilite monitoring done BY NASA. This gives a motion of the magnetic poles torward the earths axis currently at about 18 to 15 km a year. Taking this motion in relation to the earths axis speed of induction provide the magnetic feild independent motion and the combined motion, this result in a time that define mongolia as the point of the return of the magentic feild after the last ice age and polar switch. In addtion to this calculation, physical evidence in seen in the earth electro magnetic geoid. Where there exist the remaint feild in mongolia that acts as the earths third pole. The reason that the mongolia area has a remaint polar feild and the path of the magnetic pole does not have one is that the pole in reformation maintains in one area when it reoccurs and in formation polarize the curst at one time in one direction. The pole moves less when closer to the equator as axis induction is weaker that in polar regions as the and the longitude is wider. For this reason we have a remaint polar feild in the counrty of mongolia exactly wher in would calculate to be.
In addtion to this it is known that a collaspe of the poles results in the reformation of the magnetic feild at the equator, however the earth axis force and diameter at the equator and pressrue force the poles to form at the 45th lat. . Where in deep crust polarity the polarization will occur as low as the tropic of cancer.

I hope that provides enough reference for you,

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

DDLR: http://www2.austin.cc.tx.us/~emeyerth/polarity.html
"You should remember that oxygen and nitrogen have relatively high affinities for electrons, and therefore oxygen-carbon and oxygen- hydrogen bonds as well as nitrogen-hydrogen bonds are all polar bonds (with the oxygen or nitrogen partially negative and the hydrogen or carbon partially positive). Carbon and hydrogen have similar electron affinities thus carbon-hydrogen bonds are nonpolar (as are carbon-carbon bonds)."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/c...ts/polar2.html

DDLR, what is CRC? These links I found above discuss polarity of oxygen and nitrogen, but in a biochemical sense rather than in an atmospheric emf sense. Can you clarify?

A CRC is a chemical and physics hand book, some are desigen just for metal work, some just for chemistry, some enginering.
there are as many as 100 plus volumes.
these books have the lastest infomration on atomic and chemical measurments, spectrum emmision of atoms in oxygen,a vaccum, nitorgen ect.. Chemical Referrence Catalog
usally each volume has some 2,000 pages or so of information deisigned for each atoms or chemical, metalic alloy ect.... in charts. the information is quite exstensive, they also contain many conversions, math formulas ect... for relating to the measuements.

you should be able to find one at any public libary, or book store, college book store, university libary. just ask for a CRC manual.

The CRC is basical a Statesmans almanac of science and chemistry, and phyics
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Dwayne, alot of what you have mentioned is very accurate (sunspot activity, the time frame for the reversal of the Sun's poles), but some other things you have said are different from what my understanding of the situation is.

For instance, based on sea floor lava folds, I was under the impression that the earth's magnetic poles flipped about once every 250,000 years, not every 5-7,000. and that we are a few thousand years overdue for a pole change, the last one having happened around 750,000 years ago?

Why would the compression of the the atmosphere at the north and south pole have a greater effect on the tempurature there than the limited amount of solar radiation recieved in those areas? Wouldn't the low angle of incidence with the incoming sunlight be more of a causational factor in the presence of ice on the poles?
If the atmosphere at the North and South pole is compressed to allow space to come closer to the surface of the earth, wouldn't that require a higher atmospheric pressure at those two locations?
If the cold tempeture at the poles is due to the Earth's magnetic field, then wouldn't the coldest section of the planet be the point of magnetic North/South? Not the geographical North/South Poles, as appears to be the case?

cool link. thanks!

"I'm attempting to disqualify the complete ice age theory here. Surely there must be anybody around to defend it. "

Aha! But it won't be me

Longer time ago, I used to read a lot about this and my conclusion was simply that many of the evidence for the ice ages isn't really so conclusive as they would want it to be ... and then there is the doubt wheter the methods they use give correct results (in regard to the climate)

moreover, it's clear from geological research (especially with pictures from satelites) that the earth has been striked more than once by huge meteorites
If you believe computer simulations on what these things can cause (huge floodings etc.), I wouldn't be surprised that boulders etc. that are thought to be deposited there by a huge ice cap where thrown there by gigantic waves (up to 100 m high)

I should look up some references actually to back up my case here... hum, too lazy right now

i rest my case

"Rest your case? c'est vous? But it did not even start. "

it's a joke

I think you underestimate the impact of meteorites on geological features. I can look up some results of computer simulations if you want to ... they are very striking!

btw, I'm more of catastrophist ... gradualism is for pussies!

""According to the ice sheet and the deep sea sediment core the true polar wander occured roughly around every 100.000 years for the past 800.000 years but to pattern is too irregural to be attributed to fixed swarms of meteorites visiting with a very regular interval. On the other hand the pattern is too regular to be caused by random meteorite strikes.""

I don't put too much faith in those dates. Should read more up on those methods they use though, as my field is archaeology and not geology etc. But raised beaches all over the world, fossil graveyards consisting of millions of fishes and other sea animals and many more things, do seem to show great catastrophic events in the past and I do tend to think that this has to do with meteoritic impacts ... (btw, huge craters have been discovered - they are so big that they were seen as normal valleys ... but oh well, I've got no references here to back up that claim).

Anyway, the school of gradualism is slowly taking its foot of the gaspedal and catastrophic theories are gaining more and more credibility ... funny if you think that just a century ago it was the other way around (mostly because of creationists of course ...
)

""But the wandering ice sheeps and some other effects certainly have some catastrophic behavior.""

I think that all the geological phenomena usually explained with ice sheets can equally be explained by moving water (I'm not talking about a bit of water here ) ... that's how they used to be explained before they came up wit the ice age theory, and since the slow moving ice fitted better in the uniformitarianism movement which was coming up strongly at that time ...

But I'm no expert in that field, so again. The only thing left unexplained by moving water that I can think of right now are those hills (formed at the end of the ice cap(s) - I don't know the term you use in English.

And it's not just that - moving water (and the whole "meteorite theory") explains a lot more phenomena at once I think: in ancient recorded history you'll find a lot of stories similar to the Biblic story of Noah. Okay, that has become a creation cliché by now. But many writings also talk about a lot of different catastrophic events (extremely cold winters with snow storms for a few years, mountains that "meld", ...) ... you can either see them as exagerated or as mere phantasies, but I tend to take these serious because these kind of extreme situations could be the result of a meteorite (impact on the climate is worldwide and can be totally different depending on where you are ...). But of course, it doesn't correspond with the dates they have etc. (for meteorites) but as I said: I don't put my faith in their methods. And it's not only the methods but even more the interpretation of them ..

Go on then, I'll take the bait. Explain away.

Yes, andre tell us some of your ideas
the ice age fascinates me but I haven't done alot of research on the subject. It seems innapropriate for me to add anything seeing as how I hardly know anything about the common theory, pointing out the flaws with it is a little out of my league.
But I'm dying to learn