chownah wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:03 am
I'm not sure about the point you are making. To recap:
A comment was made that the magnetic pole was shifting around....and that might be effecting climate change.
You replied that "In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift."
You then presented an article which did not address the issue of the magnetic pole shifting but which instead dealth with the geographic pole shifting.
I replied, "It is A cause, not THE cause. Evidently it has an effect (news to me) but I imagine it is very small. The N mag pole is always moving around.....always....never sits still...."
I think that my reply to the movement of the N mag pole is accurate.....you then brought up the article about the geographic pole and I'm not sure why.....because the article does not even mention the magnetic pole.
Concerning the geographic pole: The article you brought mentions that climate change is not the only thing which causes the pole to drift when it said, "But underlying the seasonal motion is a yearly motion that is thought to be driven in part by continental drift." I think that since there seems to be more than one thing which causes the geographic pole to drift one can not say that climate change is "the" cause but rather one should say that it is "a" cause of the pole drifting.
Just wanting to keep the science clear on these issues.
The most important point, though, in my mind is that the shifting of the poles do not seem in anyway to be a cause of climate change. With respect to the geographic poles it seems that the pole shift is effected by climate change and there has been no evidence shown or even postulated which would indicate that the pole shift then in return effects climate change in any meaningful way. With respect to the magnetic poles there is no evidence that the pole drift and climate change are related in any meaningful way.....just questions.
Thanks, chownah. There has been some lazy reading and paraphrasing on all sides (including mine - sorry) and I'm not really sure it's worth trying to untangle but I will give it a go.
It starts with this:
Kim OHara wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm
New to me, so I looked it up.
In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift.
Global warming is changing the location of Earth’s geographic poles, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters.
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.
See https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uth-poles/
for the whole story.
So ... manas said "Magnetic
North has actually been SHIFTING" after reading "Has Polar
Shift caused Global Warming and Climate Change?", the text of which doesn't mention Magnetic
North at all, although its first image is labelled "400 years of Magnetic
North Pole Shift".
I, however, read the first sentence, "Were the Inuits right when they suggested polar
shift has caused global warming and climate change through watching the stars over hundreds of years?" and relied on the fact that star observations would only tell anyone about the movement of geographic
north. Proceeding on that basis, I found the article I quoted.
I probably shouldn't have bothered, since manas' linked article is incredibly shoddy even by the normal standards of pseudo-scientific climate change denial. I don't know if anyone has created a plausibility index for this sort of thing (e.g. divide the total word count by the number of instances of 'might', 'may', 'probably' and 'likely', then deduct 10% for every irrelevant or unlabelled chart, and divide the result by the number of non sequiturs) but if they have, here's a wonderful example to test it on.