WHAT CAUSES AN 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, 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 to be 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 Helsinki, Finland, the mean temperature in July is 17 degrees Celsius and in June and August more than 15 degrees, but it does not mean that it would always be the same steady temperature. On some days, the temperatures can rise to 25 or 30 degrees Celsius.)

   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 moved 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 Siberia (or any other place that is needed to explain the formation of continental glaciers). This would have then started an Ice Age in Siberia. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the United States would have changed into a tropical area, and geological findings indicate that North America and Eurasia were simultaneously covered with a continental glacier (and in addition to this, ice fields appeared at the same time both in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere). So, in this context the shifting of the poles as a theory is meaningless. Research on pole magnetism indicates that it is true that the poles have changed place, but the movement has been extremely slow, and it is quite apparent that the North Pole has been in the basin of the Arctic Ocean at least since the earlier Tertiary period.

 

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 at all – nor would they decrease global temperatures. Some months can, of course, be a bit cooler but others will then be warmer. The changes will 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 do 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 so that on a certain latitude either in the Northern or in the Southern Hemisphere the amount of radiation in the summer either decreases or increases – 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.

   However, the effect in the Southern Hemisphere should have been different, almost the opposite. 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 criticise 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 North America, an area of about 15 million square kilometers (surface area of Canada is 9.98 million square kilometers), a large part of Eurasia, and also many places having warm climates.

   Even if some kind of a dense cloud was 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, 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 issues:

 

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 can 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 to have moved in rough terrain and go uphill? On a journey of one kilometer, there can be impassable hills, and even more so on a journey of over 1,000 kilometers (621.3 miles). What power could have pushed the ice like this and even uphill, or was there any movement of ice at all? It is against nature for ice to move up on the mountains: if and when ice moves, the 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 Finland. It is said that the ground elevates because the weight of the ice is gone and the crust of the Earth can rise back to its normal levels again.

   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 Denmark the ground sinks about one millimeter (0.03 inch) a year. It is known that historically the sea has gained ground along the shores of the North sea, Germany, Holland, and the English Channel. The majority of the North Sea floor was originally ancient shoreline taken over by the sea. (Muuttuva maa by Pentti Eskola, p. 42). So if there really was an ice age and the rising of the ground is one of the proofs, there should not be this kind of inconsistency. Why is there?

 

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 Norway, Ofoten fjord 1,100 meters (0.6 miles)

- In Norway, Bergen 1,250 meters (0.7 miles)

- In the Pyrenees in Spain 2,800 - 3,000 meters (1.7 - 1.8 miles)

- In the Alps 2400 - 3,200 meters (1.5 –1.9 miles)

- In the Caucasus Mountains in the west 2,700 meters (1.6 miles) and in the east, where the climate is drier, 3,800 meters (2.3 miles)

- Around the equator, the height of the snowline is 4,700 - 4,800 meters (2.9 –3,0 miles) in Ecuador and 5,380 - 5,800 meters (3.3 - 3.6) at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Africa. Note that in the surrounding areas of Mt. Kilimanjaro, the annual average temperature is almost 30 degrees Celsius (86 F) and the day temperature is over 40 C (104 F).

 

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 the 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 can be 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 Sahara? One hypothesis connected with ice ages is that there was an Ice Age in many areas that are very warm today, as noted earlier. It has been supposed that ice was present in areas such as the Sahara, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Australia, Brazil, India, Madagascar, and South America, and an enormous continental glacier covered Africa.

   However, this is very difficult to believe because even the Ice Age has not been proven to have existed. 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 that is described in the Bible and in oral traditions of various cultures. This is a much better alternative than the ice age theory. We will look at this alternative later.