This is one of those things that once you see, you can’t un-see.
It was during my undergraduate or graduate work toward my degree in geology and geophysics that I first noticed that the majority of Northern Russia, Siberia and Northern Alaska were never fully glaciated during the Ice Age. In fact the areas where the last continental ice sheets persisted formed a nearly perfect ‘artic circle’ around a pole centered over Greenland.
The more I puzzled over this, the odder it seemed to me that the earth could be cold enough during the ice age for arctic ice to extend to 50 degrees south of the present Arctic Circle and into parts of Illinois and Germany, and yet parts of Alaska and Siberia which are within the present arctic circle were never covered by continental ice sheets or glaciers.
How could this be? For years I’ve searched for a believable answer, always finding the same unconvincing response thrown out. “Siberia & Alaska were an arctic desert, and because of their distance from the sea storm cells could not carry moisture far enough inland to those areas.” A pretty terrible response in my opinion considering the exact same “arctic desert” conditions would have existed over the 8,000 feet of ice in Central Canada during the Pleistocene, and even currently exist in the center of Antarctica and yet there’s still upwards of 10,000 feet of ice there today! If there’s one thing Antarctica teaches us, its that ice sheets still form in ‘artic deserts’ or regions where very little snow falls. In the long run continental ice sheets have a lot less to do with annual snowfall totals, and a lot more to do with temperatures being low enough to limit melting. More sophisticated answers involving anticyclones, Hadley cells in the jet stream and intercontinental rain shadows have been offered but are all equally implausible when examined closely.
ICE AGE 3D EARTH VIEWER:
Click on the link to see our tool which visualizes the extents of the Pleistocene polar ice sheets in a 3D interactive ice age map viewer. Slide the time slider to see the ice sheet extents though time as well as the theorized track of the north pole. Toggle on & off current & ancient latitude lines as well as an Antarctica overlay and more!
Scrutinizing the predominate explanation
Central Antarctica really is a frozen desert. The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, located in the middle of Antarctica typically records only about 2.4–3.1 in of snow (water equivalent) per year. Most of its snow accumulation there is often blown in from the coastal regions where snow fall can be as high as 15–25 inches a year. (Or it falls as frost-like ice crystals instead of snow) The continent as a whole averages only 6″ of snow a year, and yet still has managed to accumulate 1 to 3 miles of ice over the last 14 million years (5,000-13,000 feet of ice). Compare that to Fairbanks in the center of Alaska which averages around 45 inches of snow a year but zero glacial accumulation — and you can see how its not impressive snowfall totals that form continental glaciers but consistently cold summer temperatures low enough to facilitate less snow melting than gains.
As anyone whose spent much time in alpine environments knows. Its the night time temperatures that dictate when the snow and ice is about to begin its rapid summer melt. Glacial science is complex, but as a general rule, if you want to grow a glacier, all you need is snow and temperatures which are consistently BELOW freezing in the accumulation zone. Places like Prudhoe Bay or Fairbanks Alaska with summer night time temperatures of 40°F to 50°F are simply not cold enough to grow or maintain glaciers, despite their high snowfalls. On the other hand places like Casey or Esperanza Base in Antarctica, with summer night time temps of 20°F to 30°F, are.
So how is it then that places like Illinois, New York, Denmark and North Germany with current summer night time temperatures up to 60-70°F, and latitudes of 46° (roughly 5,500 miles from the North Pole), were able to accumulate upwards of 7000-10,000 feet of glacial ice during the supposedly frigid Ice Age. And yet places like North Siberia or Northernmost Alaska, with current summer night time temps as low as 40°F and latitudes within the Arctic Circle (2,500 miles from the North Pole) were not? The current “frozen desert” explanation holds less water than the frozen air that many blame it on. Really, its borderline ridiculous. Especially when you consider places like central Alaska or the Kamachatka region of Eastern Russia. These regions fall at the tail end of strong North Pacific weather cells which massive amounts of moisture from the Pacific to these Northern Latitudes. (Just like Greenland, the North Sea & Scandinavia are at the tail end of the Caribbean Jet Stream which does the same in that hemisphere). To suggest that these coastal regions did not have access to enough moisture to build ice sheets is as unlikely and faulty as the argument that ice sheets need large amounts of snow to build in the first place!
As a great example lambasting both these arguments, look at the annual snow accumulation portrayed from time-lapse satellite imagery of the Northern Hemisphere. The annual snow gains and losses follow latitude almost exactly with the only exceptions being high elevation areas like Greenland & the Rockies. The current artic desert conditions of Central Siberiaa make little to no difference in the general trend of annual snow cover. Despite the smaller amounts of snow, high latitude regions like Siberia, Northern Alaska and Arctic Canada are the first to gain snow, and the last to lose it each year (or high elevation regions like Greenland & the Northernmost Rocky Mountains which are cold enough to keep ice all year long).
See the same yearly snow and ice accumulation with sea ice added, and note how it corresponds almost entirely to latitude. Only elevation, as already mentioned, and the Gulf Stream current, which brings warm water from the South Atlantic to the North Sea affects the general latitudinal rule of snow accumulation—making areas of northwest Europe slightly warmer, a trend opposite of what we sea during the ice age.
Glacial geologists sometimes also use processes like the albedo effect, thermohaline oceanic currents and localized microclimates created by ice to help explain how continental glaciers could have been SO massive and globally lopsided during the Ice Age. As evident in the above snow accumulation maps, every one of these three afore mentioned factors obviously have only little effect on modern day glacial or ice sheet growth. Truly the lack of ice in the North Sea caused by the Gulf Stream is the only real example of a microclimate created by ocean currents which breaks the general latitudinal rule of snowfall and snow/ice persistence. And even its strong effects only change latitudinal snow persistence by around 15 degrees latitude—and even then the effect is restricted primarily to marine ice and coastal environments.
Some have suggested that Greenland’s ice sheet existing at such a southern latitude is another exception to the latitudinal rule of snow persistence, however, I find those who see Greenland as a glacial anomaly, haven’t actually studied the elevation profile of the continent in order to see how the high the mountain ranges which literally surround the continent are (especially the southern tip of the continent which extends out of the arctic circle). These mountains are the obvious explanation for why Greenland has maintained an icecap post-Pleistocene at latitudes farther south than adjacent iso-latitudinal ice sheets. And were the formation of the Greenland ice sheet or its persistence predominately any of the other three reasons (albedo effect, oceanic currents or localized microclimates caused BY the ice) we would SURELY have had a similar Pleistocene ice sheet in the Kamchatka region of Eastern Russia or an existing persistent ice sheet somewhere in Siberia or Eastern Russia since it would have been subject to the same Albedo Effect — and to this day consistently has one of the coldest non-glacial microclimates on earth!
Growth & Melting of Ice Age Ice Sheets
Now let’s compare the above snow accumulation animations to an animation of the glacial ice growth and retreat during the last ice age. Pleistocene snow and ice accumulation and melting followed an entirely different pattern than it currently does. In fact it is striking how obviously the ice sheets seem to point toward a geographic north pole in the region of Greenland.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding among the unstudied general public on exactly where the great northern Ice Sheets were and were not during the ice age. (There is near total agreement among trained glacial geologists). This public misunderstanding is mostly the result of poor illustrations based on imagination instead of science. Among experts the northern Ice Sheets and their terminal moraines have been well mapped & dated, with the features proving past continental glacier’s locations being well understood. In fact, in addition to the typical continental glacier telltale signs such as bedrock scour, eskers, outwash plains, drumlins and the like—proglacial lakes, which are lakes formed either by the damming action of a moraine during the retreat of a melting glacier, or in the case of continental icecaps, by meltwater trapped against an ice sheet due to major isostatic depression of the crust around the ice are highly visible indicators showing the maximum extent of the northern continental glaciers. Look carefully at the following two satellite images noting that the white line marks the average periphery or terminus of the Each of the hemispheric ice sheets, and the white transparent region symbolizes the continental ices sheets themselves. The labeled lakes are terminal “proglacial lakes” formed along the margin of the ice sheet where not only maximum snow fall typically occurs, but also where maximum melting and scouring occur (because weather systems typically drop their moisture most heavily on the peripheries of ice sheets which warm and cold air masses meet).
A Few Definitions: Glacial Landforms
Before we dive into an explanation of proglacial lakes, lets quickly go over the definitions of a few important glacial features.
GLACIER: A glacier is any persistent body of dense terrestrial ice which moves under its own weight. The term was created from the Old French “glace” or “ice” with a Savoy dialect ending likely denoting movement. Sea ice and lake ice are not glaciers. Neither is a thin ice layer under a thick snowpack that hasn’t started to move and plastically deform. Really, by definition a glacier needs ice thick enough to begin to shape the earth beneath it.
ICE SHEET: An ice sheet (which is often used interchangeably with the word ‘Continental Glacier’) is more specifically an area of glacial ice that covers land (not sea) to an extent greater than 50,000 square kilometers (or 20,000 square miles). That’s roughly the size of West Virginia, Costa Rica or Bosnia. This somewhat arbitrary acreage was chosen in order to differentiate Ice Sheets from smaller Ice Caps or alpine glaciers. There are only two Continental “Ice Sheets” on earth—Greenland and Antarctica.
ICE CAP: An ice cap is a bit of a misnomer and thus often wrongly used. It is not the ice which “caps” the the poles of the earth. It is the ice which “caps” a mountain and usually feeds a series of glaciers around its edges. Ice caps are smaller than 50,000 square miles. However, the term “polar ice cap”, referring to the Antarctic Ice Sheet, Greenland Ice Sheet and Artic Sea Ice is used so frequently in the media that it is generally recognized as an acceptable use… even though it is technically incorrect.
APLINE GLACIER: An alpine glacier or mountain glacier is a glacier which persists because of the effects of lower temperature with higher elevation and exists only within the constraints of a canyon, valley or topographic low. Alpine Glaciers often originate from mountain Ice Caps or even Ice Sheets. The peripheries of the Greenland Ice Sheet & Antarctica Ice Sheets are riddled with Alpine Glaciers exiting from mountainous canyons to the sea. However, its important to note that in the context of my articles, Alpine Glaciers are differentiated from the Continental Ice Sheets because without the mountains from which these glaciers originate, they would have never existed. This in contrast to the Continental Glaciers which form at or near sea level as a result of latitude instead of elevation.
PROGLACIAL LAKE: A proglacial lake is a lake which forms at the downhill termination of a glacier. Proglacial lakes at the terminus of Alpine Glaciers are far smaller than the MASSIVE proglacial lakes formed at the terminus of Continental Ice Sheets. Proglacial lakes form in large depressions caused by glacial scouring. In massive ice sheets proglacial lakes often form as a result of isostatic depression from the weight of the ice.
GLACIAL SCOUR SURFACE: When ice sheets move over relatively level surfaces, inconsistencies in the hardness of the bedrock create a distinct topography of lakes and linear erosional features called striations. In the case of Alpine Glaciers, these features can be small — ranging in size from a few centimeters to tens of meters. With Ice Sheets, however, these lakes and striations are often hundreds of meters or kilometers long and visible from space. Glacially scoured topography is one of the most obvious ways geologists know where a continental Ice Sheet existed. In places like the Canadian Shield or Scandinavian Shield the glaciers left a VERY distinct topography where nearly ALL topsoil and recent geological layers have been scoured away, leaving behind a distinct landscape of lakes, old bedrock and exposed linear features matching the movement of the ice mass.
DRUMLIN: A long, low hill of sediments deposited by a glacier. Drumlins often occur in groups which are referred to as drumlin fields. The narrow end of each drumlin points in the direction of an advancing glacier.
ESKER: A winding ridge of sand deposited by a stream of meltwater flowing underneath the retreating glacier.
KETTLE LAKES: Lakes which form from chunks of ice left behind from the retreating glacier.
GLACIAL PLUCKING: Plucking, also referred to as quarrying, is when a moving glacier exploits pockets of poorly consolidated bedrock or sediment, ‘plucking’ out a depression which later often forms a lake or pond in the substrate. Plucking is a process which helps to create distinctive Glacial Scour surfaces.
THERMOKARST/PERMAFROST LAKE: Often confused with kettle lakes or glacial landforms, Thermokarst lakes ARE NOT glacially formed! Also called a permafrost lake, thaw lake, tundra lake, thaw depression, or tundra pond, it is a body of freshwater, usually shallow, that is formed in a depression formed by thawing ice-rich permafrost in a tundra environment. They are very prevalent in Northern Alaska & Siberia. A key indicator of thermokarst lakes is the occurrence of excess ground ice with soils having an ice content greater than 30% by volume. They commonly form in ancient ‘oxbow lakes’ and deltaic deposits and form as pockets/aquifers of gravel freeze and thaw— both heaving/elevating the surface of area of greater groundwater content (causing surface erosion) and simultaneously collapsing the underlying substrate from the weight of the ice. (Chemical dissolution of underlying soils can also come into play–thus the ‘karst’) When this pocket of ice melts, a thermokarst or tundra/permafrost lake is left in its place. They are differentiated from glacial landforms by their shape, sediment composition and absence of any other accompanying glacial landform.
Once you understand the basics of these glacial features, its easy to simply use Google Earth to explore the regions shown above to make your own conclusions concerning the location of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets. I literally have not shared this with another individual who is even moderately trained in recognizing the preceding glacial landforms who has not come to the same conclusion that the location of Pleistocene Ice Sheets and absence of Glacial landforms in Northern Alaska and Siberia seems hard to explain without evoking some type of True Polar Wandering event. The difficulty and debate comes in when geologist try and decide, how on earth a True Polar Wandering event could have occurred in this short timeframe! These types of events become VERY debatable & problematic for professional scientists when attempting to use any type of catastrophism to explain. Why? I’ll explain in the next section, but first lets look at a satellite images to solidify in our minds the exact location of the Pleistocene ice sheets.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION FROM THIS POINT ON:
— add a sat image of Scandinavia scour surface. add a pic of thermokarst and how it is NOT a glacial landform.
NEXT section. Title: The Catastrophism/Uniformitarianism Debate. The debate is well documented. Until the early 1900’s it was the predominate explanation for earth processes. However, with time uniformitarianism won out. Why? Because it did a better job of explaining observed phenomena. However, because deeply held religious beliefs were often involved the debate had a tendency to polarize individuals into extreme camps. Instead of looking objectively at evidence and creating models based solely on logic, many individuals felt that had to take an “all or nothing” approach to their chosen camp. Now that decades have gone by, and people have had a change to disconnect themselves from the emotion of this debate, a more rational middle ground is emerging. Somewhat catastrophic events such as the asteroid impact hypothesized to have caused the dinosaur extinction or to have caused the Younger Dryas cooling event during the Ice Age are becoming mainstream. Articles on ancient rapid true polar wandering are sprinkled throughout the scientific literature.
I’ll finish this article when I have time. For now the rest is just notes.
-talk about how this was a debate back in the 50’s and 60’s, especially with charles hapgood’s books (as well of velikovsky). But a believable mechanism for rapid pole shift was not conceived. Even though Einstein himself wrote the foreword to Hapgood’s book, and supported his theory that the weight of the ice itself destabilized the axis, the whole premise was too extreme, and smelled too much of biblical catastrophism for the scientific community to accept.
Talk about the comet impact theory for the Dryas Minima and how this combined with imbalances caused by the iceland mantle plume seem to some of the best explanations for a cause of the TPW
Our current understanding of where pole is is based on several points of evidence….. POINT HERE NEEDS TO BE THAT RECONSTRUCTIONS ARE ONLY ACURATE TO 20 DEGREES, GIVES A GREAT BALLPARK FIGURE BUT HORRIBLE EXACT LOCATION. Be sure to reference this page, that shows how off CURRENT measurements are. http://all-geo.org/chris_rowan/2014/01/paleomagnetism-lab-testing-the-gad-hypothesis/
Some are cyclical, some are random. Make an illustration showing the core slightly off center to show how earth would now wobble, and then stabilize over time.
- Gravitational effects of sun and Jupiter on moon and equatorial bulge (same things that cause precession-go into detail on how this is likely ALSO what creates the earth’s and suns magnetic fields, and same forces cause sun to flip and probably cause earth’s to flip too). There’s a good amount on the correlations between Jupiters 11 year orbit and the suns 11 year solar cycle (with Saturns gravitational effects causing the half year difference in timing). Note this important fact. The moon is NOT orbiting earth’s equatorial plane, its on the SUNS equatorial plane (2–5 deg off), so the combined tidal forces of the moon and sun pull earth’s core double and unevenly.
- Bolide/asteroid impacts. (this is a big one, partly random and partly cyclical because arms of galaxy hold more debris. The proposed impact for the younger dryas is a great possibility as one of many)
- Gravitational waves (also a big one, because it literally warps space time and compresses the earth longitudinally. can be both cyclical and random between those coming from center of galaxy and those caused by supernova). Reference my article on how these are responsible for the arms of our Galaxy, and how when we cross these waves every 4000 years or so, it cause slight wobble events. (which if there is enough built up instability triggers a TPW event).
-TPW “excursions” caused by “destabilization events”. The evidence for glaciation in Patagonia and Siberia is a huge problem. It seems to suggest that the pole must have gone from north of present to greenland and back! How is that possible? And it doesn’t match well with any polar wandering data (of course those kinds of anomolous data points are often thrown out of studies). And why is Antarctica’s glaciation so much older than the north hemisphere? South-East Antartica should have the oldest ice. North-East Antartica & the Penensula should have the youngest. Does this match with data? See evidence for each area’s glaciation here: http://www.science.earthjay.com/instruction/HSU/2015_fall/GEOL_553/literature_sources/ehlers_gibbard_2007_cenozoic_global_glaciation.pdf — — -this what you have to work with. So this idea solves it. THE CORE is more dense, it gets pulled by gravity more and destabilizes the earth. BUT the equatorial bulge resists the dif spin, causing mantle to differentially rotate (making the mag field by the way). but every 100,000 radiocarbon years or so the destabilization hits a tipping point and the SLOW TPW looses balance and the earth goes for a TPW trip. For the last 3 million K/Ar years this has been TOWARD the “North Atlantic gravity anomaly” (there also one north of Australia likely playing a part). And asteroid hitting the moon might just knock its orbit eccentric enough to affect tidal forces on the mantle.
Evidence Against Catastrophism
Be sure to add a whole section here on what I see in river systems and orogenic uplifting and folding on the Colorado Plateau. Its important to see the powerful evidence for uniformitarian orogenesis in earth’s river systems which traverse folded strata. For instance, even the smallest tributaries of the Colorado River cut through massive folds which obviously have risen slow enough over their evolution to avoid rerouting of the river systems. Only a few examples such as the Unaweap Canyon through the Uncompahgre Plateau show evidence of rapid enough uplift to reroute the river. This suggests to me that although these pole shirts are occurring fast in “geologic time”, they are not occurring fast enough to catastrophically reorganize plate motions.
Now this is where it gets crazy
Rapid polar wander events are fairly well documented and accepted in the Scientific literature. Just one of many examples is the Jan 2000 issue of Science which published evidence of “Late Cretaceous Polar Wander of the Pacific Plate: Evidence of a Rapid True Polar Wander Event“. These types of events are typically hypothesized to occur over several million years. And of course debate will always exist as to whether these perceived rapid polar wandering events are simply movement of the magnetic pole, instead of true polar wandering of the rotational pole or axis. Debate also rages as to which reference system is the most reliable, as every continent and seamount system gives a different APW (apparent polar wandering) path since the plates all move separately from each other over time. However, to me the most interesting data point is the lack of Paleozoic strata under the entirety of the Pleistocene polar ice sheet! Where did it go? Are we to believe as some suggest that the entirety of the Canadian & Scandian Shields were above sea level for the last 500 million years in a configuration matching exactly with the ice sheet. That seems entirely impossible to me. Or are we to believe that the Pleistocene Ice Sheet removed/eroded essentially ALL Paleozoic strata? Although far more likely than the first possibility, this still seem unlikely to me. So then where did it go? When I see that the seamount reference frame shows an APW (apparent polar wandering) path matching closely with the location of the radiocarbon dated Pleistocene Ice Sheet it simply seems more likely to me that some type of ice sheet actually existed in that area for far longer than the Pleistocene! Perhaps more likely since the Eocene thermal maximum! (or possible even into the supposedly “hot house” Cretaceous). Looking at the data, I cant get past the most obvious answer, that a Scandian & Canadian Ice Sheet existed in these “ice age” locations for much of the past 45-120 million years, and that this explains why there is essentially ZERO Paleozoic sediment in those locations. And that some kind of mechanism (likely a mantle plume) actually has had the rotational axis shifting back and forth from at least the end Eocene — causing along with it some type of overlap in radiometric dates. (
Unraveling the mystery. A few other really significant pieces of evidence which all seem to come together & support not only rapid true polar wander, but a large enough climatological shift to affect radiocarbon (likely from a changing magnetic field)
1. The fact that the rise of known civilization occurs completely counter to what modern climate suggest we should see. Modern farming productivity and thus population and settlement is NOTHING like that of the ancient world. Why did civilization rise in Sumer/Akad, Egypt and the Middle East, when modern climates make these HORRIBLE places to grow civilizations?! (compared to the Modern age population centers of Europe, China & the Eastern US.) All sorts of theories abound, but all of them are lacking in common sense. Yet when you look at the latitude lines from the last “Pleistocene Ice Age”, Egypt and the Middle East would have been the “Europe” or temperate region of the ancient world! (30-50 deg latitude). In fact comparing the amount of climate change which would have occurred in different regions of the world corresponds beautifully with where ancient civilizations persisted. Southern Africa & lowland S. America for instance would have suffered enormous devastating climate swings which might explain why no major ancient civilizations seemed to have evolved in those locations. On the other hand the climate change in places like Anatolia, and the Iranian Plateau would have been far more minimal. Which perhaps explains why this is where we find some of the most ancient cities in the world.
2. Testing this hypothesis we would of course expect to find evidence of radiocarbon anomalies, and this is perhaps the most convincing evidence I see of a TPW event. There is a very strange ‘repeat’ of history seen in the progression of Middle Eastern civilization. (make a bunch of illustrations and timelines of the repeat between radiocarbon dated civilizations— and how crazy obvious it is once you see it.)
-11 year magnetic reversal of the sun tied to orbits of Jupiter, earth and (venus?) in new study https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/hd-tsf052719.php
Best article to cite. Lots of great references. Study it! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1630749X?fbclid=IwAR1Y-bgol8Sd1IzmsfcsFALQ_2xzY_dnrHXnR8CZAJTTEOuAN2V2TeqQiuI#br0170
-This page has some amazing gifs, illustrations, videos and ideas to use. especially the gif of an egg shaped spinning object righting itself, and the evidence of why Venus turned over. and some of the other gyroscope stuff. https://www.plutorules.com/page-41-tilt.html This similar page talks of how ‘rain forest like in new Zealand covered Antarctica at the same time https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12378934
-this wikipedia article talks about how the ‘poles’ were dominated by ‘ deciduous conifers’. whaaat? Conifers like Larch and Cyprus that loose their leaves and live in wet, not-too-cold enviros like Washington state. Its yet more evidence that what they think was artic, was not artic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous#Fossilized_forest
-Evidence against current magnetic polar paths . This dinosaur is found in Australia and Antartica in the early cretaceous. scientist think this was in the antarctic circle at the time based on paleomag. This is great proof the paleomag is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaellynasaura
-Younger dryas north hemisphere cooling (mainly europe) didn’t affect new zealand. Glaciers there were retreating with vigo https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/09/deep-freeze-didnt-affect-southern-hemisphere. but Radiocarbon dating of this time interval is precarious because of C14 plateaux and, for marine organisms, because of the varying reservoir effects as a consequence of changing ocean circulation (Björck, 2007; Cao et al., 2007). https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/younger-dryas (looks to me that they see the younger dryas is regional, so they are guessing the c14 dates must be off and coming up with this ‘reservoir effects’ idea where they compensate…
-evidence for comet impact at younger dryas, this is a great mechanism for what made the pole change direction at that time.. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/20/support-comet-impact-may-have-triggered-the-younger-dryas-period/
malankavitch cycle… one of three is ‘procession’ and might cause true polar wander because of gravitational forces of sun and Jupiter. (especially since they are binary system). The moon rotates obliquely so that affects things too. watch this and picture the sun torquing irregularities in the mantleand equatorial bulge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
rework malankavitch calcs to show it could NOT give needed cooling, then propose mantle redistribution combined with gravitational pull from sun/Jupiter wobble (chandler wobble) to create true polar wandering as mechanism for both ice ages and plate movement.
younger dryas (north america warming, Bonneville shrinking while Europe cooling lgm)
Explore this: Even in more ancient geologic record, paleomagnetic reconstructions show that at least the magnetic pole (and likely true north pole) is all over the place through time. Comparing magnetic trace readings from different continents and oceanic plates show paths and sudden swings which cannot be accounted for with plate techtonics. These paths suggest that not only are the plates moving and separating over time, but the magnetic north pole (and presumably the true north pole with it) is moving. If we are to assume that the magnetic pole has historically been within 10–13 deg of the true north pole, we