Curious about a random speculation.
Having consumed tones of info from Randall Carlson about the geological evidence of flooding and cataclysm as a result of a comet impact, I am sold on the idea that there was some cataclysm that involved massive flooding. And it seems likely that the flooding occurred as a result of tonnes of ice melting in a very short time period.
I was especially enlightened by the greenland ice core data which revealed the long history of climate change in and out of ice ages and its curious non correlation or lagged correlation to carbon. All very interesting stuff.
But if I consider the idea presented from this article:
[planetxnews.com]
(...and I can't speak for how accurate or valid it is), and I consider the idea that there are polar shifts as frequently as the ice ages seem to have been happening as extrapolated from the ice core data, then an alternative idea comes to mind. And I'm curious to know how easily if at all it can be disregarded.
The idea is simply this. If in fact there are polar shifts on a regular basis on earth, whose frequency winds up being essentially correlated to same frequency of the ice ages as seen in the ice core data, then might it not be that there are actually no ice ages at all, and what the ice core data is really showing is the dramatic climactic changes locally to that region where the ice cores are taken from?
In other words, might the ice core data only be showing the shift in climate for that particular region and how drastically it changes with respect to its new relative proximity to the shifted poles each time the coldest part of the planet moves to a new location?
I apologize if this is a rookie digression, and I'm missing some key info that makes this a dumb idea. But I suspect there's a few people on this site who could easily and quickly enlighten me about this. Thanks.
Having consumed tones of info from Randall Carlson about the geological evidence of flooding and cataclysm as a result of a comet impact, I am sold on the idea that there was some cataclysm that involved massive flooding. And it seems likely that the flooding occurred as a result of tonnes of ice melting in a very short time period.
I was especially enlightened by the greenland ice core data which revealed the long history of climate change in and out of ice ages and its curious non correlation or lagged correlation to carbon. All very interesting stuff.
But if I consider the idea presented from this article:
[planetxnews.com]
(...and I can't speak for how accurate or valid it is), and I consider the idea that there are polar shifts as frequently as the ice ages seem to have been happening as extrapolated from the ice core data, then an alternative idea comes to mind. And I'm curious to know how easily if at all it can be disregarded.
The idea is simply this. If in fact there are polar shifts on a regular basis on earth, whose frequency winds up being essentially correlated to same frequency of the ice ages as seen in the ice core data, then might it not be that there are actually no ice ages at all, and what the ice core data is really showing is the dramatic climactic changes locally to that region where the ice cores are taken from?
In other words, might the ice core data only be showing the shift in climate for that particular region and how drastically it changes with respect to its new relative proximity to the shifted poles each time the coldest part of the planet moves to a new location?
I apologize if this is a rookie digression, and I'm missing some key info that makes this a dumb idea. But I suspect there's a few people on this site who could easily and quickly enlighten me about this. Thanks.