ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?

Updated on December 11, 2016
Buildreps profile image

The author proved a 100% mathematical correlation between orientation of ancient structures, ice ages and crustal displacements.

Greenland is covered with a massive ice sheet while Alaska, Canada and Russia are not. Why? 'N' is where the current North pole is located.
Greenland is covered with a massive ice sheet while Alaska, Canada and Russia are not. Why? 'N' is where the current North pole is located. | Source

Why is There an Ice Sheet on Greenland?

Greenland is the largest island on earth, situated east of Canada, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. About 80% of the island is covered by the massive Greenland Ice Sheet with an average thickness of about 1,667 meters. If this ice sheet would melt completely off, the sea level will rise with about 7 meters (23 feet).

Drill samples have shown that the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 110,000 years old. Other estimates claim that the ice sheet is 400,000 years old. How did this ice sheet become so thick, while the surrounding countries with mountain ranges, like Alaska, Canada and Russia, have no ice sheet? Even Iceland isn't fully covered in ice. Moreover is the exact age of the ice sheet unclear. What do we really know?

This article will explore this issue partially which will be published in a series of articles.

Whiteland or Greenland?

Where the name Greenland comes from, while it's completely white, is unsure. But it is said to have come from early Norwegian settlers.

According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure more settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. It was maybe also a kind of incantation to make the cold island more liveable.

Sages and legends often contain parts of some truth. The current scientific view is that Greenland was actually green some 450,000 years ago. That's quite some time for a legend to bridge, isn’t it?

What happened to Greenland that it's now covered with an insane thick icecap?

Models Say There Can't be Ice

Greenland's ice sheet has puzzled scientists for many decades, which have led to complete ridiculous, even unscientific theories. Geoscientists who are in the search for a logical and consistent explanation are limited by their own set of beliefs and institutions. This limitation leads sometimes to the strangest conclusions.

There have been many reports in the media about the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet, but there is still great uncertainty as to why there is an ice sheet on Greenland at all.

There are mathematical models that cover Greenland with an ice sheet, but they also cover the other continents in ice as well. There's no model possible that covers only Greenland.

What changed in Earth’s history to make this happen?

Latest Official Version

The reason for that [the ice sheet] is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.

The Fact is: There Are no Conclusive Models Found Yet

There are in fact several competing theories why Greenland is covered in ice, ranging from:

  • changes in ocean circulation,
  • the increasing height of the Rocky Mountains,
  • changes in the Earth’s orbit,
  • natural changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. Even the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near strong enough to explain the ice coverage of Greenland.

While the results of the computations suggest that climatic shifts associated with changes in ocean circulation and tectonic uplift did affect the amount of ice cover, and that the ice waxed and waned with changes in the Earth’s orbit, none of these changes were large enough to contribute significantly to the long-term growth of the Greenland ice sheet.

In other words - none of the current theories appear to be valid.

Try to be honest to yourself. Everyone who has a good intuition sees immediately that it's strange that on the Northern hemisphere only Greenland is covered with an ice sheet. Not just a bit of ice. A massive ice layer, while there's nothing on Alaska, Canada and Russia.

Are Temperature Fluctuations Correctly Interpreted?

Earth's temperatures have never been constant. But when the reference points are dislocated the interpretations are most probably false. Temperature change corresponds to the eccentric orbit of earth around the sun.
Earth's temperatures have never been constant. But when the reference points are dislocated the interpretations are most probably false. Temperature change corresponds to the eccentric orbit of earth around the sun. | Source

Altitude, the Higher the Colder

Almost everyone knows that the higher you climb on a mountain, the colder it becomes. The air gets colder because the air gets less dense, and can therefore contain less energy. Less energy means less warmth, so it gets colder.

While we climb higher on the mountain we also get somewhat closer to the sun, but this effect is so small that it remains unnoticeable and even unmeasurable.

The sunlight that warms the earth's surface, also warms the air just above that surface. And most of us know that warm air goes upward, similar as the effect that we see in a hot air balloon. This warmth wants to go as high as possible, but is reduced by the effect of the less denser air, which is ultimately an effect of gravity.

High mountains on Greenland are thought to be the main reason that the ice sheet has developed, while it is easy to understand that this is an impossibility. Fat ice sheets will never develop high upon mountain ranges, because the thin, cold air contains too less water to develop even an ice sheet of hundred meters in one million years.

That scientists aren't ashamed of themselves for producing bullshit theories on public money is still a mystery to me. Is it because we still allow them to?

No Ice Sheets on Other Mountain Ranges

It isn't a logical starting point in any case. The ice sheet around the Greenland Summit, that's about in the middle of the sheet, is about 3,000 meters thick. The altitude is also about 3,000 meters. The mountains must have been pushed down how much? At which point are they trading places, or was it a slow sliding scale? Why aren't even mathematical models to explain how it could work? I will tell you why: it is impossible, and they know.

If that would be the main driver, why are there no fat ice sheets on the Brooks Mountain Range, the Innuitian Mountains, the Mackenzie Mountains, the Ural Mountains, the Central Siberian Plateau, and the Verkhoyansk range? Even the mountains on Svalbard aren't covered in thick ice sheets.

Scientists will probably think of very difficult explanations for this, but they then tend to forget about Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation with the least assumptions is the best theory.

The fact is that there is currently still no official theory available to explain the ice sheet on Greenland, without covering the above mentioned mountain ranges with an ice sheet as well.

Why no Ice Sheets on Alaska, Canada or Russia?

The latest official theory why Greenland is covered in ice, includes the assumption that Greenland was covered with high mountains. These high mountains were formed by tectonic forces pointed towards the location of Greenland. The relative thin crust was easier foldable which made the formation of mountains easier.

The mountain peaks would start to accumulate an ice sheet after Greenland shifted 18° further up North to its current location, according to this new theory. It cannot be stated clear enough that this is completely irrational science.

Why would only Greenland shift Northward? And the rest stays in place? Seriously?

Why this accumulation of ice didn't happen in similar regions in Alaska, Canada or Russia, where the much colder land climate even more encourages the build-up of an ice sheet, remains completely out of the scope of this theory.

This theory seems to be rather adhoc because it doesn't cover the complete subject of ice sheet formation around the Arctic.

© 2015 by Buildreps

First publication: 09 December 2015

Mathematical Proof Why Greenland is Covered in Ice

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 16 months ago from Olympia, WA

      I was just thinking about this last night...seriously. A better question is why is it called "Greenland" when it is covered in ice, and why is Iceland called Iceland when it is mostly green? These are questions that will haunt us forever. :)

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      What a wonderful coincidence, billybuc. While we know that coincidence doesn't exist. :) I am convinced that Greenland will be green one day, although I won't see it happening in this lifetime. I will seriously consider your suggestion! Thank you very much for your input, my friend.

    • Say Yes To Life profile image

      Yoleen Lucas 16 months ago from Big Island of Hawaii

      This is fascinating! I never thought of that - why Greenland has eternal ice while Canada doesn't.

    • Jodah profile image

      John Hansen 16 months ago from Queensland Australia

      Wow! this was certainly interesting builreps. It seems the only explanation can be that Greenland was formally the original North Pole. Like Bill, I always wondered why Greenland was mostly ice, and Iceland mostly green. Good educational hub.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for your nice comment, Yoleen. Now you know that Hawaii might get covered in ice one day as well:)

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Your comment made my day, John! Thanks for that, bro.

    • Nadine May profile image

      Nadine May 16 months ago from Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

      Wonderful article and I have to share this on my Facebook and Google+. What is sad is the scientists in any field are all and limited by their own set of beliefs, that is why I liked what Ramtha said: nothing I say is true. What he means is that only for him its true because of the experience, but for us things can only be true if we personally experience it. I learned a lot from your article.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Thank you very much for your comment and for the sharing as well, Nadine. I believe that the Akasha field exists, where Ramtha takes knowledge from. It's in fact the same what the yogi's call Indra's Net or the Illuminati the Monadic structure. Have a great day, and thanks again for dropping by! :)

    • Larry Rankin profile image

      Larry Rankin 16 months ago from Oklahoma

      Fascinating look at Greenland. It is a place I hope to see firsthand someday.

    • AliciaC profile image

      Linda Crampton 16 months ago from British Columbia, Canada

      Thank you for sharing the very interesting details and ideas, Buildreps. Your hubs are always so thought provoking! Good luck with your book.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for dropping by, Larry. I hope for you, you will see it one day.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Thank you so much for your highly appreciated comment, Alicia! Thanks a lot for the wishes. I've still a lot of editing to do. :)

    • aviannovice profile image

      Deb Hirt 16 months ago from Stillwater, OK

      I have been considering all this regarding the global warming dilemma, too. Having lived in Downeast Maine where a bank of trees protected where I lived from the wind across the ocean, the ice in front of the trees was ALWAYS the last to melt in late April-early May. Same principal, but obviously, not as thick. Of COURSE the North Pole was on Greenland! Valid points, and even easy for the layman to understand.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 16 months ago from Europe

      Good morning, Deb. Exactly! The same principle but not as thick. We had a soccer player in our country who was famous for his funny and simple quotes. He said things like "once you see it, you see it". Obvious things are obvious once you see it. The same has happened in the case of Greenland. It's so obvious that no one has seen it before. But there's coming much more very controversial stuff soon.

      Thank you very much for reading and your great comment!

    • profile image

      Vid Rockman 15 months ago

      Very interesting and compelling. I have a couple of questions: when talking about the crustal shifts you are postulating for Greenland, you are bolstering you idea with the support of a number of ancient pyramids which point in that direction. If the crust shifted, wouldn't the orientation of the pyramids relative to Greenland and/or to each other have shifted as well? It seems that to maintain the orientation and yet move Greenland off the pole, the simpler explanation is that the earth's inclination in orbit shifted. Also, while these shifts at the northern pole occurred, what was happening at the South Pole, where as I understand it, Antarctic ice is much much older than the Greenland ice pack.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 10 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for your interesting comment, Vid. When the crust would shift, all the structures that were pointing to that (former) North pole, would in fact still pointing to the same area. The amount of structures that point to an area, define the probability that you've found a former pole.

      Regarding Antartica. There's still much uncertainty about the age of the Greenland ice sheet. This also counts for the Antarctic ice sheet as well. I don't see any contradictions in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet in relation to the Greenland ice sheet. Antarctica is also much larger than Greenland, and was already at the South pole when Greenland was still moving towards the North pole. So that would make the formation of the Antarctic sheet logically older. The age of the Antarctic ice sheet could easily be about one million years old while Greenland was still making its way to the North pole.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      jgshorebird 8 months ago from Southeastern U.S.

      I recalled this article you wrote and wanted to share this recent link about toxic waste in Greenland:

      http://www.techtimes.com/articles/172742/20160806/...

    • jgshorebird profile image

      jgshorebird 8 months ago from Southeastern U.S.

      I see that there are more Greenland developments.

      Oldest fossil ever discovered, just announced.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-fossil...

    Click to Rate This Article