The real cause of current planetary changes?

[lightly]

I think it's interesting that the rate of N. magnetic pole drift has increased by 800% recently. I wonder why Magnetic S. pole isn't also moving at the same rate? .. from what i can gather, It seems to be slowing it's drift ? to nearly stationary? Imbalance precedes a magnetic polarity reversal?

* seemingly obligatory demeaning remark*

Edited February 6, 2012 by lightly

[ChrLzs]

My point is that there are strange things going on around the world, outside the norm

It's a big world. Do you expect no 'strangeness'? Is it possible that the strangeness you think is 'important' is in fact simply stuff you don't get? Or that you are being made a fool of by people like that doomsday earthquake website owner who LIES to you and anyone else gullible enough not to check what he has done?

and as presented in the lecture that I repeatedly cite

So even after you are proven to be wrong, you will continue to use it? What do you think the readers should deduce about your motives from that?

this may be a result of our solar system currently entering a new region of space.

I'll use the same amount of reasoning to give my opinion - this is all due to pink unicorns, led by an evil, greenish coloured elf called George. There is just as much evidence for that, as you have given for your 'new region of space' theory.

I've given a crap load of evidence

Exactly. OK, I would have rearranged the words slightly to clarify (shifting the fourth word two positions to the right..) but yes, you have done exactly that...

from a huge variety of sources

Well, the very first one was blown completely out of the water, and I'm about to demolish number two as well... So you're batting zero, and I suspect *were I to be bothered* to continue, then the final result would be the same. Zero.

And as I said, I'm NOT letting you continue on until each one has been properly looked at - because I'm very familiar with that tactic.. Others may wish to let you throw multiple loads at the fan in the hope something will stick, but I'm not going to waste my time on multiple unsupported one line claims.

So.. let's look at what you seem to think is the next best evidence, now that you have conceded that the earthquake one was WRONG.

You pointed at a Daily Mail (forgive my mirth..) 'report' of the Sun rising earlier than expected in Greenland. Let's just ignore the fact that the Daily Mail is a make-it-up-tabloid for a moment.. Now, what would any real researcher or investigator do?

Well, the first thing would be to READ the title. Did you NOT notice that the title clearly says accelerating climate change is the 'fear'? You do realise that science is already aware that climate change appears to be increasing, and has some perfectly acceptable theories for that?

Then, not surprisingly, one should READ the actual article.. Did you not notice the explanation proffered? Can you point us to the part about entering a new space region of radiation? No? That's because it isn't there, it isn't even hinted at. Did you completely miss all this:

...it is believed the most likely explanation is that it is down to the lower height of melting icecaps allowing the sun's light to penetrate through earlier...

...a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'...

...This theory ... is backed by recent climate studies...

None of that supports your theory in ANY WAY whatsoever.

Then, and this is where you really start to get into trouble, surely you should THINK about the article content.

For instance, IF the Sun was even slightly out of place, don't you think this fact would be noticed elsewhere? Have you ever heard of planetarium software, ephemeris, Goto telescopes?

So how could this effect, IF IT IS EVEN REAL, possibly be anything but a local geographical or optical effect?

So what should a serious genuine researcher / investigator THEN have done? They should have researched it. Let's say the only possible resource you have is Google - then let's Google "sun+rise+early+greenland" to see how much actual evidence of this exists, and whether we can usefully examine that evidence.

I invite readers to do that, and see for yourself - did scientists measure this effect and raise it? NO, it was just some local residents making their own 'observations', reported on a local radio station - quite possibly even a practical joke. These observation were not properly recorded and are not testable/verifiable. Furthermore, as anyone familiar with arctic conditions will know - the sunrises and sunsets at these times from those latitudes simply involve a small sliver of sun appearing and then slowly arcing back down below the horizon. A change in the vantage point or the horizon, or one of several different atmospheric effects (including ice crystals, temperature inversion / refraction through atmospheric layers, etc) could cause/contribute to the effect - and because we have no accurate footage or proper recording of the observation conditions compared to previous years.. it's a complete and utter waste of time.

Now by all means, feel free to:

1. Provide links to the observations and evidence that the Sun actually rose too early in Greenland, from THE SOURCE.

2. Provide your full, properly reasoned explanation on exactly how this lends support to your theory. No handwaving - provide numbers and diagrams and testable logic.

Anyway, failing that, we now have two strikes. I'm willing to offer another chance - but please don't waste our time further - carefully pick out the absolute, very best evidence you have (just ONE SINGLE CLAIM), and then let's look at it in detail - you lay it all out for us, from start to finish. That would be the observation, the evidence / provenance for that observation, and then the logical explanation of how the observation is evidence for your theory.

Take your time in making your choice as to which one is the best, the smokin' gun.. but I do hope for your sake you pick something better than the earthquakes and early sunrise.

And may I say you are getting off lightly. The next step if this were a proper investigation would be things like testability, repeatability, falsifiability...

Anyway, at the moment, your hypothesis (it most certainly doesn't qualify as a valid competing theory) is about level with my elf-led pink unicorns, I reckon. I suspect if we took a poll, I know who would win...

Edited February 6, 2012 by Chrlzs

[Von Bismarck]

Thank you BFB for that info, I was going from distant memory. It is overdue anyway. and got it a few years out.

By the way,,,,,Tomorrow's the day. I have already turned my compass round in readiness

HAHA its allways good to be prepared. Your prediction would nearly be as accurate as any geologists prediction, so I'll also turn my co*mpass, just in case.

Now by all means, feel free to:

1. Provide links to the observations and evidence that the Sun actually rose too early in Greenland, from THE SOURCE.

´

Chrlzs you are absolutely right. Before you can start making claims that the sun rose two days earlier in Greenland, we will need a little more than a daily mail and the sun article.

But lets say it actually did do whats claimed.

I would bet the best explanation would be an atmospheric illusion.

In the last couple of years we have seen an unsual big concentration of methane in the atmosphere near the north pole. This could be the cause.

Methane has the ability to bend light in our atmosphere. The sun would be very low on the horizon in Ilulissat at this time of year(the claimed date), this would give the reflection hypothesis(atmospheric illusion) a really good stand.

My two guesses would be.

1. Its BS

Or

2. An atmospheric illusion.

* - edit

Edited February 6, 2012 by BFB

[Englishgent]

My vote is with George, the pink elf

edit. by the way Chrizs, you said what I said but somehow your's came across much better lol

Edited February 6, 2012 by Englishgent

[ChrLzs]

My vote is with George, the pink elf

Englishgent, Thanks!... but he's greenish - the unicorns are pink. You really need to research this stuff better..

Edited February 6, 2012 by Chrlzs

[Englishgent]

Englishgent, Thanks!... but he's greenish - the unicorns are pink. You really need to research this stuff better..

No Chrizs, the pink elf is leader of the opposition party and he has a greenish pet unicorn

[Gabriel Traveler]

Chrizs, first of all, yes I did read the headline, and the content of the Greenland story, as evidenced by this statement of mine from above:

"The official explanation is that this was caused by the melting of polar ice caps. Huh?! Okay, let's give that to them and say it's true. Something very strange is indeed going on then, when the sun rises earlier because of that much ice melting. That is incredibly alarming even if you buy the official explanation. But the explanation seems pretty fishy to me. Either way, I would call that evidence of something strange afoot."

And also this one:

"And what's your take on the Greenland article, now that (hopefully) you've seen the link and can read it for yourself? Is it a result of global warming as stated? If so, isn't the melting of the ice caps that rapidly an incredibly alarming development that threatens the future of the planet? In other words....things aren't perfectly normal around here? (Which is my point.)"

But hey, I'm not going to hold it against you for doing a bit of skimming over the comments!

Now I agree, ultimately yes, it would be ideal to be able to do a thorough investigation in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this story is indeed accurate. I hope you can understand that, being in Hawaii, it's a tad inconvenient to fly to Greenland, in the middle of winter, in order to track down and speak to these individuals in person. Joking around, but hopefully you get the point...I don't have nearly the time to chase down every story I come across and verify with 99% certainty that it is legitimate, either in person or even on the internet.

But guess what, some people DO have ample time for such research, and then they compile their research and make a presentation out of it....such as SUSAN RENNISON. Remember, the point of my little video wasn't to play simultaneous astrophysics/astronomy/geologist/snowy owl/solar flares, etc. expert; but to sum up in a few minutes a 3-hour lecture given by Susan Rennison that I personally found incredibly fascinating.

Most people don't have 3 hours to sit down and watch a lecture on such subjects, but would still be interested to hear some of the basic points. So in the video I read off a number of direct quotes from her lecture, and then provide the link for those who want to watch the entire thing. Here's the link to her full lecture. Perhaps you will find it laughable, based on your views so far. But who knows, maybe you'll also find a tidbit or two that's thought-provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rLNl6VDM0

Now, touching on a couple of your other points...

In response to this statement of mine...

"and as presented in the lecture that I repeatedly cite"

You say:

"So even after you are proven to be wrong, you will continue to use it? What do you think the readers should deduce about your motives from that?"

Proven wrong? Are you kidding? Uh, no. This is a huge topic spanning multiple disciplines. You've addressed two or three of a couple dozen things I've put forward. And I'm not sure what you even mean in reference to the lecture I'm citing there, which is the one by Susan Rennison. I'm assuming you haven't watched it because you haven't mentioned anything specific from it. So yes, of course I will still "use" her lecture, if using it means mentioning it as worth taking a look at and discussing.

Regarding the snowy owls, you say:

"What you have quoted is all natural. Snowy owls migrating in large numbers?. Yes, birds tend to do this and they do it for a reason. The times of migrations have changed throughout history. Nothing unsual about it."

So, are you an expert on snowy owls perchance? I'm going to guess not, since you didn't back up your statement by saying so. But funny thing, a leading owl researcher DID comment on this phenomenon, IN THE STORY THAT I PROVIDED THE LINK TO:

Again, here's the link...

http://news.yahoo.com/snowy-owls-soar-south-arctic-rare-mass-migration-175336821.html

And here's what this expert on the subject had to say about it:

""What we're seeing now -- it's unbelievable," said Denver Holt, head of the Owl Research Institute in Montana."

Hmmmm, you say it's all perfectly normal. Whereas an expert on owls says it's "unbelievable". Don't take it personally, but after some serious consideration....I've decided to go with the owl expert on this one!

Add to this the phenomenon in the past year or two of thousands of birds falling out of the sky simultaneously. I'm not going to provide much on that simply because there are way too many to chase down. And no, I don't have a handy chart that shows the precise numbers of birds falling by the thousands out of the sky all at the same time to compare one year or decade to another one. But I think it's apparent to anyone who watches the news that this is quite the UNEXPLAINED MYSTERY (where have I seen that phrase before?) that kind of makes you go, "Hmmmmmm?" Forgive me for not believing the official story put forward by some that this is a result of fireworks on New Year's Eve.

Here's just one link, from the Los Angeles Times:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/01/thousands-of-dead-birds-falling-from-the-sky-.html

And the first line:

"Scientists still don’t know what’s causing flocks of birds to drop from the sky in the South, even as several hundred more fell dead onto a Louisiana highway."

This hasn't just been happening in the U.S., and not just to birds. Does this in itself prove something is out of whack? No, it doesn't prove it. Does it make a questioning person wonder..."what the heck is going on"? Well, combined with story after story across multiple spectra that seem rather out of the ordinary, yes, it cause me to wonder if indeed there's something strange going on on a worldwide scale. And the point of my video is to say, "CHECK IT OUT FOLKS: HERE'S SOMEONE WITH A POSSIBLE ANSWER."

And here you say:

"The magnetic pole has shifted many times during the earth's history and it is no surprise that there is a slight shift now. it is about 10,000 years overdue anyway."

Is it warranted to call this "misleading the forum"? A slight shift? In what scientific discipline, or anything else for that matter, is an 800% INCREASE considered a "slight shift"? If I experienced an 800% increase in my bank account, I doubt that I would be referring to it as a slight shift in my savings.

For anyone who is genuinely interested in this lecture by Susan Rennison, it covers a massive range of topics, and challenges the conventional views on a lot of things, but in a fairly well-balanced and reasoned way, imho. Again, here's the link to her lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rLNl6VDM0

[Gabriel Traveler]

And as to the Greenland article (if it's true) and the possibility it's not a result of a lower horizon due to melting polar ice caps (which has simply been put forward as a theory, by no means proven)...but instead could be the result of the Earth itself having shifted slightly. I'm not about to believe that without some far more substantial evidence, for precisely some of the reasons you mentioned.

However, the Greenland story isn't the only thing that raises some eyebrows. Apparently (and I haven't seen it) there is a documentary that explores this based on the observations of Inuit peoples, who still rely on the positions of the sun and stars, and who assert that in fact something is out of alignment based on their observations. Here's one video of an Inuit man asserting this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l5U1FTP-D1E#!

In an article that features that video, there's also referenced a study by Cornell University asserting that the moon is out of alignment:

http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2011/08/08/inuit-people-on-sun-wrong-stars-wrong-earth-tilting-on-axis/

“On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon. The present-day models of the dissipative phenomena occurring in the interiors of both the Earth and the Moon are not able to explain it. A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yrs, revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit."

And here's a link to the study itself:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

Now, I'm not going to claim to know what hardly any of this means. But the general idea is apparent, that this researcher has apparently concluded that there's an eccentricity in the moon's orbit:

On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon

"A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit amounting to de/dt_meas = (9 +/- 3) 10^-12 yr^-1. The present-day models of the dissipative phenomena occurring in the interiors of both the Earth and the Moon are not able to explain it. We examine several dynamical effects, not modeled in the data analysis, in the framework of long-range modified models of gravity and of the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm. It turns out that none of them can accommodate de/dt_meas. Many of them do not even induce long-term changes in e; other models do, instead, yield such an effect, but the resulting magnitudes are in disagreement with de/dt_meas. In particular, the general relativistic gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth's angular momentum has the right order of magnitude, but the resulting Lense-Thirring secular effect for the eccentricity vanishes. A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually, would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation. On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain the right order of magnitude for de/dt are completely unrealistic. Moreover, they are in neat disagreement with both the most recent theoretical scenarios envisaging the existence of a distant, planetary-sized body and with the model-independent constraints on them dynamically inferred from planetary motions. Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open."

Now, does the above bit of evidence not cause you to ponder, at the very least, whether there is some remote possibility of such an anomaly, that's at least worth looking further into?

Although I would love to be able to say "I trust my government wholly and know they would never lie to me", I don't feel that way in the slightest. So it isn't much of a stretch, for me anyway, to imagine that if indeed there was something strange going on, even if they knew about it, NASA or the USGS or some other agency wouldn't announce a news conference to let everyone know, "Hey folks, just so you know, the moon's out of whack."

Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but there are just too many experts in too many different fields saying lately that this or that or the other is "unbelievable" or "highly unusual" or "anomalous" "or "unexplained", etc. Yes, it's a big world and there's always something weird going on somewhere. But there's too much strangeness going on, on too big of a scale for me at least to not question further as to the possibility that there might be something bigger taking place.

In response to my statement:

"this may be a result of our solar system currently entering a new region of space."

You say:

"I'll use the same amount of reasoning to give my opinion - this is all due to pink unicorns, led by an evil, greenish coloured elf called George. There is just as much evidence for that, as you have given for your 'new region of space' theory."

Now, why discount this theory about a "new region of space" possibly affecting our solar system, when it sounds as if this is the first time you've ever heard of the concept? Not very scientific to discount a theory you haven't even really glanced at yet. The stuff we have been talking about here IS NOT my evidence for the theory that we are entering a new region of space. In the first part of the video, I'm simply putting forward some of the strange things going on around the world (which again, is just a very brief synopsis of Susan Rennison's lecture). That's what we've been discussing here.

As mentioned above, in the second part of the video I provide some direct quotes from Susan Rennison's lecture that are on the topic of the new region of space. Now, I'm not going to urge anyone to watch my video, that's not the point. The point is Susan Rennison's much more informative and researched lecture, linked to above. If anyone finds the time to check it out, I'd be curious to hear anyone's take on it....not just picking it apart for providing some outlandish theories, but addressing the actual evidence she presents.

[ChrLzs]

Thanks for making things eminently clear, Gabriel. You believe anecdotes equal information. That quantity is important, quality is not. You admit that you have insufficient time to research, and prove that and your inability to tell truth from fantasy by the fact that the VERY FIRST TWO of your claims are either completely fabricated, or completely irrelevant to your claims.

You can throw up as much word salad as you like, and spam more sites and name other people who haven't got a clue (but do have a doomsday/wacko website), but when it comes to actually debating a topic, you haven't got the first clue.

It is also notable, and damning, that while you grudgingly conceded that the earthquake claim was a complete scam, you didn't go near apologising for pushing this garbage onto this forum. Remember, that was your FIRST topic. Not a good start.

So, your agenda is clear, and I'm not wasting further time here, particularly when you completely side stepped and ignored (for VERY obvious reasons) my invitation to you to put forward a PROPERLY RESEARCHED claim. In other words to give it your best shot, instead of this continual throwing of more and more ill-researched, groundless drivel.

BUT (and I can't be fairer than this ), I'll keep an eye on this thread.. Let me assure you that if ANYONE ELSE is taken in by this claptrap, I will return and point out the endless flaws in what you are peddling. Judging by the sparse but mostly negative response you have attracted to date (congrat's - well deserved) I may not have much work to do...

Bye.

BTW, you never actually answered the question directly - why did you call yourself 'Gabriel', if you are not the owner of the first video you spammed?

[Gabriel Traveler]

Oy ve, where to begin. First, yes I'm pretty sure I did address this question previously:

"BTW, you never actually answered the question directly - why did you call yourself 'Gabriel', if you are not the owner of the first video you spammed?"

For the record, yes, I am Gabriel, the guy in the red shirt in the video. In my video, I am summarizing in a few minutes the 3-hour lecture given by Susan Rennison. I give her ample credit and link to both her full lecture, and her website in the notes below my video on the You Tube page.

"You believe anecdotes equal information."

Yes, I believe that the first-hand testimony of Inuit peoples who have been hunting by the positions of the sun and stars their entire lives, who are saying they have shifted, IS WORTH CONSIDERING, along with other evidence. The vast majority of humanity is completely clueless on the stars, whereas these are people who live their lives by them. Their observations are worth taking into consideration and looking further into. And because of their position in the extreme north, slight changes may be noticeable to them that others wouldn't detect. And call me crazy if you wish, but I don't believe that, if NASA and other government agencies knew something had shifted, they would be announcing it to the world.

Your statement:

"It is also notable, and damning, that while you grudgingly conceded that the earthquake claim was a complete scam, you didn't go near apologising for pushing this garbage onto this forum. Remember, that was your FIRST topic. Not a good start."

I backed off the earthquake issue because the point that an increased number of seismographs would skew results is a very valid point that throws a major curveball into the argument. I conceded that one of my sources wasn't a good one. There are other sources that assert that there has been an overall increase in earthquake activity, such as in this graph:

http://epik.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/earthquakes-count-6-or-higher.gif

Now, whether or not that graph is accurate ties into your other statement here:

"You completely side stepped and ignored (for VERY obvious reasons) my invitation to you to put forward a PROPERLY RESEARCHED claim. In other words to give it your best shot, instead of this continual throwing of more and more ill-researched, groundless drivel."

Let me remind you that this website is called "Unexplained Mysteries". I'm in the right place. I don't need to provide a thoroughly researched presentation for every point I make. Why? Freaking think about it dude. A proper, thoroughly researched investigation of earthquake activity over the past several decades would requires weeks or months or even years of investigation. And that's just one issue I've brought up here of dozens. I already acknowledged the problems with using that as evidence and dropped it for those reasons. You're still focusing entirely on that, while ignoring everything else I've mentioned.

And in the hypocrisy department, you didn't acknowledge in the slightest your own bogus assertions that snowy owls migrating south was "normal", in contrast to an owl expert referring to it as "unbelievable"; or your misleading statement that an 800% increase in the movement of magnetic north was a "slight shift".

So, allow me to sum up the evidence I've presented so far.

1. Increased earthquake activity. I'll give you a "win" on this one because I didn't provide ample evidence.

2. The sun rising 2 days early in Greenland: I'll call this one a "draw", because though you questioned the source, yet didn't provide any evidence that it was untrue, I also should have provided further evidence on such a big claim.

3. Snowy owls migrating southwards. I'm going to call this one as a clear "win" for myself, so far at least. You asserted, with absolutely no evidence or authority, that this was perfectly normal, in contrast to an owl expert's statement that it's "unbelievable". When bird migrations are in the "unbelievable" category, I would say that supports, if in a small way, my hypothesis that something out of the ordinary is going on on a worldwide scale.

4. An 800% increase in the movement of magnetic north. I am going to also call this one as a clear win for myself, as it's so far been discussed (which is not very much). You simply dismissed it as being a "slight shift". Not good enough. That is not a slight shift. That is a massive shift, which supports my theory that there's something strange going on worldwide.

So for whatever it's worth, that leaves a score so far of 2-1-1, with myself slightly ahead.

Now here is some of the other evidence I've presented, that hasn't been properly addressed yet:

*A presentation concluding that there has been a steady increase in solar storms over the past 139 years:

http://www.nas.org.au/pdf/Are%20Magnetic%20Storms%20Getting%20Stronger.pdf

*A Cornell University study concluding there's an anomaly in the moon's orbit:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

*The issue of thousands of birds dropping out of the sky simultaneously in multiple locations around the world:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/01/thousands-of-dead-birds-falling-from-the-sky-.html

*But it isn't only fish, here's a story about thousands of herring washing ashore in Norway:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/dead-herring-in-norway_n_1181005.html

There has been story after story along these lines, in particular over the past year or so. Is this PROOF that I'm right that something strange is going on worldwide? No. Is it an UNEXPLAINED MYSTERY that is worth discussing, and could be considered as further evidence that something may be out of whack with the planet? In my opinion, yes. And if anything it makes perfect sense that animals would be getting thrown off track and getting disoriented, given the extreme (not slight) changes in the Earth's magnetic field over recent years.

*And then there's the issue of a greater number of comets in recent years. One link I provided refers to the 25 comets that impacted the sun in one 10-day period in December of 2010:

http://www.space.com/10642-sundiving-comet-storm.html

Now, does that one instance in itself prove anything? No. But there certainly does seem to have been a lot more comets and asteroids over the past year or so based on the number of news reports I've come across, which I haven't had the time to track down further. (I do have a job and other stuff to do.) If I find further information on that topic then I'll include it.

And have I thoroughly researched all of these other issues in-depth? No, of course not. Do I need to do so, in order to present them here for discussion? NO, OF COURSE NOT. That's a ludicrous expectation. That would require years of study. This is a DISCUSSION FORUM about UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES. I've presented a number of unexplained mysteries, as well as a possible cause: our solar system may be entering a new region of space that consists of highly charged particles that are impacting and affecting our planet worldwide, as well as the sun and the rest of the solar system. This issue is discussed in-depth by Susan Rennison in her lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rLNl6VDM0

And here's yet one more piece of evidence that something big is shifting aorund the globe:

*The USDA issues a new map of growing regions, providing further evidence that Earth's climate is changing:

So, explain to me again how it is that I'm out of line for bringing this up on a discussion forum, where people are expected to talk about UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES around the world and beyond?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Gabriel Traveler

[Englishgent]

Hi gabriel.

You say to Chrizs (quote)

''So for whatever it's worth, that leaves a score so far of 2-1-1, with myself slightly ahead.''

Sorry old bean, but if you want to start totting up points with chrisz you will have to call it a draw. (assuming you are right on your sunrise point, which I doubt very much)

You see, it wasn't chrisz who stated those things. It was me and I would hate to see the meticulous Chrisz getting the blame for any error I may make

By the way, check out other migrating bird species and see if their migration pattern has changed. You may well find that it has, Birds are not stupid (snowy owls included) and they will migrate when they feel it is the right thing to do depending on current weather conditions, food suppy etc. Migration patterns are normally fairly consistent but as you know, the weather is not and sometimes the birds will migrate earlier or later than the norm. I have experienced this in the past in the UK with birds that only come to the UK in the spring, come over earlier because of a partiuclarly mild winter. OR dont come until much later if the winter has been severe. Like I said, nothing unusual about it.

As for the shifting pole. yes, 800% sounds a lot, but 800% of a small original amount is not very big. Nobody else appears too concerned about this other than you and one or two other scaremongerers.

[Gabriel Traveler]

"Sorry old bean, but if you want to start totting up points with chrisz you will have to call it a draw. (assuming you are right on your sunrise point, which I doubt very much)

You see, it wasn't chrisz who stated those things. It was me and I would hate to see the meticulous Chrisz getting the blame for any error I may make "

Thanks for the important clarification! Lol. Silly to come up with a score I realize. My point simply being that I'd take issue with Chrizs repeated assertions that he's proven everything I've mentioned as wrong.

"By the way, check out other migrating bird species and see if their migration pattern has changed. You may well find that it has, Birds are not stupid (snowy owls included) and they will migrate when they feel it is the right thing to do depending on current weather conditions, food suppy etc. Migration patterns are normally fairly consistent but as you know, the weather is not and sometimes the birds will migrate earlier or later than the norm. I have experienced this in the past in the UK with birds that only come to the UK in the spring, come over earlier because of a partiuclarly mild winter. OR dont come until much later if the winter has been severe. Like I said, nothing unusual about it."

I think I'll stick with the owl experts who have referred to this as "unbelievable" and "the most significant wildlife event in decades".

"As for the shifting pole. yes, 800% sounds a lot, but 800% of a small original amount is not very big. Nobody else appears too concerned about this other than you and one or two other scaremongerers. "

I think it's safe to say that very few people are aware of this, but if it was more widely known, a lot of those people probably would be rather concerned. But I know for a fact that at least SOME people are concerned about the shifting magnetic field, such as officials at Tampa international airport:

Magnetic North Pole Switch Has Airport Scrambling...

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132743598/switch-in-magnetic-north-pole-has-airport-scrambling

And I'm going to take a wild guess that other officials around the world are observing and wondering about the sudden shift and may even have some trepidation about where it's going to go next, considering that airports and various other things are affected by it.

If you want to call it "scaremongering" for me to point out stories such as these, go ahead. I would call it observing what's happening in the world.

[Englishgent]

"Sorry old bean, but if you want to start totting up points with chrisz you will have to call it a draw. (assuming you are right on your sunrise point, which I doubt very much)

You see, it wasn't chrisz who stated those things. It was me and I would hate to see the meticulous Chrisz getting the blame for any error I may make "

Thanks for the important clarification! Lol. Silly to come up with a score I realize. My point simply being that I'd take issue with Chrizs repeated assertions that he's proven everything I've mentioned as wrong.

"By the way, check out other migrating bird species and see if their migration pattern has changed. You may well find that it has, Birds are not stupid (snowy owls included) and they will migrate when they feel it is the right thing to do depending on current weather conditions, food suppy etc. Migration patterns are normally fairly consistent but as you know, the weather is not and sometimes the birds will migrate earlier or later than the norm. I have experienced this in the past in the UK with birds that only come to the UK in the spring, come over earlier because of a partiuclarly mild winter. OR dont come until much later if the winter has been severe. Like I said, nothing unusual about it."

I think I'll stick with the owl experts who have referred to this as "unbelievable" and "the most significant wildlife event in decades".

"As for the shifting pole. yes, 800% sounds a lot, but 800% of a small original amount is not very big. Nobody else appears too concerned about this other than you and one or two other scaremongerers. "

I think it's safe to say that very few people are aware of this, but if it was more widely known, a lot of those people probably would be rather concerned. But I know for a fact that at least SOME people are concerned about the shifting magnetic field, such as officials at Tampa international airport:

Magnetic North Pole Switch Has Airport Scrambling...

http://www.npr.org/2...port-scrambling

And I'm going to take a wild guess that other officials around the world are observing and wondering about the sudden shift and may even have some trepidation about where it's going to go next, considering that airports and various other things are affected by it.

If you want to call it "scaremongering" for me to point out stories such as these, go ahead. I would call it observing what's happening in the world.

A magnetic pole shift does not happen overnight. But like I said in an earlier post of mine. My compass has been turned round just in case

[Englishgent]

Apologies in advance for the long text but I thought peeps would like to see the evidence regarding the Snowy Owl.

From this link http://www.shawcreek...wy_owl_info.htm

One long-prevalent hypothesis for Snowy Owl irruptions is that they follow cyclic population crashes of their main prey, lemmings, across the North American tundra every four years. Recent evidence suggests that the picture is more complex, and that lemming population dynamics are quite variable across the continent. Snowy Owls may therefore irrupt from some portions of their breeding grounds, but not from others, in any given year. Temperature and snowfall levels may also play a role in Snowy Owl migration.

And from this link, which may be the same as OP's link

http://www.reuters.c...E80R0MP20120128

Bird enthusiasts are reporting rising numbers of snowy owls from the Arctic winging into the lower 48 states this winter in a mass southern migration that a leading owl researcher called "unbelievable."

Thousands of the snow-white birds, which stand 2 feet tall with 5-foot wingspans, have been spotted from coast to coast, feeding in farmlands in Idaho, roosting on rooftops in Montana, gliding over golf courses in Missouri and soaring over shorelines in Massachusetts.

A certain number of the iconic owls fly south from their Arctic breeding grounds each winter but rarely do so many venture so far away even amid large-scale, periodic southern migrations known as irruptions.

"What we're seeing now -- it's unbelievable," said Denver Holt, head of the Owl Research Institute in Montana.

"This is the most significant wildlife event in decades," added Holt, who has studied snowy owls in their Arctic tundra ecosystem for two decades.

Holt and other owl experts say the phenomenon is likely linked to lemmings, a rodent that accounts for 90 percent of the diet of snowy owls during breeding months that stretch from May into September. The largely nocturnal birds also prey on a host of other animals, from voles to geese.

An especially plentiful supply of lemmings last season likely led to a population boom among owls that resulted in each breeding pair hatching as many as seven offspring. That compares to a typical clutch size of no more than two, Holt said.

Greater competition this year for food in the Far North by the booming bird population may have then driven mostly younger, male owls much farther south than normal.

Research on the animals is scarce because of the remoteness and extreme conditions of the terrain the owls occupy, including northern Russia and Scandinavia, he said.

The surge in snowy owl sightings has brought birders flocking from Texas, Arizona and Utah to the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest, pouring tourist dollars into local economies and crowding parks and wildlife areas. The irruption has triggered widespread public fascination that appears to span ages and interests.

"For the last couple months, every other visitor asks if we've seen a snowy owl today," said Frances Tanaka, a volunteer for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge northeast of Olympia, Washington.

But accounts of emaciated owls at some sites -- including a food-starved bird that dropped dead in a farmer's field in Wisconsin -- suggest the migration has a darker side. And Holt said an owl that landed at an airport in Hawaii in November was shot and killed to avoid collisions with planes.

He said snowy owl populations are believed to be in an overall decline, possibly because a changing climate has lessened the abundance of vegetation like grasses that lemmings rely on.

This winter's snowy owl outbreak, with multiple sightings as far south as Oklahoma, remains largely a mystery of nature.

"There's a lot of speculation. As far as hard evidence, we really don't know," Holt said.

So, basically what do we have here. One expert saying this is ''Unbelieveable'' Ok, so he has not seen such a migration in all the years he has been studying the birds so it is a word which he is allowed to use because he has never witnessed it before. It does not mean it has never happened before.. Some people have taken this to mean that this NEVER happens therefore something must be afoot globally.. There is a genuine and plausible explanation for the larger than usual migration. As I explained in my earlier post, migrations vary depending on food availability and weather conditions. The experts above seem to agree on this point. In fact they have given third reason, this being that last years food supply was plentiful, thus giving rise to a larger then average owl population. When this happens, of course there will be a large rise in migration numbers. Because there are more birds!

edit to add. I think this is a classic case of the OP taking the word ''Unbelievable'' totally out of context

edit removed some text as it appeared twice

Edited February 8, 2012 by Englishgent

[ChrLzs]

Readers will note that 'Gabriel' earlier completely ignored (or perhaps completely misunderstood) my request for him to identify himself when I asked him to clarify if the op video was his work. I asked the question after he said this:

... bringing attention to someone else's lecture that I found fascinating, and information-packed.

My question, which was unanswered until this latest admission, was:

If you are not 'Gabriel', why did you use that name? It seems extremely misleading at best...

He did not answer at the time.. But it now seems (using the same level of reading comprehension demonstrated in all his posts) that Gabriel thought I was asking about someone he referred to, IN his video. This, despite me saying very clearly I did NOT watch the video. Sigh. Let me put this concept very simply:

Why did 'Gabriel' not make it clear in his first post that this was his video?

And given it IS his video why was he unable to post at least SOME references and links to back up his claim in his post, rather than expect people here to watch his video (and give him more hits, conveniently..)? I'll tell you in one word - spam. And the fact that he doesn't seem to understand what a FORUM is.

Along with the misattribution noted by Englishgent, where Gabriel managed to quote his comments as coming from me (anyone spotting a pattern here?), that sort of thing is why I won't be debating Gabriel further.

However, I did see that 'Lightly' was interested by the claim about the north magnetic pole allegedly goin' crazy..

So, Lightly, here's some links on the topic, from *mainstream* science, inc. the obligatory wiki:

Wiki- Geomagnetic Reversals

An old NASA page (but well worth reading)

Fox News (yup!!)

I don't normally quote Fox.. but thought I'd chuck that last one in for a chuckle - remember, this is from Fox News, known for never inflating figures for a good story. {cough} So you'd think the claimed '800%' would come up, but.. er no, not exactly.. Fox uses the figure of ... 36% in 10 years ... And they even say "...scientists reassure the general public that the average individual will most likely not be affected at all by the shift in the magnetic field..."

So, to summarise the current mainstream wisdom on the topic..

Earth's magnetic field is very weak, and interdependent on many factors, many of which are not yet fully understood or measurable. It is relatively unstable and even subject to complete reversals, but what triggers those reversals, just like what pushes the 'wandering', is not certain. Making wild guesses based on nothing whatsoever is a pretty useless pastime, generally shunned (with very good reason) by the people who actually study the topic IN DEPTH.

And yes, with changes in the magnetic field, some species especially sensitive to that field may have to adjust, or they may even get temporarily lost. But a changing magnetic field is in no way the only reason for such behavior, and besides.. life finds a way.. Pole reversals have happened MANY, MANY times in the earth's past. And if you are trying to explain animal behavior and attribute it to an effect, you are expected to have more evidence than a vague report on snowy owls...

Anyway, as for the '800%', this is the usual doosmdayer's three card trick. Think about it - at times the north magnetic pole has been virtually stationary. At other times it wanders off at tens or even hundreds of kilometres a year. (It's worth noting that in a single DAY, the pole can loop and wobble around in an area over 70km across! - so it has to be averaged.)

Now let's compare that motion to your car - at the moment it is probably moving at far less than one kph - let's be generous and say it is currently going at ~1 kph and has been for several hours... Tomorrow morning, perhaps, as you turn into your local street, maybe it will be moving at say ~16 kph before accelerating further. OmiGawd, that's a 1600% increase already!!!!

See what I did there? If not, think about it for a while - the point is that it's easy to make a percentage change sound really important, especially if you can cherry pick a starting value that is low. By selectively and carefully (cherry)picking BOTH the length of time, and also the dates you use, you can manipulate the data and get pretty much any percentage you want - politicians do this stuff all the time.

Real scientists and real investigators DON'T.

And I'm afraid that no matter HOW much you wish to push your pet theory, you have to actually provide a logical, evidence- based, testable and falsifiable theory if you wish to be taken seriously.

This fantasy about moving into a new region of space is based on nothing but handwaving and the citing of doomsday sites as if they are run by people with a clue... Given the completely (and deliberately) vague way it is presented and the deliberate use of so many items that one tends to be overwhelmed (or in my case simply not bothered) by them all, it's essentially irrefutable - and thereby completely and utterly worthless. It's just like my green elf and his band of merry unicorns. Fantasy.

Science doesn't work like that. Which is why the computer you are typing on exists, and (mostly) works... And why you should shy away from people who post misleading, groundless claims.

Anyway, Lightly, if you still have concerns, please post again and I'll be a lot more thorough - you know, numbers that are actually REAL and verifiable, logic, evidence, discussion of what we do, and DON'T know - stuff like that..

PS - nice work, Englishgent! I'm glad I have become better educated about snowy owls and how they are not, apparently, affected by magnetic fields - so the thread is not a total loss.

Added PPS - BTW guys, it's chrLzs, pronounced 'charles'.. geddit?

Edited February 8, 2012 by Chrlzs

[Englishgent]

Goddit Charles

[lightly]

However, I did see that 'Lightly' was interested by the claim about the north magnetic pole allegedly goin' crazy..

*snip*

Anyway, Lightly, if you still have concerns, please post again and I'll be a lot more thorough - you know, numbers that are actually REAL and verifiable, logic, evidence, discussion of what we do, and DON'T know - stuff like that..

Thanks for the info Chrlzs. 36% increase in the rate of drift lately? OK.

However, the statement below taken from Jeffrey Love, USGS advisor for geomagnetic research, and reported by Fox 'news' , seems to miss the mark by around 770,000 years? ... Since the last reversal happened about 780,000 years ago?

“Reversals -- which is the changing of the polarity of the magnetic field -- that typically takes about 10,000 years to happen,” Love told FoxNews.com.

Did i say i was concerned? No, I said i was interested.

[ChrLzs]

Thanks for the info Chrlzs. 36% increase in the rate of drift lately? OK.

However, the statement below taken from Jeffrey Love, USGS advisor for geomagnetic research, and reported by Fox 'news' , seems to miss the mark by around 770,000 years? ... Since the last reversal happened about 780,000 years ago?

“Reversals -- which is the changing of the polarity of the magnetic field -- that typically takes about 10,000 years to happen,” Love told FoxNews.com.

Hi, lightly.

No, he didn't miss the mark. You really do need to read the Wiki I linked to, which is a pretty good coverage to understand there are two different time spans being discussed. In the first paragraph here you will read that the period between (the mid-points of) the time at which the magnetic field is oriented one way (eg N-S), and then has completely reversed (eg S-N) is variable is generally between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years according to the various 'clues' we have. That's the range into which the LAST complete reversal fits - there is a span of 780,000 years between the middle of the S-N phase to the middle of the next N-S phase. Those periods are referred to as 'chrons'.

But the orientation tends to settle down for quite a long period before the next actual reversal process itself begins, and it is that reversal process, ie the period over which the magnetic pole begins the traverse to the opposite end of the globe, that takes between 1,000 and 10,000 years.

So there's no contradiction - Mr Love is just talking about the reversal process, not the time spans between the mid-points of complete reversals.

Hope that helps.

[lightly]

Hi, lightly.

No, he didn't miss the mark. You really do need to read the Wiki I linked to, which is a pretty good coverage to understand there are two different time spans being discussed. In the first paragraph here you will read that the period between (the mid-points of) the time at which the magnetic field is oriented one way (eg N-S), and then has completely reversed (eg S-N) is variable is generally between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years according to the various 'clues' we have. That's the range into which the LAST complete reversal fits - there is a span of 780,000 years between the middle of the S-N phase to the middle of the next N-S phase. Those periods are referred to as 'chrons'.

But the orientation tends to settle down for quite a long period before the next actual reversal process itself begins, and it is that reversal process, ie the period over which the magnetic pole begins the traverse to the opposite end of the globe, that takes between 1,000 and 10,000 years.

So there's no contradiction - Mr Love is just talking about the reversal process, not the time spans between the mid-points of complete reversals.

Hope that helps.

Yes, Thank You, ( i did skip the wiki link.)

Edited February 9, 2012 by lightly

[jules99]

Yes, Thank You, ( i did skip the wiki link.)

Hi Lightly;

We know the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years or so in line with a solar cycle that might be influenced by the larger gas giants like jupiter.

So although the jupiter/sun link is tenuous or at best still being determined, I wonder what if any astronomic influences would impact the reversal of earths magnetic field?

Furthermore the suns field reversal is accompanied by a period of increased activity, such as solar flares etc, I wonder what the earthly equivalent will be?

cheers

[lightly]

Hi Lightly;

We know the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years or so in line with a solar cycle that might be influenced by the larger gas giants like jupiter.

So although the jupiter/sun link is tenuous or at best still being determined, I wonder what if any astronomic influences would impact the reversal of earths magnetic field?

Furthermore the suns field reversal is accompanied by a period of increased activity, such as solar flares etc, I wonder what the earthly equivalent will be?

cheers

Hi Jules, Interesting ... (i didn't see your post until now) i thought the actual flip in polarity happened quickly, But, apparently not? I thought the Geomagnetic record was a record of N-S reversals ... with no easts or wests recorded... ?¿? ... crustal folding and whatnot must complicate reading the record?

[jules99]

Hi Jules, Interesting ... (i didn't see your post until now) i thought the actual flip in polarity happened quickly, But, apparently not? I thought the Geomagnetic record was a record of N-S reversals ... with no easts or wests recorded... ?¿? ... crustal folding and whatnot must complicate reading the record?

Hi Lightly;

From wiki;

"However, studies of lava flows on Steens Mountain, Oregon, indicate that the magnetic field could have shifted at a rate of up to 6 degrees per day" So you were right it can change quickly..

I thought the direction of rotation of the earth means poles are Nth Sth too but then I read that the field is generated by the movement of the liquid outer core around the solid metallic inner core which I suppose could be independent of the earths rotation, as in generated by convection or tidal forces, so Im snookered here. Logic would suggest the molten core flowing in the direction of the planets spin, with rotational eccentricity givin it a sloosh around ..but planet Jules sometimes isnt a logical place..

I cant understand how the magnetic field can flip without a change in the direction of flow generating it...

[Von Bismarck]

I thought the direction of rotation of the earth means poles are Nth Sth too but then I read that the field is generated by the movement of the liquid outer core around the solid metallic inner core which I suppose could be independent of the earths rotation, as in generated by convection or tidal forces, so Im snookered here. Logic would suggest the molten core flowing in the direction of the planets spin, with rotational eccentricity givin it a sloosh around ..but planet Jules sometimes isnt a logical place..

I cant understand how the magnetic field can flip without a change in the direction of flow generating it...

Jules, you are completly forgetting about the inner core (BTW The inner core has the same rotation as Earth)

The outer core is always trying to reverse the field, but inner core prevent magnetic reversals. The field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion.

Basically its really the inner core which decides when a "flip" will happen.

I would recommend reading this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34452854/A-three-dimensional-self-consistent-computer-simulation-of-a-geomagnetic-field-reversal

Hope that helps.

[jules99]

Jules, you are completly forgetting about the inner core (BTW The inner core has the same rotation as Earth)

The outer core is always trying to reverse the field, but inner core prevent magnetic reversals. The field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion.

Basically its really the inner core which decides when a "flip" will happen.

I would recommend reading this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34452854/A-three-dimensional-self-consistent-computer-simulation-of-a-geomagnetic-field-reversal

Hope that helps.

Hey thanks;

I had been reading this;

http://es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html

which appears to be by the same author. Theres so much contradictory stuff out there, some say the core has a surface temp approaching the suns, others say its frozen..I think Im getting the basic gist but must have missed the part about the inner core deciding when the flips occur.

I will read again in the morning..

Cheers

[Emma_Acid]

Ugh, this is the worst sort of conspiracy thread. A huge list of stuff that someone thinks is "odd", no critical thinking skills and absolutely no suggestion of how these things could actually be linked.

So, what was it?

1. Increased earthquake activity. I'll give you a "win" on this one because I didn't provide ample evidence.

This is demonstrably untrue. The amount of earthquakes recently fall well within expected estimates.

2. The sun rising 2 days early in Greenland: I'll call this one a "draw", because though you questioned the source, yet didn't provide any evidence that it was untrue, I also should have provided further evidence on such a big claim.

This is reported to have happened in some areas, probably an atmospheric effect making a previously semi-permanently dark area appear brighter earlier than expected. The sun wouldn't (and couldn't) actually rise earlier.

3. Snowy owls migrating southwards. I'm going to call this one as a clear "win" for myself, so far at least. You asserted, with absolutely no evidence or authority, that this was perfectly normal, in contrast to an owl expert's statement that it's "unbelievable". When bird migrations are in the "unbelievable" category, I would say that supports, if in a small way, my hypothesis that something out of the ordinary is going on on a worldwide scale.

Something could be going on, different weather patterns, changing dietary habits, or simply a bunch of owls getting confused due to a changing climate. But simply saying "something is going on" is not a workable hypothesis.

4. An 800% increase in the movement of magnetic north. I am going to also call this one as a clear win for myself, as it's so far been discussed (which is not very much). You simply dismissed it as being a "slight shift". Not good enough. That is not a slight shift. That is a massive shift, which supports my theory that there's something strange going on worldwide.

800% how? Speed? Distance? "An 800% increase in the movement" doesn't mean anything, and I can't find anything that backs this up. The magnetic north has always moved, sometimes very far and very fast. Again, this adds nothing to your nebulous "hypothesis".

*A presentation concluding that there has been a steady increase in solar storms over the past 139 years:

http://www.nas.org.a...%20Stronger.pdf

*A Cornell University study concluding there's an anomaly in the moon's orbit:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

*The issue of thousands of birds dropping out of the sky simultaneously in multiple locations around the world:

http://latimesblogs....m-the-sky-.html

*But it isn't only fish, here's a story about thousands of herring washing ashore in Norway:

http://www.huffingto..._n_1181005.html

There has been story after story along these lines, in particular over the past year or so. Is this PROOF that I'm right that something strange is going on worldwide? No. Is it an UNEXPLAINED MYSTERY that is worth discussing, and could be considered as further evidence that something may be out of whack with the planet? In my opinion, yes. And if anything it makes perfect sense that animals would be getting thrown off track and getting disoriented, given the extreme (not slight) changes in the Earth's magnetic field over recent years.

*And then there's the issue of a greater number of comets in recent years. One link I provided refers to the 25 comets that impacted the sun in one 10-day period in December of 2010:

http://www.space.com...omet-storm.html

Now, does that one instance in itself prove anything? No. But there certainly does seem to have been a lot more comets and asteroids over the past year or so based on the number of news reports I've come across, which I haven't had the time to track down further. (I do have a job and other stuff to do.) If I find further information on that topic then I'll include it.

Again, this adds nothing to any argument. The amount of asteroids there are has as little to do with fish washing up on a beach as does the amount of iphones sold last year. You're just listing stuff and making the assumption that they are somehow connected.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Emma_Acid