Thread: change in axial tilt from 45 to 23 degrees

Axial tilt of this planet is claimed to have dropped from 45 degrees to 25 degrees; said to have happened between 570 mybp and 400 mybp.
The curve of change slowed and dropped another 2 degrees over the next 70 million years, and has been slowly drifting downward since.

Ok
Here's the question
Why?

God would know.

Originally Posted by overthelight

God would know.

If you cannot offer a scientific answer, please do not give any at all.

I don't get any source about between 45 degrees and 25 degrees.

Try the guys at Arecibo,
(U of PuretoRico).
Part of their studies into:
Habitability of the Paleo-Earth as a Model for Earth-like Exoplanets.

I found them as part of my research into my previously posed question about paleo-atmospheric pressure.

I think you also may know the tilt of geomagnetic is almost surely changed on Earth.

fersure
But that ain't the topic of my current query.

The effects would seem obviously tied into seasonality of the paleoclimates.
But I've found nothing to indicate the answer to my question, (Why?)
What causal factors came into play to narrow the parameters of the earth's wobble?

hell man
At this stage of my brainstorming, even a seemingly well reasoned "wild guess" might help with further research.

If the tilt as/re the sun cahnged from a more radical to a narrower wobble, and is changing still, but much more slowly, then one wonders as to the effects(past, present, and future) on our shared co-evolutionary biom.

ergo, my question

Earth is getting change always on the environment. Some causes would effect to. One reason, the gravity on Earth may get heavy by meteor. Another reason, carbon had decreased because many lives (with carbon) had buried into the earth when it had died.

Actually when we know all of the reason on the environment change and we can fix the environment for us, human will be able to live on Earth eternity.

Originally Posted by overthelight

Earth is getting change always on the environment. Some causes would effect to. One reason, the gravity on Earth may get heavy by meteor. Another reason, carbon had decreased because many lives (with carbon) had buried into the earth when it had died.

Actually when we know all of the reason on the environment change and we can fix the environment for us, human will be able to live on Earth eternity.

Shut up.

Perhaps Earths axial tilt changed from near straight up to today's tilt just 12500 years ago due to multiple factors such as a 500 km wide impact crater at Hudsonbay?

Perhaps the ice ages are a myth?

Did a 250 mile wide bullet slice through the previous polar ice cap(and continent) cracking the land and sending the western side northward to blast out arctic islands? Maybe!

No.

So it is just a coincidence the giant crater (Nastapoka arc) is at the center of North American isostatic rebound which will never be renamed impactostatic rebound

One thing that has always confused me about the Ice Age is that miles thick ice sheets covered North America down into the USA on one side of today's Pole and yet on the other side of the Pole in Siberia(right next to the Pole) millions of Elephants grazed the land, then around 12000 years ago the ice sheets up and melt in North America during a so called warm inter glacial but the Elephants in Siberia go extinct and are frozen solid for thousands of years.

If the Pole (Earths Axis) was at Hudson bay (North America) 12000 years ago and suddenly changed to today's axis this would explain these two scenarios perfectly

Did the ancients mathematically encode this into the Great Pyramid by showing the before and after position of Giza in the northern hemisphere and the before and after position of two stars? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pole-Shift-T...rds=pole+shift have a good one

Oh dear, our latest nutcase

Originally Posted by Mammoth

Did the ancients mathematically encode this into the Great Pyramid by showing the before and after position of Giza in the northern hemisphere and the before and after position of two stars?

No.

www.amazon.co.uk/Pole-Shift-That-Sank-Atlantis/dp/0981128114/ref=sr_1_3_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534217410&sr=8-3&keywords=pole+shift have a good one

Keep the pseudoscience out of this thread please.

No? You didn't ask any questions or do any investigation first, this magical "ice age" is the pseudoscience. Mile thick ice to 40 degrees latitude on one side of the pole and millions of Elephants grazing happily at 70 degree latitude on the other side of the pole. Impossible except in la la land

Trash this nonsense please.

Mammoth - do not post again in any of the hard science sub fora.
(Oh, and at least two further things: get an education and stop making assumptions).

I didn't assume the Great Pyramids dimensions incorporates pi, thats been known for a 100 years and I didn't assume the kings chamber is 1/3 way to top of pyramid and Giza is 1/3 way from equator to pole, but your such an educated genius I will leave at that

Evidently you have trouble with the wording of "do not post again in any of the hard science sub fora". To make that easier for you you can have 3 days off.
(And I wasn't referring to your - at least partially - erroneous claims [since you hadn't made them until now] about 1/3).

I too would like to see some reference for the claim of 45º axial tilt 570 million years ago. I could find no corroboration on a quick google.

Did find this from Wikipedia:

For the past 5 million years, Earth's obliquity has varied between 22° 2′ 33″ and 24° 30′ 16″, with a mean period of 41,040 years. This cycle is a combination of precession and the largest term in the motion of the ecliptic. For the next 1 million years, the cycle will carry the obliquity between 22° 13′ 44″ and 24° 20′ 50″.

Originally Posted by Mammoth

So it is just a coincidence the giant crater (Nastapoka arc) is at the center of North American isostatic rebound?

Evidently not a crater.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In August 1972, Robert S. Dietz and J. Paul Barringer^[7] conducted an extensive search of much of the Nastapoka arc with First Nations and Inuit canoes and fishing boats in an investigation of its impact origin. They examined the abundant and extensive rock exposures that occur within the region of the Nastapoka arc and found a complete lack of shatter cones, suevite-type or other unusual melt rocks, pseudotachylite or mylonite, radial faults or fractures, unusual injection breccias, or any other evidence of shock metamorphism. Based on numerical modeling, regional geology, and lack of evidence for a hypervelocity impact, the current, general consensus is that it is an arcuate boundary of tectonic origin between the Belcher Fold Belt and crystalline rocks of the Superior craton created during the Trans-Hudson orogeny about 2.0-1.8 billion years ago.

Originally Posted by NoCoPilot

I too would like to see some reference for the claim of 45º axial tilt 570 million years ago. I could find no corroboration on a quick google.

I *HAVE* read that plate tectonics took the continents from the polar regions to the equator around 570-541 million years ago, which led to warmer climes and consequent explosion of lifeforms. Perhaps the combination of wandering continents, magnetic pole reversals and deposition of magnetic markers in deep sea sediments led some scientist to conclude wrongly it was an axial tilt variation. That's a lot of moving pieces to keep straight.

In August 1972, Robert S. Dietz and J. Paul Barringer^[7] conducted an extensive search of much of the Nastapoka arc with First Nations and Inuitcanoes and fishing boats in an investigation of its impact origin. They examined the abundant and extensive rock exposures that occur within the region of the Nastapoka arc and found a complete lack of shatter cones, suevite-type or other unusual melt rocks, pseudotachylite or mylonite, radial faults or fractures, unusual injection breccias, or any other evidence of shock metamorphism. Based on numerical modeling, regional geology, and lack of evidence for a hypervelocity impact, the current, general consensus is that it is an arcuate boundary of tectonic origin between the Belcher Fold Belt and crystalline rocks of the Superior craton created during the Trans-Hudson orogeny about 2.0-1.8 billion years ago.

Were they were looking for evidence as relates to craters they have studied, if you have an impact that doesn't leave the regular geologic trail, doesn't leave the crater dish, was so great that all the direct force was straight down until it got to the level of molten lava at which point it just kept going then the major disruption would happen under the continent. As per age, this crater outline and central uplift is pristine, no evidence of mile thick moving ice wearing it down over thousands of years never mind billions of years, this is post ice.

We would expect in this scenario for the crater hole to back fill with lava and this is exactly what we find, the central uplift (Belcher Islands) and entire half circle is one consistent lava fill, Outside this boundary is different rock formation except for a thin line of the same lava heading north showing the direction the other half of the crater traveled.

See you in a month.

Check out this pic

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/...f-669c765df9ce

It would be reasonable to assume that surrounding the old Hudson Bay pole there would have been a massive somewhat circular ice cap. When observing the main ice field (Laurentide ice field) of the so called Ice Ages we find the land based outer perimeter forms a roughly circular line, by completing this line we find Hudson Bay at the center of this completed circle and we find Greenland's existing Ice Age ice sheets also within this circle as would be expected. Do you not find it strange Alaska had no ice sheets during an Ice Age? Not so strange as Alaska was outside the old arctic circle. As for the proposed European ice sheets, well they never existed pre impact(bunch of bull)

And you're gone.