At http://phys.org/print299760553.html … conclusive evidence of an ice cap in the Arctic Ocean has been foudn – on the continental shelf system of NE Siberia. The ice cap was so thick it gouged out scour marks across what is an undersea plateau situation – but is dated much earlier than the Late Glacial Maximum (29,000-18,000 years ago). Hence, what has been found is evidence of earlier ice formation – possibly many thousands of years prior to the Late Glacial Maximum. Ice Ages are supposed to form on a regular basis every 100,000 years – but it is a peculiarity that the Late Glacial Maximum was largely confined, as far as an ice sheet is concerned, largely to NE North America and the corner of NW Europe. Here we have conclusive evidence of an earlier ice cap – but the problem for mainstream is that it is located in the Arctic Ocean. This is no mean question either, as the ice cap has left evidence that it was touching the bottom of the ocean – which means it was either incredibly thick or the continental shelf at the top of NE Siberia was dry land at the time. In the modern world polar ice caps are located on the land – on Greenland, and Antarctica.
The big problem here is that if the ice cap was in the ocean why doesn't an ice cap grow over the North Pole (rather than sea ice). Secondly, how do they explain the fact that in all likelihood the area was dry land – how can that happen? In consensus theory the global sea level varies with the waxing and waning of the Ice Ages – although not a lot of published research exists on this particular subject. It is a given. As such, it is not investigated on a global scale. It is assumed that lower sea levels in the N Atlantic are mirrored everywhere else on the planet – and virtually nobody questions the assumption. It is a basic of uniformitarian geology. In a catastrophist scenario sea levels will vary – especially if there is movement at the poles, or at the axis of rotation (which does not actually involve a pole shift).
After the Late Glacial Maximum a series of lakes were left behind by the melting ice cap, water filling every depression. The Caspian and Aral Sea could be the remnant of another ice cap, and Lake Baikal of a further ice cap (in another Ice Age). It is considered impossible for the Earth to move at the poles – but this consensus theory was formed in the Victorian era and has hardly been taken out and dusted down in the hundred plus years that have elapsed, a veritable ever green theory that may not be strictly tenable in the light of recent knowledge in the space age.
If the poles are geographically stable none of the Arctic Ocean could have been dry land – and we have a peculiar ice cap. Perhaps continental drift plays a role – in spite of being out of fashion at the moment. An expanding earth might also explain the situation – but it is not particularly obvious how. Therefore, we are in the realms of speculation and we can expect a 'close the drawbridge' response from mainstream. We may note that if the poles had moved it is quite possible the continental shelf system off NE Siberia would have been exposed – just as the Bering Land Bridge was exposed during the Late Glacial Maximum. The idea of sea levels going up and down at 100,000 year periods is a rather quaint idea – long past its sell by date. Some rational thinking is required.