The escalation of dramatic weather events over the past few years has been inescapable, especially as media seems to feed off the resultant destruction.
The present bitter cold in Russia and Northern Europe is a current example of the extremes we have begun to note. Is it coincident that the migration rate of the magnetic north pole has also increased pace?

One of many coincidents.

There are very cold winters every so many years. This winter is nothing unusual. It's just getting more attention.

I am convinced that global warming is occurring, but I'm not sure that the general perception that all the recent extreme-weather events we've been seeing on TV are directly due to global warming. I think part of the perception that such events are becoming more common is due to the fact that TV coverage is becoming more global. During the Cold War, for example, if you lived in America and there was extreme cold in Russia you probably wouldn't have heard about it. But now you do.

The way I see it, the underwater volcano's are heating the ocean and killing off plankton. Soon enough the fish of the sea die off. The oceans rise and
volcanos and earthquakes abound. The core of the earth is rising in temps
so that when it reached its threashold, the layers above the core will slide enmass around the fixed axis of the central gyroscope core. The plates will slide and smash etc..
I find it ironic that the end of this great year 25,920 years is almost up.
The solar system changes like it did many years ago and time will change.
We will have to wait and see if the impending pole shift that is geographical pole shift not magnetic pole, will bring great distruction or if we will only experience different weather than we are use to.
One thing is for sure, A planet CAN change its orbit when its charge of energy changes sufficiently. It is said that possibly around 2012 the elliptical orbit of the planet will change back to a more circular orbit. Changing how long a day would be.

Protostar, some questions...

There have been underwater volcanoes for as long as there have been oceans, and for longer than there have been plankton and fish. Why do you think that's happening now?

Why do you think that the Earth's core is increasing in temperature? What do you think is the causal mechanism?

Do you think that everything above the core will slide? Why would you think this?

When you say:
A planet CAN change its orbit when its charge of energy changes sufficiently.
What do you mean by 'energy'? Why would that change a planet's orbit?

Why would the length of day change if the Earth's orbit became more circular?

I apologise for the large number of questions, but pretty much everything in your post seems to warrant it.

The core of the earth is rising in temps


???? You have something to back up this statement? I've never heard or seen it any where before now. :bugeye:

I have found that in 2002 the core of the earth started speeding up due to
temperature in the core rising (theory of course) Upon the temp rising the
harder rock layers above the core became more molten and viscuis. Also
by buldges in the earth's crust (Bend Oregon) Which scientists have been monitoring since 2001 and it keeps getting bigger. When the solid outer mantle becomes mostly liquid, the mantle will then slip under the crust around the fixed axis of the central gyroscope core. many papers on this theory
best to check out http://www.huttoncommentaries.com and click on ps research. There you will find a ton of information on this as well as model experiments from professors.
The underwater volcano that I am talking about you can read about it on
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
Also National Geographic did a story on this as well. Since it is ALOT BIGGER THAN ANTICIPATED, it shows that there is new movement as well.
Regarding the core, If you think about it, when the heat is carried form the core to the crust by convection currents, the heat generated from our solar system as well as CME'S from the sun especially the GIANT ONE from Jan 17,2005 gave the core a higher temp from that one alone!
Solar radiation from the sun AND other radiation is received at Aphelion and Perihelion and distributed from these 2 areas down to the core at the equator and back up to the poles. IF the electromagnetic energy changes a different magnetic field can appear from moment to moment. IF a NEW electromagnetic field and charge is appearing The planets poles and orbit
which is determined by its electromagnetic charge, can actually change.
I think that is what the mayan's were thinking about when they stopped their calander. If time is a function of oscillation of matter, and the matter (planets) changes in any way, time will change. Interesting .
Some other interesting sites to check out regarding theory's on pole shift
and orbit check out http://www.tmgnow.com and
http://www. wrightworld.net/poleshiftnews.htm
Larry from wrightworld is very knowledgable on this subject and has been studying it in correlation to bible prophesy.
HAPPY RESEARCHING!!!

I have found that in 2002 the core of the earth started speeding up due to
temperature in the core rising (theory of course) Upon the temp rising the
harder rock layers above the core became more molten and viscuis. Also
by buldges in the earth's crust (Bend Oregon) Which scientists have been monitoring since 2001 and it keeps getting bigger. When the solid outer mantle becomes mostly liquid, the mantle will then slip under the crust around the fixed axis of the central gyroscope core. many papers on this theory
best to check out http://www.huttoncommentaries.com and click on ps research. There you will find a ton of information on this as well as model experiments from professors.
The underwater volcano that I am talking about you can read about it on
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
Also National Geographic did a story on this as well. Since it is ALOT BIGGER THAN ANTICIPATED, it shows that there is new movement as well.
Regarding the core, If you think about it, when the heat is carried form the core to the crust by convection currents, the heat generated from our solar system as well as CME'S from the sun especially the GIANT ONE from Jan 17,2005 gave the core a higher temp from that one alone!
Solar radiation from the sun AND other radiation is received at Aphelion and Perihelion and distributed from these 2 areas down to the core at the equator and back up to the poles. IF the electromagnetic energy changes a different magnetic field can appear from moment to moment. IF a NEW electromagnetic field and charge is appearing The planets poles and orbit
which is determined by its electromagnetic charge, can actually change.
I think that is what the mayan's were thinking about when they stopped their calander. If time is a function of oscillation of matter, and the matter (planets) changes in any way, time will change. Interesting .
Some other interesting sites to check out regarding theory's on pole shift
and orbit check out http://www.tmgnow.com and
http://www. wrightworld.net/poleshiftnews.htm
Larry from wrightworld is very knowledgable on this subject and has been studying it in correlation to bible prophesy.
HAPPY RESEARCHING!!!
Gee-golly-whiz! You really don't know much about sub-surface temperatures nor a lot of other things, do you? Instead of wasting your time (and ours) on those wacko sites, you'd do a lot better to spend your efforts studying a bit in real geology and physics. Just for one minor point, the temperature of the interior of the Earth is in no way affected by solar radiation. I could go on but there are too many errors here and would really take a lot of time.

During the Cold War, for example, if you lived in America and there was extreme cold in Russia you probably wouldn't have heard about it. But now you do.
yeah, like in siberia. i heard some of the nastiest winters
outside the polar regions occure there.

the question isn't so much that global warming is happening
the question i have is:
is it the result of natural processes or is it deliberately being caused?

Wow, the solar system and solar radiation has nothing to do with the interior of the earth? Man, I guess the covection system is a myth. huh, what do
ya know. hehehe.
As far as the sites that I posted, they were posted for people who
REALLY want to learn. Theories are there to be DEBATED.
What kind of DICTATOR tells people that its his way or the highway?
I hope you are not a teacher. Your style of debate needs to be revamped.

Wow, the solar system and solar radiation has nothing to do with the interior of the earth? Man, I guess the covection system is a myth. huh, what do
ya know. hehehe.
As far as the sites that I posted, they were posted for people who
REALLY want to learn. Theories are there to be DEBATED.
What kind of DICTATOR tells people that its his way or the highway?
I hope you are not a teacher. Your style of debate needs to be revamped.
Consider this: except for for a few places - like Iceland, Yellowstone Park, etc. the heat from the interior of the Earth is too far below the surface to have any effect on it, And the converse is also true. I've seen graphs (sorry, don't remember where just at the moment) done by the NGS showing the penetration of surface heat generated by the sun and it's speed of penetration. It moves downward in seasonal "waves" and hardly goes beyond 40 or 50 feet.

Answer this: if solar heat on the surface is effecting the core temperature then why is it that anywhere in North America (except certain hot spot, like the kind I mentioned, does the temperature remain a fairly steady 60 degrees F year-round! Doesn't that strike you as really, really odd if you try to claim it's making it down to help heat the interior????????????? :D

How does your "theory" get around the facts, eh?

We are sitting upon a nuclear reacor that gets its energy
from the sun. The way I understand it is the solar radiation comes in
at aphelion and perihelion and "radiates" down to the core at the equator
and "bringing it back up at the poles". Why couldn't the core of the earth
react to this solar radiation from the sun and "other" solar radiation?
Since the geo magnetic poles are generated by the liquid iron core,
wouldn't the movement of these geomagnetic poles prove that there is movement within the liquid iron core that is changing and moving these
magnetic poles? Thus, possibly heating of the core nucler temperature?

oh...I see...carbon dioxide green house effect wasnt enough...we want to completeley finish Earth by using the last thing it has, its heart.

We are sitting upon a nuclear reacor that gets its energy
from the sun. The way I understand it is the solar radiation comes in
at aphelion and perihelion and "radiates" down to the core at the equator
and "bringing it back up at the poles". Why couldn't the core of the earth
react to this solar radiation from the sun and "other" solar radiation?
Since the geo magnetic poles are generated by the liquid iron core,
wouldn't the movement of these geomagnetic poles prove that there is movement within the liquid iron core that is changing and moving these
magnetic poles? Thus, possibly heating of the core nucler temperature?
Sorry, but that's some pretty confused understanding. ;)

True, we're sitting on a nuclear reactor BUT it doesn't get anything from the sun. It creates it's own heat through the nuclear reaction going on inside it.

The next part of what you were talking about actually describes how the Earth's weather works (more or less). Air is heated around the equator by the sun, rises, heads toward the poles, is cooled, sinks, and then slides across the surface as it makes it's way back to the equator. Pretty much the same is true for ocean currents as well.

Then, in the latter part, you first correctly describe the magnetic poles and how they move BUT, there again it has absolutely nothing to do with the sun or solar radiation.

True, we're sitting on a nuclear reactor BUT it doesn't get anything from the sun. It creates it's own heat through the nuclear reaction going on inside it.
We are? Earth's internal heat has several sources I can think of off the top of my head: radioactive decay of certain elements; tidal flexing; crystallisation at the base of the outer core; residual heat from the Earth's formation. Although it has been suggested that there is a nuclear reactor in the core, it's rather speculative and not widely accepted.

Or perhaps you mean ancient examples of natural local uranium concentration like Oklo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) .

We are? Earth's internal heat has several sources I can think of off the top of my head: radioactive decay of certain elements; tidal flexing; crystallisation at the base of the outer core; residual heat from the Earth's formation. Although it has been suggested that there is a nuclear reactor in the core, it's rather speculative and not widely accepted.

Or perhaps you mean ancient examples of natural local uranium concentration like Oklo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) .
That's true. I admit it's simply speculation but several geophysicists do support the idea and it seems to have at least some merit.

I would also agree that residual heat from formation is also a good candidate.

But whatever the real source(s) eventually turn out to be, it certainly has nothing at all to do with solar insolation.

Agreed.

Well I will say this the gravity of the sun exstends right to the core of earth, in addition i will also say that garvity at the earths core is opposite that of the earths surface, furthur more the core of earth is unbeliveably ice cold, and so any addition heat source to the core causes a reaction.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Well I will say this the gravity of the sun exstends right to the core of earth, in addition i will also say that garvity at the earths core is opposite that of the earths surface, furthur more the core of earth is unbeliveably ice cold, and so any addition heat source to the core causes a reaction.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
Ugh! Even more garbage from the self-proclaimed "genius." Rabon, you're an utter fool. There's no such thing as "gravity opposite" anything. And the core is FAR from ice cold! Where did you ever get such a ridiculous idea????? That's close to insane, given what we already know about it.

It still hasnt got cold down here in Austin, Texas. Its a bitch. and no rain

Well with all the new changes on earth, it would seem that people will need a some protection, during these magtnetic pole reversals and geopole changes.

Thanks to the invention of the automoblie assembly line, the human race can produce vehicals/crafts that can protect them through the magnetic pole reversal.



http://www.scrabo.com/bondcar10.JPG




DwayneD.L.Rabon

Core is as cold as a ice, probablly from 2 to 50 degrees kelvin

Core is as cold as a ice, probablly from 2 to 50 degrees kelvin
Very well, and exactly what do you base that "information" on?

Very well, and exactly what do you base that "information" on?

its an anology...the earth represents the society...the core of the earth...represents the heart of the society...with what is going on now...the upcoming World War III w/muslims...that heart has become cold and is not beating at all, it has frozen, for all love has gone...and only hatred remains.

The Core of the earth, it's dynamo, is over 7000 degrees.
How else could the Liquid outer mantle, the liquid inner mantle, the solid outer mantle And the earths crust move if it was frozen?
The Hydro-Thermal vents under the ocean crack and water seeps in
and it then spews hot lava,magma,rocks every day as it continue to spreads
and is re-born, the heat is released. How could our earth do that if the
core was frozen? Heat Transfer system. (convection currents).
Thats how.
now, go look that up!

I recently read that planets without a substancial moon, wrt the planet, are not stable in the long term againist spin axis tilting due to periodic perturbation torques by other planets. I am not sure this is true, but it does seem reasonable that spin axis in the ecliptic is the stable position. The moon is slowing going away.

If the spin axis of Earth were to point nearly at the sun the pole away from sun would be covered with frozen CO2, perhaps O2 and N2 also? The habital zone on Earth might be a quite narrow band or non existent. Can Earth be "gravity gradient stablized" to keep spin axis always pointing towards the sun when it is very slowly spinning (a day of hundreds of hours). If so, surely all the water would be ice in the cold hemisphere. Which fate of dead Earth comes first? Red giant sun or axis line too close to sun?

Good one. That would probably depend on the 4 forces:
Gravity
Strong Force
Weak Force
Electromagnetic Force.
As is well known, the chandler wobble is generated by the differential pulling of the Moon and the Sun on the Earth's equatorial bulge (and any other concentrations of mass in or on the Earth). This differential pulling is caused by the oblique angles of the orbital planes which bring the Sun and the Moon alternatively above and below the equator, thus tending through orbital time to push one side of the Earth or the other to move faster or slower than the other side to the North or to the South.

Also, passing through our Solar System A New Comet and its ‘Quantum Anomaly Twin’ has caused great havoc upon not only our Earth, by the complete devastation of our Global Weather Systems, but also upon our Sun, and which upon their splitting trajectories has temporarily lessoned the electrical imbalances between our World and the Sun, but has likewise increased greatly the electrical imbalance in our own atmosphere, and which is evidenced by the increasing amount of lighting and static electricity throughout the entire Globe.

So powerful has this electrical imbalance been that in many instances snowstorms in the United States even have reported the rare phenomena of Thundersnow

I recently read that planets without a substancial moon, wrt the planet, are not stable in the long term againist spin axis tilting due to periodic perturbation torques by other planets. .

Correct, that's called the chaotic zone (http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2003/th2002_laskar.pdf), when the obliquity cycle and the precession cycle have about the same period and re-enforce each other in resonance. A robust moon would increase the precession cycle and prevent the cycles interacting at resonance. Probably the most important difference between Earth and Venus.

If the spin axis of Earth were to point nearly at the sun the pole away from sun would be covered with frozen CO2, perhaps O2 and N2 also?

On the contrary, the poles would be without any ice, that would melt in the half year of the sun day. There may be ice on the equator though with two seasons of sun dusk each year, circling the horizon.

...On the contrary, the poles would be without any ice, that would melt in the half year of the sun day. There may be ice on the equator though with two seasons of sun dusk each year, circling the horizon.You are surely correct if the Earth still spins. If the moon has escaped, I was expecting almost all of the angular momentum has been removed from Earth and speculating that the solar torques on Earth asymetry could keep one pole always pointing at the sun. Also solar gravity gradient may keep one hemisphere always pointing at the sun.

In case you do not know about "gravity gradient stablization":

Years ago many thousands of thin wires were placed into Earth orbit (initialy as a compact cylinder all bound together by some subliming "glue") - Idea was to make an artificial Iononsphere for comunication as the wires were half-wavelength reradiators. Well the wires have never been seen. Presumably they are all gravity gradient stablized with only their ends pointing to the earth.

At APL were I worked, we used gravity gradient stablization (long boom with mass at end extened from satellite and that was required anyway to get the magnitometers (the 'mass') away from currents in the satellite. This is a cheap way to keep the comunication disk pointing at Earth. (A few high permability magnets rods will damp out any oscillation at no energy cost and with relative low weight and they can not fail. I expect eddie currents induced in the Earth's core or sea water will do the same for Earth if it is gravity gradient stabalized.)

Let me close by admitting I am only guessing that Earth can keep one hemisphere pointed at the sun. If that is false you are surely right. What do you think?