The Magnetic North Pole Is Rapidly Moving Because of Some Blobs

a reply to: puzzled2

But no source or even information just dismissed.

Yes. My opinion. Which differs from that of the person to whom I was replying. A person who provided no source, so I therefore took his statement as opinion. Is that unreasonable?

The magnetic field is moving and weakening and will cause a difference on the climate over the next decade due to solar forcing.

How is a weakening magnetic field associated with solar forcing in producing climate effects? In your opinion?

a reply to: Phage

So you are basically saying the moon doesn't cause tides on earth because, it cant lighten a body of water and cause a great bulge underneath? Water vapor is water droplets Steam is Gas because its changed its state from a liquid into a gas. Like liquid methane turns into a gas at the right temp.

a reply to: anonentity

So you are basically saying the moon doesn't cause tides on earth because, it cant lighten a body of water and cause a great bulge underneath?

Well I didn't say that (I said that "the mass of the whole thing" doesn't have much to do with what you were saying) but since you bring it up, is that how tides work? If that's the case, why is it that there is also a high tide on the side of the Earth which is opposite the Moon at the same time? Does the Moon make that water "lighter" too? Somehow?

Water vapor is water droplets

Water vapor is vaporized water. Water which is in a gaseous state. Individual water molecules. Not droplets.

a reply to: Phage

less strength magnetic field more interaction with the ionosphere the charge will cause weather changes not previously recorded.
Which is my opinion why there is no man-made climate change. The moving poles will change the weather.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Breakthestreak

First, the inner core is thought to be solid, so how or why "matter" would "escape" from it is somewhat of a puzzle. Second, theory does say that Earth's magnetic field is produced primarily by convective motion (as well as rotational influences) of the outer core. It is changes in this movement which is thought to affect large scale changes in Earth's magnetic field and is exactly what the article in the OP is about.

Third, the following statement doesn't seem to have much to do with the inner or outer core, since there are 18 hundred miles of mantle in between the outer core and the crust.

“The ice caps are allowed to pull the shell of the earth around the interior, with the shallow molten layer lubricating the shift all the way”

Nor does it have much to do with the way plate tectonics operate. No idea what "the shell of the earth" is referring to, unless it's the crust. Which mixed with the idea that the ice caps drag the crust around makes the whole thing sort of absurd.

Would you care to share your source? I feel you may have misinterpreted something along the way.

Yeah it all sounded pseudo-like when I read it

My source is “The Adam and Eve Story” By Chan Thomas
Sanitised copy approved for release in 2013, CIA if I remember correctly.
I printed it out about a year ago and just have a paper copy in front of me .
I don’t have a link to it sorry but it’s probably easy to find.

The whole explanation of the trigger for a ‘tumble’ of the earths crust was pretty much quoted in my post. I think the writer definitely misinterpreted what he was trying to convey.

a reply to: puzzled2

How, in your opinion, does the ionosphere affect solar forcing?

Why, in your opinion, will the next decade be different than previous decades in this regard? The Earth's magnetic field has apparently been on the decline for some time now.
www.gfz-potsdam.de...

a reply to: rickymouse
Hey,

A mine not on a geomagnetic area would not really do much, just in areas with lots of magnetic flow through them, that magnetic energy would hop to a different place and cause a move of our magnetic field.

A question, maybe you or someone else can answer it?

Are there even mines in non geomagnetic areas? I ask because, wouldn't the earths magnetic field lines have concentrated these ores and elements naturally in places like that?

When the magma was still fluid, could the iron atoms be drawn to those places over a very long time? Molten iron is still paramagnetic.

What do you mean with "magnetic energy", can I ask?

a reply to: Shibari

While paramagnetic effects will cause particles in lava to acquire a magnetic "set" as it cools (thus, paleomagnetic records), the strength of Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to move magma. It takes forces far greater to do that. Pressure and gravity, mostly.

Accumulations of minerals have everything to do with geology, not much with magnetism.

Magnetic field lines are not actually a thing. They are a graphic representation of gradations of field strength. Analogous to contour lines on a topographic map.

a reply to: Phage
Thank you for explaining!

Are there no places with stronger magnetic field strength on earth then? I was trying to describe these sections, but you already answered the field is not strong enough to group them or attract them.

The field strength has to do with the rate of change it it, right?

a reply to: Shibari

Earth's magnetic field varies from place to place. In a variety of aspects, including field strength. The SAA, for example.
www.sciencedirect.com...
www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk...

The strength of the field seems to be continually changing. There is evidence that it has been on a general decline for several hundred years, if not longer. And there is evidence that it is still significantly stronger than its average level over millions of years.

This new evidence is consistent with the factor-of-2 equator-to-pole paleointensity signature of a geocentric axial dipole field and also indicates that the time-averaged field is considerably weaker than the present-day field. The resulting dipole moment provides a new calibration standard for cosmogenic isotope production rates and suggests that the present decrease in geomagnetic field intensity may simply be a return to a more average magnitude rather than a harbinger of a polarity reversal.

source

a reply to: Phage
Okay, I will not act like I understood a lot of your last source, but maybe you can give me a feedback?

What they do is sample collected mineral chips and run them through a magnetometer. Then after that, they heat the samples inside a magnetic field of 0.15T in 50° steps to the curie point. There, any additional magnetic properties, like the arrangement of all the little atoms pointing into the same direction, done by the more ancient magnetic fields, are dissolved, but they can read out data in the process, somehow (?).

They also found some evidence for super-paramagnetic particles in the data (the wasp tail hysteresis), messing a bit with the results. The conclusion of all this is that way back in history, the magnetic field was way stronger and what we now see is it either balancing in, or weakening in general?

Is there evidence for this happening in cyclic or swinging actions or is it degrading at a constant negative rate? Is there a study that includes samples from the north-pole, too?

Some trends in the curves would point it to being a more cyclic action, probably with a permanent downward trend. I am not sure if I related all the data together correctly, this is why I ask the above.

Thank you so much in advance, learned a lot already I think. You tell me?

a reply to: Shibari

The methods are well established. It is typical of analyses which tells us that Earth's magnetic polarity has reversed multiple times. What is different about this study is that, prior to this, there were only paleomagnetic studies made at higher latitudes. This one is from the Galapagos Islands, very near the equator. It fills in some major blanks in regard to the nature of Earth's magnetic field over the past few million years.

Two points that the authors of the study make are that:
1) Data for other studies implied some ambiguity about the bipolar nature of Earth's magnetic field. This study, because it uses data from lower latitudes, resolves that. The evidence it provides is that Earth's magnetic field has been primarily bipolar over that period.
2) Using this new data, it is possible to create more accurate models of the strength of the field over time. These models show that the average field strength over the past 3 million years is about 60% of what it is now. The paleomagnetic record indicates that it is still substantially higher than it was at the time of any reversal.

Regarding any cyclical nature to the changes in the field, either polarity or field strength, there does not seem to be any. All we really know is that it happens from time to time and that it does not seem to be a fast process, in human terms.

I'll admit, much of this material is way over my head. So, I'll go the route that's worked best for me when encountering disturbing information on here: I read the OP, get the gist of the claim(s) and then scroll thought until I find Phage's response.
However, this go-round I'm still a bit uncertain so, Phage, if you would - is there any cause for concern regarding anything presented in this thread?

a reply to: ChayOphan

I've often said that we may be in the early stages of a geomagnetic reversal. Or not. We really have no way of knowing.

There is every indication that such events occur over a very long time, in human terms. There is no evidence that they have any dramatic effect on life or climate.

If you need to worry about something, worry about that big old rock that's out there somewhere with our name on it. That will have far worse effects than a geomagnetic reversal will.

a reply to: Phage

Makes sense. At least, if I've understood correctly, some very smart people are working on a contingency plan for that monogrammed rock
Thanks!

a reply to: Phage

IMO Solar forcing affects the ionosphere - the weakening of the Earth's magnetic strength allows for that to be a greater.

In your opinion when is the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field going to be a concern or is there no tipping point and having a magnetic field is irrelevant?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ChayOphan

I've often said that we may be in the early stages of a geomagnetic reversal. Or not. We really have no way of knowing.

but you still say

There is every indication that such events occur over a very long time, in human terms.

if there is no way of knowing we are in a flip stage how can you say it takes a long time?

There is no evidence that they have any dramatic effect on life or climate.

Where are the sources? There must be a study or 2 for "no evidence" of an effect on life or climate. The Role of Geomagnetic Field Intensity in Late Quaternary Evolution of Humans and Large Mammals doesn't appear to support your premise seems pretty large effect.

The complexity of modern life compared to the last know flip 200,000 years ago would make your statement a rather naive and uninformed statement.

a reply to: puzzled2

IMO Solar forcing affects the ionosphere - the weakening of the Earth's magnetic strength allows for that to be a greater.

I see.
And how do you think that will affect climate? The magnetic field has been declining quite steadily for several hundred years at least. Are there changes in climate to correspond with this?

In your opinion when is the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field going to be a concern or is there no tipping point and having a magnetic field is irrelevant?

I think that if the strength of the Earth's magnetic field falls significantly below its long term average it would be more indicative that a reversal is underway. We are quite far from that point. As to it being of "concern", not so much.

if there is no way of knowing we are in a flip stage how can you say it takes a long time?

Because evidence of past occurrences indicate that is what happens. In your opinion, is there reason to think that the next one would be different?

We propose that rather than three successive collapses and regenerations of the dipole field, spanning less than 9 ka, as hypothesized for all polarity reversals of the past 180 million years by Valet et al. (26), the most recent M-B reversal, for which by far the largest number of high-quality records are available, instead exhibits a more complex evolution of dipole-dominant and nondipole fields spanning at least 22 ka.

advances.sciencemag.org...

The complexity of modern life compared to the last know flip 200,000 years ago would make your statement a rather naive and uninformed statement.

The last reversal occurred about 780,000 years ago. The fossil record shows no particular changes in biodiversity associated with it. In your opinion, is there reason to think the next one would be different?

pubs.geoscienceworld.org...
link.springer.com...

Electromagnetic currents that flow through the earth and crust is what I am talking about when I talk about magnetic energy. Some areas mined have deep rooted very conductive properties like magnatite pipes which go very deep. Hematite is oxidized already, they are not nearly as geomagnetive in nature. It is the crystal in the iron or metal ores that is most important. Now you take a diamond pipe, it goes very deep and it collects currents. You can store electricity in a crystaline rock. Remember that when thinking about things. What are batteries made of, they have metals in them and the metals catalyze reactions. It is not so much the copper that is relevent in copper mines, it is the crystals combined with the copper that is important. Most rocks are crystaline in design, but certain rocks are more geomagnetive than others.

I don't know if I am explaining this right, but I have researched this quite a bit. A mountain is definitely a geomagnetic conductor, so is a pyramid. So are the skyscrapers in cities Especially if they are over a deep rock base like New York is.

Running water is also a conductor of geomagnetic currents, and it becomes geo-magnetic when the river runs over crystaline rocks like Jasper or magnetite. This knowledge of how mines alter climate on a local basis has been known for a very long time, geologists used to be very aware of this. I have seen articles adressing this going back hundreds of years, but they really did not know exactly how it worked back then, they noticed that mining altered weather patterns as far as five hundred miles away. Sometimes when the old open pit mines or mineshafts were allowed to fill with water, the changes disappeared to the weather.

I have only read maybe a hundred articles and one actual whole geology book about this kind of stuff, some old geologists that specialized in it probably could clarify this more and have worked studying these phenomenon for their whole life. Others had no interest though and only chased the bucks. The book I read was only about two hundred pages and that guy hit upon many points of how things work. It was written twenty or more years ago. I got it at the senior center book sale and I think the wife donated it back after I read it.

I read it in my favorite reading place, it was in the bathroom next to the toilet....come to think about it maybe she did not donate it, she might have tossed it into the trash.

a reply to: Phage

The earth isn't going to roll over if a reversal happens. It isn't going to actually flip but from observing the people, people might get irrational and flip out.