PRECESSION'S COSMIC PROCESSION TO EXPLAIN THE ICE AGES AND MORE.
. As I say on THIS LINK (in the post above) about changes in Jupiter's magnetic field over millions of years, I think the ice ages may have been caused by a general cooling of the solar heat. (E.g. they found in 2006 that changes in solar heating and ersatz green house warming correlate well with changes in the weather on Neptune, Mars, and other planets. MORE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.)
. As I say on THIS LINK (in the post above) about changes in Jupiter's magnetic field over millions of years, I think the ice ages may have been caused by a general cooling of the solar heat. (E.g. they found in 2006 that changes in solar heating and ersatz green house warming correlate well with changes in the weather on Neptune, Mars, and other planets. MORE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.)
.
The interglacial ages are multiples of the 25,000 year westward precession. My explanation is that they would be caused by the earth being at the right place in its orbit with a cooler sun to start the ice age by the usual Milankovitch forcing which is commonly taken to be the cause of the ice ages. The Milankovitch forcing explains how the ice ages started but not why they and the interglacial ages too were all in multiples of 25,000 years. The earth goes around five times, say, or 3 times like the glacial age before our ancient history, and why does it then make it out of the ice age or go into an ice age from a warmer time in multiples of 25,000 years and not the 25,000 years themselves if they're stronger and more influential? The 25,000 year cycles multiples are in all the ige ages and interglacial ages, while 100,000 year Malankovitch cycles are not always in exact 100,000 year multiples, the 100,000 year cycles combined with the 25,000 year cycles, will allow combinations that are the nearest hit to the 25,000 from the 100,000 year cycles, however as on the post above, consider the following, plus some more;
GEOLOGIC TIME EVENTS..Correlation of The Huron Record with The Glacial Record
(After N.C. Nelson and Others)
..
North America/Europe/ Dates In Years B.C.(est.)..Recent Epoch/Recent epoch/5000, 6,500, 15,000
..
Wisconsin Glacial Age/Wurm Glacial Age/55,000 -25,000 to 100,000..Sangamon Interglacial/Riss Wurm Integlacial/100,000 to 225,000
..
Illinoian Glacial Age/Riss Glacial Age/225,000 to 325,00o
..
Yarmouth Interglacial/Mindel Riss Interglacial/325,000 to 600,000
..
Kansas Glacial Age/Mindel Glacial Age/600,000 to 700,000..Aftonian Interglacial/Gunz Mindel Interglacial/700,000 to 900,000
..
Nebraskan Glacial Age/Gunz glacial Age/900,000 to 1,000,000
..
DURATION OF EACH AGE
WISCONSIN 75,000 GLACIAL
SANGAMON 125,000 INTERGLACIAL
ILLINOIAN 100,000 GLACIAL
YARMOUTH 275,000 INTERGLACIAL
KANSAS 100,000 GLACIAL
AFTONIAN 200,000 INTERGLACIAL
NEBRASKAN 100,000 GLACIAL
While the glacial ages themselves except the Wisconson which was about 75,000 all seem to fit in the neat 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles that are agreed by the main community of scientists who believe in this cause, the interglacial ages don't fit in with the neat explanation. The Sangamon interglacial age is 125,000
The Yarmouth is 275,000 and the Aftonian is 200,000 years, and as above the Wisconson (a glacial age) is 75,000. These don't fit neatly into a 100,000 year resonance. The interglacial ages turn out to be longer than the neat 100,000 year cycles without cause and then they seem to resume the 100,000 year cycle. An astronomical cycle of 100,000 years for the start of the Aftonian would also then start another 100,000 year cycle halfway through, and instead by the above there was a double time of the age to 200,000 years to the Nebraskan, but this wasn't the predicted interglacial age with a simple 100,000 year cycle but rather a glacial age, so it's "upside down". While these problems might seem to have been caused by interactions between more than one astronomical cycle this isn't what the Milankovitch causology predicts, because a cycle by definition is periodic, the greek cyclos means a circle, if you have a wheel rolling around with each roll it restarts the same, while it might roll at different speeds caused by different times of cooling and warming and and then restart the cycles on the path somewhere a few feet away (with a change in the weather!) it seems more unlikely the bicycle would turn upside down and continue to resume the cycles up the road! If you know about the history of how the ice age causology was devised you might say, it was important when it was realized that the N and S weren't the opposite in the ice ages because it was found that the N glaciers were enough to overpower the S for one unified world in each time of the ice ages. This is about glaciers, not astronomical cycles, so the cycle is about the simple geometry of orbits and the sun.
For the Yarmouth, if first there is too much heat, then the cycle resumes with cool where there would have been warming, and then warming where there would have been cooling indefinitely, the sun would seem to run out of power. If you go around twice and restart where you were on a machine, you find road where there is road and air above both times! At any rate if you saw this by luck once, why would the luck continue? This is why I think there is more to the ice ages than the Milankovitch belief. The 100,000 year cycles are generally there because like for the Yarmouth Illinoan and Sangamon the times of 275,000 100,000 and 125,000 years added are 500,000 years and this is an even multiple of the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle, even so the 200,000 Aftonian and the later 75,000 Wisconsin don't fit by being either "upside down" then and later like the Aftonian and not with the 100,000 year time of the Wisconsin. And no doubt, there are none of the ages not in the 25,000 year multiples that would be by the precession so the simple Milankovitch idea needs improvement. And no doubt the general cause of the ice ages being cooler while for millions of years the earth was with no ice ages is without cause with the Milankovitch cause. Since the 25,000 year cycles were all present I assume there is a major influence by the general angle the Earth has to the sun, for the onset or completion of an ice age or interglacial age. Even so the 100,000 year cycle would smooth over and modulate the 25,000 year cycles. But the 100,000 year cycles are in turn not completely well defined, and the general heating and cooling of the sun by way of Jupiter and the Great Red Spot could be the cause. If so, this might explain the changes especially the 75,000 Wisconson age and the problem of the reversal after the double 100,000 year period of the Aftonian. The changes in timing of the glacial and interglacial ages if generally influenced by changes in the solar heat may correlate with changes in the ice caps of Mars (because of polar wandering of the icecaps known there they may be a sort of timer to find the general temperature over geologic ages, more later about this). Another cause is thought to be methane thawing out from N lakes to cause greenhouse warming in the interglacial ages, if so the large amount of methane would seem to have caused more global warming than actually occured by the calculations made and even if it overwarmed and caused the two longer Sangamon and Yarmouth interglacial ages unlike the shorter times of glaciation, this wasn't the runaway dire global warming some predict. How could it be? It was 1,000,000 years ago!
Thus it seems the astronomical cycles and the methane can have general influence on the ice ages and probably did by multiplying up the heat of the interglacial ages (a periodic bubbling away of the Red Spot for the regular interglacial cycles would seem unlikely because the changes in heat by random changes in the Geat Red Spot even so other than general influence by way of changes in radiation may be provable by the record of the changes in the glaciation of mars at that time). Methane may have been limited in power or we wouldn't be here, and the simple 100,000 year cycles are incomplete too, however it's been known for more than 60 years that solar heating and cooling would be more than enough to account for all the changes of the ice ages, certainly the general changes would be of the Pliestocene compared to the rest of the Tertiary which was generally warmer for the 62 million years after the dinosaurs. And ultimately, we can hardly doubt any major or even small changes in solar heat may have major impact on global temperatures. Thus it seems a hybrid of ethanol, astronomical, and heat from outside the earth is optimal for a comprehensive explanation of the ice ages.
The upside down Aftonian would seem to be because the 100,000 year cycles are influential only where they meet the 25,000 year cycles at the lines if intersection nearest to both the 25,000 and the 100,000 year
During the rest of the generally 100,000 year cycle its less powerful influence wouldn't be felt. The interglacial epochs would be strong enough to overpower the 100,000 year cycle somewhat by way of either the greenhouse or solar warming.
When the land bridge between North and South America was reestablished about three million years ago this is known to have caused ocean currents to change and circulation between the warmer Pacific and the N Atlantic to change the Earth's icecaps. It's possible this may have tilted the earth by way of tides and the thaw of the ice above and caused the ice ages. The problem is there have been many changes in currents and no ice ages for periods of millions or billions of years while they were changing, and the severe ice ages of the archeozoic that were clearly related to polar rotation in neat cycles of rise and fall of 1 million years each would be without explanation. And no doubt a current up to the minute way of this cause wouldn't explain the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles influence, and the idea that the ice ages were caused by the astronomical cycles, some methane or greenhouse influence and the sun perhaps by way of Jupiter as I believe is worth more research, seems the best causology and not the minor influence of the land bridge. It's believed the land bridge had definite influence on our evolution because it changed the climate so we got smarter because we left the trees and walked on the grasslands, but a change of a few degrees in global temperature was perhaps of less influence compared to the more severe influence of the ice ages by more definite periodic changes in the methane, precession and astronomy. It's not inconceivable the changes in the currents themselves could have changed the gravity of the earth so much it would have beveled over at a greater angle if the crust was looser and could shift like the crust of Mars when Mars was with polar motions as is believed by areologists (Mars research) and this however would already have been proven for the ice ages, and it wouldn't go in cycles like the astronimical evidence shows and it would seem the land bridge thus had smaller influence than other causes.
As I say about weather control as in the post above I think the ice ages may have been caused by a large impactor perhaps like a comet having hit the side of Jupiter, damping its field and causing the sun to burn cooler, this would set the general stage for an ice age and would be a general cause the periodic cycles of the Milankovitch explanation is without, there were longer periods of tens of millions of years that would be caused by the warmer sun alternating with the the ice ages that would be caused by the cooler solar heat of a few million years of cycles that would be modulated by the precession or other periodic astronomical events... An important limitation to how far the world would tilt would be how far north the light would reach each year as the earth would spin around in a complete cycle. While the sun could be cooler, it would still have to have had heat for life to be here, beyond the area of shade each year the temperature could have been much cooler. Thus the melting of icecaps in the heat would have had an important limitation to the ice moving S and this may explain why the ice caps didn't become heavier beveling the earth over on one side so the earth would be permanently iced on one side, and with desert on the side nearer to the heat. Actually this is not impossible, and geologists' think this actually is what happened in the Archeozoic. This is the time when there was an ice age so extensive they can't find many rocks that weren't under glaciers for the entire ancient world before life. Eventually I think the moon's gravity may have revived this more ancient earth, just as by the above it may have with what are commonly called the ice ages of our own human prehistoric time. The Archeozoic age may have been caused by a large asteroid having hit the earth and knocking it sideways. The moon was closer in that age because the tides of the eons hadn't yet spun the moon outward, so the gravity would have been stronger then, even so it took more time to revive the earth and this is also in favor of the idea that the moon is necessary to life on earthlike worlds.
The moon is believed to be captured by the Apollo conclusions, and this wasn't guaranteed; this may be one reason there haven't yet been a large number of advanced civilizations found, other than ours, with no moon to revive the world, or no tidal flow of nutrients from the exoplanet's ocean, life may be more precious and uncommon..
.The earth's day is found with precise measurement by atomic clocks to speed up or slow down in 12 month cycles each year, this is thought to be caused by the expansion and then melting of the ice caps with summer and winter as the earth rotates with each 24 hours. An ice skater standing on the level ice whose arms are moved in and out speeds up or slows down in a linear sort of way. On the other hand if you could somehow put a giant enough weight on the top of our earth the predicted change would be more nonlinear; the downward force of the weight is doing work on the field and work is nonlinear because it's an acceleration and accelerations are more complex, especially when the weight, the angle, and the earth's spin are all taken into account. A way to explain the ice ages I use is via the inclination of the earth's axis so it would shift angular momentum between the usual 24 hour rotation and the precession. The greater weight of the icecap would cause a somewhat nonlinear change in the rate of day and the total overall angular momentum would be the same. Proof of this mechanism of changing the rate of precession in a reliable way might be found in the change of the rate of spin in our own 24 hour day as measured by the atomic clocks. If precession is possibly changeable and wasn't constant during the times of ice ages or the dinosaurs by way of changes in the weight of the icecaps, the corresponding changes in the 24 hours or so of the day would be reflected by a change in the angle of overall spin, as on this link NEW SCIENTIST 09 8 24th and if the earth is with more ice a certain amount of work will be done that would be seen in small changes in the rate of the 24 hour day. (The New scientist link also says the sun is warming over time while the distant planets like Neptune are cooling over 100 years. I don't see how this could have been proven without older advanced instruments they didn't have in the older days.. This would seem to be a claim that would be tough to substiantate.) The time of the hours of the day wouldn't be augmented or reduced a bit more or less than if the earth was not somewhat at an angle with the rest of the solar system.
...
. The evidence for dinosaurs living in the high latitudes may have been possible by way of the transfer of angular momentum between the 24 hour or so day and the general motion of the spin axis of the Earth. In my conception if the dinosaurs were first weakened by the tilting of the earth, this was caused by the change in the tides caused in turn by the submergance of the land bridge between patagonia and antartica 87 million years ago found in field geology in 2001. With a complete ocean belt all the way around the earth after the breakup of Gondwanaland ("great number one land") which was unified 150 million years ago and with the land bridge submerged in the S but not the N, the tides over millions of years by gradual beveling of the earth may have caused the N and S to be cooler, this could have caused the dinosaurs to stay more in the tropics. Thus the second bad luck of the comet having hit just the tropics would have doomed the dinosaurs but not the birds and mammals. While this seems to imply the dinosaurs were endotherms (cold-blooded), dinosaur fossils ranging from both the high N to the S have been found while other dinosaurs were also in all other realms of the world. If there is precession here in 2010 AD and nothing huge has impacted the world between now and 65 million years ago, the precession had to be in some other form then by conservation of angular momentum before and during the time after the submergance of the S land bridge. Jupiter may have its field not reduced over most of geologic time by burning off the compounds of impactors there that would cause solar cooling (For perhaps a million years relative to the much longer periods of the solar heat in maximum baseline mode). For most of the time of the dinosaurs, while the solar heat would have been maximum, the dinosaurs more commonly could have been in higher or lower latitude regions of the world by way of this solar heat, and if precession was fast if nearly aligned with the 24 hour spin axis, it would have had a period of perhaps 100 years and this would make more even distribution of heat by changes in the ocean currents in the N and S (not just the air which cools more rapidly, water holds heat much better). This might be proven by evidence about the motion of the icecaps in the age of the dinosaurs, and the caps would be more in volume if the precession was slower and there was more uneven heat and more reduced if with higher speed precession. The constantly changing tilt of the earth with the faster precession may have been like when you heat a bag of warm water, and as you find when you squeeze this more heat is released than without the changes in pressure, and so by more constant changes of angle of the precession and thus of ocean currents there may have been few deserts even with more radiance from above. unexplained giant size of the dinosaurs, no land animal before or since has come close to their tons of weight. No doubt even if the large land area would have caused a more unified evolution and its general conclusion that giant is what power is about, evolution was with the same conclusion for millions of years and no other land animals so huge have evolved other than the whale in water! Life thrives on more energy, but too much or too little perhaps would burn a dinosaur. There are no crocodiles in the sahara as much as N or E because with too much heat and also not enough evaporation of moist water they would overheat. Temperature moderation of generally hot weather may have been less stressful to the dinosaurs, just as living in the SW by the shore is of worth when a visit with Betsy in Reno. The dinosaurs may have had both reduced stress, more room, and more power. For us living in the north like N of the alps, there was less time to spend in other stuff than just tending the fire, so too in the tropics, metabolism of dwellers who live in SA (most do!) is about 25% lower than say the West, and with not only power but the comfort of constant moderation in the hot weather, the dinosaurs may have thrived because of this. You may know that for millions of years we lived in the tropics before the invention of fire, and it would seem we may have lived in the desert so extreme weather was no problem and moderation of hot weather may not be the cause, but then as now, 3/4 of the world's population lives by the shore where there is a constant sea and land breeze. This seems to imply there may have been much larger inland areas where there was good weather in the time of the dinosaurs, not just land area, available land area too may have been a cause. If the weather was generally hot, fast tilting of the earth's axis to more evenly distribute more heat may be how the dinosaurs lived so near the higher latitudes and the faster spin of the earth then with the day just 18 hours in the mesozoic (because the moon hadn't yet slowed the earth) may be the best way to explain why the earth wasn't just a giant desert. The hot sun and even heat distribution may have been enough to make the dinosaurs not need to be warm blooded. And in both the heat and giant size being exothermic would have caused them to overheat, this is why larger animals with more body mass to surface area like hippopotamouses and rhinocerouses in our own time have reduced fur. Exothermic animals other than whales in water may never reach giant size because the would overheat too much and endotherms in the cenozoic may be unable to be like the dinosaurs in the ancient weather and the advantage of vast land where the weather was good, and this would also solve the mystery of the ice age megafauna, they may have been giant because even if they made their own heat they had outside temperatures of worth to them to not overheat. If this is so, like the dinosaurs they would have needed a large stable power base of food around the edges of the glaciers to both not overheat and be giant, this is possible because the largest sources of nutrients like estuaries and the Humbolt Current off the W Coast of SA are where the most life is found in the world. The yearly motions of the glaciers may have dug up so many nutrients and made the giant lakes and blended them in with the water so well life abounded there. The larger glaciers may have contracted and moved S more each year. Other general evidence the dinosaurs were indeed endotherms seems to be that The Dinosaurs Never Got Arthritis. Click Here for why .MORE ABOUT THE DINOSAUR/COMET/EXTINCTION/BIRD MAMMAL/WEATHER CAUSOLOGY
.
Updated 3-9-2008 8-12 2009 3-3 2010
The even distribution of more heat than in other ages like the Tertiary might also be the cause of the otherwise
Endotherms on land or exotherms that use water cooling may be the only way for life to reach giant size. Some of the giant herbivoires like brachiosayrus with a small mouth would have had to eat more than they were able to stay alive if they were if they were exothermic. With both more heat and a faster spinning earth there may have been less change in air temperature day and night, so the dinosaurs were swimmming in a sea of weather like out west. It would cool down somewhat at night and not overheat in the daytime with a constant warm moist west wind even far inland, great for dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were like a big business were with a large stable base of weather power for more than 100 million years of good weather night and day without the shock of winter and a much more vast area in reach than any other land animal. The largest carnivoire that ever lived was the giant crocodile perusauraus that lived in Peru 27 million years ago and like the crocodile or dinosaurs it may not have had to worry about overheating. Perusaurus unlike the dinosaurs was much shorter lived and not with large numbers of other sauruans if unlike the dinosaurs the weather and reduced tropical land 27 million years ago was a limit to Perusaurus. Perusaurus may have had to cool down each night and this would be why there have been no more giant endotherms since Perusaurus, even in the tropics it was not as optimal by then for endoderms.
Aha, you say this is not so simple because there is no simple definition of warm or cold blooded according to some, but even if complex there is a simple way I use to generally define this, if a life can live much farther into the colder weather, the life must be exothermic by this my functional definition, even though the physiology of life for many exotherms and endodermic life is indeed complex.
There is the belief by some that the unusual structures like the extra unneeded structures of amnomites or unusual horns of other animals like the ceratops in the late cretacious was just "old age" of the species. Like corporations in business species are actually as if immortal, and the idea that the dinosaurs were just dying of old age and not environment is improbable, or all species would have this "old age". Though old age can be caused by disease not just by time, disease is almost always absent in living evolution of our time. The impactor alone couldn't explain why the dinosaurs had the unusual physiology in the late cretaceous because they wouldn't have had time to evolve the unusual structures after the impactor hit. And there were changes in the weather leading to the rise of the birds and mammals continuously before when the land bridge submerged to the time of the KT impactor.
.
The idea that the weather was more constant in the mezozoic might also explain the mystery of why fossils are not being formed today. When researchers have tried to put bones or dead animals in mud to make fossils all they make in a few days is a decaying mass of organic matter not much like a fossil at all. Ancient fossilization may have been caused by slow regular baking with higher humidity and constant wind without the more extreme 24 hour temperatures of the cenozoic. This would have preserved not just the general outline of the fossil; as the heat and minerals would slowly absorb into the cells of the fossil perhaps even over 100 years it more often would have preserved even minute details..If so the only way marine fossils may have been preserved would be by being moved up to the land somehow, or by sudden lowering of the water level. More recent fossils like our own without such even baking with the slower rotation of the earth like now wouldn't have formed so many good fossils as older life, and most that are formed today would be formed in the tropics. It's been well known to anthropologists the monsoon rains of asia have so limited the fossil record little is known about our early evolution there. Perhaps the fossilization would take place if the experiments were done with more constant even heat and moisture. It's also possible there were changes in the air too and this may have been a cause; plants get 97% of their energy from the air; the animals eat the plants so any change in the air rven small changes might have made fossilization more common.
..
. Increased inward solar radiation would also explain why the pterodactyls never evolved completely powered flight, or inland. There have been some who believed after the discovery of one fossil in 1959 inland pterodactyls may have used powered flight. The fossil was with the most wingspan of any found up to that time, and no more were found so far inland, so they are believed in littoral (beach) translation to have lived only by the shore, and presumably a higher wind may have helped the pterodactyls evolve. (There have been pterodactl fossils found with fur and their many adaptations to flight seem to say they were exotherms because flight takes a lot of power, however if they evolved from the same ancestors as the dinosaurs there would have been a time when the evolved from cold blooded to exotherms, and since the pterodactlys evolved for 10's of millions of years I think they may have started out endotherms and then evolved to be exotherms later, there's no guarantee they weren't first cold blooded and then warm blooded at different ages, especially as the wind rose and the heat was more moderate. We would find most of the pterodactlys with fur later in their evolution if so.)
..
If the sun was more radiant in the Mesozoic there would have been higher winds between shore and land than now, because of the different thermal inertia of land and water, like two batteries of different storage power and the same charge or heat applied to each. More of the same AM and PM heat would thus multiply up the thermal winds between land and shore, this would explain how the pterodactyls evolved without other than gliding and even while they may have been endotherms. Flight would have been more cooling if the winds were not usually warm. They like the dinosaurs may have evolved when the weather was warm and more conducive to life for millions of years of great weather and all the possible weather problems hadn't yet been solved by evolution. A higher shore wind would have helped a larger pterodactyl sail higher and farther inland, with more robust size and not necessarily small ones, which couldn't sail so far, this would be why just a few were inland, just as a 747 can sail farther than a paraglider. The larger pterodactyls were later in the late cretaceous as we would expect if the winds were picking up, smaller size might have initally evolved for the smaller shore winds and then via the seasonal winds pterodactyls may have been weakened because while the were stronger winds for longer distance travel, they were also would have been often cooling enough to cause stress. Indeed if the pterodactyls were not in a moment of bad luck caused by weather then the comet they might have gone on to higher evolution. Another problem was about the larger pterodactlyls being so heavy (about 200 pounds and with 35 foot wingspan) they couldn't have flapped off the ground. Some believe they were perhaps able to jump from a standing start like some bats do up into the air, based on calculations of the force the strong bones of known fossils seemed to have been evolved to withstand, this may have the force of landing mostly however. Even if this is true, higher shore winds would still be of most worth to them because even if they could take off they couldn't have stayed in the air without higher wind than now. You go to the beach and there are many days without wind. If it were like this then, these giants would have not been able to find food nearly so easily by walking, other animals like the first mammals would have easily run away and the pterodactyls would have not been able to run from predators with their small legs. The Wikipedia says in the site heading "pterosaurs.", they were moderately good walkers and runners based on the tracks and most believe they flew rather like an albatross, with some powered flight and mostly without power. The Wikipedia says some pterodactyls ran on four legs based on the tracks with three toes for the front legs and two for the feet with the wing feet so the tip of the wing was upside down while they walked, this would seem easy prey for predators because the upside down wing could have easily been knocked down and broken in combat. We might imagine there were no natural predators they had, rather like top carnivoires of our own era in evolution, but dinosaurs would have moved in to find food, and if it would always have been easy to go in the higher wind the pterodactyls would have been able to win by the constant winds. If we assume the general shore winds were high, the upside down wings on land would have been even more of a disadvantage if they were loose in combat, favoring smaller feet and arms and this may be why the pterodactyls never developed feet for running, inland flight or more powered flight. The reason they may never have evolved to fly inland the wiki says may be because the pterodactyls were polygamous, and like other known polygamous animals, they would have kept harems offshore on islands. While some species of pterodactyls might have been like this, most birds are anywhere there is land because they have powered flight, so there must have been some real limit to their inland evolution. Life tends to radiate out, and if the weather was the same inland they would have soon radiated inland to find more food and land without a limit.
...Certainly if the weather suddenly cooled without advance notice as when the rocks convert over from chalk to the tertiary rock at the KT boundary with the late cretacaeous there may have been high winds, but these may have been because of the start of the seasons like now as we now know them and not as warm. (Laterite a type of rock formed only in monsoon rains like in India is only found after the late cretaceous. Laterite is from the latin "laterus" side or a wall, and the rock is like a solid terra cotta clay they used in arches and walls by the ancient world). Birds could have moved inland even if it was cooler while pterodacyls would have needed more constant warmer high winds to have survived. It seems improbable pterodactyls wouldn't have evolved powered flight if there was a "need to". It seems there were warm high shore winds of constant port, but not inland or the pterodactyls could have easily evolved inland like the birds with millions of years of evolution. The inland winds caused by faster precession before the late cretaceous may have been mostly west winds like the winds now except the faster precession and hotter sun might have made them stronger generally, though not as strong as the beach winds (and not strong enough to lift 200 pounds lead or no feathers.) With no great bevel of the world then there may have been no high winds of spring or fall like now, so the winds and currents of the mesozoic may have been not like now in a general change of the land, sea, west and yearly winds that after all was essentially was like another distant world in time, so we might expect the weather like life then to have been a bit otherwordly too.
The distinction of the ancient land and sea breezes wouldn't have been as probable by way of mere greenhouse heating because unlike the two batteries, with greenhouse heat the heat is above, not distinct and land and water are more the same by it, air is air whether over land or sea! Click Here for more reasons the Greenhouse Warming may be improbable compared to more solar heat by my causology of this site.
..
THREE POSSIBLE IMPACTOR SCENAROIS, AND WHY THE PERIODIC COMET EXPLANATION SOME HAVE BELIEVED SEEMS BEST;
...
..A comet of other comet stuff than The Great Red Spot instead could have boiled away more slowly, this is a possibility that might be found in the records of changes in the weather of planets like Mars of that time. If there is change in the glaciation of mars at the time of the dinosaur extinction, the poles of mars are known to have moved over millions of years, so like a timer where we know the glaciation was then, we might find if the insolation was cooler too by way of the possibility of the comet shower hitting both the Earth and Jupiter at the same time. This may also help us definitely decide if the greenhouse is causing global warming in general or if it was because of more solar heat. In truth Jupiter's massive weight of field has always acted like a giant shield so the earth isn't hit by asteroids often, thus if there were comets near the earth in the time of the dinosaurs they may have had to move past jupiter first, and the same dinosaur comet shower might have also hit jupiter, cooling the sun, I would think this about twin comets hitting both The earth and jupiter is not impossible. Even so the KT comet itself was about 10 miles wide and the earth is 37,000 miles around, the seasons may have been being increased for millions of years by the land bridge-tide-polar-tilting, and neither the comet by small impact or the change in the poles would seem to have caused the sudden change in monsoon rains at the KT boundary that's lasted down to our own age. If there were more comets in the shower we might expect a higher rate of larger impact craters on mars, the moon, and elsewhere at the time of the KT event. The dust of the comet may not have actually been a major influence because the KT impactor was small and under the waves mostly and the dust would have certainly not have caused the heavy rain year in and year out for 65 million years.
Another possibility is that part of the asteroid or another asteroid near the one that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct may have caused the land bridge between North and South America. to have submerged that was present for almost all of the Tertiary, by blasting it out. The change in world currents this might have caused may have changed the weather as suddenly and as much as cooling by the solar change of the impact of jupiter by a common comet shower or may have even caused the Earth to "bevel over" by large scale changes in the ocean currents of the world. This may have been caused by the currents causing large scale shifting of the crust, the same way the shift of the crust of Mars is believed to have caused the motion of the ice of the north and south of Mars in geologic time, (if Mars has "geologic time"!). The shift of the crust of mars has been likened to a giant orange with the peel sliding around.
The Earth if much more active, about motion of the crust might have been more especially able to shift the Earth crust faster than Mars if by way of changes in the ocean currents and the comet, this could be why the extinction events seem to go in cycles of 80 millions of years or so. The comets might go in and out of conjunction with the earth in cycles. The optimum zone for a comet impact to have done this would be about 20 degrees N or 20 degrees S because the crust would be more ready to move the most toward the equator if primed by force like the torque of the dinosaur impactor of the submerged land bridge between patagonia and antarctica ready to move toward the equator by centrifugal force. Farther N or S the impact would have hit stable crust at either the equator or the N or S pole because of the more maximum balance of forces there. This zone was where the PT and KT impactors craters are, N of Australia and Yucatan. Many now believe the history of landmasses and volcanos has been influenced by impactors that would have caused molten lava and extrusion from these events as in the recent article, by Sarah Simpson Violent Origins of Continents, Scientific American. Jan 2010. Giant impactors like the dinosaur comet may have caused enough lava flow deeper down by heat extrusion sideways at the MOHO to have loosened up the crust enough for larger scale motions of the crust with the impact event, if the crust then resettled around because it was already looser because of the torque that already may have been caused by the submerged S land bridge over millions of years changing the weather slowly for life on earth in the later mesozoic. The dinosaur impactor may have been about 15 to 20 K or half the size of these early impactors, perhaps 40 Km in width, and to help form the early contenents as Simpson believes their giant size may have been enough to change magma flows deeper in the Early Earth and they may have caused huge Earthquakes, with great blocks of rocks shattered for thousands of miles away at the time the impactors seemed to have hit the earth. Another possibility is that the speed of the dinosaur impactor was higher, so even if it was just 12 miles it may have had the same power to change more than has been thought. The dinosaur comet and other extinction impactors may have caused large scale volcanic eruptions even by the small trigger of the comet multiplied up sometimes by forces like the moon's by use of this motif, a possibility that may explain what seem to be regular cycles of extinction events some have noted perhaps by regular comet showers (showers always hit the earth the same nights of the year because the lines of the orbits don't change much and intersect the same way). We might find the extinction shower by comet star search and geology (other months!). With the relatively large scale shift of the Earth's crust crust following some of the comet extinction events, as if like Mars had, there would be more volcanic eruptions because of the shift of the crust with the regular periods of the comets, the possible explanation of these events being associated with cycles of the impactors. It seems improbable that the dinosaur extinction events were caused by part of the comet or comet shower breaking off and blasting out the Panama land bridge to change the weather by way of the ocean currents between the Atlantic and Pacific as is believed about the currents in the Atlantic reaching much farther N after the bridge resubmerged about three million years ago, because the global monsoon rains like in India didn't stop then, and it would seem too coincidental that the impactors hit both Jupiter and the Earth at the same time, when the dinosaurs went extinct, the distances between the planets and impactors are huge and it could be more common and ice ages would also be more common in geologic time by this causology too. Even if this about the panama land bridge or the comet splitting off to hit Jupiter was true, it might have been by coincidence once or even twice, even so other events in the cycles were like the dinosaur extenctions and it seems too improbable this happened with all of them. By the laterite from the late cretaceous onward it seems the monsoon rains started when the dinosaurs went extinct, but if this were caused by the Panama land bridge being submerged then, the monsoon rains would have also presumably stopped when the land bridge finally resurfaced a few million years ago in the early time of our own ancient evolution. If the earth actually bevelled over when the comet hit by the crust being able to move more, this would explain more rapid change of the seasons when the dinosaurs went extinct, the volcanoes being common with extinction events (only after not before, a prediction of ancient geology that may be a proof if common with these events) and why the evidence about the dust settling after the PT and KT boundaries is almost identical with that from volcanoes like the Hawaiian magma in eruptions of the 20th century we have proof for. Even so other evidence seems to prove impactors were the cause of the dinosaur demise, like the giant wave the impactor seems to have caused that washed the dinosaurs out to sea, and the age of the craters associated with the extinctions, this would have first been caused by the impactors, then the techtonics might have caused the volcanos and lava flows, and they would be almost at the same time. And there was a sudden change in the weather that was more permanent at the KT boundary, as if the crust had shifted. A more gradual shift by way of the S land bridge and the moon causing torque wouldn't have caused the sudden changes in the chalk and the start of monsoon rains, if it had been slowly changing for tens of millions of years. The exact timing of the KT extinction with the seasons being just enough changed at just that time to cause more rain that was more permanent seems too coincidental. If it was about to happen, it could have been a million years before or after if the sudden change wasn't caused by the impactor. I wonder if Mars had the same type of impactor events that may have caused the same type of shift in it's crust, and some of the volcanoes of Mars might be also linked to it the same way, if found this would add weight to the same type of process in the extinction and other events like it both in our own geology and elsewhere in the solar system.
..One problem with comet extinction cycles of more than 80 million years if so is about how the periods of the comet showers would be of such duration, Jupiter would shield them too much and sooner or later send them away from the Earth's orbit and no more cycles would be seen. A possible way to this causology or to find the dinosaur impactor shower might be if the comet shower was with enough angle to the ecliptic while still intersecting Earth's path where it would bypass Jupiter and the sun, which also would have problems about too much force ending the impactor cycles by the same cause. The comet shower might slowly move above and below the plane of the earth in the solar system in inclination and only sometimes meet the earth in it's path by moving higher and lower in its orbit, the same way the moon goes above and below the plane of the earth in cycles. No doubt even if the extinction comet shower might go in cycles four or five events in paleohistory may not be enough to predict more in another 20 million years because sooner or later Jupiter or the sun may indeed end extinctions such as of the dinosaurs if they are caused by the impactor cycles, by the same shielding deflection of the shower when it may move nearby. Even so the comet mostly may bypass Jupiter or Saturn's field, this is not impossible because of the huge room between the planets. For the risk of an impact asteroid they watch for in our own time to save us from this problem it's considered no problem to send out a "tug" rocket to slowly remove the would be impactor away from the ersatz path of the earth because of the huge room between the planets. It would take an impactor 1000's of orbits before it hit so experts believe the Earth dwellers of our own era would almost always have plenty of time to slowly move it because of the huge scale of the room betwen the planets, and the "small" size of the impactor and the Earth.
We might expect the glaciation of the ice on mars to not corellate with global warming in the paleozoic and the ice ages of the pliestocene if it is indeed caused by the greenhouse or astronomical cycles of the Earth alone. This method will help us narrow down the cause of the changes in our weather or broaden then to encompass solar heating which is now at an all time radiance in the history of helioscience. No doubt by way of the Milankovitch cycles we know these cycles are important. Even so the weather may not be either too simple or too complex in general if we know what and where to look for evidence and proof. For example the greenhouse effect seems disproven by the actual proof presented for it in Dec 2009 Scientific American by author Katey Walter Anthony's article, "Methane: a Menace Surfaces", who tells of the giant beds of organic methane beneath the artic permafrost that when melting may much increase global warming. "The methane beds have been accumulating for 10's of thousands of years." If this is from plant and animal remains in the North as Anthony says we would expect plants and animals to have been living this far north in other interglacial ages like our own also with buildup of methane then, and since some of the interglacial ages are known to have been so warm there were hippopatamoses as far north as England, we might expect them to have had so much of the greenhouse effect the ice ages would have ended long ago if global warming is indeed caused by greenhouse problems. No doubt CO2 may have something to do with global warming, even so the changes in CO2 levels like with extinctions and such as the lava flows of the siberian fields of the Mesozoic or the lava flow of the seperation of the Atlantic ocean via contenental drift are common enough, if there were any major way to unbalance global temperatures by way of CO2 I believe it would have already have happened millions of years ago.
In the history of the earth there is also the otherwise unexplained problem of both the periodic times of short mountain building and also the more recent time of continuous techtonics between the late cretaceous and now. If the earth's crust was primed or loose in general more than mars' and ready to move, by way of the more fluid magma perhaps sometimes caused by changes in the torque by the shifts of ocean flow as I say above, an impactor in a periodic cycle could then multiply up the shift of the crust and this would then cause a return to equlibrium and the periodic mountain building for shorter periods of time. For the longer time of the Tertiary from 65 million years onward to now, the submergance of the land bridge between patagonia and antarctica would perhaps have created the uneven force between the hemispheres by tidal flexing and this could be the cause of the continuous heat powering the mountain bulding with higher mountains, deeper oceans and more vulcanism now than any other known time.
There have been hopes to explain both the periodic mountain building and the the longer term age of higher activity between the cretaceous and now by way of radioactivity; the earth would build up heat and then release it with a giant spring with each age of mountain building called in the process called diastrophism.. No radioactivity has a cycle like this. And if the heat builds up from depth by pressure and then lets go the mountain building would gradually build up and not be in brief times of higher activity. And no doubt there seems to be no reason the pressure would build up and release in regular cycles and then suddenly go to continuous power of the much longer 65 million year period to our own age unless by some unproven physics the radioactivity suddenly started and then was continuously radiative from the cretaceous to now. If so the moon and the rest of the planets with the same radioactive rocks formed at the same time 4.6 billion years ago would presumably start to also heat up and continue from 65 million years ago as on the earth with plenty of time for the radiant heat to reach the surface. So if the buildup of pressure was the cause we would presumably have already seen evidence for this on all the other planets and moons. A way to distinguish between a tidal causology and radioactivity would be assymetrical heat flow N and S and the heat source would follow the tides with small 24 hour fluctuations, while a radioactive source would be more stationary .
This idea is interesting, because reliable earthquake prediction seems to be improbable. To make our maps shake well, to control not just predict earthquakes and volcanoes if the mountain building is mostly caused by simple tidal forces and the gravitational force of land and water, we might actually build tidal barriers around antartica and at the land bridge. These could reduce the uneven torque by making the water "as if solid" like the land higher up and the reduced heat from the earth might then stop more of the earthquakes when the heat is reduced. The barriers might be like the large wave shields that float anchored by sea anchors off shore with passages for ships to even out torque between the land and water. The tides aren't just the water over the sea floor, water has a lot more surface area of friction than a solid. In chemistry, an ounce of fluid has an inner surface area of about 300,000 feet. If this works we might only reduce half the earthquakes because it would reduce only half of the action reaction and there is no doubt some heat from radioactivity and simple pressure. Thus for the near term this might only reduce earthquakes by 50%, even so this might save millions of lives because of more people living near earthquake zones. Another way to change the force of torque and also generate electric power may be by simple wires to orbit where needed. The wires are small while the field around them is large so they would be a cheap large solar collector by making use of the difference in the Earth's field and the solar wind. Changing the electric field changes the spin by conservation of momentum. While good for reducing earthquakes it would also change the speed of the Earth's spin and generate large amounts of energy.
Other uses of the same wires may be to launch small satellites by the wires that would reassemble in orbit cheaply and safely. Carl sagan in Cosmos describes advanced civilizations building a giant ring around the planet with spokes (like my grampa's Wagon Wheel motel, with real neon and bales of hay like the pioneers!). A safe cheap way might be by using the wires. It's been believed that the first nation to establish a permanent hold in orbit will have such an advantage, they will be ahead and stay ahead since it would have many advantages over just more earthbound physics, math and bring down space junk and high music costs.
Another use could be by shielding from solar events that may otherwise knock out the power grid, leading to 30 chernobyls because all the power plants have just 30 days of emergency power by way of diesel, and they will run out soon. The wires would send power gotten from the spin through the earth's field as it reduced the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis, and generates power some of which would be used sideways to the radius of the spokes between them to form a powerful magnetic shield if or when needed. I can even imagine using it to shield from solar heat and control the weather if too hot in the tropics. To bend light by magnetic fields there must be gas present. I imagine the shield could have a lenses shaped field with a sandwich layer between the wire towers to not just shield radially like for the tropics but also to bend the heat and light to make the N more valuable to our realtor, she likes to visit with Santa Boss at Christmas!
To speed up the change in the spin or change the torque or precession, weights could be used on the ends of the wires, or even simple orbiting satellites with a laser to send the change in momentum from the earth to dissipate the spin as radiant heat away from the earth. If most earthquakes are indeed caused by the difference in torque between the N and S ocean realm (the earth's geodesy is more with a bulge to the S) the machines to balance the torque (other than the possibility of tidal machines) would be more in to the N to balance the torque.
..The ice ages have a major influence by the bevelling of the angle of the earth, because multiples of the 25,000 year periods of precession are common to all the ice ages and interglacial ages. If the bevelling of the earth was indeed originally caused by the changes in the S land bridge leading to the cooler weather even in a time of warmer sun in the late cretaceous to the pliestocene even if the sun is burning cooler in the pliestocene, the angle of the earth may be an important cause of the ice ages, so by changing the angle of the earth and counteracting the cause by some method, in addition to reducing the earthquakes substantially, we might be able to have influence on the probability of an ice age and collect a large amount of electric power with the simple wires, or if other faster methods like motors were used to make better use of the heat we recieve. Even so this might be one method of many if it were actually easier just to energise the sun as I say on the page above. Another possible use of thin wire towers may be to use spray mist from each wire as has been proposed to deorbit junk. If the towers are already up they would be a more stable and thus automatic way to remove the stuff up there, the risk of more colissions would be improved. Each time there is a bit of stuff near the tower a bit of spray could both help save the both tower and future starships in addition to the other values of the tower.. If precession has major influence on the ice ages by stopping the precession and extracting the power from it even if the sun is burning cooler, we might get power, earthquake reduction, and ice age prevention all at one time just by putting simple wires up to turn on and off the power at the right time to control the precession.
It may seem that someday by both changing the solar radiance and by changing the tides with fins or faster machines to power machines like giant momentum transfer gyroscopes we might actually reclaim the land back to the so cool weather paradise of the Mesozoic. Gravity may be a strong force and the tides are great; even so it's possible because fusion if achieved and would be even more powerful than gravity. (Click Here for my plan to possibly solve the roadblocks to fusion, if you like physics you may like this site.) The problem (other than keepimg precession the same) is about the length of the day and the angle of the earth. We may imagine the sun brought up to the maximum heat it may have been from the early Mesozoic up to the pliestocene (this is the temperature that is most probable then for the reasons I say above, and i.e. because the change of the weather of the late cretaceous are better explained by an impactor and not a sudden cooling of the sun, it seems too improbable that both were at the same time and the impactor is well established).
This might seem much like now. After all we're in an interglacial age, and this may be like the weather of late Mesozoic to the Pliestocene, we still might still want someday want to try some possible combination of changing the angle of precession, the 24 hour day, and the solar heat with the goal may seem to be to reclaim as much land as possible, it could make people rich. Even so by the first approximation above, a "simple plan" of just heating the sun, levelling the precession and speeding up the earth to say an 18 hour day to try to even out the hotter temperatures wouldn't seem to suit our evolved physiology or the ecology.
.The problem here (for the admittedly future civilizations of our world in this ream of my page) may be that with both the sun at the higher level and the earth still with a slower 24 hour day, the heat distribution wouldn't be so even as in higher speed spin of the Mesozoic, so day in the tropics would be much hotter than even the dinosaurs had while the nights would be somewhat cooler. So, changing the bevel angle as in the Pliesticene might mostly already compensate for the 24 hour day, however not so well as speeding up the spin. While the higher latitudes would be moderate, the tropics would be more and more a desert. So speeding up the earth's day may one day actually be the best way to return the future earth the most nearly to a Garden of Eden about the most weather to most people. In truth we might be able to speed up the day to even out the heat if the sun is moving into the baseline of higher heat because this may be like no other day in future weather history, as the Weather Channel says in some ads for weather. By doing this we might do a lot better than what we would lose by speeding up the 24 hour day if the sun returns to its most natural temperature because of the changes in Jupiter's field.
(If the earth continues to slow down in the 24 hour day and the sun returns sooner or later to the baseline, and this seems probable, sooner or later for life on earth this will make the earth uninhabitable because the side nearer the sun will be hotter and hotter with a longer and longer day as the day slows down because if the tides. If the cooler temperatures are what have limited the reascention of giants like the dinosaurs, they may also limit us and other life too, so if our distant descendants are around then we may find methods of value to speed up or otherwise change the spin of the earth.) .
While this part of my weather control page is no doubt the most theoretical, it's not as theoretical as it may seem because of the possibility of fusion to power the motors to change the spin of the earth. If you like physics, you may find my page about fusion interesting, click here!
This Page Notarized IP Protected And By External Sites
..The late Cretaceous cooling wouldn't seem to have been because of the sun burning cooler, other than by the coincidence that a comet could have also hit Jupiter, this actually might seem to have even been part of the same comet or asteroid shower, but a smaller comet hitting Jupiter that may have caused the more recent ice ages like the above would be needed with this or there would have been an ice age then at the KT boundary too and if in the same shower in periodic extinction events by the comet cycles (more below about why I think this may be the best causology) we might expect a big enough comet to have perhaps caused solar cooling this way to have been large enough to also hit the Earth over the five or so known seemingly periodic comet impactor extinction events in paleohistory. (A larger impactor that may have formed the Great Red Spot wouldn't necessarily have been in the same line of impact with the Earth as a comet impactor shower like the dinosaur comet because comet showers always happen on the same night of the year because the lines if intersections of the orbits are mostly unchanging. If the extinction comets were always part of the same shower and were large enough to change Jupiter's field, presumably over many cycles an impactor of that shower might have hit the Earth, and this hasn't happened if over many cycles seemingly ruling out a large Jupiter impactor of the shower.). A smaller Great Red Spot type of comet then might soon have boiled away like the Great Red Spot may now be doing to cause global warming, so this certainly couldn't have caused seasons like the weather they see on the weather station, the breath of life is a weather pr marm!
