63 replies to this topic

[lightly]

jules99, on 12 February 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

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]

lightly, on 14 February 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

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...

[BFB]

jules99, on 14 February 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

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.co...-field-reversal

Hope that helps.

[jules99]

BFB, on 14 February 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

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.co...-field-reversal

Hope that helps.

Hey thanks;
I had been reading this;
http://es.ucsc.edu/~.../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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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".

Quote

*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 by Emma_Acid, 14 February 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[lightly]

jules99, on 14 February 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

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...

Hi jules ..   i was wondering about the seldom mentioned south magnetic pole..   here is a PDF contained map of it's movements from 1590.. until 2010.
http://www.ngdc.noaa...le1590_2010.pdf
      I've come to the conclusion that the reason there are only N/S - S/N Geomagnetic records , might be because, the actual polarity reversal process , where the magnetic poles must travel across E/W positions, happens within too brief of a time span to be recorded Geologically.  ?¿?
  .. As to the cores movements , and how that relates ????  ... i'm more snookered than yourself.

[jules99]

lightly, on 16 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Hi jules ..   i was wondering about the seldom mentioned south magnetic pole..   here is a PDF contained map of it's movements from 1590.. until 2010.
http://www.ngdc.noaa...le1590_2010.pdf
      I've come to the conclusion that the reason there are only N/S - S/N Geomagnetic records , might be because, the actual polarity reversal process , where the magnetic poles must travel across E/W positions, happens within too brief of a time span to be recorded Geologically.  ?¿?
  .. As to the cores movements , and how that relates ????  ... i'm more snookered than yourself.

Hi Lightly;
No; I believe the direction rotation of the earth decides there can only be nth/sth poles. Any E/W locations are due to polar wander and are technically called excursions if they dont result in a reversal. There are records of past excursions and I think we are off on one at the moment.
Ive had an interesting read about true polar wander. You know the story about snap frozen wooly mammoths..

http://www.physicsfo...read.php?t=1097

There are plenty of links to follow up as well..
Cheers..

[lightly]

jules99, on 18 February 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Hi Lightly;
No; I believe the direction rotation of the earth decides there can only be nth/sth poles. Any E/W locations are due to polar wander and are technically called excursions if they dont result in a reversal. There are records of past excursions and I think we are off on one at the moment.
Ive had an interesting read about true polar wander. You know the story about snap frozen wooly mammoths..

http://www.physicsfo...read.php?t=1097

There are plenty of links to follow up as well..
Cheers..

Ah  Thanks Jules,  i didn't know that  E/W magnetic pole locations are part of the geomagnetic record.   Polar wander/  excursions  would be part of the process of a reversal too wouldn't it?   Reversals take 2 to 10 thousand years as far as i can gather from the little i have read ?   During that time the poles would cross E/W locations?
... You raise interesting questions about how the cores might be involved in polarity reversals.

[jules99]

lightly, on 19 February 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Ah  Thanks Jules,  i didn't know that  E/W magnetic pole locations are part of the geomagnetic record.   Polar wander/  excursions  would be part of the process of a reversal too wouldn't it?   Reversals take 2 to 10 thousand years as far as i can gather from the little i have read ?   During that time the poles would cross E/W locations?
... You raise interesting questions about how the cores might be involved in polarity reversals.

Thanks for your thoughts Lightly;
Yes magnetic polar wander is the process by which a reversal can occur..from what I understand of the current understanding of the topic.
Wondering if the earth corrects its nth/sth orientation in minor ways..like a slight correction, which could explain a previously warmer Siberia, with wildlife and plants 10-15kya whereas its now in the arctic circle..

[lightly]

jules99, on 19 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Thanks for your thoughts Lightly;
Yes magnetic polar wander is the process by which a reversal can occur..from what I understand of the current understanding of the topic.
Wondering if the earth corrects its nth/sth orientation in minor ways..like a slight correction, which could explain a previously warmer Siberia, with wildlife and plants 10-15kya whereas its now in the arctic circle..

Thanks Jules,  ... i don't know .  The northern ice cap has, of course,  shrunk and expanded  many times,  .. , i'm guessing that Siberia warmed during a contraction?  Both ice caps have maintained  their relative positions for millions of years, during polarity reversals.  I guess Ice caps, as on other planets and moons, align themselves with Geographic/Axis  poles.    Both sets of poles, wherever they are found, must be related to , as you said earlier, "Astronomical Influences" ...  primarily the Sun?

[jules99]

lightly, on 20 February 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Thanks Jules,  ... i don't know .  The northern ice cap has, of course,  shrunk and expanded  many times,  .. , i'm guessing that Siberia warmed during a contraction?  Both ice caps have maintained  their relative positions for millions of years, during polarity reversals.  I guess Ice caps, as on other planets and moons, align themselves with Geographic/Axis  poles.    Both sets of poles, wherever they are found, must be related to , as you said earlier, "Astronomical Influences" ...  primarily the Sun?

Hi Lightly;

I dont know if Siberia warmed during a contraction of the ice..I thought we could be in a contraction now but the Yana river still remains frozen for a large part of the year;

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Yana_River

Just to reiterate that these ideas originally came from a poster named Andre who I linked to earlier. So these are not my ideas but  I found them interesting and well worth airing.
Archaeological finds at Yana river c 27kya include mammoth bones, wooly rhino, horses and human habitation. All in the current arctic circle at a time when the climate there was warmer than at present..

http://archaeology.a...qt/yana_rhs.htm

Also;

"The new pollen and radiocarbon data from Fadeevsky Island again indicate that the hypothetical Panarctic
Ice Sheet never existed in this area between 25,000-35,000 yr ago. We also doubt that ice covered this area
after this time, because of continuous dated records from full-glacial to the Holocene (Makeev et al., 1989)."

http://www.amqua.org...ts/beringia.pdf

So we seem to have a warmer Siberia existing at the same time as the Laurentide ice sheet covered most of Canada;  

http://www.cosmograp...aximum_map2.jpg

I would like to see a lot more evidence from Siberia, but the data presented so far raises the question, if Siberia was warmer and Canada under ice where was the north pole located?     Could true polar wander explain this?
With regard to astronomical influences on the poles, we know the sun and moon influence tides and the moon is responsible for earths equatorial bulge. Given earth has a fluid outer core its difficult to see it not being influenced tidally by the sun and moon, and by influencing core flow both could also be said to influence the earths magnetic field..
Cheers

[lightly]

hmm!   thanks Jules,  I didn't know about Yana, or it's ice freeness all that time  ...  interesting story, and questions,  there.

[Gabriel Traveler]

"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?"

Actually yes, there is a suggestion for how these things could all have a common cause, which is indeed the whole point of the video. The second part of the video covers the evidence that increased energy blasts from space are hitting our solar system, which is affecting our planet, the sun, the solar system in a myriad of ways. And that things are only going to continue getting stranger as we move into a new, denser region of space.

[lightly]

Englishgent, on 05 February 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:
I dont find anything scary. Just another post trying in vain to make us believe something is about to happen.

... Things happen...  and when they do , they effect other things.    Our Universe "happen"ed.

Related info? .......   (it says increased comic radiation is due to decreased solar activity)
http://science.nasa....sep_cosmicrays/
Energetic iron nuclei counted by the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer on NASA's ACE spacecraft reveal that cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high. [larger image]
The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."

[Mentalcase]

lightly, on 14 May 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Englishgent, on 05 February 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:
I dont find anything scary. Just another post trying in vain to make us believe something is about to happen.

... Things happen...  and when they do , they effect other things. Our Universe "happen"ed.

Related info? .......   (it says increased comic radiation is due to decreased solar activity)
http://science.nasa....sep_cosmicrays/
Energetic iron nuclei counted by the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer on NASA's ACE spacecraft reveal that cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high. [larger image]
The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."

So Solar Rays block Cosmic Rays? Is that what I'm gathering here?