How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed Part 1
Written by Jerry L Krause & Richard Cronin
Abstract: This essay briefly reviews historical facts and certain important contributions that certain important individuals have made which allows us to propose and to begin to share our novel understanding of the formation of the previous Northern Hemisphere’s low elevation glaciers.
In this essay, the first of a yet undetermined number of continuing essays, we establish that the primary cause of how the prehistoric glaciers (long since melted), first identified by Louis Agassiz, were formed by the prehistoric volcanic activity which occurred at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.
This is not a formal scientific article. It is written for a general reader who could care less who stated what and when and where. We understand that a PSI reader just wants to read about the latest ideas (right or wrong) about things ‘scientific’. And if we write something which is questionable, we expect a reader to make comments in an attempt to correct what we have written.
Louis Agassiz was a naturalist who saw large erratic boulders laying on the earth’s surface in northern Europe and concluded they were evidence of previous thick glaciers that had carried these boulders to where these thick glaciers melted. But Louis Agassiz, when asked ‘What is your greatest achievement?’ answered: ‘I have taught men to see.’ Our novel idea of How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed is based upon the unquestionable observations that Agassiz and others have drawn to the attention of the ‘scientific community’ and certain well accepted natural phenomenon that seems to be seldom considered when it is should be considered.
Image 1 (above) is an observation upon which our novel understanding is fundamentally based. Dr Joel Glass, about this image wrote (better him than us): “Among the changes in clouds are the new massive areas covered by noctilucent clouds. … Noctilucent clouds are formed of water ice crystals and are quite high in the atmosphere. … The massive size of the area which these clouds cover can be seen in the NASA satellite photograph (top of article).”
Galileo was critical about what Aristotle had written that seemed to be not observed fact as it seemed Aristotle had written that it was. We have to question: How does Glass know that the massive area seen in the image is ‘new’? Clearly, Glass did not begin identify all that can be seen in this image. Galileo demonstrated that not only were observations critically important in his science, but also that accurate definition was also critically important.
We write this essay not to be critical of Dr Joel Glass, or Agassiz, or whomever, but ‘accurate definition’ requires we not dismiss anything as not being possibly critically significant. For example, ‘quite high in the atmosphere’ does not accurately define the approximate elevation of the noctilucent clouds when the approximate elevation is near the top of the mesosphere (about 80 plus kilometers (50 miles). Glass never mentioned the ‘white clouds’ which are also seen in the image. And he never mentioned when this NASA photo was taken. And he never mentioned the ‘black hole’ which seems to be centered on the North Pole.
Agassiz saw the significance of the erratic boulders but it seems he and/or geologists have not asked: How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed? Just as Glass did not seem to ask: From where do the water molecules, which form the noctilucent clouds, come? And if one assumes, from the troposphere, another question becomes: How do they get from the top of the troposphere, through the stratosphere, to near the top of the mesosphere?
And if one assumes the only other possible where—space—we have a factor not commonly considered but a factor which Newton, the physicist, did consider. Here, we acknowledge this possibility and refer an interested reader to the case of Lewis Frank (University of Iowa) and his ‘questioned’ observations of small comets entering the earth’s atmosphere (google it).
Our novel idea is based solely on the assumption that for a glacier to form, it has to snow a lot.
And we do not forget (ignore) that the earth spins on an axis (according to Galileo) which produces a centrifugal effect on the matter of the earth, its atmospheric molecules, and the atmosphere’s condensed matter (condensation nuclei, cloud particles, and ‘haze’ particles). Newton calculated that the earth was not a perfect sphere due to the centrifugal effect but it seems to have been an ignored factor (phenomenon?) since that time. But we do not ignore that the earth spins and that the resulting centrifugal factor could cause the ‘cloud hole’ to form.
What has been written to this point is what I (Jerry L Krause) had read and observed and my obvious conclusion that it had to have snowed a lot (for some reason) to form the thick glaciers for which Louis Agassiz observed the evidence (large erratic boulders) of their previous existence. For which reason I have concluded that the Arctic Ocean had to have been heated by volcanic activity at its bottom. The result of which was that for some significant period of historical time the Arctic Ocean was ice free.
I knew that Richard Cronin had, upon retirement, began to study volcanic activity. So I asked him, as a coauthor, to write the following portion of this essay:
Since the Earth is a globe , the crust is thickest around the Equator and thinnest at the North Pole (sounds like my physical appearance).
The Gakkel Ridge spans directly beneath the North Pole and Sam Carana describes a “cluster of CO2-explosive volcanoes” located directly beneath the North Pole. Submarine volcanoes line the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. There is also the Laptev Sea Rift.
I may have shared the work of James Edward Kamis about Plate Climatology and certainly the GeoReactor by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon (Marvin). We became acquainted in 2006.
M.a. Padmanabha Rao is another Internet acquaintance who writes of solar flares being fission events as well as fission observed in Neutron Star mergers.
Vasily D. Rusov writes of “fission cycling” in Neutron Star mergers (NS – NS). That is, an abundance of neutrons produced by NS-NS drives the production of heavy, neutron-rich Actinides and Lanthanides. These heavy guys decay, but the products of decay, confined by the intense gravity field, build back up to the Lanthanides and Actinides. It’s an autocatalytic process. Simply stated, there’s a lot more of the Lanthnides and Actinides floating around out there to form planetary-centered natural fission reactors.
As described by James Kamis, the present uptick in heat, CO2, and a pinch of methane is coming from within. Serpentinization of mafic and ultramafic minerals by hydrolysis plus Fischer Tropsch reactions produce methane and water. Abiotic hydrocarbons. Another autocatalytic process.
The current heat flux coming from within the planet is only thought to be by conduction thru the mantle (47 TW). Wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s way more. Separate discussion.
Pretty much the formation of all major celestial bodies is the same, with stars large enough to confine the fission reactor to produce fusion. The aforementioned abiotic hydrocarbon process is active on all planets and major moons. The moon Io is the most volcanic celestial body in the solar system.
With the heat coming from within the planet, surface temperatures are warmer, but the SABER satellite system shows cooling in the upper atmosphere. We are in a solar flare minimum as of recent.
I have included more of his commentary, than specifically necessary, to establish his credibility about volcanic activity and its cause. For, The Gakkel Ridge spans directly beneath the North Pole and Sam Carana describes a “cluster of CO2-explosive volcanoes” located directly beneath the North Pole. Submarine volcanoes line the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. There is also the Laptev Sea Rift., establishes the observed fact that the Arctic Ocean has been strongly heated by significant volcanic activity. And many of us have seen more than one evidence of the tremendous results of prehistoric volcanic activity to which most ‘modern’ evidences of this continuing activity appear to be insignificant.
While we (‘we’ because Richard critically examines all that I write) know that not all of the critical secondary factors of our novel explanation of How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed have yet been reviewed, we have clearly identified the critical primary factor—volcanic activity. With this clear statement, we conclude this essay for it is only the first of a yet unknown number of brief continuing essays.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.