Monday, February 2, 2009

The Arctic Was Tropical



"And immediately there is the problem of the climate. There were ancient climates that were very different from what they are today. If those corals grew where they were found, certainly the Earth was not travelling with the same elements of rotation and revolution which means not in the same orbit, not with the axis directed in the same position as it is today. If you don't believe it, try to cultivate corals on the North Pole." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Velikovsky was right (again): Ancient Turtle Migrated From Asia To America Over Tropical Arctic.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 2, 2009) — In Arctic Canada, a team of geologists from the University of Rochester has discovered a surprise fossil: a tropical, freshwater, Asian turtle.

The find strongly suggests that animals migrated from Asia to North America not around Alaska, as once thought, but directly across a freshwater sea floating atop the warm, salty Arctic Ocean. ...

"We've known there's been an interchange of animals between Asia and North America in the late Cretaceous period, but this is the first example we have of a fossil in the High Arctic region showing how this migration may have taken place," says John Tarduno, professor of geophysics at the University of Rochester and leader of the Arctic expedition. "We're talking about extremely warm, ice-free conditions in the Arctic region, allowing migrations across the pole."

In 2006, Tarduno led an expedition to the Arctic to study paleomagnetism—the Earth's magnetic field in the distant past. Knowing from previous expeditions to the area that the rocks were rich with fossils, Tarduno kept an eye out for them and was rewarded when one of his undergraduate students uncovered the amazingly well preserved shell of a turtle. Together with collaborator Donald Brinkman of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Canada, they later named the fossil Aurorachelys, or aurora turtle. The turtle strongly resembles a freshwater Mongolian species, which raised obvious questions about how it came to be in the marine waters of the North American Arctic.

Tarduno's paleomagnetic expertise, which allows him to ascertain when points on Earth's crust were at specific locations, allows him to rule out the possibility that millions of years of tectonic activity had brought the fossil from southern climes. The turtle was clearly a native of the area.

4 comments:

Louis Hissink said...

Another view was that published by Hugh Auchincloss-Brown, and electrical engineer in a book Catastrophes of the Earth, (AKA HAB theory). It is out of print (I have an original) but his son has put a PDF of it online.

Brown's theory was that growth of polar ice caps caused the earth to undergo a periodic tippe toppe careening event to return to rotational stability.

His geology is problematical though his documentation of past meeasurements of river erosion seem to hold up.

This needs to be read in conjunction with Earth in Upheaval, and Charles Lyell's journals to get a thorough idea of what Lyell did with his pronouncement of the timing of the last ice age.

Jeffery Keown said...

Plate tectonic theory suggests that areas of the Earth have moved, not the orbit of the planet.

Venus was not puked out of Saturn, passing by Earth, giving us oil, and correcting our orbit.

Learn to read the articles you quote.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

You obviously didn't read the article because the article says, "Tarduno's paleomagnetic expertise, which allows him to ascertain when points on Earth's crust were at specific locations, allows him to rule out the possibility that millions of years of tectonic activity had brought the fossil from southern climes."

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Plate tectonics has little evidence to support the idea that the continents "float around." The geologic evidence is that the continents are firmly rooted into the rocks below them down to 300 miles.

Jeff, do you really believe in the Wilson Cycle, where the continents "wonder around" for several hundred million years and then inexplicitly clusterf%#* for a period of time and then "wonder around" then again clusterf%#* for a period of time and then repeat?

(Wikipedia used to have a specific entry for "Wilson Cycle," I know because I linked to it. But it was so easy to parody, as I have above, that it was dropped, and the Wilson Cycle has been carefully couched in a larger article.)

But this ludicrous idea can still be reconstructed from other Wikipedia entries:

Rodinia is one of these "supercontients" that come together to clustf%#* for awhile then "stagger" around the Earth's surface.

This is also known as the "Supercontinent Cycle" theory.

Add up all the alleged supercontinents and there are eight different supercontinents. That's a lot of "wondering around," alright!

But you know why they come up with so many supercontinents? Because there is that much evidence that the continents were all part of one land masss, but they can't admit the obvious: The continents constituted the whole of the Earth's surface up until about somewhere around 200 million years ago.

No, when objectively examined, the scientific evidence doesn't support the idea of "wondering" continents.

The trenches are the "Big Gun" in Subduction theory.

But are the trenches really the "Big Gun" as most geologists proclaim?

There is an alternative theory for trenches: As the Earth expands it pulls apart at points which becomes 'rifts' or if already underwater become trenches.

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that the outward slope of the trench ever "slides under the rocks" at the base of the trench.

Remember, continents have roots going down into the underlying rock as deep as 300 miles. How in the heck are continents going to drag around that.

And before you compare them to icebergs, remember the Earth's crust isn't even close to liquid water.

It has been demonstrated there simply isn't enough energy to "move" the continents around as envisioned by Continental Drift, Subduction theory.