The real cause of current planetary changes?

[lightly]

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.gov/geomag/maps/SouthPole1590_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]

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.gov/geomag/maps/SouthPole1590_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.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1097

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

Cheers..

[lightly]

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.physicsforums.com/showthread.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]

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]

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]

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.org/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.about.com/od/yterms/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/publications/abstracts/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.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_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.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_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]

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?

[sepulchrave]

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

No, a weak Solar magnetic field is less capable of diverting extrasolar charged particles away from the inner Solar system.

But I don't really see how the cosmic rays themselves are cause for concern; they are fairly sparse (the wiki says they comprise 24% of the natural background radiation, so an increase of even 100% still doesn't have that much of an effect, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray).

However since cosmic rays show up nicely in some ice core data I think the main interest is on using these data to estimate the historical activity of the Sun. A change in Solar output has a much bigger influence on Earth than a change in cosmic ray fluence.

[Mentalcase]

No, a weak Solar magnetic field is less capable of diverting extrasolar charged particles away from the inner Solar system.

But I don't really see how the cosmic rays themselves are cause for concern; they are fairly sparse (the wiki says they comprise 24% of the natural background radiation, so an increase of even 100% still doesn't have that much of an effect, see here: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cosmic_ray).

However since cosmic rays show up nicely in some ice core data I think the main interest is on using these data to estimate the historical activity of the Sun. A change in Solar output has a much bigger influence on Earth than a change in cosmic ray fluence.

Thanks for the clarification!

[Erudite Celt]

No, a weak Solar magnetic field is less capable of diverting extrasolar charged particles away from the inner Solar system.

But I don't really see how the cosmic rays themselves are cause for concern; they are fairly sparse (the wiki says they comprise 24% of the natural background radiation, so an increase of even 100% still doesn't have that much of an effect, see here: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cosmic_ray).

However since cosmic rays show up nicely in some ice core data I think the main interest is on using these data to estimate the historical activity of the Sun. A change in Solar output has a much bigger influence on Earth than a change in cosmic ray fluence.

Past cosmic ray activity can be estimated by ice-core data in a number of ways. Primarily by the activation of hydrogen nuclei and isotopes and liberation of ozone from the water-ice which increase during deep space x-ray bursts and periods of solar maximum. An increase of 100% on the normal cosmic ray background level would be a very big deal. It would kill all life on earth!

[sepulchrave]

Past cosmic ray activity can be estimated by ice-core data in a number of ways. Primarily by the activation of hydrogen nuclei and isotopes and liberation of ozone from the water-ice which increase during deep space x-ray bursts and periods of solar maximum. An increase of 100% on the normal cosmic ray background level would be a very big deal. It would kill all life on earth!

I don't see how... if you increased the normal cosmic ray background level you would get 124% of the regular background radiation. There is a larger difference in background radiation between sea level and a mountain top, but life still exists on mountains.

But anyway, my point was that increased cosmic ray activity is more of a symptom of a magnetically weak Sun, than a cause for changes in the Solar system.

As you say, cosmic ray activity can be estimated in ice-core data. But for climatologists, I think they are using the cosmic ray activity as an indicator of what the Sun was doing during that period, rather than trying to claim that the cosmic ray activity was the cause of whatever climate was around at that time.