Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Shifts the Earth's Poles
ananyo writes "Global warming is changing the location of Earth's geographic poles, according to a study published this week. Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, report that increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet — and to a lesser degree, ice loss in other parts of the globe — helped to shift the North Pole several centimeters east each year since 2005. From 1982 to 2005, the pole drifted southeast towards northern Labrador, Canada, at a rate of about 2 milliarcseconds — or roughly 6 centimetres — per year. But in 2005, the pole changed course and began galloping east towards Greenland at a rate of more than 7 milliarcseconds per year (abstract). The results suggest that tracking polar shifts can serve as a check on current estimates of ice loss. Scientists can locate the north and south poles to within 0.03 milliarcseconds by using Global Positioning System measurements to determine the angle of Earth's spin. When mass is lost in one part of a spinning sphere, its spin axis will tilt directly towards the position of the loss — exactly as the team observed for Greenland."
Part of this shift could be caused by filling the reservoir behind the Three Gorges Dam, since that is on the opposite side of the world from Greenland. But that would only explain part of it, since the reservoir holds about 40km^3 and Greenland is losing about 240km^3 per year.
What are the implications?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Global warming also made me fat. I drink milkshakes in the summer time.
Even if these events are related, it could also be that global warming is caused by the shift of the poles, not the other way around.
Climate changes. Has done that for millions of years. Poles have moved all over the map as well. The core of the earth rotates at a different speed than the crust. Also for millions of years. No-one has a full understanding of the entire complex interactions. Studies like these will be cause for government bodies to invent new taxes and levies to "stop the poles from moving".
Let's face it people, there is nothing we can do, accept it and deal with it.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Is this a conservation of angular momentum thing? Because I feel like my high school physics teacher would try to explain this by spinning someone around in a chair with a melting ice cube on their head.
Why did it happen? Global Warming!
Just curious - since the continental drift we acknowledge is about a cm per year, and we're all floating anyway, could this also be seen as a drift of the whole surface? I.e.: Could it be that the poles are actually stationary and the surface as a whole (as opposed to continents drifting relative to each other) moves?
When you're at the North Pole, which way is East?
I traded email with my close personal friend at the University of Texas, Austin, Dr. Dyslexic.
He is aware of these finding and believes it is clear evidence of the hand of Dog at work.
No brain, no pain.
Just like the age of something can be measured by multiple decay products, layer depth, and many other measures of archeological assessment, and when they are in agreement, you know your results are robust, this is another way to measure the loss of ice which, if it agrees with GRACE, land measurements and predictions from models, will indicate that the model results are robust.
It's even in the FS:
"The results suggest that tracking polar shifts can serve as a check on current estimates of ice loss."
gee it couldn't possibly be the major earthquakes that have altered the earth's axis. it couldn't possibly be internal earth forces. it couldn't possibly have to do with the sun. it couldn't possibly be a part of the natural cycle of the earth's wobble. it certainly couldn't be any sort of other external force acting on the planet.
nope, it's gotta be global warming. there's no way that the earth's wobble combined with solar influence could be leading to altered climate. nope, it's gotta be the carbon dioxide you're exhaling, so you clearly need to be taxed for it. that'll fix it for sure!
There was this guy called Adolph that shifted the Poles too
I wonder how this affects high-accuracy geodetic GPS measurements. The GPS coordinate system is defined by the Earth's axis.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
It got redistributed, that is all.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is going to cause earthquakes and locusts, people!!!!!! The end is nigh!!!!! Pray to Mother Earth for forgiveness!!!!!!
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
i first read about this a decade ago and it has been happening for hundreds of years. scientists are studying ships' logs from the 1700's and earlier and this process started 300 years ago.
From the fucking summary:
"When mass is lost in one part of a spinning sphere, its spin axis will tilt directly towards the position of the loss — exactly as the team observed for Greenland."
Jesuz christ you deniers are thick.
Now you don't have to worry about global worming, because as the world warms you will move closer to the pole.
Global warming seems to have taken the role of Satan in media.
Of course it's a very serious topic that should concern anyone who wants to maintain a convenient climate, but do we have to link everything to global warming now?
I can only hope that the real scientists working on solutions aren't blinded by this almost religious zeal that is showing up lately when it comes to these topics.
Continental drift also shifts Earth's geographic poles. Did they bother to compute the share of pole movement due to continental drift vs. movement/melting of the ice sheet? I doubt it.
And, in still other news, amazingly, angular momentum is conserved.
Funny, I mentioned the same thing, with the same end result and whether it is global warming, or my reasoning is that there were other types of gravitational pulls from within further in the galaxy that sort of gave us a 3rd axis, that would eventually change the other 2 pulls of the earth (spinning and orbiting). The galaxies has orbiting solar systems too, so technically these gravitational fields affect the planets (earth) as well, not just our sun....
In the end the result is the same, I explained in my previous post here on /. maybe 10 years ago, that what is happening is the poles shift, melting the ice and shifting the poles even more as the center of the equatorial line is becoming thicker with water (like an oval instead of a circle) thereby contributing even more to the change of axis forcing to have the new poles where the lines used to be more like a + sign, it is more like an X, enough to refreeze the new poles with ice as now you have more outreaching water and solidify the new earth axis in place.
Having said this, I would highly theorize that such events were the cause of the previous ice ages, as of course we can never really go back in time to see with our own eyes and investigate in person the causes, we can only theorize with core samples and deduce what we think happened. In the end, we never really know do we...
What if it makes everyone live forever? What if it makes money grow on trees? What if it makes us travel back in time to the age of the dinosaurs?
How will it make it worse.
If the rate of pole movement increases then logically the center spin displacement of the mantel will change proportionally as well. Obviously even a small change in the positioning of the spinning mass will change stress points along geographic faults. Therefore rapid pole movement due to the loss of ice mass might very well increase the frequency and severity of earth quakes.
Most people are not aware of the fact that the earth is not a sphere and that much of the reason why it is not is because of polar spin. Moving the pole will move the much more than just the center of rotation.
Shake and bake due to climate change.
And why have they renamed it 'climate change'? LOL
www.climatedepot.com
I think some of it ended up on my gut. I might be willing to send it back to Greenland if it doesn't take too much effort.
Please could you explain me in which way are shifting the Earth's poles? All my life I have been thinking that the True North and True South Pole are in a fixed place on Earth. Thank you.
Global warming is ruthless. Scientists have uncovered evidence that global warming is also responsible for
That terrible taste when you drink orange juice after brushing your teeth.
Making your dog drag it's butt across the carpet.
Stealing your credit card and using it to charge lots of porn.
Windows 8 lackluster sales performance.
And the most disturbing revelation of all is that global warming steals one of your socks out of the dryer leaving you wondering why you only have 1/2 of a pair.
Awesome in how much of an epic fail this "scientific" research.
Regardless of global warming, I don't need a geology degree to know the geographic poles shift constantly, and if you measured their location over millions of years, you could realize that there is so much involved in where they are located, like continental drift or earthquakes or ice ages, to realize this is a completely meaningless study.
But of course retarded greenists are just going to add this to their list of "proof" about how the planet is in a state of disaster because someone linked something meaningless to global warming and other people will over sensationalize what a pole shift will mean to the planet (you know, like the BBC).
I don't deny global warming, I just want to be realistic about it and find ways of dealing with its existence rather than looking for blame or wasting money and time trying to prove it. I also don't believe this is the end of the planet just one of the many changes this planet has gone through and survived.
Global warming is a geo-political issue, period. Its not a global catastrophe to nature.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Okay, for the past five years or so I've experience some of the most frigid winters. We had an extremely cold winter. Followed by a winter with record snow (4 ft in two days). Followed by a year with a mild winter but a huge snow in fall and a late frost in April. Then this past winter we've had snow flurries on about 1/2 the days. And now, in the middle of may we had a frost wipe out my second planting of sweet potatoes and peppers.
This is well past the Farmer's Almanac.
So seriously, F-GW, F-AlGore, F-Idiots who shout doom and gloom. I'm going to light my fire pit, burn some carbon filled wood. And pour used motor oil over it just to help warm things up.
***
EXPLANATIONS for Polar Shift.
1. Global Warming, heck maybe they're right. Maybe the ice melting is rotating the planet.
(Or maybe the planet rotating is melting the ice, though I would think that would mean the ice would merely shift directions.)
2. Maybe Three Gorges Dam in China
3. Maybe Fukishima earthquake, tidal wave, what not also contributed to the shift.
4. Perhaps we're applying the sure and steady scientific error. Where we assume things ALWAYS happen at the same rate. So if we see that the pole moved 1 meter in 300 years. We assume that it moved a centimeter a year. Rather than having any proof that the average movement is consistent. It may have moved 3 centimeters one year and 1/2 a centimeter another year.
5. If we used logic, we'd quit feeding the poor, quit having wars and devote ALL of our money to get us to a second planet and solar system. I mean seriously, what's the point of saving the poor only to have them wiped out by an asteroid. Just saying....Bruce Willis can't save us every time. I mean yes, he stopped Armageddon, and Cobra...but really. Can we rely on him to bail our butts out of every mess?
Sorry, do companies actually make money polluting, as in that is their business strategy?
Because otherwise, not polluting isn't going to increase the cost of living or cause cripling distress on the poor. The only ones distressed are those making profits from pollution. I.e. the wealthy.
But if the environment were clean, there would be less illness, which reduces the time the poor work, reduces their pay and can get them fired. So pollution can be causing cripling distress to the poor.
I'm afraid you're going to have to make up something better.
Good grief!
As anyone whose studied astronomy and paleoclimatology would know, (ok, I admit, there aren't too many out there) the Earth's axis shifts over time espically when coming out of a long term Ice Age cycle.
Yep, hard as it is to believe, we're actually coming out of a long term Ice Age. There are of course different levels of ice ages within an Ice Age, due to a number of varying factors, (Solar intensity, volcanic eruptions, possibly going through nebular clouds, and even Gamma Ray Bursts and nearby stellar novas, to name a few) Even with over 7 billion people on Earth, the amount of effect we have on the overall environment, (Not cities and farmlands) is actually quite small.
Heck, when Mount Penatubo in the Philipeans (SIC) blew, it put more of the same pollutants that the Climate Crazies worry about, (Sulfur dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrides and just plain dirt) than the entire Human Race had done during the entire Industrial Revolution up to that point. The effects? A lowering of the world's average temperature by between 2 to 3 degrees Celcius for three years.
Yes, pollution is a health hazard and Yes, I hate breathing it as much as anybody, and YES, I do thi9nk we need to lower the pollutants we create, but for the Sake of Humanity, QUIT THE CLIMATE PANIC!
Enough said,
Peace out!
JAsonAW3
Now Santa won't have to travel as far to get to my house!
That candy striped pole in the front of Santa's workshop? Can't they just dig it up and re-plant it where it should be?
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
Have gnu, will travel.
Just a thought, but have they stopped to consider that maybe the polar shifts might be causing the melting ice, and not the other way around?
How exactly is the surface temperature which is insulated from the magnetic core by quite a large layer of crust changing the orientation of the earths magnetosphere? I thought that the movement of the pole was caused mostly by an increase in seismic activity over recent times (as in we've had more severe incidents which have been said to shift the pole) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole It has been known ALL MY LIFE that the magnetic poles wander, and in fact have undergone complete pole reversal on average once every 450,000 years. This is not a linear process, and will experience times of acceleration and deceleration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal in fact there were articles on how the magnetic north has been shifting further and faster each year all over the place and something about runways having to repaint the north indicator on runways. (you look it up) Anyway.. to throw some tinder onto this fire.. I've always believed that our period of climate change (bear in mind we are always in a period of climate change as climate is NOT static and its stupid to think it is) may more directly influenced by cloud formation than we are lead to believe. Hence changing the magnetic north will change the distribution of Cosmic Carged Particles and this in turn will affect local climate areas. Not to mention that since the mass adoption of Jet engines (the time scale on this matches with a lot of the accelerating climate change graphs too by the way) on aircraft we have noticed artificial coalescence of clouds by compression of the water vapour through the engine.. this causing Contrails or whathaveyou which if you watch over the course of a day (anecdotal - take with a grain of salt) seem to cascade into larger cloud formations.. this plus the location of clouds in respect to the land mass I believe needs more studying before we can make any solid claims on the trends that cause/indicate/influence global climate.. and further than that local weather. ALSO it is very important to note that in a warmer environment that there will be increase in atmospheric CO2 as the ocean will not be able to absorb as much CO2 at higher temperatures (check out solubility of CO2 in water). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/ So in summary while I strongly believe most of these types of reports are funding seeking scare mongering nonsense, I do believe that we are in a state of climate change, people do have an effect, and we should all be doing our part to plan for a better future.. but please.. please.. base decision and actions on an accurate model. if the model doesnt work with more data, fix the model. Im not a denialist.. I just dont believe we have an accurate model yet.
If you take the known mass transfer between the ice sheets and the ocean, you can predict its effect upon the rotational axis of the Earth. You can then compare that prediction to what's actually observed by measurements of the location of the rotational axis of the Earth. This is what the paper did.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The poor, though, in that case, pay for those externalities. I.e. poorer health, poor access to good food, toxins in their environment.
The poor don't pay to clean up any more than the rich do, but the rich don't pay the price for not cleaning up.
ShanghaiBill, you just took AS READ that it *definitely would* cause "Dramatically increased cost of living causing crippling economic distress on the poor." and that they answer *definitely would* be "more population" even though both are merely stated, never actually worked out. For a group who continually whine about climate science "Something doesn't add up here", you don'yt actually do ANY maths, do you?
I think external forces, a cycle of our solar system, are skewing the planet's axis of rotation and its magnetic poles, which in turn is what decides the geographic poles, climate and weather.
I think it will eventually reach a climactic maximum with an increase in geological and meteorological effects, after which it will settle again. All part of the natural cycle of Earth and the solar system. This is how Earth is "renewed" with new mountain ranges, new oceans, new continents.
If this never occurred, Earth would've been one fine mix of sand and water at this point. Clearly the "youngest" parts of Earth are the tall, still sharp mountain ranges not yet ground down by time and weather, such as the Himalayas, and the deserts are the oldest parts, not renewed in a long time.
galloping east towards Greenland at a rate of more than 7 milliarcseconds per year
>galloping
>milliarcseconds/yr
To put it into english:
1 arcsecond is 1/3600 of a degree (1/(60x60)). One thousandth of this is 1/3,600,000 degree. There are 7 of these per year.
I will leave it to the reader to determine how many thousands of years it will take to move one degree from where it is now, excluding normal precession.
--
BMO
God damn ManBearPig!
And still, massive numbers of people will deny both the effect ( melting of the ice cap ) and the cause ( global warming ), even when faced with measurable, reproducible results.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Globullshit Yawning.
Funny because its getting colder and colder
to defy the logic of this is brainwashed.
Theres an agenda and its full of shit.
Global warming is an illusion. Made up crap.
Whats happening now is going to happen of its own accord. NATURAL !
So you're telling me that they used polar coordinates?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Shifting of the magnetic and true poles has been documented to happen for MILLIONS of years. I recall first learning about this phenomenon 25 years ago as part of a PBS documentary on "Earth".
So because the poles are shifting, and there's been periodic warming, the immediate conclusion is one is caused by the other. That's called confirmation bias.
Every few weeks or so Slashdot should automatically generate and post something along the line of "Global Warming causes xxxx" Where xxxx is any randomly selected dire event or silly occurrence
Just attribute the story to "researches" so hackers and virus writers can get in on the fun.
Then, randomly select some list of shit that people wouldn't like and tell everyone that all that shit is a consequence of xxxx.
Oh, and BTW, I've been told since grade school that the earth wobbles on its axis. Who are these "researchers"?
heres the lo down form Canadian and Russian scientists i learned about a year ago , i cant remember the link ( new pc so some stuff i lost )
the earths magnetic north ( true north ) has moved 50KM towards Siberia....and the fact is its speeding up such that inside 50 years it will be sitting inside Siberia.
ask your self then how animals and plants were found under the ice of the north pole and this apparently has happened about every 25000 years....and right at one point will have a 5-10 year period where it might slide as they say and lose our magnetic shield killing a lot of life potentially.
still just a theory but it usually precedes a massive ice age.....well global warming has affected that and we may either get a real violent shove OR it may just be slowing the process and the danger there is that this 5-10 yr period may because of that be longer and thus more dangerous.
someone might google or find the article that talked about it.....chris hapgood had a wild idea that the earth violently does this move causing global catastrphies but is largely seen as a nut...then they started noticing this shift.Also the animals and plants and even dinosaurs at regions that could not be possible....
No problem, I usually fart facing south so it will reach an equilibrium.
What a load of BS, really from an US University ?
Way to lose all credibility.
There have been several papers on the topic every year in the geodesy section of the American Geiphysical Union meetings. Earthquakes, ice sheet melting, mantle convention velocity changes, seasonal ocean storms all cause mass shifts int he earth and a slight change in pole position. Before satellite GPS geophysicists used Very Long Baseline radio telecscope inferometry of quasars to measure pole position. VLBI is essentially a "galactic GPS" but more expensive than satellite GPS methods.
A closely related geophhyscial measurement is Length-of-Day, that is the time between repeat viewing of stars which varies nanoseconds per day and milliseconds per year. All the same large earth mass-moveoments that shift poles also change Length of Day.
Ergo propter hoc?
This about like predicting the direction an elephant is walking by calculating the effect of the mass of it's tail swishing back and forth on the overall mass of its body.
Really, any calculations they attempt would be swamped by the chaotic nature of the earth. Just imagine all the variables they would have to account for. Now, multiply that by a few billion and you would still be clueless.
They can write down all the numbers and formulas they want but it's still all nothing but a Scientific Wild Ass Guess. A guess with a built in bias to boot.
Please stop going crazy.
"Just when the GL discussions couldn't get any dumber, someone tries to pull off a claim like this... AND TOTALLY REDEEMS THEMSELVES!" --Modified Dumb and Dumber Quote
OK, this is SERIOUS!
Time to empty our nuclear arsenals in the deserts and kick up enough dust and sand to cool off the planet. Then, we'd achieve nuclear disarmament and cure the "global warming" problem at the same time.
Hell, maybe empty them into the population centers and make sure that humans can't warm the earth any more.
Considering that every direction is south from the north pole?
So when you pushed a ball this morning at play, the movement of the ball being correlated to the push you gave it was a complete red herring, right? It was fairies that made the ball move, you just happened to wave your hand at the ball and freel pressure on your fingers which had NOTHING to do with the movement of your toy, right?
Well, strictly speaking every direction is also East. Although given that every direction is also West that probably cancels...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Climate change is real. Slashdot is dominated by people who deny facts and science.
At this point, it's probably easier to list the things global warming isn't affecting.
-Styopa
Is there anything that isn't caused by global warming? It's getting silly at this point.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Since I will not pay to see the paperI looked up maps of magnetic pole shifts. They all looked like this one. Since the turn of the century the North Pole has been moving toward Russia and is still going in a straight line. The article talks about a course change in 2005 but that is not shown on the map. Why is their information so different than the information available to the public?
The second point is that there are only 400 years of data to look at. We have no idea if this kind of change in the speed and direction of polar shift is a common occurrence and this time just happens to correlate with ice loss. Notice the major shifts in direction in 1700 and 1850? I don't remember any reports of major ice loss around either of those times. So why did the direction shift so drastically? This points to the shifts be more random that the authors of the paper believe. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
This looks like another study by climate scientists who look at changes in the earth and then look for a way to link them to global warming. By not looking at alternative explanation they are decreasing the validity of their study. To me, suspect studies like this do not strengthen the global warming case but weakens it as I am always suspicious about theories supported by suspicious science.
Hang on, boys, we're going for the "E" ticket ride here.
There was this guy called Adolph that shafted the Poles too
So, when our magnetic axis is aligned with our spin axis, 'everything' will be back to normal. :)
I mean, do you want the weather that you want or the weather that was intended from the beginning?
Climate 'change is good'?
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
So, wait, if I read this correctly, it only seems logical to imagine that radical polar shift could be related to global mass distribution. If the polar ice were to vanish tomorrow, wouldn't the denser mass areas be located on one of the larger continents... potentially leading to polar drift towards that mass as it pulls closer to center (like a dancer or top spinning)?
I wonder if anyone has ever correlated radical polar shifts with global mass distribution?
Please let me know how you intend to reproduce the results.
Perhaps you can get NASA to help get you to one of those Earth-like planets they keep finding, develop a civilization, industrialize it and see if we get the same results? Even then, it wouldn't be exactly the same.
Go find one that says they profit from polluting and wish to continue to pollute rather than reduce profit.
Not one will admit it.
So either you're calling them all lying weasels, or their profit isn't made from pollution.
And the insistence is that this will somehow hurt the poor people. Well, they aren't the ones profiting as you claim, are they. So they're not going to get hit. And if it's being paid for by the rich, then the cleanup won't cost them, will it.
Oh, and GrinIdiot, the energy companies don't profit from polluting, they lose profit when they do. All that oil in Exxon Valdez? Lost profit. Energy companies profit from selling energy. Not from selling pollution. Electric companies will make money selling power from non-polluting sources just as effectively (no, MORE effectively, since they don't have to hedge against an Deepwater Horizon event) as fossil fuels.
Claiming that the economy will be ruined and people will starve is just climate alarmism (the deniers love to project their failings on everyone else, you notice?).
"When mass is lost in one part of a spinning sphere, its spin axis will tilt directly towards the position of the loss "
Soooo.....China's going to be the new North Pole?
The two things that spring to mind immediately are the Pacific volcano a couple decades ago and the Japanese earthquake, both of which were reported to have permanently (to the limit of our near nonexistent understanding) changed the Earth's very orbit itself.
So forgive me if I am more than a whole lot skeptical of their childishly simple cause = effect assumption. There are literally hundreds of thousands of inputs we know of their model likely omits and probably millions we don't even know about.
This is yet another "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with ax" story.
Lol @ you for messing up your precious post with the assumption that precession has anything to do with where the rotational axis of the Earth intersects its surface.
The earths poles shift. they have since the band of molton iron in the core gave her a magnetic field.
the geographic pole has been shifting since before man discovered them. And the fossil records show us that the magnetic poles reverse themselves on average, about every 450,000 years.
To even attempt to blame pole shift on the fallacy of global warming is inexcusable science. It's attempting to garner research grants by exploiting the bad science of the week.
There is no doubt that the Earths climate is changing. But the Earth has a dynamic climate. That means, it is constantly in a state of change. Humans just don't live long enough to notice most of it. Sure, the average global temperature may be rising, right now. But what about 20 years from now when it starts falling?
Global Warming is a myth created by and perpetuated by, scientists who directly profit off the belief the public has in global warming.
The plain and simple face is, ever since earth gained an atmosphere, it's climate has been changing. Does man contribute to the change? Without a doubt. But consider this:
Before humans came on te scene, the Earth has had average temperatures ~30-40 degrees higher than they are now, making the whole planet a hot, humid, tropical jungle, and average temperatures ~ -30, when the entire planet was covered in a sheet of ice. Humans didn't exist at either time.
The climate changes. Deal with it.
Isn't the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan a more likely candidate for a planetary shift on axis?
Could the Japanese earthquake and the magnitude of water it moved be a factor here?
Since we are spinning in free-fall on this planet a violent flailing on at one point would affect our rotational angle, but would the tsunami and earthquake have affected it a measurable amount?
I got thinking that many Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian and other nations have left us with structures (pyramids, temples, etc) strongly aligned with stars and other celestial items. Seems they are still aligned, despise 1000s of years. If the Earth has been shifting since eons, how come those are still aligned?
If you are tempted to say the time scale isn't the same, remember that in only 8 years, it's moved 20cm according to the fine summary and we're not experiencing the first GW.
The points of this post is not to discredit GW, nor the shift we observe, nor the Grand History of mankind as we know it, but to gather opinions on how to reconcile those 2 seemingly incompatible points.
JigJag
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
you are misinformed, the position of the solstice sun has indeed changed and temples get out of alignment
For example:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/egyptkarnak.htm
The poles shift every 32,000 years or so and were scheduled to be happening at this point in time. It might have devastating effects as easily as it might be completely unapparent to all of us. However, this is not caused by humans.
>the pole drifted southeast towards northern Labrador
Isn't any movement away from the pole always due south? How can this be "southeast? From the perspective of a person in Edmonton, it may have moved southeast, but from the perspective of a person in Edinburgh, it has moved southwest.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
10-50 years of data is a blink of an eye in the history of the world. Of course, these lamebrain idiots never take into account the LIQUID core of the earth, shifting plates, geomagnetic output from the sun....nope, it's all MAN's fault!
So after a million years Sun will not rise from east anymore.. where then ?
Its seems people have yet to figure out the global warming sham. Even after recent NASA satellites confirmed that oceanic temperatures have stabilized and have actually reversed course, even after average mean surface temperatures have fluctuated and have not seen the claimed +2.3C rise in the past decade. LOL! So now its called climate change, not global warming.
Yet our mass media loves to distort showing pictures of melting glaciers and drowning polar bears. The reality is we have had climate change (not global warming) long before man walked the earth. Large parts of Europe were covered by glaciers less than 1000 years ago! We have climate cooling (dark ages, low food crops, starvation) and global warming (renaissance, plentiful food crops) in history. Realize there is global warming on Mars as it once was a hospitable planet. There are plenty of scientists (including prominent folks from MIT, Stanford that have said its a sham on camera, although they will never publish a piece refuting it simply because they don't want to be targets).
So what is the purpose of all this global warming/climate change talk? -- Money in lieu of carbon taxing the crap out of us. The bankers want it real bad as it will open up a huge new revenue stream for them. The eco folks and left are used as pawns being convinced we can actually do something to protect mother earth. We are arrogant to think we can change a massive cycle. We can't all we can do is adapt.
But all directions from the Poll are south.
How can they say it is migrating east to Greenland?
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
cool
The discrepancy is easy to reconcile: Your statement that these structures are still aligned with the constellations is false.
For instance, Egyptian pyramids were aligned with the constellation Orion when they were built. It is now possible to date them by looking at how far that alignment has drifted since then. Likewise, Greek sailors have Greek names for constellations that are no longer visible from Greece (or within ship travelling distance of the technology that was time) but were visible from Greece at the time that those names were coined.
The planet's axis precesses through a circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_%28astronomy%29), which takes about 26,000 years to complete. In turn, the axis it will visit regions (roughly corresponding to the Zodiac signs) about every 2000 years. Remember that song, "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?" That was because the Earth's axis will be moving into Aquarius starting in 2060 or so. (We are in the Age of Pisces now.)
I think the real question here is what are "scientists" in Texas doing talking about "global warming?" Based on reading past slashdot comments, I thought all of Texas and Texans were crazy uneducated, backwater, right winged, gun loving, crazy people that the rest of the country would be better off without- certainly not scientists doing climate research and at most, if they were it couldn't possibly agree with or even imply that climate change is a real phenomena.
obviously you aren't interested in science at all.......
The reason why the poles changed course in 2005 is due to the effects of Nibiru getting closer....
Is there anything that isn't caused by global warming? It's getting silly at this point.
It's not global warming, it's us. And "global warming" is just one thing we're causing.
We're also causing a mass extinction event that began about 10000 years ago (by humans severely and extremely quickly disrupting ecosystems everywhere as soon as they arrived) and has ramped up to a point that half of all species will be gone soon, with no end of this in sight. The scale of this is similar to the handful of other mass extinctions in earth's history, the speed of it is not comparable to anything that ever happened on this planet.
Anyone who thinks that 7 billion rather large and very clever and greedy mammals aren't perfectly capable to cause a planetary catastrophe or that all the fossil hydrocarbons that accumulated over millions of years and that we dug out and burned within less than hundred years aren't perfectly capable to severely change planetary climate is just too modest.
I didn't realize we were back to calling it "global warming". I'll make sure I use the correct phrase until some location experiences an unusually cold day, then I'll say "climate change".
And since we're on the topic, are we still fighting Eastasia, or is it Eurasia now?
Someone has been perfecting their approach to getting federal research grants.
How can a pole shift "east"? No matter what direction you look when you're at the north pole, you always look south. No matter if you look to the right, to the left, or turn around 180 - you always look south. So whatever direction the pole moves, it can't be anything but south. Only with reference to it's original location, ie. when it has moved south a bit, it can move east. But since it has moved, this is no longer east! it has become south, too! I think I just lost my compass ;-)
of course climate change will shift the poles, they come from a fairly cold region, and warming will make them move from the Midwest to places like Alberta.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
If global warming causes the earth's poles to shift, then we must have had it eons ago, because the poles have completely shifted places before. You can't have it both ways. Either global warming is an old phenomenon or it is not causing the poles to shift. Can't have it both ways, unless you are talking about Poles moving, which they probably did during the last mini ice age.