Arctic Ice melts due to the Magnetic North Pole migration

here is some food for thought. The sun rised 2 days early in greenwich due to the earths wobble recently, tilting the artic more directly towards the sun.

reply to post by diamondsmith
I came accross this article that suggest some of what you say may have connections .."The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change." wattsupwiththat.com... peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I came accross this article

Interesting article.

Now let's see.

Induction heating is the process of heating an electrically conducting object (usually a metal) by electromagnetic induction, where eddy currents (also called Foucault currents) are generated within the metal and resistance leads to Joule heating of the metal.
An induction heater (for any process) consists of an electromagnet, through which a high-frequency alternating current (AC) is passed. Heat may also be generated by magnetic hysteresis losses in materials that have significant relative permeability.
The frequency of AC used depends on the object size, material type, coupling (between the work coil and the object to be heated) and the penetration depth.

source(en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by diamondsmith


The process works in reverse. It's why the Earth has a magnetic field in the first place.

No it is not like that,as there is no unit theory universally accepted by scientists.

Originally posted by juleol

Originally posted by rootzgemini
The ice could be melting due to the shift in the north pole, warmer weather is getting up there. It might not be the reason, but I found a 6 minute video that would explain it easier than typing. Basically the "north pole" is in Siberia now.... not the land mass just the northern axis point. Its much easier to watch than explain. Could be true, USDA even mentions the shift.

www.youtube.com...

The magnetic pole has always shifted/moved around. I really don't understand why a magnetic shift would have any effects in temperature, since the physical axis/tllt of earth has not shifted at all.

I am quite sure the magnetic poles of the earth have not moved in quite some time. The magnetic north pole has moved, therefore where the north pole land mass is or the "old north pole" was, would begin heat up and lose its ice. At the center of the magnetic poles is a place of low magnetic pressure and it draws down from space magnetic vortexes. Clif High explains this well @ the 16:30 mark on this video

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by rootzgemini


If that is true, due the moving magnetic poles there should be a significant drop in temperatures where the actual magnetic noth pole is sitting. So its not true because there isnt. Or do you have any evidence?

reply to post by diamondsmith
So what you are actually saying is that some scientists are possibly wrong and others are possibly right. Just because all scientists don't agree, doesn't mean that one of them isn't right. But whom

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

So what you are actually saying is that some scientists are possibly wrong and others are possibly right. Just because all scientists don't agree, doesn't mean that one of them isn't right. But whom

edit on 25-2-2012 by rickymouse because: wrong word

No, what I'm trying to say is that there is not enough physical evidence so as to have a unified theory to prove this thing.It is very difficult to find absolute truth at this scale to demonstrate this phenomena as long as the physical manifestations that are indistinguishable as environmental consequences that can affect human activity.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

So what you are actually saying is that some scientists are possibly wrong and others are possibly right. Just because all scientists don't agree, doesn't mean that one of them isn't right. But whom

edit on 25-2-2012 by rickymouse because: wrong word

No, what I'm trying to say is that there is not enough physical evidence so as to have a unified theory to prove this thing.It is very difficult to find absolute truth at this scale to demonstrate this phenomena as long as the physical manifestations that are indistinguishable as environmental consequences that can affect human activity.

reply to post by diamondsmith
Just because a bunch of people who have similar teachings agree something is true doesn't mean it is true. I thought we were posting on ATS. Isn't this the place where people look at things with open eyes?