The magnetic pole is moving faster than at any time in human history, causing major problems for navigation and migratory wildlife. The magnetic north pole is currently shifting at a faster rate than at any time in human history — almost 40 miles a year — and some experts believe that it may be the beginning of a complete pole reversal, according to the Independent.
The changes are already beginning to cause major problems for aviation, navigation and migratory animals which use the Earth’s magnetic field to orient themselves. Some airports have even had to change the names of their runways to better correspond to their current direction relative to magnetic north. Ever since the magnetic north pole was first discovered in 1831, geologists have been tracking its progress. Unlike true north (which is marked by the Earth’s axis), magnetic north is constantly on the move due to changes in the planet’s molten core, which contains iron. Throughout most of recorded history, the pole has been positioned at or around Canada’s icy Ellesmere Island, but if it keeps moving at its current rate, it won’t be long before it sits above Russia instead.
The thing that really makes the pole’s current movement so unusual, however, is the speed that it is shifting. In the last decade alone, movement has increased by a third, throwing off compasses by roughly one degree every five years. Changes that fast have already caused major headaches for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Tampa International Airport in Florida has just spent a month renaming all of its runways, which are named after the degree at which they point on a compass. Similar changes were recently made to runways at Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, and across the country runways now need to be renamed at least once every five years.
The shifting pole may also become a grave concern for migratory wildlife, such as birds, turtles and other sea creatures which use Earth’s magnetic field to navigate over great distances. It’s unclear how capable these animals are of recalibrating their navigational instincts to compensate for the changes.
The rapid shifting of the pole’s position has even prompted some experts to speculate that the Earth’s entire magnetic field may be preparing to “flip,” whereby all compasses completely invert and point south instead of north.
# 25 akallio9000 said, “The danger of having the magnetic poles flip is …”
Have no worries. The geologic record shows that previous pole “shifts” took thousands of years to complete. If there were to be a “flip” (suggesting a very rapid change) we’re dead so no worries.
By the way, a magnetic pole shift will not cause the Earth to turn upside down. The magnetic poles are caused by subterranean movement of the core.
Bobbo – I don’t believe I’ve read any theories about the effects on migratory animals but, since a shift would take millennia to complete, I suspect most would adapt.
@34,
[Please drop the AREA51ET from the URL as WordPress doesn’t display it properly. Plus, it’s… Erm, well, it IS necessary, but you see, it breaks the link, which is a shame.]
Rats. Time to update all the Sectional and Jepp charts. Yep, it’s the aviation mapmakers that caused this just to make a few extra bucks. Some major airports are already renaming and repainting their runways.
Animby–good point, that the flip itself takes 1000’s of years and its “obvious” the animals adapt or they wouldn’t be here, or wouldn’t be migrating.
So once again Darwin strikes me as mind boggling AMAZING. I’ll bet the migratory animals have EVOLVED to be able to change their genetic imprint on how to follow the magnetic lines? Like an update to the bios.
I don’t see the intelligence, but I see the design.
Wow, Mom, Wow!!
Thanks for the Photo. When I realized it wasn’t Al Gore on the pole, it made a lot more sense.
http://www.mizozo.com/profile/jonolan/profile_articles/page6.html
I’m not sure we know exactly how long a flip takes.
I’m not sure a flip causes mass extinctions. I’ve read the claim that most identified species seem to last about 2,000,000 years for warm blooded animals. That suggests that most migratory species have made it through several flips.
It may not be possible to demonstrate that the warming trend that occurred during the last part of the 20th century was actually caused by increasing CO2 to the exclusion of other factors.
One major issue is you need a data base of temperatures over centuries that are accurate and not “adjusted” and that doesn’t exist. We have fewer earth bound data collection centers now than in the past and they are normally very poorly sited.
The level of precision you can actually claim for the data in most cases is so shoddy that there is no way you can substantiate many of the changes they have been claimed have occurred. When your built in error factor could be a degree C or even more how can you claim some year was warmer by a small fraction of a degree? Sure, you can adjust the numbers and stick them in a spread sheet but the old rule is garbage in, garbage out. You results can’t be better than your raw data no matter how much the computer cost.
The other is that the integrity of the people doing the research has been demonstrated as being dubious based on what they did to to and with the data. At least some of the researchers appear to be incompetent when dealing with numbers even if you disregard other issues. You would not want these guys running your accounting department.
#40–do-ill==gosh, you are a nice guy-demonstrating my point made so nicely. So from what website do you eat this sewage up?
Made up BS, and just plain BS==aka “Puke.”
Disgusting.
Now, explain the precession of the axis to all the nice folks.
# 40 deowll said, “I’m not sure we know exactly how long a flip takes.” Exactly? No. Besides, each one would be different. However, a quick google (you know google, don’t you dowel?) shows several sources. How about this one from a NASA site: “Reversals take a few thousand years to complete…” http://1.usa.gov/OIH20 There are many such references. I’m sure you can find one that suits you.
Now, would you explain how you see relevance to an AGW seminar in a pole reversal discussion? No, never mind. I’m sure I would regret it.
I’ve got it. Oil is the lubricant for the spinney iron bar in the Earth and because we’ve all been driving our cars too much, the bar is slowing down and it’s failing.
– Coming to an IPCC report soon….
And when the Pole is sitting above Russia, the Russkies will claim they invented it !!!
24, Bobbo,
IMHO, at the most basic level there are four EQUALLY possible scenarios. Global Warming / Climate Change is natural. Global Warming / Climate Change is man-made. CO2 is the root cause of Global Warming / Climate Change. CO2 is not the root cause of Global Warming / Climate Change.
You seem to blur the lines of trying to be a good steward to the planet with an unproven environmental crisis because it supports your world view.
If you believe the best “science” on this comes from a consensus of non-scientific and scientific persons from an organization that is politically motivated to push an environmentalist agenda then we won’t see eye to eye. Having faith in a politically-bent consensus isn’t science.
I want empirical evidence. Show causality. If you can’t provide that, then prove the models are correct with accurate predictions instead of rationalizing every possible weather phenomena such that EVERYTHING is due to Global Warming. Rationalizing an explanation for every phenomena to support your theory doesn’t prove anything. To liberals, that’s enough to be called “science” because it supports their world view.
We can see eye to eye in that people should take care of the environment better. We won’t agree if you conclude a crisis is in fact happening and feel people need to be coerced into living in caves because that’s what the best “science” says.
27, Bobbo,
That wasn’t me. But nice to see your powers of assumption are as strong as ever. 🙂
Alexander Graham Bellinski; the first telephone Pole.
#46–Guyver==you want to equate proof with predictability. Fair enough in statement, but in application the “prediction” is that the co2 loading in the atmosphere will have effects not catastrophic for 100-200 years with a tipping point reached right about now. See any problem with that?
And you continue to accept a very unlikely conjecture: we can pump billions of tons of co2 into the air without negative consequences. Worse, you do this by denying what is universally accepted: co2 is a greenhouse gas. Worse, you don’t even offer any explanation for this exept two I constantly hear: co2 is good for plants, and hoomans exhale co2–neither of which addresses the issue.
The issue is much like evolution. A slow process and you refuse to believe it without a species change demonstrated in front of you.
Finely tuned ignorance.
You should be proud.
48, Bobbo,
In other words, you have a great window of opportunity to make money off of this crisis. By the time people have all the facts in, you and I will be long dead.
I realize you have a flair for the dramatics, but has anyone proven human contribution is STATISTICALLY / chemically significant on a global scale?
HUGE logical leap on your part. Why would you assume I think a greenhouse gas isn’t a greenhouse gas?
CO2 is a product of nature / life. Before you and others start outlawing or restricting things that are byproducts of living, I would think you could try to determine if there’s any validity to claims of its evilness.
A slow process that no one fully understands. I refuse to believe in someone’s theory of it when all they have are faith-based assumptions. Give me something better than a faith in your belief system.
# 47 Mr, Ed – the Imitation : Alexander Graham Bellinski; the first telephone Pole.
Bad puns? You should be ashamed of myself.
McGuyver–so you’ve moved from “The IPCC is biased” to the IPCC is not even a qualified body to reach a consensus?
You are the idiot sit com denier who thinks putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “I don’t believe it” will avoid the CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS.
So foolish. Not a man of science, but a devolving man of faith. Faith. Dogma.
Silly hooman.
# 48 bobbo said. “Worse, you do this by denying what is universally accepted: co2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Grammar Nazi here: I’m tired of the AGW argument, you’ve consumed the bitter Kool-Aid while many of us are demanding a little sweetener. However, it cannot be universally accepted if you claim there is at least one person denying it.
Admittedly, Guyver (in a subsequent post) denies denying, but that is no excuse for oxymoronic (oxymoranic?) exposition. [insert tongue sticking out smiley face here]
51, Bobbo,
What a dope. You see what you want to see. I did not say they were not qualified. I was saying the conclusions of the IPCC are not entirely done by a scientific body. It’s editorialized by non-scientists. They’ve been criticized for filtering out dissenting scientific evidence.
LOL. And what EXACTLY did I deny? Are you too dumb to remember that I said there are four equally possible scenarios?
I’ve also presented a lead author of the IPCC climate reports who pointed out the political bias of the IPCC and how they distort things. But of course, you put your fingers in your ears denying that someone from within the IPCC is qualified to criticize the IPCC. But somehow you find the IPCC is composed entirely of impartial scientists. What a dope. They’re not impartial, but you’re too dogmatic to be intellectually honest.
Blah, blah, blah. You rant is nothing more than you didn’t have a point, so when your religion gets challenged you get into your knee jerk mode of ad hominem attacks. Typical liberal.
52, Animby,
Nothing oxymoronic about what I said. What have I denied? What am I questioning? What am I accepting? I’ve not contradicted myself. I think you completely misunderstand my position.
I have always maintained a posture of questioning those who claim to know. In the case of Bobbo, he claims to know global warming is not natural and that man-made CO2 is the root cause. I ask for proof. He cites a consensus by an organization crippled by politics and whose findings are often done by non-scientists (even though Bobbo would have you think it’s entirely the scientific community wielding its hand in this).
There’s four equally possible scenarios. Bobbo disagrees because he knows the truth. I seek the truth. When I question his knowledge, he gets upset because he can’t force me to drink hemlock. 🙂
53 Guyver – No, you’ve misunderstood. Perhaps I was unclear. I was speaking of Bobbo’s contradiction.
I like Bobbo though, as you point out, sometimes he’s just too dogmatic to suffer. Other than his expertise in coffee and pastries, I don’t really know a lot about his background.
Me? I all for taking care of our planet but, since the first hints of AGW, I’ve looked at the data and graphs and saw error on error in methodology. No, I’m not a climate scientist (neither are a large percentage of the IPCC members). But I am trained to look at a study and decide if it’s been constructed correctly. I’m not a TV weather man but I do know how to look at a data set and see if it’s relevant.
All I see are crappy studies with lots of dissenters – many of whom were on the original IPCC and asked their names be removed. Everywhere you look, from the Indian guy who heads the panel (I’m too lazy to look up his name right now) right down to the ass who started the “panic” (Algore) you find money, money, money.
Though I am inclined to believe our current climate problems are due to solar changes, I am open to being convinced. All it would take is to slow down, establish a truly impartial panel of qualified scientists (not just whoever is available to slap their name on a study they had nothing to do with) and let them design a reasonable study protocol that includes both retrospective and prospective data.
Then give them a decade to figure things out. According to Gore, we’ve already passed the tipping point so there’s no hurry. Wasn’t it Phil Jones himself that stated there has been no discernible warming since 1995? So, let’s take some time and do it right.
Even if the changes are anthropogenic, no one seems to really know how to reverse the CO2 problem. From the dramatic concept of a small nuclear winter, to nano particles of aluminum in the atmosphere (watch the incidence of Alzheimer’s leap upward with that solution), to silly electric cars. Why is it no one is suggesting we plant a few thousand forests? There’s a plan that is sustainable, cheap and probably as effective as anything else we could do – except maybe that nuclear winter thing. (Not really sustainable but certainly cheap and effective.)
Oh, one more thing: any plan that entails carbon trading is a scam, IMHO.
Ok, Bobby – spew at me. I know you want to…
# 43 Animby, thanks for the link to the excellent article.
I’ve long wondered if electric transmission lines have any effect at all on the Earth’s magnetic field or its internal dynamo. But seeing that the whole thing is powered by the rotational energy of the whole planet, I realize it’s less than a drop in the ocean.
54, Animby,
My mistake. That said, you and I are on the same sheet of music.