Oceans Rising Fast

[amber]

OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND
Melting ice could raise levels up to 20 feet by 2100, scientists say
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Friday, March 24, 2006


Printable Version
Email This Article




Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought and could cause sea levels around the world to rise as much as 13 to 20 feet by the end of the century, scientists are reporting today.

If the researchers' estimates are correct, a rise in ocean waters projected by the new studies not only would drown many of the low-lying inhabited atolls and islands that are already endangered by rising ocean waters, it also would threaten coastal cities and harbors on every continent.

Scientists have been warning for decades that greenhouse gases from autos and industry are warming the planet and raising the seas, but the studies appearing today in the journal Science are the first to suggest that sea levels could climb as high as 20 feet as a result of global warming.

The studies by two teams of researchers are the first to combine data on long-term climate change and sea ice melting from both the north and south polar regions.

"This is a real eye-opener set of results," said geoscientist Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona, who led one of two teams of university and government climatologists. "We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade, (and) if we don't do something soon, we're committed to 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

The scientists used models of climate change widely accepted by government and university researchers and the fossil record of episodes of global warming thousands of years ago.

The teams, which Overpeck led together with Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., analyzed climate and polar ice records from 130,000 years ago during a period of global warming when Earth was tilted somewhat more on its axis than it is today and its orbit around the sun was slightly different. As a result, the sun at that time warmed the north polar regions by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit, Overpeck and his colleagues calculated.

By using evidence from ice cores, stranded coral reefs, fossilized pollen and ancient ocean sediments, the team estimated that Greenland's glaciers and Arctic sea ice all melted rapidly in that period and thrust sea levels up by about 10 feet. Overpeck said that during the same period, the West Antarctic ice sheet, much of which is unstable below sea level, may have also melted along with other ice-clad coasts of Antarctica and added another 10 feet to the rise in global sea level.

The teams then compared that era to what might happen in this century if emissions of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases into the atmosphere continue to increase dramatically, as present trends foresee.

They concluded that ice in both the Artic and Antarctic regions is now melting faster than previously believed and, unless the trend is reversed, that would lead to an average global temperature increase of at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit and a rise from today's global sea level of 13 to 20 feet. Melting of glaciers on Greenland and Arctic sea ice alone could raise sea levels by considerably more than 3 feet, they calculated.

Their conclusions are already provoking controversy -- even among other scientists who are concerned about the impact of greenhouse gases on warming trends but who foresee much smaller increases in future sea levels.

John R. Christy, a noted atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who supports the idea that human activities are a major cause of global warming, said in an interview that "these papers don't alarm me. When you look at all the data, it's confusing but not alarming. People are searching for hard answers, and there's still a lot of speculation."

Where Overpeck's team said that "sea level rise could be faster than widely thought," Christy said: "I wish they'd written 'could or could not be faster.' "

On the other side, James Hansen, a leading NASA climate expert who recently accused White House officials of trying to censor his scientific reports, supported the findings.
[Environmental studies have been changed and fudged for years and years and years to serve special interests, which usually means politicians and the businesses that own them]

The work by the two teams "is a useful contribution because they point out that sea level change may be much more rapid than we thought," Hansen said in an e-mail. "The practical problem for humanity is that ice sheet disintegration starts slowly, but once it gets going fast enough it will be out of our control and there will be no way to stop it.

"The further implication is that we have to get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions now, not wait 15 years until some magic new technology is available."

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton geoscientist and member of the university's Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, agreed with Hansen.

"These are important papers," he said in an interview, "because they provide new insights into the effects of temperature change on melting ice at both poles. They show how even modest increases in global temperatures could put the Earth in a dangerous spot.

"We don't have to know for sure how fast the glaciers and polar ice sheets would disappear to realize that this is a serious warning, and by the end of this century we could be locked into an irreversible trend that no technology could reverse."

In a report that also appears in today's issue of Science, Robert Bindschadler, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., wrote that Canadian and European satellites monitoring glaciers around the margins of both Greenland and Antarctica provide strong support for the new findings.

Radar aboard the satellites shows that for the past five years, in both the northern and southern regions, warmer waters have been moving into cold ocean layers 3,000 feet deep where the bases of many large glaciers lie, Bindschadler said. The warm waters are rapidly increasing the rate at which those glaciers, as well as deep-rooted sea ice around them, are melting -- and thus are speeding the pace of the rise in sea level, he concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/24/MNG22HTITV1.DTL

[DavidMn]

OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND
Melting ice could raise levels up to 20 feet by 2100, scientists say
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Friday, March 24, 2006


Printable Version
Email This Article




Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought and could cause sea levels around the world to rise as much as 13 to 20 feet by the end of the century, scientists are reporting today.

If the researchers' estimates are correct, a rise in ocean waters projected by the new studies not only would drown many of the low-lying inhabited atolls and islands that are already endangered by rising ocean waters, it also would threaten coastal cities and harbors on every continent.

Scientists have been warning for decades that greenhouse gases from autos and industry are warming the planet and raising the seas, but the studies appearing today in the journal Science are the first to suggest that sea levels could climb as high as 20 feet as a result of global warming.

The studies by two teams of researchers are the first to combine data on long-term climate change and sea ice melting from both the north and south polar regions.

"This is a real eye-opener set of results," said geoscientist Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona, who led one of two teams of university and government climatologists. "We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade, (and) if we don't do something soon, we're committed to 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

The scientists used models of climate change widely accepted by government and university researchers and the fossil record of episodes of global warming thousands of years ago.

The teams, which Overpeck led together with Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., analyzed climate and polar ice records from 130,000 years ago during a period of global warming when Earth was tilted somewhat more on its axis than it is today and its orbit around the sun was slightly different. As a result, the sun at that time warmed the north polar regions by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit, Overpeck and his colleagues calculated.

By using evidence from ice cores, stranded coral reefs, fossilized pollen and ancient ocean sediments, the team estimated that Greenland's glaciers and Arctic sea ice all melted rapidly in that period and thrust sea levels up by about 10 feet. Overpeck said that during the same period, the West Antarctic ice sheet, much of which is unstable below sea level, may have also melted along with other ice-clad coasts of Antarctica and added another 10 feet to the rise in global sea level.

The teams then compared that era to what might happen in this century if emissions of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases into the atmosphere continue to increase dramatically, as present trends foresee.

They concluded that ice in both the Artic and Antarctic regions is now melting faster than previously believed and, unless the trend is reversed, that would lead to an average global temperature increase of at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit and a rise from today's global sea level of 13 to 20 feet. Melting of glaciers on Greenland and Arctic sea ice alone could raise sea levels by considerably more than 3 feet, they calculated.

Their conclusions are already provoking controversy -- even among other scientists who are concerned about the impact of greenhouse gases on warming trends but who foresee much smaller increases in future sea levels.

John R. Christy, a noted atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who supports the idea that human activities are a major cause of global warming, said in an interview that "these papers don't alarm me. When you look at all the data, it's confusing but not alarming. People are searching for hard answers, and there's still a lot of speculation."

Where Overpeck's team said that "sea level rise could be faster than widely thought," Christy said: "I wish they'd written 'could or could not be faster.' "

On the other side, James Hansen, a leading NASA climate expert who recently accused White House officials of trying to censor his scientific reports, supported the findings.
[Environmental studies have been changed and fudged for years and years and years to serve special interests, which usually means politicians and the businesses that own them]

The work by the two teams "is a useful contribution because they point out that sea level change may be much more rapid than we thought," Hansen said in an e-mail. "The practical problem for humanity is that ice sheet disintegration starts slowly, but once it gets going fast enough it will be out of our control and there will be no way to stop it.

"The further implication is that we have to get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions now, not wait 15 years until some magic new technology is available."

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton geoscientist and member of the university's Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, agreed with Hansen.

"These are important papers," he said in an interview, "because they provide new insights into the effects of temperature change on melting ice at both poles. They show how even modest increases in global temperatures could put the Earth in a dangerous spot.

"We don't have to know for sure how fast the glaciers and polar ice sheets would disappear to realize that this is a serious warning, and by the end of this century we could be locked into an irreversible trend that no technology could reverse."

In a report that also appears in today's issue of Science, Robert Bindschadler, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., wrote that Canadian and European satellites monitoring glaciers around the margins of both Greenland and Antarctica provide strong support for the new findings.

Radar aboard the satellites shows that for the past five years, in both the northern and southern regions, warmer waters have been moving into cold ocean layers 3,000 feet deep where the bases of many large glaciers lie, Bindschadler said. The warm waters are rapidly increasing the rate at which those glaciers, as well as deep-rooted sea ice around them, are melting -- and thus are speeding the pace of the rise in sea level, he concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/24/MNG22HTITV1.DTLSo James Hanson worked for NASA huh? I would imagine that he probably doesnt anymore after a comment like that.:rolleyes:

[madformac]

It's not necessarily an exageration. I'm a firm believer that there is a point where the momentum of a situation is irreversible. Climate change will occur anyway but we are certainly not helping it. Normally it would be like a car running at 30 mph on gasoline. Humans have come in and strapped a nitro booster on the situation and it's accelerating to a point of being out of our control.

Then again "control" is a stupid word to use. We can't control nature. Earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal changes, volcanic activity, asteroids. Can't do **** about any of them despite what the nerds say. :rolleyes: The more species we kill off the more the balance swings artificially.

What we can do is minimise our effect on these elements. Nobody in power will do anything, especially in the USA, until enough scientists tell them it is either borderline or too late. George W Bush probably thinks global warming is something invented to keep your testicles hot in winter. :rolleyes:

[DavidMn]

It's not necessarily an exageration. I'm a firm believer that there is a point where the momentum of a situation is irreversible. Climate change will occur anyway but we are certainly not helping it. Normally it would be like a car running at 30 mph on gasoline. Humans have come in and strapped a nitro booster on the situation and it's accelerating to a point of being out of our control.

Then again "control" is a stupid word to use. We can't control nature. Earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal changes, volcanic activity, asteroids. Can't do **** about any of them despite what the nerds say. :rolleyes: The more species we kill off the more the balance swings artificially.

What we can do is minimise our effect on these elements. Nobody in power will do anything, especially in the USA, until enough scientists tell them it is either borderline or too late. George Bush probably thinks global warming is something invented to keep your testicles warm in winter. :rolleyes:
Did you ever see the movie Day After Tomorrow?

[madformac]

Did you ever see the movie Day After Tomorrow?

No, apart from Bond and Tom Cruise movies I'm not big on action blockbusters. Is it another testosterone filled "humans save the planet from themselves" Armageddon mentality film?

I have noticed and even, dare I say it, predicted a noticable increase in natural disasters over the past few years. The rate, frequency and intensity of these instances, such as last years gulf hurricanes I believe are a result of something happening. I just don't know what. Some may call it environmental changes, some might say "act of god" and the end of the world is nigh :eek: but whatever it is it's rather disturbing to me. I feel rather more safe in the fact I live near no volcanos, fault lines, hurricane zones or low lying costal areas but it's not comforting for those of you that do and it makes no difference if we get a global killer anyway. :shrug: Ah ****.. I'll just crack a beer and get on with life.. :blob1: :laugh: :wavey:

[DavidMn]

No, apart from Bond and Tom Cruise movies I'm not big on action blockbusters. Is it another testosterone filled "humans save the planet from themselves" Armageddon mentality film?

I have noticed and even, dare I say it, predicted a noticable increase in natural disasters over the past few years. The rate, frequency and intensity of these instances, such as last years gulf hurricanes I believe are a result of something happening. I just don't know what. Some may call it environmental changes, some might say "act of god" and the end of the world is nigh :eek: but whatever it is it's rather disturbing to me. I feel rather more safe in the fact I live near no volcanos, fault lines, hurricane zones or low lying costal areas but it's not comforting for those of you that do and it makes no difference if we get a global killer anyway. :shrug: Ah ****.. I'll just crack a beer and get on with life.. :blob1: :laugh: :wavey:Well, if you can stomach Dennis Quaid, its not bad. But the subject matter deals with this subject. Of course its overblown as hollywood is wont to do, but it makes you think.

[Richard B]

I read a similiar, more detailed article as well:
CNN: IceMelt! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/23/polar.icemelt.ap/index.html)

Thanks to the news media, Hollywood, paranoids and alarmists, people are freaking out. I'm a fatalist, when it's over, no matter what the reason, it's over. I'm not the worry type.

The year 2100??? Good lord I won't even be around to worry about it if it does happen. Besides we should all know that one thing you can count on, is that nothing is permanent, it's all temporary this life as we know it. The poor Dinosaurs found out. Course they don't care, they're dead.

I say all this because if it is true (and it is still specualtion), there is not much we can do about it now can we?

So I say go ahead...Drown in the sea of love...

[DavidMn]

I read a similiar, more detailed article as well:
CNN: IceMelt! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/23/polar.icemelt.ap/index.html)

Thanks to the news media, Hollywood, paranoids and alarmists, people are freaking out. I'm a fatalist, when it's over, no matter what the reason, it's over. I'm not the worry type.

The year 2100??? Good lord I won't even be around to worry about if it does happen. Besides we should all know that one thing you can count on, is that nothing is permanent, it's all temporary this life as we know it. The poor Dinosaurs found out. Course they don't care, they're dead.

I say all this because if it is true (and it is still specualtion), there is not much we can do about it now can we?

So I say go ahead...Drown in the sea of love...I like your glass half full attitude sir.:)

[irishgrl]

It's not necessarily an exageration. I'm a firm believer that there is a point where the momentum of a situation is irreversible. Climate change will occur anyway but we are certainly not helping it. Normally it would be like a car running at 30 mph on gasoline. Humans have come in and strapped a nitro booster on the situation and it's accelerating to a point of being out of our control.

Then again "control" is a stupid word to use. We can't control nature. Earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal changes, volcanic activity, asteroids. Can't do **** about any of them despite what the nerds say. :rolleyes: The more species we kill off the more the balance swings artificially.

What we can do is minimise our effect on these elements. Nobody in power will do anything, especially in the USA, until enough scientists tell them it is either borderline or too late. George W Bush probably thinks global warming is something invented to keep your testicles hot in winter. :rolleyes:

as I showed in my earlier post (please see post http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=510387&postcount=1)
we've ignored the signs so long that now we've passed the "tipping point"
there are numerous articles about frog/toad die-offs, and that the extinction rate will now speed up......

The sad fact is, we in America (and by "we" I mean the people in power, the administration and the multinationals...) have ignored the voices of reason and now the price will be paid by the entire world.

I should mention that the US is not the only culprit, that China is a GROSS polluter, there are NO environmental controls there at all...and by sheer virtue of their population, and their increasingly westernized style of production and living (consumer consumption, cars etc) they are fast becoming a major player on the pollution landscape.

[David]

The sad fact is, we in America (and by "we" I mean the people in power, the administration and the multinationals...) have ignored the voices of reason and now the price will be paid by the entire world.I don't wanna die .... yet!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I just read an article that said the salmon-farming industry is going to get bigger & bigger until it destroys all the rivers where the wild salmon spawn. So sooner or later, you won't be able to eat or look at wild salmon. You'll be forced to eat fish that have been living in a shoebox.

But at least I'm here to keep all Ledgies alive in the event of a tsunami. How lucky you all are!

[amber]

I read a similiar, more detailed article as well:
CNN: IceMelt! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/23/polar.icemelt.ap/index.html)

Thanks to the news media, Hollywood, paranoids and alarmists, people are freaking out. I'm a fatalist, when it's over, no matter what the reason, it's over. I'm not the worry type.

The year 2100??? Good lord I won't even be around to worry about it if it does happen. Besides we should all know that one thing you can count on, is that nothing is permanent, it's all temporary this life as we know it. The poor Dinosaurs found out. Course they don't care, they're dead.

I say all this because if it is true (and it is still specualtion), there is not much we can do about it now can we?

So I say go ahead...Drown in the sea of love...


No offense, sweetie, but what you just said is totally retarded. :D No wonder we're in this kind of shape.

[Richard B]

No offense, sweetie, but what you just said is totally retarded. :D No wonder we're in this kind of shape.
You missed my point, sweetums. Telling the world in a news article that the oceans are rising and it may exceed 20 feet by, OMG, 2100 is retarded. What's the point?

Run for the hills!

Invest in buckets!

(Oh and to all those who dug holes and built bomb shelters...waste of money. Gonna be flooded in 2100!!!) Run, swim!!

Get it now, Amber? It was a satirical response I posted to the article. So no offense taken since I wasn't being serious in the first place. Except for me being a fatalist. I guess though their is some truth: nothing's gonna change unless everyone changes. But then everything changes. It's a conundrum.

[amber]

You missed my point, sweetums. Telling the world in a news article that the oceans are rising and it may exceed 20 feet by, OMG, 2100 is retarded. What's the point?

Run for the hills!

Invest in buckets!

(Oh and to all those who dug holes and built bomb shelters...waste of money. Gonna be flooded in 2100!!!) Run, swim!!

Get it now, Amber? It was a satirical response I posted to the article. So no offense taken since I wasn't being serious in the first place. Except for me being a fatalist. I guess though their is some truth: nothing's gonna change unless everyone changes. But then everything changes. It's a conundrum.

Yeah, no, I still don't get it. I don't see a problem with telling people the ocean will rise at least 20 feet by 2100. It's a scientific projection that illustrates the extent of a current problem.
Whatever, no big.

[Richard B]

Yeah, no, I still don't get it. I don't see a problem with telling people the ocean will rise at least 20 feet by 2100. It's a scientific projection that illustrates the extent of a current problem.
Whatever, no big.
That's just it. It isn't fact. You say will rise, the articles clearly state may rise. I agree with you though, no big. Just another filler article to keep people from the reality outside their front door: war, gangs, drugs, violence, poverty, illiteracy, racism...

[irishgrl]

That's just it. It isn't fact. You say will rise, the articles clearly state may rise. I agree with you though, no big. Just another filler article to keep people from the reality outside their front door: war, gangs, drugs, violence, poverty, illiteracy, racism...
I believe we've covered those topics a time or two :lol:

[amber]

That's just it. It isn't fact. You say will rise, the articles clearly state may rise. I agree with you though, no big. Just another filler article to keep people from the reality outside their front door: war, gangs, drugs, violence, poverty, illiteracy, racism...
Actually, the most important reality to me outside my front door is the environmental devastation. :wavey: Perhaps that's why I didn't get what you meant.

[Richard B]

Actually, the most important reality to me outside my front door is the environmental devastation. :wavey: Perhaps that's why I didn't get what you meant.
I understand. There needs to be both people like us, one for the environment and animal welfare and the other for human rights, and current human affairs.

My cuz is like you, for disaster relief her and her side of the family always send money to support the animals. I on the other hand, think humans are more important. No need to challenge me with the "we're all connected" thing, I get that, but sorry, humans first, always. I'll always save a human before a drowning cat (even if humans can be less likeable than felines).

I do love animals and nature though!

[ragandbone]

I understand. There needs to be both people like us, one for the environment and animal welfare and the other for human rights, and current human affairs.
...I on the other hand, think humans are more important. No need to challenge me with the "we're all connected" thing, I get that, but sorry, humans first, always...

But environmental issues such as clean water that can sustain life, and breathable air that can sustain life, really affect all, whether one is talking about housepets or wild animals wealthy humans or poor humans.
You are right, though, that there need to be people working on environmental issues and social issues both, and there are many areas of overlap.
*edited to include portions I missed in the quote*

[amber]

But environmental issues such as clean water that can sustain life, and breathable air that can sustain life, really affect all, whether one is talking about housepets or wild animals wealthy humans or poor humans.
You are right, though, that there need to be people working on environmental issues and social issues both, and there are many areas of overlap.

Yeah, some people don't realize it directly affects us and our food. Did you know that one in five women have mercury levels in their blood that would be dangerous to the fetus were they to get pregnant? Talk about direct affect. Did you know they considered stopping salmon fishing (have they? I haven't read the latest) this season? Think of it, there could be a time in the near future where there will be whole previously depended upon sources of food that will either be gone or unconsumable. And you know the massive levels of pesticides used for agribusiness to grow our veggies. A large percentage of soil is contaminated even though there is no longer harmful activities taking place on it. There are bazillions of allowed hazardous emissions into ocean and drinking water every year, and has been since industrialization. Even some black people are starting to get skin cancer because of the ozone holes. Kids die of severe asthma caused by particle pollution.
It's clear to me that if humans are important to someone, environmentalism should be, too.
It's definitely good that some people work more for each specific area, because as much as they overlap now, the overlap will expotentially increase with the coming globalization of everything. :)
I'm not really talking about the difference between saving a pet and a human. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily save a pet first.

[Richard B]

But environmental issues such as clean water that can sustain life, and breathable air that can sustain life, really affect all, whether one is talking about housepets or wild animals wealthy humans or poor humans.
You are right, though, that there need to be people working on environmental issues and social issues both, and there are many areas of overlap.
Yes, you edited the comment out where I mentioned we're all connected, I get that. For certain.

[ragandbone]

Yes, you edited the comment out where I mentioned we're all connected, I get that. For certain.
I know saw that, and I meant to include it and the sentence that followed, so I added those to my original post.

[irishgrl]

I just want to say that in the past few days, a perusal of the Yahoo Science News revealed that frogs are dying in unheard of numbers, Vesuvius is threatening to become active, the Antarctic ice sheet is melting too fast to be replaced by seasonal snowfall, Tornadoes are expected to increase in frequency
and in each one of these articles, MAN is to blame, either by commission or omission.

If we dont wake up, we'll all sleep permanently.

Vesuvius is alarming to me personally because a prediction by Ruth Montgomery said that the Earth would shift its axis after Vesuvius erupted. Im not sure what a shift of the axis would actually do....but Im very nervous about this prospect...

[DavidMn]

I just want to say that in the past few days, a perusal of the Yahoo Science News revealed that frogs are dying in unheard of numbers, Vesuvius is threatening to become active, the Antarctic ice sheet is melting too fast to be replaced by seasonal snowfall, Tornadoes are expected to increase in frequency
and in each one of these articles, MAN is to blame, either by commission or omission.

If we dont wake up, we'll all sleep permanently.

Vesuvius is alarming to me personally because a prediction by Ruth Montgomery said that the Earth would shift its axis after Vesuvius erupted. Im not sure what a shift of the axis would actually do....but Im very nervous about this prospect...I'm not sure. That is very interesting about the axis shift.

[irishgrl]

I'm not sure. That is very interesting about the axis shift.

apparently scientists have deduced that the earth has shifted its axis 14 other times thru an analysis of magnetic core samples....

here is an article excerpt from the NY Times 1/05:
Will Compasses Point South? NY Times - January 2005

The collapse of the Earth's magnetic field, which both guards the planet and guides many of its creatures, appears to have started in earnest about 150 years ago. The field's strength has waned 10 to 15 percent, and the deterioration has accelerated of late, increasing debate over whether it portends a reversal of the lines of magnetic force that normally envelop the Earth.

During a reversal, the main field weakens, almost vanishes, then reappears with opposite polarity. Afterward, compass needles that normally point north would point south, and during the thousands of years of transition, much in the heavens and Earth would go askew.

A reversal could knock out power grids, hurt astronauts and satellites, widen atmospheric ozone holes, send polar auroras flashing to the equator and confuse birds, fish and migratory animals that rely on the steadiness of the magnetic field as a navigation aid. Although a total flip may be hundreds or thousands of years away, the rapid decline in magnetic strength is already damaging satellites.

some people predict the year 2012 (December in fact) to be the time of the next shift....I have NO IDEA what to expect but this prospect has chilled me since I first read about it...

I found an excerpt from Ruth Montgomery:
Psychic Ruth Montgomery also foresaw a pole shift. In her book Strangers Among Us, The Shift, she wrote about what certain spirit guides had told her: “If the Guides are correct, the survivors of the axial shift... will number in the millions, rather than the billions. The shift will have its warnings. The weather will become increasingly violent. Eruptions of ancient volcanoes, earth tremors of major proportions, and tidal waves of monumental scope. Some will recognize this as the time to remove themselves from the seacoasts. Some will remain, disbelieving that a shift will occur, and some will refuse to leave their homes”

[madformac]

some people predict the year 2012 (December in fact) to be the time of the next shift....I have NO IDEA what to expect but this prospect has chilled me since I first read about it...

Isn't that year the most common prediction for the end of the world?

Doesn't look good does it??? :eek: :blob1: :laugh:
As long as we all go together I won't feel cheated. :nod:

* Here's one I found earlier.

2012 : Mayan Calendar

The Mayan calendar is divided into months of 20 days, years of 360 days, katun of 7200 days and a baktun of 144,000 days. According to this ancient civilization the world will last for exactly 13 baktun cycles. Their calendar started on 3114-AUG-13 BCE with the birth of Venus and they expected the world to end during the Winter Solstice of 2012.

But don't worry too much because I found lots of different dates for the end of the world on the glorious internet. Not all of them are in 2012. Some are 2006, others 2008 and one or two in 2009

Oh dear :shocked: :lol:

:wavey:

[irishgrl]

Isn't that year the most common prediction for the end of the world?

Doesn't look good does it??? :eek: :blob1: :laugh:
As long as we all go together I won't feel cheated. :nod:

* Here's one I found earlier.

2012 : Mayan Calendar

The Mayan calendar is divided into months of 20 days, years of 360 days, katun of 7200 days and a baktun of 144,000 days. According to this ancient civilization the world will last for exactly 13 baktun cycles. Their calendar started on 3114-AUG-13 BCE with the birth of Venus and they expected the world to end during the Winter Solstice of 2012.

But don't worry too much because I found lots of different dates for the end of the world on the glorious internet. Not all of them are in 2012. Some are 2006, others 2008 and one or two in 2009

Oh dear :shocked: :lol:

:wavey:



Apparently the year 2012 was indicated in the long gallery of the Great Pyramid, the Mayan Calendar, and Nostradamus. All very "fringe" I grant you, but then I read that the Sun is expected to undergo a very severe magnetic event in that year as well....Edgar Cayce predicted 2000 or 2001, and nothing happened.....that said, Scientists are at least willing to acknowledge that the Earth DOES shift magnetic polarity and has apparently shifted (flipped) on its axis several times in the past, most recently at the end of the last ice age.

[irishgrl]

here is a recent article about the phenomenon:
Geomagnetic flip may not be random after all
21 March 2006

One of the most fascinating natural phenomena on Earth is the flipping of its magnetic field, which has occurred hundreds of times in the last 160 million years. When the magnetic field flips, the North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice versa. The last time this happened was some 780,000 years ago, so we could be heading for another reversal soon. Now, physicists in Italy have found that the frequency of these polarity reversals is not random as previously thought but occurs in clusters, revealing some kind of "memory" of previous events (physics/0603086).

Although a full geomagnetic polarity reversal can take thousands of years to complete, the implications could be enormous. As well as affecting the migration trajectories of birds and other animals, the disruption to the Earth's magnetic field could expose the Earth to hazardous cosmic rays -- a scenario that some researchers have linked to mass extinction events like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs around 65 million years ago. Geoscientists believe that our planet's internal magnetic dynamo is responsible for pole reversals, but the actual mechanism is not well understood.

Previous analyses assumed that the number of times the poles have reversed over last 160 million years follows a Poisson distribution, implying that the events are random. The Poisson distribution tells you the probability of a number of events occurring in a fixed time if the events are independent and the average rate is known. A good example of the Poisson distribution in physics is the likelihood of unstable radioactive nuclei decaying in a certain period.

Now, a team of physicists led by Vincenzo Carbone of the University of Calabria have discovered that the sequence of polarity reversals can be well described by a Lévy distribution instead. In contrast to Poisson statistics, the Lévy distribution describes stochastic processes that are characterised by the presence of "memory" effects -- or long-range correlations between the events in time. Lévy distributions are widely used to study many critical phenomena, such as earthquakes, and also when analysing financial data. The researchers obtained their results by careful statistical analysis of different sets of paleomagnetic data containing estimates of when the Earth's poles reversed.

"The result means that polarity reversals are not random events that are independent of each other," explains team member Fabio Lepreti. "Instead, there is some degree of memory in the magnetic dynamo processes giving rise to the reversals," he says. "We hope that our work will serve as a useful reference point for models that aim to describe the phenomenon of pole reversal." The Italy team now plans to build new dynamic models to describe the field reversal sequences in a simple way, so that the physical mechanisms that trigger pole reversals can be more easily explained.
About the author

Belle Dumé is science writer at PhysicsWeb

[irishgrl]

here is another article from physics web:

Earth's poles may switch
29 January 1999

The Earth's magnetic field may flip towards the end of the next millennium according to Danish geophysicists, exposing the Earth to harmful cosmic radiation in the process. In the past century, the magnetic north pole has moved over 1000 km towards the geographical north pole, and over the past decade the strength of the magnetic field has fallen by 1%. New measurements made in Greenland by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) show that the magnetic north pole is moving northwards at 20 km a year - 2 km a year faster than 12 months ago.

"This is certainly the quickest movement since we started measurements in Greenland in 1928, " says Torsten Neubert, who heads DMI's Solar-Terrestrial Physics Department. Neubert thinks that this acceleration points to a switching of the magnetic poles, perhaps within the next thousand years, something that could have dire consequences. "In the period up to a reversal, the Earth's magnetic field would lose its strength and would no longer be able to protect the Earth from radiation coming from space - we could be exposed to violent cosmic radiation, " says Neubert. Such radiation would affect navigation as well as the production of semiconductors.

However, not all geophysicists are convinced. "I wouldn't say that the northward movement of the magnetic pole is a sign that the field is about to reverse, " says a sceptical Jeremy Bloxham, an Earth and planetary scientist at Harvard University in the US. He thinks that the pole would have to be travelling towards the equator in order to flip. Neubert admits that the case for a switch in the magnetic field is unproven and says that the field is a chaotic system and therefore difficult to predict.

The new Danish Ørsted satellite may make prediction a little easier by looking at the whole of the Earth's magnetic field, rather than just the poles. Due to be launched in the coming weeks, it should give researchers more accurate data on the orientation and strength of the field. Bloxham, however, believes that more accurate data will not point to a reversal. "I think the chances are that it will not happen, " he says. "It's a highly erratic process - there have been intervals of tens of millions of years without reversals." But Neubert is looking forward to a reversal. "It would be an exciting time, " he says.

[madformac]

When the magnetic field flips, the North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice versa.

Although a full geomagnetic polarity reversal can take thousands of years to complete, the implications could be enormous.

Enormous for some. It's a good job it takes so long. You know how far the penguins are gonna have to walk????? :laugh: :laugh:

[AliceLover]

I read a similiar, more detailed article as well:
CNN: IceMelt! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/23/polar.icemelt.ap/index.html)

Thanks to the news media, Hollywood, paranoids and alarmists, people are freaking out. I'm a fatalist, when it's over, no matter what the reason, it's over. I'm not the worry type.

The year 2100??? Good lord I won't even be around to worry about it if it does happen. Besides we should all know that one thing you can count on, is that nothing is permanent, it's all temporary this life as we know it. The poor Dinosaurs found out. Course they don't care, they're dead.

I say all this because if it is true (and it is still specualtion), there is not much we can do about it now can we?

So I say go ahead...Drown in the sea of love...

Richard I have to agree with you. I feel very guilty saying this, but, I am glad I will be dead by then.

[macfanken]

I have to give our mayor here in Seattle credit for standing up to the Bushies and the Federal Government by creating the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement challenges mayors across the country to adopt the goals of the Kyoto Protocal, which Bush refused to sign. So far, mayors in over 200 cities have signed the agreement.

This week's Time has a cover story about global warming...here's a summary...

Be worried, be very worried
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame

Sunday, March 26, 2006; Posted: 11:27 a.m. EST (16:27 GMT)

Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

(Time.com) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.

Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.

Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.

As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.

Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.

With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.

And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.

A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

But lawmakers who still applaud themselves for recognizing global warming are hardly the same as lawmakers with the courage to reverse it, and increasingly, state and local governments are stepping forward.

The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses.

[DavidMn]

I have to give our mayor here in Seattle credit for standing up to the Bushies and the Federal Government by creating the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement challenges mayors across the country to adopt the goals of the Kyoto Protocal, which Bush refused to sign. So far, mayors in over 200 cities have signed the agreement.

This week's Time has a cover story about global warming...here's a summary...

Be worried, be very worried
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame

Sunday, March 26, 2006; Posted: 11:27 a.m. EST (16:27 GMT)

Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

(Time.com) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.

Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.

Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.

As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.

Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.

With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.

And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.

A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

But lawmakers who still applaud themselves for recognizing global warming are hardly the same as lawmakers with the courage to reverse it, and increasingly, state and local governments are stepping forward.

The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses.Alarming, to say the least.

[madformac]

Richard I have to agree with you. I feel very guilty saying this, but, I am glad I will be dead by then.

What about those with children? Their children and grandchildren will suffer for our ignorance.. That's such a big problem for me.

[DavidMn]

What about those with children? Their children and grandchildren will suffer for our ignorance.. That's such a big problem for me.You hit the nail right on the head sir.