It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

page: 5
54
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 07:46 PM

Fill a glass halfway with water. Now, tilt the glass. The water adapts to find a center point.

Tilt the Earth. The molten liquid under the surface adapts to find a center point. The liquid under the Earth's surface is what causes the magnetic field. As the liquid centers itself, the magnetic pole readjusts.

When dealing with celestial bodies, millions of miles away from each other, 2 degrees is a huge deal. Basic Pythagorean Theorem. And when the celestial pole of the Earth is completely opposite where it was, there are significant changes to things like climate. What we consider to be frozen, inhospitable surface was not so inhospitable in the past.

There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that drastic climate change occurs in 20,000+ cycles to match the astronomical cycles, with ice ages occurring at the 50,000+ year mark.

The last polarity change happened 41,000 years ago. It's called the Laschamp event.
edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:50 PM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

Fill a glass halfway with water. Now, tilt the glass. The water adapts to find a center point.

Tilt the Earth. The molten liquid under the surface adapts to find a center point. The liquid under the Earth's surface is what causes the magnetic field. As the liquid centers itself, the magnetic pole readjusts..

The Earth is not a glass of water and the crust does not slip, you are repeating the error made by the originator of this idea, Charles Hapgood, who came up with it at a time before plate tectonics was understood. For the earth crust to slip it would have to be unform all the way round, it isn't and the crust itself is made of plates which would smash into each other and kill every living thing on Earth. Please upgrade your knowledge from 1958

originally posted by: JohnathanDoeThere is plenty of evidence to support the claim that drastic climate change occurs in 20,000+ cycles to match the astronomical cycles, with ice ages occurring at the 50,000+ year mark.
.

The current ice age that we are still in started 2.6 million years ago, again, you seem to be labouring with an idea that was debunked over half a century ago.

we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

en.wikipedia.org...
Maybe read some books written by Geologists and stop reading books written by clueless journalists

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:58 PM

You realize there is a layer of molten liquid below the Earth's crust and above the solid core, right? And, yes, the laws of physics apply to all liquids, not just water. You can see proof of this in every steel mill in the world. This has nothing to do with the "crust slipping," and everything to do with the way liquid moves.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you still don't believe this is what generates the Earth's magnetic field, I'd point you in the direction of Tesla, who figured out water moving in opposite directions creates electricity, or, electromagnetic fields.

And you also realize the term "ice age" is generally regarded as when the glacial maximum was reached, approximately 20,000 years ago, having begun between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, with other estimates as high as 100,000 years ago?

"After this great glaciation, a succession of smaller glaciations has followed, each separated by about 100,000 years from its predecessor, according to changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (a fact first discovered by the astronomer Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630). These periods of time when large areas of the Earth are covered by ice sheets are called �ice ages.� The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the "Younger Dryas" period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood. "

earthguide.ucsd.edu...

But of course, my ideas must come from whoever the heck you think they do. I guess you can upgrade your knowledge to the 16th century.
edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:24 PM

theories?

...

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:25 PM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

You realize there is a layer of molten liquid below the Earth's crust and above the solid core, right? And, yes, the laws of physics apply to all liquids, not just water. You can see proof of this in every steel mill in the world..

because of its high temperature, modeling work has shown that the outer core is a low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface)

Fluid - In physics, a fluid is a substance that continually deforms (flows) under an applied shear stress. Fluids are a subset of the phases of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids.

So not a liquid then, ten times more viscous than surface liquid metals, so shouldn't be compared then to say, a glass of water. lol

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe If you still don't believe this is what generates the Earth's magnetic field, I'd point you in the direction Of Tesla, who figured out water moving in opposite directions creates electricity, or, electromagnetic fields.

Tesla himself would tell you that the earths magnetic field is generated by the planets solid iron core, have you ever actually studied this subject or are you just guessing ?

originally posted by: JohnathanDoeAnd you also realize the term "ice age" is generally regarded as when the glacial maximum was reached, approximately 20,000 years ago, having begun between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, with other estimates as high as 100,000 years ago?.

The term ice age is applied when there is ice at the earths poles, I don't know where you are getting your definition from, but it isn't science, we are currently still in an ice age, we have been in this ice age for 2.6 million years. Currently in the Holocene, we are in an interglacial period. An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago., so I have no idea where you are getting your dates from
This makes it quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about

Looks to me like 20,000 years ago and then 140,000 years ago, so you are off by over 100,000 years. That's quite some interval to be wrong at

Snipped irrelevant nonsense

originally posted by: JohnathanDoeBut of course, my ideas must come from whoever the heck you think they do.

Your ideas quite clearly originated with Charles Hapgood, which were never accepted at all and were then rehashed by the Rand Flem Ath's and then rehashed again by Graham Hancock. The fact that you don't know that your ideas are from these pseudohistorian sources speaks volumes.
Come back with a response when you actually have something relevant to say
thanks

edit on 22-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:41 PM

Perhaps read the links posted, and don't copy paste fragments to skew the facts in favor of you believing I've read what you claim I've read. Never heard of Hapgood, and I don't care to know him.

The rest of what you didn't copy and paste is as follows:

en.wikipedia.org...

The temperature of the outer core ranges from 4,300 K (4,030 °C; 7,280 °F) in the outer regions to 6,000 K (5,730 °C; 10,340 °F) near the inner core. Because of its high temperature, modeling work has shown that the outer core is a low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface) that convects turbulently.[2] Eddy currents in the nickel iron fluid of the outer core are believed to influence the Earth's magnetic field. The average magnetic field strength in the Earth's outer core was measured to be 2.5 millitesla, 50 times stronger than the magnetic field at the surface.[3][4] The outer core is not under enough pressure to be solid, so it is liquid even though it has a composition similar to that of the inner core.

So, it says, very clearly, it is a liquid, with convection currents, which influences the Earth's magnetic field (just like the electromagnetic fields Tesla discovered in water). What a surprise.

And again, had you read the second link, a link from an actual University, it says exactly what I said... the term "ice age" is used to denote when the Earth reaches a period of glacial maximum, the last to occur 20,000 years ago... which is also influenced by eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Which was "discovered" (proven) by Kepler in the 16th-17th century...

earthguide.ucsd.edu...

After this great glaciation, a succession of smaller glaciations has followed, each separated by about 100,000 years from its predecessor, according to changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (a fact first discovered by the astronomer Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630). These periods of time when large areas of the Earth are covered by ice sheets are called �ice ages.� The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the "Younger Dryas" period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood.

If you'd like to keep arguing nonsense, I can point you to how we've been studying Mars very closely and linked planetary wobble (axial precession) with severe climate change. And, if you read the article, you'll note that everything I've said about axial precession being directly related to the areas ice accumulates is true.

www.space.com...

The tilt of Earth on its axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over a 41,000-year period. That seemingly small variation leads to large changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the polar regions of Earth ? when less sunlight reaches the poles, more ice can accumulate there, leading to ice ages that can last thousands of years.

Mars' tilt has more variation than Earth's, wobbling by tens of degrees over a 100,000-year cycle, which can produce even more dramatic changes in climate. When Mars' axial tilt, or obliquity, has been low, the poles have been the coldest places on the planet, which has resulted in atmospheric changes that can impact how material is deposited.

And when the poles are colder, water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere migrate pole-ward where they are locked up as ice. When the obliquity is higher though, the poles get more sunlight and the water and carbon dioxide migrate way.

Wow, look at that... written in 2008.

And if you still don't believe me, even natural disasters can shift the Earth's rotational axis:

www.cnn.com...

The powerful earthquake that unleashed a devastating tsunami Friday appears to have moved the main island of Japan by 8 feet (2.4 meters) and shifted the Earth on its axis.

"At this point, we know that one GPS station moved (8 feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass," said Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Reports from the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy estimated the 8.9-magnitude quake shifted the planet on its axis by nearly 4 inches (10 centimeters).

edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:40 PM
Lets cut to the chase shall we
What you are calling a pole shift, is actually called "Earth crust displacement", its pseudoscience
Wikipedia has a page on it here
en.wikipedia.org...
So go argue its nonsense or not with wiki
I'm bored discussing this with you because you apparently know nothing about any of the sciences involved and have got to the stage where you are accusing me of deliberately misquoting the evidence because you can't see through your own credulity, like where you are arguing that the outer core generates the magnetic field

You realize there is a layer of molten liquid below the Earth's crust and above the solid core....If you still don't believe this is what generates the Earth's magnetic field, I'd point you in the direction of Tesla

and then you posted a link which completely says the opposite

Eddy currents in the nickel iron fluid of the outer core are believed to influence the Earth's magnetic field

It doesn't say at all that the outer core generates anything, just that it effects it, if you can't tell the difference then I am not going to bother teaching you, its pointless
The magnetic field of the earth is generated by the solid iron core, most schoolchildren will tell you that, so its clear that you have never studied geology. Not at all, yet here you are trying to claim that a hypothesis which never made it to a theory is true, despite the fact that not a single thing you have posted says so.
en.wikipedia.org...
Read the link, then when you realise that even Wikipedia is telling you that you have it wrong, you can trot out the ole Wiki is not a credible source argument and everyone here can have a good laugh at your expense

Apart from anything else, you are banging on about this subject because you think its relevant to the title of this thread, that somehow, the Mammoth and the hunters were in a warm place when the earth shifted and they suddenly ended up in the arctic, but the region even today, isn't glaciated
This is the area today, with the kill site marked

So what are you going to claim now, it was a warm area, and then got cold, or that it was originally a cold area that then got warm, fact of the matter is, that the Mammoth was a cold adapted creature, but it lived on grasslands, not tundra, so the climate in the region today, is exactly the same as the climate in the region when the animal died. So its a bit pointless you arguing that the earths crust moved and the mammoth along with it, because that makes even less sense than the crap you've shovelled here already....
edit on 22-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:04 PM

You literally misquoted the link. You claimed the outer core wasn't liquid based on the term "low viscosity fluid," but failed to continue reading where it says very clearly the outer core is a low viscosity liquid.

I suppose in your scientific studies you've learned that the Earth's solid core produces heat, or more specifically, absorbs the radiation (heat) from the sun, and then radiates that heat, which then moves the liquid outer core (in addition to the Earth's movement), which then generates the electromagnetic field? It's called dynamo, specifically, geodynamo. See, the iron core cannot produce an electromagnetic field... there is no inherent energy in the iron. Instead, it is a conducer of radiation (heat). Of course, once the electromagnetic field was initially generated, the core became magnetized, but it is the liquid outer core that "recharges" the battery.

So, liquid core produced the electromagnetic field, then kept it charged.

And, if you thought about the information I posted before brushing it off with your passive aggressive submission, you'd realize that if something as simple as an earthquake can alter Earth's axis, something as large as a polarity reversal (say the one 41,000 years ago), causing major global disasters could alter the Earth's axis by a large distance. This makes it very possible for the poles to have been located around Alaska and Australia within the somewhat recent span of human evolution.

Coupled with the shifting ice accumulation due to axial precession, it becomes very clear that humans most probably found habitable land both above the Arctic Circle and below the Antarctic Circle.

Oh, and you do realize there are other species of mammoth, right? And that as the climate changed the animals would adapt, just like people?
edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:22 PM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

You literally misquoted the link. You claimed the outer core wasn't liquid based on the term "low viscosity fluid," but failed to continue reading where it says very clearly the outer core is a low viscosity liquid.

Because the term "low viscosity liquid", doesn't appear anywhere in the text, do you need the definition for fluid again, it is not the same as liquid. Did you lose your reading glasses, I can find a youtube video if you like...

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

I suppose in your scientific studies you've learned that the Earth's solid core produces heat, or more specifically, absorbs the radiation (heat) from the sun, and then radiates that heat, which then moves the liquid outer core (in addition to the Earth's movement), which then generates the electromagnetic field? It's called dynamo, specifically, geodynamo. See, the iron core cannot produce an electromagnetic field... there is no inherent energy in the iron. Instead, it is a conducer of radiation (heat). Of course, once the electromagnetic field was initially generated, the core became magnetized, but it is the liquid outer core that "recharges" the battery..

Our planet’s magnetic field is believed to be generated deep down in the Earth’s core.

www.physics.org...

The power source for Earth's magnetic field may be magnesium that has been trapped in the core

www.livescience.com...

Briefly, as the result of radioactive heating and chemical differentiation, the Earth's outer core is in a state of turbulent convection. This sets up a process that is a bit like a naturally occurring electrical generator, where the convective kinetic energy is converted to electrical and magnetic energy. Basically, the motion of the electrically conducting iron in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field induces electric currents. Those electric currents generate their own magnetic field, and as the result of this internal feedback, the process is self-sustaining so long as there is an energy source sufficient to maintain convection.

www.usgs.gov...

Earth's magnetic field is crucial for our existence, as it shields the life on our planet's surface from deadly cosmic rays. It is generated by turbulent motions of liquid iron in Earth's core

phys.org...

Did you get that, the magnetic field is generated by the Earths core, not its outer core, I have no idea where you got that idea from, but its plainly nonsense

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe
And, if you thought about the information I posted before brushing it off with your passive aggressive submission, you'd realize that if something as simple as an earthquake can alter Earth's axis, something as large as a polarity reversal (say the one 41,000 years ago), causing major global disasters could alter the Earth's axis by a large distance. This makes it very possible for the poles to have been located around Alaska and Australia within the somewhat recent span of human evolution...

Last time, you are arguing for the sake of 60 year old pseudoscience which never made it past the hypothesis stage.

Hapgood published this idea in 1958, about two years before the modern theory of plate tectonics which shows us his idea was impossible.
So your claims are entirely redundant...

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:28 PM

"low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface)"

"The outer core is not under enough pressure to be solid, so it is liquid even though it has a composition similar to that of the inner core."

Seriously. Comprehend what that says... low viscosity... liquid.

"Earth's magnetic field is crucial for our existence, as it shields the life on our planet's surface from deadly cosmic rays. It is generated by turbulent motions of liquid iron in Earth's core "

It literally says, from your own link, the magnetic field is generated by the motion of THE LIQUID iron in the Earth's core. The outer core is comprised of LIQUID iron and nickel.

"Briefly, as the result of radioactive heating and chemical differentiation, the Earth's outer core is in a state of turbulent convection. This sets up a process that is a bit like a naturally occurring electrical generator, where the convective kinetic energy is converted to electrical and magnetic energy. "

Radioactive heating (solid iron core absorbing radiation from the sun), moves the liquid outer core, which, as the laws of physics tells us, converts kinetic energy to electromagnetic energy.... EXACTLY what I described.

Can you truly not comprehend the Earth's core is made up of an inner AND outer core? One is solid, as in not liquid and doesn't move, and therefore doesn't do anything but store and transfer heat; and the other is liquid, as in the part that moves because of the stored heat and creates the electromagnetic fields? It's right there in the stuff you're posting, but you simply ignore it for reasons unbeknownst to me.

edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:37 PM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

"low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface)"

"The outer core is not under enough pressure to be solid, so it is liquid even though it has a composition similar to that of the inner core."

Seriously. Comprehend what that says... low viscosity... liquid.

"Earth's magnetic field is crucial for our existence, as it shields the life on our planet's surface from deadly cosmic rays. It is generated by turbulent motions of liquid iron in Earth's core "

It literally says, from your own link, the magnetic field is generated by the motion of THE LIQUID iron in the Earth's core. The outer core is comprised of LIQUID iron and nickel.

Totally hopeless and incomprehensible how you can be so credulous and not answer a single question that has been put to you. You do not even understand the difference between a fluid and a liquid, despite having the definition posted for you.

The outer core does not generate the magnetic field, would you like me to post you a few hundred more quotes from science websites that say that. Your own links do not say that.

Clearly,
1. You have never studied geology
2. You got this idea from a book written by a non geologist
3. your attempts to give earth crust displacement some relevancy to this thread have utterly failed
4. Your ability to comprehend what you are being told is minimal at best because you are utterly credulous

Not a single other person in this thread agrees with you, at some point you might want to ask yourself why that is

Please continue to post nonsense, I'm sure when the other posters read what you've written they'll be in here to slap you around a bit, but I'm done with you, you do not acknowledge when you are clearly wrong, so there is no point whatsoever in discussing a single thing with you. You are intellectually redundant

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:40 PM

You prove what I'm saying and then insult me.

I hate to break it to you, but you basically have zero ground to stand on. Pun intended.
edit on 22-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:39 AM

When dealing with celestial bodies, millions of miles away from each other, 2 degrees is a huge deal.
That's a total shift, so it's one degree in either direction from where it is now. So, no. Not really. And when it comes to climate, not so much either. It's the difference between Bellingham, WA and Seattle. It would move the Arctic circle about 67 miles north or south, at the most. It certainly does not put the north pole in Alaska.

you'd realize that if something as simple as an earthquake can alter Earth's axis

It can't.
You seem to be confusing the Earth's figure axis with its rotational axis. They are not the same thing.

Large earthquakes change the Earth's figure axis a tiny amount. Not measurable, theoretical. Tides change the figure axis. Moving air masses change the figure axis. None of them change the rotational axis, and the net result of the various changes really doesn't amount to anything. Something moves the figure axis a bit (inches) to one side of the rotational axis, then something else moves it a bit the other way. And all the while the Earth's tilt does not change.

Gross also estimates that the Chile earthquake shifted Earth's figure axis by about three inches (eight centimeters).

Deviating roughly 33 feet (10 meters) from the north-south axis around which Earth revolves, the figure axis is the imaginary line around which the world's unevenly distributed mass is balanced.

To explain the difference, Keith Sverdrup, a seismologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, likened Earth to a spinning figure skater holding a rock in one hand. The rotational axis of the skater is still down the middle of the body, he said, but the skater's figure axis is shifted slightly in the direction of the hand holding the rock.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Yes. This change doesn’t effect the (degree) of tilt of the axis of Earth in space, or the orbit of the Earth around the sun. The only way Earth’s tilt or orbit can be affected is if some external force – like an asteroid – hits the Earth.
earthsky.org...://earthsky.org/earth/richard-gross-japan- earthquake-shortened-earths-day-1-4-millionths-of-a-second

Coupled with the shifting ice accumulation due to axial precession,
Again, precession does not change the axis of rotation.

The outer core does not generate the magnetic field,
Actually, it does.

Differences in temperature, pressure and composition within the outer core cause convection currents in the molten metal as cool, dense matter sinks whilst warm, less dense matter rises. The Coriolis force, resulting from the Earth’s spin, also causes swirling whirlpools.

This flow of liquid iron generates electric currents, which in turn produce magnetic fields. Charged metals passing through these fields go on to create electric currents of their own, and so the cycle continues. This self-sustaining loop is known as the geodynamo.

www.physics.org...

And there is, of course, a whole lot of mantle between the outer core and the crust of the Earth. The movement of the outer core, slow as it actually is, does not really translate through those many hundreds of miles of mantle.aventalearning.com...

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:53 AM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

Are you still stuck on that, you cannot comprehend that liquids is a subset of fluids and not the other way round, to you they are just the same. You are wrong. The outer core is a low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface). You think this is the same as a glass of water, you are wrong

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe Your own scientific links repeat what I've explained to you at length. You keep spouting off about an author I've never heard of..

You've never heard of the author who came up with the theory you are attempting to expound here, so what, did it come to you in a dream, or did you read it on a pseudohistory website but didn't check the attribution, either way, you are at fault for not knowing his name. But let me lay it out for you
This geological hypothesis, which was debunked less than two years after it came out, was invented by a historian with no geological qualifications, it was then expounded by the Rand Flem Aths, who also hold no geological qualifications and then was popularised even further by Graham Hancock, guess what he doesn't have either. So you must have got it from one of these three authors none of whom were qualified to assess it.
Modern geology says it is pseudoscience, what geological qualifications do you have. The same as the previous three right, none at all

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe
You prove what I'm saying and then insult me.

I hate to break it to you, but you basically have zero ground to stand on. Pun intended.

This is exactly the same as what I am saying about you, which one of us is delusional and which credible, me with 57,800,777 stars, or you with your 13

edit on 23-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:10 AM

originally posted by: JohnathanDoe

Fill a glass halfway with water. Now, tilt the glass. The water adapts to find a center point.

Tilt the Earth. The molten liquid under the surface adapts to find a center point. The liquid under the Earth's surface is what causes the magnetic field. As the liquid centers itself, the magnetic pole readjusts.

When dealing with celestial bodies, millions of miles away from each other, 2 degrees is a huge deal. Basic Pythagorean Theorem. And when the celestial pole of the Earth is completely opposite where it was, there are significant changes to things like climate. What we consider to be frozen, inhospitable surface was not so inhospitable in the past.

There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that drastic climate change occurs in 20,000+ cycles to match the astronomical cycles, with ice ages occurring at the 50,000+ year mark.

The last polarity change happened 41,000 years ago. It's called the Laschamp event.

Except gravity does exert it's influence over the glass of water such as it does with the Earth, or any other planetary entity. We don't all walk around leaning to counter the earth's title in relation to the sun.

Actually, the earth's climate is in a state of flux, always has been and always will be. While a lot will argue with me on this the current theory of "man made climate change" doesn't explain the area around the pyramids in Egypt being a lush grassland turning into a desert.

The earth is in a constant state of flux and it can reasonable be concluded that it was a much different climate in the arctic than it is now.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:13 AM

originally posted by: gpols

The earth is in a constant state of flux and it can reasonable be concluded that it was a much different climate in the arctic than it is now.

Except it wasn't

Here is the image of the area today again for the third time, just for you

See the grassy area
What did Mammoth eat ?

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:16 AM

While a lot will argue with me on this the current theory of "man made climate change" doesn't explain the area around the pyramids in Egypt being a lush grassland turning into a desert.

Right, it doesn't. What's your point?
It should be noted though, that the Sahara desert existed long before the pyramids. Though there was a period of a few thousand years when it wasn't so dry.
www.livescience.com...
edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:37 AM

So it was a climate warm enough to sustain life in the Arctic 45 Thousand years ago. And viewing by that image it would suggest that the warming cycle is natural.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:44 AM

So it was a climate warm enough to sustain life in the Arctic 45 Thousand years ago.
It sustains life now.

And viewing by that image it would suggest that the warming cycle is natural.
That image is current. Siberia is not now covered by ice, and was not covered by ice at the height of the last glacial period. Nor was it 45,000 years ago, apparently.
planet.botany.uwc.ac.za...

This is what tundra looks like:
www.vcard.wur.nl...

This is what lives there:
www2.lhric.org...

And viewing by that image it would suggest that the warming cycle is natural.
The current one? How so? What natural features are causing it?

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:49 AM

You can't tell me which natural features caused the last one either, is all I'm saying.

But back on the topic of the thread I guess the big news about it is that there is actually evidence that people inhabited the arctic 45 thousand years ago. I guess I thought the thread was saying something different than what it actually is.

new topics

top topics

54