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.

 

Arctic Ice melts due to the Magnetic North Pole migration

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy1
reply to post by AuranVector
 


He also said japan would sink into the ocean and atlantis would be rediscovered. But I think we are supposed to find the hall of records first if im not mistaken. Which could have allready happened and not released for public knowledge.



Yes, Cayce said MOST of Japan would slide into the sea (part of Japan would survive).

Yes, Cayce was clear that under the Sphinx, the Atlanteans created a "Hall of Records" -- which should contain the true (and very ancient -- going back millions of years) history of mankind. I would have to go back thru the Cayce books to see if discovering the Hall of Records is part of a timeline.

I think you're right about TPTB probably hiding the true history from the masses. I have strong suspicions that TPTB have preserved the true history of humankind in their secret societies, and releasing that history would undermine the authority of established powers (i.e. the Vatican for one) that are still useful for their purposes (control).




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The arctic ice melting is due to a planet wide increase in temperature.

While factually correct -- it is very (and I mean very) narrow-sighted to make assumptions as the cause or effect. Recorded temperatures on a global scale are a fairly new concept in the terms of overall Earth lifespan.

And before you answer back with something to the effect that we can view temperatures via the ice cores...can you tell me the weather between -15000 and -14000? Was their warming? Was their cooling? What was the conditions of the Sun like? Our atmosphere?

Until science can derive the information to answer those questions with confidence, I will retain the belief that the Earth has cycles. That the Earth's weather system is far more complex than we can imagine.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


After looking at you images, the first thing that came to my mind was...

"Weebles wooble, but they don't fall down."


We've survived this before.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith

Originally posted by Rawzee
From this data would it be possible from someone to throw together a theory on where the new poles would form?
Hard to say as the scientist have theories that will have multiple magnetic poles.


Could you provide a link? Because from my theoretical knowledge about magnetics, this is utterly bs



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
And yet, according to a post in 'climate depot' the Arctic peninsular sea ice is almost 200% above 'normal' Al Gore even went to have a look at it!
The Brits are moaning they have had the coldest February for 25 years, and its not even over yet!



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 


If you have theoretical knowledge of magnetism, help me out here:
I play around with rare earth magnets, and know that high heat exposure will permanently remove their magnetism. If the core of Earth is super hot, molten iron and copper, or whatever the "guess" is, how can it hold any magnetism at all? Is there a theory on that? A molten core seems like it would move all the time, like how stable is a water balloon?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Reply to post by diamondsmith
 


At the end of your post you reference the sun's cycle then ignorantly state that your bs beloved theory of magnetic pole shift is the ONLY reason for what you think we are observing.

So, by that statement there is no point to even discuss your amazing idea. You exposed your ignorance for all to see by your last line of the op.

Also, how do you know the facts about the data your using? What equipment was used to gather the raw data and what method was used to interpret that data. I say that because anybody with half a brain that would jump to your conclusions should understand more about this subject than "something they read on the Internet"

Magnetic pole shift very well should affect our climate, but it is so slight that our current understanding, limited years of meaningful data, and general history of being wrong on everything regarding the climate should give even the simpletons around us thoughtful pause. You very well might be considered a useful idiot. Stop and think about what I just said, then go crying to a mod that I hurt your feelings.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by verschickter

Originally posted by diamondsmith

Originally posted by Rawzee
From this data would it be possible from someone to throw together a theory on where the new poles would form?
Hard to say as the scientist have theories that will have multiple magnetic poles.


Could you provide a link? Because from my theoretical knowledge about magnetics, this is utterly bs

Simulations of the geodynamo on supercomputers have demonstrated the complex nature of the field and its behaviour over time. Simulations have also revealed reversals in the polarity, where the magnetic North pole is replaced by a South pole, and vice versa. In such simulations, the strength of the main dipole appears to weaken, perhaps to about 10% of its normal value (but not vanish) and the existing poles may wander across the globe and be joined by other temporary North and South magnetic poles (the 'non-dipole field').
source(www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk...



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I must admit that there IS in fact a multipol-theorie for the earths core. But its a theorie to make math easier, The theorie compares the earths magnetic field with a spheres potential field.

edit: read your post just now. But the ex-text doesnt mentoins any multipoles so I dont know what you want to say with that. My post was only about the multipoles, sorry if I confused you.


reply to post by Novaroc
 

First, you have to understand how a magnet works, I dont want to destroy diamondsmiths thread so I´ll do it short and give you some links:
An ironmagnet is made by lining up all so called "elemental magnets" in on direction. this way you get a south and a northpole. I dont know the answer to your question for sure. But if the iron core is spinning then one could assume that this helps keeping the elemental magnets inside the ironcore lined up in one direction, regardless of heat.

edit on 21-2-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 

One part of this numerical solution is the rotation rate of the solid inner core relative to the surface, which evolves according to the torque applied on the inner core by the generated magnetic field. Our solution shows how the field couples the inner core to the eastward flowing fluid above it (Figure 4a), keeping it in co-rotation [5]. This mechanism is analogous to a synchronous electric motor for which the field, carried eastward by the fluid, acts like the rotating field in the stator and the inner core acts like the rotor. Fig.4 (a) A snapshot of the simulated magnetic field structure within the core, with lines blue where outside the solid inner core and yellow where inside. Again, the rotation axis is vertical. (click on image to download, 0.24 Mb) (b) A schematic image illustrating the super-rotation of the inner core relative to the Earth's surface. The inner core in our simulation initially rotated between 2 and 3 degrees longitude per year faster than the solid mantle and surface [1, 5]. This prediction in 1995 [1] for the Earth motivated two seismologists from Columbia University in early 1996 to search for evidence of this super-rotation in 30 years of seismic data. They found evidence that supports our prediction and published it in July 1996 [6], (Figure 4b). More recent simulations of ours that now include a simple parameterization for the gravitational coupling that may exist between the mantle and the inner core have a much smaller inner core rotation amplitude; however, this rotation is still predominantly eastward relative to the model Earth's surface.
source(es.ucsc.edu...



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



While factually correct -- it is very (and I mean very) narrow-sighted to make assumptions as the cause or effect. Recorded temperatures on a global scale are a fairly new concept in the terms of overall Earth lifespan.

And before you answer back with something to the effect that we can view temperatures via the ice cores...can you tell me the weather between -15000 and -14000? Was their warming? Was their cooling? What was the conditions of the Sun like? Our atmosphere?

Until science can derive the information to answer those questions with confidence, I will retain the belief that the Earth has cycles. That the Earth's weather system is far more complex than we can imagine.


Your point is irrelevant. I did not say why the trend exists, other than to point out it has been observed. There is no observed correlation between the Earth's magnetic field variations and climatic variations. Otherwise, we are in complete agreement. The Earth and Sun both have cycles which interact and affect the climate.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
You should add some text instead of simply copy and paste.
I´m aware of the theories HOW the magnetic field is produced.

If you were relating to the answer I gave to Novaroc, he asked about the WHY does it sustain through-out the heat.

Whats your point? The arctic ice does not relate to the magnetic field if you want to imply that it could be a cooling effect because of moving away from arctic its not cooled anymore? The icepoles are there because the of the angle the sun shines on it...
edit on 21-2-2012 by verschickter because: spelling



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
reply to post by Rawzee
 


This guy seems to be able to - near the end of the video
www.youtube.com...


Poor guy is pointing at north-east Russia and calling it Europe (1:22). Interesting video though



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


What is the mechanism? ...If the geographic pole were migrating, then there would be more heat from the sun due to location - but how does the magnetic pole affect temperature?

Thanks, sofi



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
It is a FACT, there is no less Arctic ice now than there was 10 years ago! 2007 was the low point in the cycle and it has been growing since then. Sorry, your theory is bunk.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
so how does a magnetic pole shift result in melting ice in the north pole? now we are speculating on a geographic pole shift wich would shift position of the ice to a warmer spot on earth, so in the case of the magnetic pole shifting WHAT on earth affects the ice causing it to melt? ive seen this question asked so many times already and you have skipped over it, are you claiming its a weather anomaly being created by the shifting magnetic pole, causing hotter temperatures and melting ice? and if so have the water levels in northern canada and siberia risen due to the melting ice? is this something they have never seen before? how long have satellites been in orbit watching the ice ebb to and fro? and its to my understanding the poles are always drifting and it is not something that takes a fixed position for a long period of time. is this false? also on the data you have conveyed id like a link to the website from you with also a description of who made it in the first place and what date it was released if possible.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
wow



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


Motions of the magnetic north pole are irreverent to the geographic one, that which controls temperature based of the angle of the sun.

The planet does not rotate vertically. It's field does.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



It's field does.
Nope


The giant orb of iron and nickel that anchors Earth's center is spinning faster than the planet's surface, according to a new study that confirms scientists' expectations. The finding is based on analyses of earthquake pairs that occur at roughly the same spot on Earth but at different times. On seismic recoding instruments, the earthquake signatures from waveform doublets, as they are called, look nearly identical. When earthquakes strike, their seismic waves can travel through the planet and surface all over the globe. The researchers analyzed 18 sets of waveform doublets -- some separated in time by up to 35 years -- from earthquakes occurring off the coast of South America but which were recorded at seismic stations near Alaska.
source(www.livescience.com...

I explained before about the hot spots,convective effects and slow pulsar effect.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


This doesn't go against what I said.

The planet earth does not flip upside down. It's field does.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join