Has there been an ice age?
Ice age or ice ages. Read how there is no sensible theory for the origin of ice ages, and how signs in nature refer to the Flood, not ice ages
In the following chapters, we are going to study the Ice Age; it is not a very
old concept. It was not thought of in the 1700s, just like the theory of
evolution was not widely known then either. This theory gained ground in the
1840s when two researchers, Charpentier and Agassiz, tried to explain the
forms of the
It has been thought that there have been several Ice Ages on the Earth. It has even been said that tropical and hot areas like the Sahara, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Australia, India, Madagascar, and South America (as presented in the books Jääkausi (Ice Age) / Björn Kurten and Muuttuva maa / Pentti Eskola, for example) were covered with a large continental glacier tens of millions of years ago. The latest Ice Age is assumed to have started "just" about 500,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. The ice sheets are believed to have covered at their widest 55 million square meters, and the thickness of the ice was at most over 3 kilometers (about 1.8 miles).
What should we think about the Ice Age? Have we any reason to believe in it? Maybe the signs that have been interpreted as signs of an Ice Age were caused by something else? We will now study the mystery of the Ice Age.
The beginning of an Ice Age is simple in principle: a sudden fall in global temperatures and a significant increase in rainfall are required.
It has been thought that the world experienced climate changes in the past, and there was a fall in global temperatures that lasted for hundreds or thousands of years during which the temperature decreased by about 4 to 6 degrees Celsius. (A book on the development of the Finnish Nature, Suomen Luonnon Kehitys by Matti Sauramo, p. 19, says that in Western Europe that is nowadays warmer than Scandinavia, the temperature was about 8 degrees Celsius lower than now.) It has also been thought that an ice age must be accompanied by heavier rainfall.
However, both of these ideas present some major problems. Let’s have a look at them:
Decrease in global temperatures.
If we assume that global temperatures decreased by four to six degrees Celsius
then we must consider that such a decrease would not help very much in
creating an Ice Age because the temperatures required are at least 15 to 20
degrees lower. Even if the temperatures during the hot summer season – with
temperatures of 30 degrees Celsius – were reduced by 20 degrees, the remaining
10 degrees would be enough to melt away winter’s accumulation of snow within a
couple of weeks. (In
Therefore, a much more important factor in the creation of an Ice Age is cooler summers, not colder winters. The summers should constantly be so cool that the snow would not have time to melt. If this prerequisite is not fulfilled, no ice age can begin.
Significant increase in rainfall. The second prerequisite for the beginning of an ice Age is a significant increase in rainfall. There should be much more rain than now. A mere decrease in temperature cannot cause an Ice Age; enough rain is also required.
If we look at this, we will find some problems. One thing is that if the temperatures decreased, they would have radically reduced the rainfall. Consider these two factors:
- Firstly, the colder climate would have caused both evaporation and rainfall to be reduced. It has been estimated that a drop of 12 degrees Celsius in the temperature would reduce the humidity in the air to half, also decreasing the rainfall. Colder air would not have promoted an increase in rainfall; on the contrary, it would have prevented it.
- The effect of a colder climate would have resulted in an expansion of the ice on the sea (lakes, brooks, and rivers would have mainly been covered with ice, and water would not have flowed into the sea or evaporated into the air). The expansion of the ice cover on the oceans would have reduced evaporation and therefore rain, because there would have been a reduced amount of free water from which water could have evaporated. This decreased rainfall would thus have made it very difficult for an Ice Age to begin, and it is also difficult to imagine how even the current levels of rainfall would have been possible. On the contrary, the amount of rainfall should have been radically reduced.
Various theories. Even though the beginning of an Ice Age seems to be impossible in itself, there have been theories of what could have caused it. Four main theories have been presented:
1. Change in the axis of the Earth: a sudden movement of the axis of the Earth to another position.
2. Movement of continental platforms. According to this theory, the movement of continental platforms could have moved large areas to the Arctic zones.
3. A theory which is based on the changes of the Earth's orbit, according to which changes in the division (but not the total amount) of solar radiation to the Earth would have caused small changes in temperatures.
4. One alternative theory is based on changes in solar radiation or changes in the atmosphere due to volcanic dust and gases so that radiation could not have properly entered the surface of the Earth.
1. A change in the axis of the Earth. One theory for the beginning of an ice age is that the axis of the Earth suddenly moves to another position.
However, the problem with this theory is that it does not explain the decrease of temperatures during the Ice Age all around the world, not only in certain areas.
(The books Jääkausi (Ice Age)" by Björn Kurten and Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty by Iivari Leiviskä and also other books show us that the continents in the southern hemisphere, such as Patagonia in South America, New Zealand and also the islands in the Pacific Ocean experienced a cold period and had glaciers the same time as North America, Siberia and Europe.)
It is believed that during the so-called Ice Age, the whole globe – including the southern hemisphere – was colder than usual, not only a few areas. If the axis were to move, it would cause cold temperatures in only certain areas while the other areas would be warmer than before.
Björn Kurten has described this in his book Jääkausi (Ice Age). He says that a change in the axis of the Earth cannot explain the simultaneous cold temperatures on the whole globe. A mere change in the axis and poles could not have caused the cold temperatures in all of the areas simultaneously:
In popular writings, we can find a theory about how the axis of the Earth
suddenly moved to another position, meaning that the North Pole was in
2. The movement of the continental platforms. Another theory explaining the Ice Age is based on the movement of the continental platforms. There are the following problems with this theory:
- Even though the continents could move, they certainly could not just take off and wander anywhere. People have not been able to properly explain what the energy moving these continents over great distances could have been.
Björn Kurten has described this theory in his book Jääkausi (Ice Age):
Another theory is based on the movement of the continental platforms, and according to it, the movement of the Earth's crust moved large areas towards arctic coldness. Even though the continents have moved during the geological period, there is no reason to assume that they have moved randomly somewhere. The roots of the Earth's mountain ranges are extraordinarily deep; they reach deep into the mantle. The bottom of the Earth's crust is more buckled than the upper side, and so the continents are strongly anchored into the mantle below them. If the continents move, it is because the mantle is moving, and we have already noted what a slow process this is.
- One problem with the theory is that the continents should have moved thousands of kilometers back and forth in a couple of thousand years! This is because during the latest Ice Age (it has been assumed that it was about 500,000 to10,000 years ago) there were at least three or four warmer periods. This would mean that the continents must have wandered back and forth many times. They must have wandered from their original places and also come back, for the climate to become colder and warm up again. It is, however, questionable whether these fast changes could have really taken place. It certainly cannot be true with the latest Ice Age.
- Another problem is also that the latest Ice Age is assumed to have ended just 10,000 years ago; such a short period is not enough when we think about the movement of the continents. People generally have to admit that the latest Ice Age cannot be connected with continental movements. The continents had to have been in their current places.
3. Changes in the Earth's orbit. The third theory – as presented by M. Milankovitch – is based on changes in the Earth's orbit. According to this theory, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit cause small changes in the distribution of radiation on the surface of the Earth.
However, a problem with this theory is that changes in the Earth’s orbit would hardly change the yearly temperatures locally. Also, they would not decrease global temperatures. Some months might, of course, be a bit cooler but others would then be warmer. The changes would only be in proportion to the seasons, not in overall temperatures. Many claim that these changes would not have had any meaning for the beginning of an ice age.
In his book Jääkausi (Ice Age) Björn Kurten describes the weaknesses in this theory:
However, all these factors together in no way reduce the overall amount of radiation coming from the Sun onto the Earth. They only affect the division of radiation on the Earth’s surface. Putting it simply, they can only affect a certain latitude either in the Northern or in the Southern Hemisphere; the amount of radiation in the summer would either decrease or increase and the winter would be the opposite.
How can this affect the climate so powerfully that it leads to the creation of ice fields and interglacial periods? Many researchers deny this possibility. They think that the differences in temperatures caused by this phenomenon are very minor. On the other hand, it has been noted that even slight changes in temperature can, over time, result in big climatic changes.
But the effect in the Southern Hemisphere should have been different, almost the opposite. However, there is clear proof that the ice cover was formed simultaneously in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. How can this be explained with the astronomic theory?
4. Changes in solar radiation on the surface of the Earth. Another alternative is based on the fact that some changes in the atmosphere took place because volcanic dust and gases prevented solar radiation from getting through to the Earth. There are the following problems with this idea:
- There is no evidence that solar radiation decreased so decisively that the temperature of the Earth dropped radically. Several astronomers criticize this theory. In addition, the decrease and increase of solar radiation should have taken place several times in history, because there have supposedly been several ice ages. This makes this theory even more problematic.
- As far as atmospheric dust and gases are concerned, it is very difficult to
understand how they could have frozen a large part of
Even if some kind of a dense cloud were formed it would also have had another kind of effect: it would have raised the temperatures during the nights and in the winter because it would have prevented warm air from escaping. Thus, the effect of this kind of a cloud is not always unequivocal.
- If there has been this kind of a gas and dust cloud then it is difficult to understand how such a cloud would have held its form for hundreds and thousands of years. Wouldn’t water and air circulation have affected it?
- All clouds that block radiation and that are known to astronomers have too sparse a structure to have any great effect. That is why this kind of a cloud that blocks radiation for centuries seems impossible.
Other PROBLEMS. There are also other problems that come to light when it is claimed that there was an ice age. We can mention the following:
Movement of ice. One of the effects of the Ice Age is supposedly movement of ice. It has been thought that ice moved on the surface of the Earth for distances of hundreds, even thousands of kilometers, moving in large erratic blocks of stone. (The book Maapallo Ihmeiden Planeetta, p. 192, proposes the idea that some stone blocks moved with ice for over 1,200 kilometers [745.6 miles.])
However, we could ask how an ice cover of 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) can move. If this mass of ice were to move 1,000 kilometers (621.3 miles), would it not also have moved in rough terrain and gone uphill? On a journey of one kilometer there could be impassable hills and even more so on a journey of over 1,000 kilometers (621.3 miles). What power could have pushed ice like this even uphill? Was there really any movement of ice at all? It is against nature for ice to move up on the mountains: if and when ice moves its direction is always downwards. On a journey of over 1,000 km (621.3 miles), this kind of movement would certainly be impossible.
Keijo Parkkonen addressed this problem in his book Sadan vuoden harha-askel (p. 20), which considers the non-existence of the ice ages:
Teachers of Ice Ages present the idea that the ice started to slide from northwest to southeast, as the markings on the rocks show. A mass of ice, which is over 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) thick, has enormous weight. The weight is distributed equally along each kilometer. To make this kind of a mass to move, some kind of a power would be needed to push it forward. Where could we find such a power that would get this mass to move through rough terrain – a mass that weighs millions of tons?
The theory of moving ice was tested in the Antarctic by using explosives to get the ice to move. The experiment came to a sorry end because the ice did not move even one millimeter, except when it fell in pieces into the water. The movement of ice fields has often been used to explain the Ice Age theory. We can see that the movement of ice fields does not have anything to do with the Ice Age because ice never moves upwards or transports large erratic blocks.
Rising of ground.
One example that is used to prove the existence of an Ice Age is the uplifting
of the ground that occurs, for example, on the coast of
We might question whether or not ground’s elevation is a reliable proof of an ice age. We need to ask ourselves, if there has been an ice age why has this feature been observed in areas that were never under ice? We can find several places where the ground is rising all the time even though there was never an ice cover. How can this be explained if you cannot use the ice age theory? We must look for some other reason that applies to both areas – those that were and were not under ice.
Another cause for doubt is that the ground does not rise evenly in all
areas that were supposedly under ice. Many areas are actually sinking and the
sea is rising. For example, in
End of Ice Age. Another problem is the end of the Ice Age and how ice melted away. If the ice was more than three kilometers (1.8 miles) thick and the temperatures decreased about 5 to 8 degrees per kilometer (mostly in the summer), should there not have been almost an everlasting coldness at these heights?
The snowline, where there is everlasting winter, is actually quite low in many areas. The next list shows how low these snowlines are (information from Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty by Iivari Leiviskä, p. 206):
- In Spitzbergen 450 meters (0.2 miles)
- In the
- In the
- In the
- Around the equator, the height of the snowline is 4,700 - 4,800 meters (2.9
–3,0 miles) in
The examples above show us that height plays an important role. If we only go high enough snow does not melt away at all. Also, the tendency of white snow to reflect back radiation means that it would be increasingly difficult for snow or the ice underneath it to melt away.
The question now is that if there was an ice age, what caused the snow to melt? Consider especially the northern areas where the snowline could have been below 1,500 meters (0.9 miles) and melting would have been very difficult. (Jokamiehen Geologia , p. 94, claims that the thickness of the ice on the mainland was 2,500 - 4,500 meters (1.5–2.7 miles). It is almost as big a problem as what caused the Ice Age.
Ice age in
However, this is very difficult to believe because even the existence of the Ice Age has not been proven. What then could have caused these areas with a current annual average temperature of almost 30 C (86 F) to freeze?
Perhaps one explanation for this is that the features being used as evidence of an ice age were caused by something else, such as the Flood described in the Bible and in the oral traditions of various cultures. This is a much better explanation than the ice age theory. We will look at this alternative later.
It is a rather common view that there was an Ice Age in the Earth's past. It has been said that animals and people lived in the frigid temperatures of this winter that prevailed on Earth. It has also been said that the northernmost and southernmost areas were even colder than nowadays and that there was a thick sheet of ice on their surface.
But is this consistent with all the facts? If we look at this in the light of the next points, we find the opposite. They show that the Earth experienced a warmer, not a colder climate. This is deduced from the next observations:
- Remains of palm and fruit trees have been found in
- Coal and lignite deposits found in
- Corals have been found in the
- Mollusks and corals – typical species of the
-Millions of fossils of animals including crocodiles, lions, antelopes,
camels, sheep, cows, rhinoceroses, horses, mastodons, musk oxen, and numerous
mammoths have been found in the arctic areas of
- Extremely well preserved fossils of dinosaurs have been found in
TIME of THE climate change. Since we can conclude from plant and animal fossils that the climate was once warm in arctic areas, the next question is how long ago did this warm period happen? Generally speaking, it is said that this warmer period occurred hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago.
However, there are some indications that this warm environment existed on earth only some thousands of years ago. The following points support this:
Sediment examples from the bottom of the
C.H. Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology, provides interesting
information about the Antarctic in his article Changing Earth's Crust
in the Sunday Evening post
"With the help of radiocarbon dating, the scientists rechecked the end of the last Ice Age, which proved to have been only 10,000 years ago instead of the 30,000 years suggested earlier.
This observation gave reason to doubt the basic principles of the system
the geologist Charles Lyell, who lived in the 1800s, created. He presumed that
geological events such as water and snowfalls, erosion and the stratification
of sediments, had in the past progressed at their current speed. (…) During
the late Ice Age these geological events would have greatly quickened their
speed. There must have then been some factor in effect that does not exist
now. Another new method of dating the age, which we call the ion method, has
also greatly shocked people when it has been used to determine ages from the
sediment findings from the bottom of the Ross Sea: it has appeared that during
the last million years, the Antarctic has melted several times (...) After
dating these drillings from the sediment, it was observed that the latest Ice
Age in the
The observation that the Ice Age of the Antarctic only began 6000 years ago
is a real bomb. Finally, a researcher approached the facts directly. This
statement has such an understanding of the facts that it is simply shocking.
There was no ice in the Antarctic before 6,000 years ago. Fruit and palm trees
have been found there, also in
Ancient maps. It can also be concluded from ancient maps that cold climate conditions have not prevailed for a very long time. We can see this from two maps from the 1500s which were prepared by Piri Reis and Oranteus Finaeus and which are both copies of some earlier maps – maybe dating to the classical period.
Both of these maps present the continents with their borders and are quite consistent with the modern ones especially in the north-south direction, even though the east-west direction is not so accurate. However, what is special with these old maps is that both of them show the coastline of the Antarctic as unfrozen, even though it now is almost completely covered with ice. This indicates that there was a time in the not-too-distant past when there was no ice.
In addition, seismic measurements taken in the coastlines of the Antarctic
We can also see in practice that the current climate in the arctic areas is
not necessarily from ancient times. Airplanes that were left in
As far as the current levels of rainfall are concerned, they are enough to
explain the formation of an ice field in quite a short time.
American Fighters Defrosted in
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the history of the
The same persons and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear
in other sources, such as the Old Testament apocryphal books. Read more