Coal in Antarctica

During the Carboniferous Period, 360 to 300 MYA, coal formed across Pangea including North America, South America, Europe and Asia. Coal typically forms in tropical forests at or near the equator. dynamicearthenviro.blogspot.com...
At the end of the Carboniferous period, two meteors struck Quebec Canada changing the alignment of the poles. The Clearwater East crater is 16 miles in diameter while the Clearwater West crater is 22 miles in diameter.en.wikipedia.org...
Between 300 and 251 MYA coal formed around the South Pole in:

Southern Africa - pubs.usgs.gov...

India - rajikorba.blogspot.com... www.pmfias.com...

Australia - www.circleofblue.org...

Antarctica - pubs.usgs.gov...

For the equator to be in these areas, the South Pole must have been pointed towards the sun. The north pole of Uranus currently points towards the sun. en.wikipedia.org...

The Morokweng meteor struck Africa 145 MYA at the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. This impact is the most likely cause for the Hawaiian Island Hot Spot. Coal deposits formed in:

Alaska – pubs.usgs.gov...

Canada – ags.aer.ca...

Continental US – pubs.usgs.gov... www.ems.psu.edu...

South America – pubs.usgs.gov... pubs.usgs.gov...

Antarctica - pubs.usgs.gov...

from 145 to 65 MYA (Cretaceous Period) meaning the equator ran near the current position of the north and south pole approximately between 60W and 160W longitudes. The Chixulub impact changed the alignment of the equator again.

Meteor impacts not only make the earth wobble, like it is currently doing, but they can also cause the poles to shift locations or change alignment. Torque induced precession can flip a planet as evidenced by the planet Venus en.wikipedia.org... . The poles on Venus have flipped causing its rotation to be opposite that of the other planets.

Precession is caused when a meteor, traveling the opposite direction to the planet’s rotation, hits and slows down the planet’s rotation. en.wikipedia.org... Conservation of energy causes the poles to move. This is evidenced by the Chixulub impact.
Force vectoring, determined from the offset between the Deccan traps and the Chixulub antipodal point, indicates the meteor hit the earth at a 28-degree angle. phys.org... This would have slowed down the rotation of the Earth and shifted pole locations. This slow down in rotation would have increased gravity and increased the partial pressure of oxygen, making conditions unlivable for larger animals. Large meteor impacts send shockwaves through the mantle until they converge, producing a fluid hammer effect. The pressure forms a crack in the crust producing a hotspot like the Hawaiian Island hot spot, the Deccan Traps or the Siberian Traps.

a reply to: Bytore



Coal is not the answer.

a reply to: Bytore


So, how long does it take the planet to shift, for example when you say Antarctica used to be at the equator. How long did it take to get to where it is today? Or, to its next location?

How long does it take the pole to "flip?"

I’ve got no issues with the climate debate, even though it’s openly debated by the UN as a redistribution of wealth. Why tax it? If the planet is doomed in 12 years, what’s with the taxes??

Shutup! a 12 year is speaking clearly they have all the answers.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Bytore


So, how long does it take the planet to shift, for example when you say Antarctica used to be at the equator. How long did it take to get to where it is today? Or, to its next location?

How long does it take the pole to "flip?"

For the pole to flip it did so 5 times in a million years. That was like 75 million years ago and the most active period of time. It may not have ever happened in human existence.

The continents drift about a couple of centimeters a year and I have never heard of meteor strikes causing the poles to flip.

Antarctica should be left alone to the cold.

Humanity needs to wean itself off coal. The UK has done so, and we were the cradle of the industrial revolution.
UK energy consumption and source

Everyone dwarfs China's use of coal. They are a vast polluter .

originally posted by: WUNK22
I’ve got no issues with the climate debate, even though it’s openly debated by the UN as a redistribution of wealth. Why tax it? If the planet is doomed in 12 years, what’s with the taxes??

Why tax it, you say?? Well, it sounds as if you are trying to put a logical and honest explanation to graft, extortion and corruption. The real answer is...because he who dies with the most toys wins!

The Dems could buy a whole lot of Jeffrey Epstein ver 2.0 and private islands to go all pervy on with the billions in tax revenue this will create.

If a pole shift occurs we’re all screwed

As for man made climate change, lol give it a rest it’s natural, perfectly natural

a reply to: dfnj2015

For decades there was a consensus in the medical industry that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food.
Until around 2000 when someone figured out it was actually bacteria that caused 90% of ulcers.
That man won a noble prize for medicine.

The moral of the story is that everyone's right until they're not.
Maybe if the peer review system wasn't such a joke it would be easier to take research papers more seriously.

Don't for one minute think that this opinion means people don't want to reduce pollution on our planet either.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Don’t forget that man was laughed at and ridiculed until he finally infected himself to prove his theory to those entrenched in their beliefs. That being said we have enough coal right here in the states to last us until we find economically feasible alternatives.

a reply to: Metallicus

We should absolutely be looking at alternative energy sources. I dont know anyone that believes otherwise.

But I also think that the methods being pushed are politically motivated garbage.
Carbon taxes and credits...what a load.

There is a big difference in a pole shift, and a magnetic pole shift.
A pole shift would be absolutely catastrophic, so not so clear what everyone is commenting on...
The occurences over the last million years were magnetic pole shifts... messing up pidgeons and dolphin navigation but little else...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bytore

Coal is not the answer.

That wasn't the question. The question was WHY is the coal there? And your graphs are a good example of Group Think. Not only are most of those studies querying people who have no climate science background, of those who are, they dare not express a contrary opinion or risk losing their jobs. What you ought to be doing is wondering why it is not 100%. Somebody is not agreeing. Why? So good job going off topic. But that's expected in your posts.

a reply to: KansasGirl

I am not sure how long it would take for a planet to shift but if you do a torque induced procession experiment on a top mounted on a gimbal, the movement of the poles is instantaneous. Once the force is applied, the shift should occur to a magnitude equal to the force applied.

originally posted by: Bytore
This slow down in rotation would have increased gravity...

How do you figure?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Gravity is currently less at the equator than at the poles due to centrifugal force. The current value for gravity is taken near the 45th parallel. So the correct statement would be, gravity is increased more at the equator and less as you approach the poles, as the speed of rotation decreases.