[John13np]

I think the pole shift is happening, but it will take a long time for it to show any effects. We wont see any effects in our life or our kids life time. Maybe our grand kids life time it will show some effects, thats what I think.

[WereBo]

Quote

what will be where can we determine that now or do we wait and see

Scientists can't even agree what's going to happen or when with the present climate change

You could ask 100 different experts and end up with 150 theories

They'll all agree afterwards though....

This post has been edited by WereBo: 05 March 2006 - 01:12 AM

[lakeview rud]

Folks, you are covering two separate phenomena (I think). The Northern magnetic pole is fairly rapidly moving from an earlier location say in Hudson Bay towards the true North pole (25km per year I think was quoted). Also happening gradually is a polar reversal where North and South poles will switch. There are already surveys taken which show some locations on earth where the magnetic field has changed. Estimates are anywhere from a few year to a few thousand for the total change to take place. Who knows on that? Lastly folks are talking about crustal displacement where the solid portion of the earth's crust floats on the liquid core portion and every so often (have seen anywhere from 25,000 to 75000 plus years) this movement results in a new magnetic north pole which then slowly migrates to the true north location as is happening now. So if the true north pole was located in Hudson Bay some 12,000 years ago for instance (and a shift then occurred) that would explain the concentration of the ice in the last ice age covering much of North America while Siberia was spared. That would also explain Siberian mammoths being found frozen with grasses/flowers in thier mouths/stomachs. It would also explain (possibly) why early man was so intent on charting the movements of the stars with monolithic stone circles etc.(If that happened to me I sure as heck would want to keep an eye out!) Lastly it might explain such mysteries as Puma Punku where a strange structure is found at 13,000 feet above sea level near a salt water lake Titicaca. Note here that the earth is roughly 26 miles greater in diameter at the equator than at the poles. If a shift occurred (the Hudson bay shift was almost 2500 miles) then the crust would eventually rebound to similar shape as before, raising some areas quite substantially and lowering others all depending on how close to the new equator or new pole they were. Looks like our old earth has long periods of relative calm interspersed with short periodic episodes where all hell breaks loose like supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes crustal shifts etc. Anyway none of this is proven but its food for thought.

[Mattshark]

lakeview rud, on 22 October 2009 - 12:55 AM, said:

Folks, you are covering two separate phenomena (I think). The Northern magnetic pole is fairly rapidly moving from an earlier location say in Hudson Bay towards the true North pole (25km per year I think was quoted). Also happening gradually is a polar reversal where North and South poles will switch. There are already surveys taken which show some locations on earth where the magnetic field has changed. Estimates are anywhere from a few year to a few thousand for the total change to take place. Who knows on that? Lastly folks are talking about crustal displacement where the solid portion of the earth's crust floats on the liquid core portion and every so often (have seen anywhere from 25,000 to 75000 plus years) this movement results in a new magnetic north pole which then slowly migrates to the true north location as is happening now. So if the true north pole was located in Hudson Bay some 12,000 years ago for instance (and a shift then occurred) that would explain the concentration of the ice in the last ice age covering much of North America while Siberia was spared. That would also explain Siberian mammoths being found frozen with grasses/flowers in thier mouths/stomachs. It would also explain (possibly) why early man was so intent on charting the movements of the stars with monolithic stone circles etc.(If that happened to me I sure as heck would want to keep an eye out!) Lastly it might explain such mysteries as Puma Punku where a strange structure is found at 13,000 feet above sea level near a salt water lake Titicaca. Note here that the earth is roughly 26 miles greater in diameter at the equator than at the poles. If a shift occurred (the Hudson bay shift was almost 2500 miles) then the crust would eventually rebound to similar shape as before, raising some areas quite substantially and lowering others all depending on how close to the new equator or new pole they were. Looks like our old earth has long periods of relative calm interspersed with short periodic episodes where all hell breaks loose like supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes crustal shifts etc. Anyway none of this is proven but its food for thought.

Paragraphs!

The pole has never shifted, it has wandered and it has magnetically switched, that is it though. a polar shift would have shown very dramatically in the geological record, it'd be about the time when the planet became lifeless.

[lakeview rud]

I didn't claim this as proven, but I do agree that such a massive catastrophe ought to have left some type of a record with indictions of massive flooding but note that 12000 years ago the oceans would have been two hundred or more feet lower. I think the fact that the magnetic pole is moving from a location near Hudson Bay to the true North Pole is worthy of asking the question why. Wouldn't a movement of the magnetic pole be a result of some activity in the molten core? What are the various causes of the earth's "wobble"?. There's some indication that the Mayan's long count calander accurately calculates the 26,000 year cycle of precession. Seems folks have been interested in this for a while.

[lightlyy]

Mattshark, on 22 October 2009 - 01:00 AM, said:

Paragraphs!

The pole has never shifted, it has wandered and it has magnetically switched, that is it though. a polar shift would have shown very dramatically in the geological record, it'd be about the time when the planet became lifeless.

hi mattshark, just a question... isn't a magnetic "switch" in the poles.. the same thing as a magnetic reversal or shift ?

[Emma_Acid]

aquatus1, on 14 February 2006 - 03:55 PM, said:

The Vikings are known to have discovered America in the early 1000

I love to think what America would be like today had the Vikings toughed it out and stayed there.

aquatus1, on 14 February 2006 - 03:55 PM, said:

studies are currently underway that indicate the Romans and the Chinese might have been there even earlier.

Really??? Got a link?

[Emma_Acid]

ecollier2012, on 25 February 2006 - 10:02 PM, said:

Possibly as soon as 2012 acording to the site <a href="http://www.polereversal.com" target="_blank">http://www.polereversal.com</a>

Absolute horsecrap. Its takes 1000s of years for the poles to switch. It is literally impossible for it to happen by 2012.

[aquatus1]

Emma_Acid, on 22 October 2009 - 09:54 AM, said:

I love to think what America would be like today had the Vikings toughed it out and stayed there.

Really??? Got a link?

Nope.

Had one three years and a half years ago...

[Mattshark]

lightlyy, on 22 October 2009 - 03:23 AM, said:

hi mattshark, just a question... isn't a magnetic "switch" in the poles.. the same thing as a magnetic reversal or shift ?

yes

[Emma_Acid]

aquatus1, on 22 October 2009 - 11:29 AM, said:

Nope.

Had one three years and a half years ago...

Blimey, hadn't noticed that.

[Mattshark]

lakeview rud, on 22 October 2009 - 01:17 AM, said:

I didn't claim this as proven, but I do agree that such a massive catastrophe ought to have left some type of a record with indictions of massive flooding but note that 12000 years ago the oceans would have been two hundred or more feet lower. I think the fact that the magnetic pole is moving from a location near Hudson Bay to the true North Pole is worthy of asking the question why. Wouldn't a movement of the magnetic pole be a result of some activity in the molten core? What are the various causes of the earth's "wobble"?. There's some indication that the Mayan's long count calander accurately calculates the 26,000 year cycle of precession. Seems folks have been interested in this for a while.

I think you are confusing normal polar wander with pole shifting, one exists, the other is fantasy.

[lightlyy]

Mattshark, on 22 October 2009 - 01:00 AM, said:
Paragraphs!

Mattshark said: The pole has never shifted, it has wandered and it has magnetically switched, that is it though. a polar shift would have shown very dramatically in the geological record, it'd be about the time when the planet became lifeless.

lightlyy said: hi mattshark, just a question... isn't a magnetic "switch" in the poles.. the same thing as a magnetic reversal or shift ?

Mattshark replied: Yes.

lightlyy says.... i'm confused... you say the pole has never shifted.. but that it has switched... and say Yes,they are the same thing.
... "The pole" is confusing to me as well... there are TWO poles... North & South. Are you meaning the earth's AXIS when you say the pole has never shifted???

[questionmark]

lightlyy, on 22 October 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

Mattshark, on 22 October 2009 - 01:00 AM, said:
Paragraphs!

Mattshark said: The pole has never shifted, it has wandered and it has magnetically switched, that is it though. a polar shift would have shown very dramatically in the geological record, it'd be about the time when the planet became lifeless.

lightlyy said: hi mattshark, just a question... isn't a magnetic "switch" in the poles.. the same thing as a magnetic reversal or shift ?

Mattshark replied: Yes.

lightlyy says.... i'm confused... you say the pole has never shifted.. but that it has switched... and say Yes,they are the same thing.
... "The pole" is confusing to me as well... there are TWO poles... North & South. Are you meaning the earth's AXIS when you say the pole has never shifted???

He does not mean the axis (which is constantly shifting else we would have no seasons) he actually means the pole, you know the two imaginary points that connect the axis with the earth's crust. They have never shifted.

[lightlyy]

questionmark, on 22 October 2009 - 01:34 PM, said:

He does not mean the axis (which is constantly shifting else we would have no seasons) he actually means the pole, you know the two imaginary points that connect the axis with the earth's crust. They have never shifted.

hi questionmark... yes the earth wobbles on it's Axis and causes seasons... but i was under the impression that the magnetic poles have reversed and those reversals ARE recorded in the geological record? Theses websites agree.

http://www.geomag.bg.../reversals.html

(from the above website:)

How often do reversals occur?

As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals occurred. Reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average reversal interval.

http://en.wikipedia....gnetic_reversal <.. here too

This post has been edited by lightlyy: 22 October 2009 - 01:24 PM