It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Antarctic shelf collapse could tilt Earth's axis: researchers

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
if the shelf collapsed all at once then i probably would cause a polar shift, but not if it malted gradually.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I forgot which Novel it was, but Clive Cussler wrote a story which involved this very scenario. It involved a Mad Man hell bent on destroying the Earth, and causing Massive Tsunamis, Destruction, etc., through his Manipulation of the Antarctic Ice Shelf. It was actually quite dramatic, and plausible.

However, no matter how possible this Shelf Collapse in fact remains, I have a slighting suspicion that this is yet another "Human Induced Global Warming" Panic Attempt.

Science is so forever corrupted, by the likes of Gore and other Politicians, that it has now become ever more difficult to discern true Studies from Political Agendas and simple Grant Grabbing. What a shame.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
CONVERGENCE on 2012.

When numerous different personalities and methodologies convergence onto a common point, one must wonder why and if greater credit is due.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
I forgot which Novel it was, but Clive Cussler wrote a story which involved this very scenario. It involved a Mad Man hell bent on destroying the Earth, and causing Massive Tsunamis, Destruction, etc., through his Manipulation of the Antarctic Ice Shelf. It was actually quite dramatic, and plausible.

However, no matter how possible this Shelf Collapse in fact remains, I have a slighting suspicion that this is yet another "Human Induced Global Warming" Panic Attempt.

Science is so forever corrupted, by the likes of Gore and other Politicians, that it has now become ever more difficult to discern true Studies from Political Agendas and simple Grant Grabbing. What a shame.



Read my post on page 4 about half way down. Your thinking of "Atlantis Found". They were the Wolff family trying to create a new Reich....



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Others have already pointed this out but this article is BS. I am wondering if they teach physics in Canada?

It is a basic law of particle physics that a body in motion will not change its motion unless acted on by an outside force. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and melting ice are all internal forces. They will not shift the axis of the Earth even 1 mm. It is in fact impossible.

Any shifts in mass on a particle in motion (in this case the Earth) occure around the center of gravity of the Earth and do not change the center of gravity of the body. So we could have massive volcanoes, earthquakes, and rising oceans (as the Earth has had many times in the past) and it will not affect our rotation, axial tilt, or motion about the sun. If such catastrophes could affect the Earth's rotation, then the Earth would have stopped spinning billions of years ago.

Of course the "scientists" who were quoted in the article know all of what I have mentioned. They are counting on the fact that the vast majority of people don't know even the most basic concepts of physics. These types of articles are released by "experts" from time to time in order to sell newspapers and magazines. Most people simply don't challenge what they read.

One other thing to contemplate. You could move the entire continent of Antarctica up to the Indian Ocean and park it next to India and that would not affect the rotation of the Earth. This is because the continents float on a sea of "Magma" (I put my pinky up next to my mouth like Dr. Evil) and any movement of the continents is simply offset by the magma flowing around the center of gravity to offset any movement of the continents.

It's just like the famous ice cube experiment but we are dealing with slabs of rock floating on melted rock.

This is why continental drift does not slow down the rotation of the Earth. If you know your basic Geological history of the Earth, then you know that all of the continents were once one giant piece. The Earth at that time had the exact same rotation, axial tilt, wobble, and orbit around the sun.

By the way folks, I got my big giant Atlas out and the Ross Ice Shelf is all floating ice. So, it all could melt and the oceans would not rise by one iota. It's that ice cube experiment again. Maybe those scientists should have their degrees revoked.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by greenfruit
 


I quit reading Clive Custler a long time ago. His stuff is not based on any kind of plausible facts. It got too annoying for me. So, I quit reading him.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I think the rise in sea levels is the least of our worries. Even a moderate shift in the tilt of the earth's axis could effect rotation which in turn would influence the Earth's gravitational pull negatively or positively...not a pretty site! It certainly wouldn't be existance as we know it.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by whitewave
This has been happening for a while now. Check out this link.

If I remember correctly, the tsunami back in '04 (?) was so powerful that it knocked the Earth off its axis by 3 degrees.

If the Earth was tilted 49degrees Alaska, Iceland, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Northern Russia, Northern Canada would currently be in a sunless winter like the North pole. This is kind of hard to cover up! (I live in Scotland and the sun is still in the same low position as it was 30 years ago and the sunset/sunrise times are the same)

So I'm afraid that link is to a very dismissable conspiracy theory. No doubt the author is a Global Warming skeptic.


That's assuming these land masses wouldn't shift



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TNT13
I was under the impretion that the Earth's Axis' were controlled by magnetic forces. So if this is the case how would the shift of a material such as water affect global magnetism???????


You do realize that the 2004 tsunami/earthquake also effect the earths rotation right?


.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
This is what I sent a bunch of people yesterday... I figured it'd be easier to just paste it here instead of retyping everything.

* * *

THE PAST

Larsen B Ice Shelf appeared also in the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow where a huge chunk of ice fell off as Hall proclaimed 'the last chunk of ice that fell off was about the size of Rhode Island'. This opening sequence paves the way for the events to follow in the rest of the film.

*

During 2002-01-31–2002-03-07 the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick


NOTE the size of the ice shelf in that movie was "just" 3,250 square kilometers, 220 meters think. Read on...

* * *

THE PRESENT

Scientists say Antarctic ice shelf close to collapse
Posted: 05:25 AM ET

(CNN) — Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to the ice shelf breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a narrow strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.

A satellite image captured November 26 shows new rifts on the ice shelf that make it dangerously close to breaking away from the strip of ice — and the islands to which it's connected, the ESA said.
*

On March 25, 2008 a 405 km² (160 sq mi) chunk of the Wilkins ice shelf disintegrated, putting an even larger portion of the glacial ice shelf at risk.[3][4] While temperature almost certainly played a part in this disintegration, several recent earthquakes magnitude 5.0 and greater along the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge may also have contributed.[5][6][7] Scientists were surprised when they discovered the rest of the 14,000 km² (5,400 sq mi)[8] ice shelf is beginning to break away from the continent.

NOTE the Wilkins Shelf has lost 2,000 square kilometers of ice SO FAR, and that an ADDITIONAL 14,000 square kilometers is currently breaking away. That's 16,000 square kilometers, roughly 12,500 square kilometers MORE than what was shown in Day After Tomorrow... a movie that was written to be as hypothetically factual as possible.

* * *

THE FUTURE

Antarctic shelf collapse could tilt Earth's axis: researchers

By Dan Karpenchuk in Toronto

Posted 3 hours 18 minutes ago

A new study in Canada suggests that the collapse of a large portion of the Antarctic ice shelf would shift the very axis of the planet.

Geophysicists at the University of Toronto looked at the possible effects on the earth if sea levels rise because of a collapse of the west Antarctic ice shelf.

The Toronto researchers say the melting of the ice sheet will actually cause the earth's rotation to shift dramatically - about 500 metres from its current position if the entire ice sheet melts - and that would result in much higher sea levels in some areas than previously expected.

The researchers say the melting would change the balance of the globe in much the same way that tsunamis move huge amounts of water from one area to another.

They say that could mean water migrating from the southern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north toward North America and into the southern Indian Ocean.

The research has been published in today's issue of the journal, Science.


article can be read here:
www.abc.net.au...


NOTE: "tilt earth's axis" is a bit misleading. I don't think this would be possible by what is being suggested here. The lowering of the Antarctic Ice Fields MAY effect the earth's precession, or 'wobble'... but not it's axis. Likewise some people / sites may try to suggest a pole shift; no. A pole shift is something entirely different and has no place here. However, the Earth Crust Displacement theory would fit perfectly... and is something I have much interest and research in
www.crystalinks.com...

*


FURTHER DATA

yosemite.epa.gov...

www.whoi.edu...

I cannot find any links regarding Pole Shifts or, more importantly, Earth Crust Displacement, without being swamped with 2012 paranoia. Go figure. I suggest the reader looks this information up themselves, or for some well researched ECD theory, but with an Atlantis twist, I suggest www.flem-ath.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Ah, but some 50 million years ago there was another kind of global warming, little or no arctic ice and much higher sea levels... Did the axis shift then?

Just food for thought, or google whichever is more convenient.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
OK .. correct me if I am wrong here.

In order for this "ice shelf" to "break away" the ice must already be in some proximity to water, if not, already in the water it's self while attached to a larger portion of land bound glaciers?

right?

The entire glacier cannot simply break away and fall into the water, as Gravity would prevent such a thing from happening.. only the portions exposed to the point where enough stress could snap it off where nothing supports it underneath.

That being said.

Ice is a less-dense form of H2O, so hypothetically, an iceberg, no matter how large, or how much is apparently visible, will displace the same amount of water, or more, then liquid form of H2O.

If the ice that is already in the water melts, breaks off, then completely dissolves, there should be no rise in sea levels?

And seeing as every major glacier in the world has significantly decreased in size over the past hundred years, and sea levels have hardly risen at all (minuscule amounts), I find it hard to believe a massive iceberg already displacing water melting is going to have any apocalyptic consequences.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


I do not think this statement is accurate. The Sahara formed off of 1 degree of shift if memory servers (feel free to correct me).

I had a very close seat for that particular ride. (Tsunami not Sahari) I am not that old.




[edit on 7-2-2009 by sheepchronicles]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 

the fact that a SOLID MASS becomes liquid doesnt seem to enter into your equation



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Yes, I know ice is less dense than water. Water swells when it freezes and therefore ice has more volume.
Try filling a bowl with ice cubes - heap them up, and when they have all melted the water will not likely overflow.You can pile them up pretty good to make up for any air spaces. Of course if you really made the effort you could stack it so that it would.


The rising sea scenario is part of TPTB fear campaign. Without massive crustal displacement - no big rise in sea level.


Except....

At Antartica the bulk of the Ice is not floating, it's sitting on a land mass and
is pushing the land mass further down. No ice, the land Mass will rise up.
Fill the Bowl with a hard sponge first and see what you get.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


You said, "Except....

At Antartica the bulk of the Ice is not floating, it's sitting on a land mass and
is pushing the land mass further down. No ice, the land Mass will rise up.
Fill the Bowl with a hard sponge first and see what you get."

Get your big heavy Atlas out. All of the "ice shelfs" that the articles refer to are floating on water. They will not raise the level of ocean at all, since their mass is already displaced by water.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WatchNLearn
 


Yup, Watch....I let my mouth run my fingers, there.

Too much emotion, I suppose.

Sorry to all. I know when I screwed up. Even in MY own post, I confused 10 feet with 30 meters....(I think I meant to type 3 metres).

Anyway, it IS difficult to explain what is sometimes taken for granted, when there is no science to support it.

One more attempt: The planet Earth is very massive. It is rotating, and has a certain angular momentum, as a result of that motion. It also has a gyroscopic 'rigidity' inherent in the rotational momentum.

It is true that the axis of the Earth is tilted at about 23 degrees off of the plane of our path in orbit. This indicates that AT SOME POINT in the earth's ancient history, perhaps as it was being formed, a major impact of some sort must have occured. Not unlikely, given what we understand about the early formation of the Solar System.

What's more, there is a slight precession....further evidence of an ancient disruption. BUT, this would be a large, massive body that collided with the nascent Earth....most likely well before life began to evolve.

In fact, this is one of the theories of the formation of our Moon....a chunk of our planet, blown out by the impact, held by gravitational forces and slowly congealing into the object we see today.

Anyway, this is probably too much information. What MIGHT happen is a reversal of the MAGNETIC poles...some researchers believe this has happened before. This is due to the fluidity of the interior of the globe. Not fully understood yet....

Just to be clear, again --- a slight weight change on the crust of the Earth, near a Pole, ain't gonna cause a wild fluctuation in its rotation.

A possible MAGNETIC flip....well, that will affect many animal and bird species, likely. As for Humans, and our ability to navigate....we now have GPS. Since that system relies on a grid network that maps the globe, and on precise timing, it will sitll work....even if compasses don't.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
With me, and from my understanding... what will transpire here is a dilution of the saltine content in the ocean... a smaller percentage of salt content.

The smaller salt ratio would mean a higher amount of evaporation; yes, this would return the salt content back to normal, but then we have more moisture in the air.

More moisture, more precipitation.

More precipitation, more flooding.

More flooding, more fresh water in the oceans,

Or, looking at it this way, more moisture in the air means more cloud cover. More cloud cover means the trapping of more heat. More heat means more ice melting... more melting ice means more fresh water going into the oceans.

Either way, the climate is going to be altered... not immediately, but it will.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join