Posted on 02/02/2004 11:54:07 AM PST by Truth666
January incredible Atlantic records continue.
Interesting and an easy assumption to make about this movement, is that the South magnetic pole position will be tracking the North pole's movements. But I've found that assumption can be a highly unwarranted one, irrespective of whether you consider the earth's magnetic field to be due to a skewed dipole or a collection of mono-poles. What have you heard about this new rapid movement, in regards to the tracking between the movements of the magnetic poles?
--Boot Hill
Movements of the South Magnetic Pole image from Voyage of the Scotia The north and south magnetic poles are the two points on the Earth's surface where the compass needle points vertically up and down. They are not stationary and move from 10-15 kilometres (six to nine miles) each year. In 1841 James Clark Ross reached the North Magnetic Pole and had hoped to reach the South Magnetic Pole in 1843. The South Magnetic Pole was at this time on the polar plateau over 8,000 feet above sea level. The South Magnetic Pole was eventually reached on 16 January 1909 by a party from the Shackleton expedition: two Australian geologists Edgeworth David and Douglas Mawson along with Scottish doctor Alistair Mackay. http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/vserm/vserm070603.htm
South Magnetic Pole Movement
North Magnetic Pole Movement
Robert A. Cook, PE:
These maps show what I was asking about. Pull up both maps and toggle between them, looking at the changes from 1990 to 2005.
Notice that the movement of the North magnetic pole position is about 375 miles (using 4am spherical trig), while the movement in the South magnetic pole position has only been about 35 miles. That's more than an order of magnitude of difference!
Moreover, notice that trend is for ever increasing annual changes in the movement of the North magnetic pole, while the South magnetic pole is doing just the opposite; its annual movement is in serious decline.
Taking into account both of those observations, I'd say the measured pole shift is strictly a northern hemisphere phenomenon. Which calls into question whether these changes are heralding a pole switch.
Also notice that the pole skew (the difference between where the poles emerge and where they should emerge if the pole went straight through the center of the earth), is getting worse, not better. Current skew is 74º in long. and 18º in lat.
When viewing these maps, exercise some caution. Notice that for the North Pole map, they show longitudes of 235º to 275º! In other words, they use the system of longitudes that start at Greenwich with 0º increasing eastward around the earth and back to Greenwich at 360º (0º).
--Boot Hill
I'd like to know where you heard or read that. It's not consistent with the information at this Web site:
Particularly this section:
The Discovery of the Ozone Hole
"Dramatic loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica was first noticed in the 1970s by a research group from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) who were monitoring the atmosphere above Antarctica from a research station much like the picture to the right."
There was no apparent seasonal thinning before about 1965-1966.
Engineering dittos.
LRS: "...I learned of geomagnetic jerks"
LOL, you should copyright that phrase!
LRS: "can the positioning of the Earth's magnetic field affect such things as the climate and weather patterns, and, the ozone hole?"
I would expect yes, yes and yes. Much about the weather patterns are dependent upon the Coriolis effect which is an effect directed about the geophysical (not geomagnetic) poles. But one would also expect the geomagnetic poles, and their intense flux of incoming high energy charged particles from the sun, to also have a significant impact on weather patterns. Therefore, I would not be at all surprised to find that a change in relative positions between the geomagnetic and geophysical poles could alter world weather patterns.
--Boot Hill
My citation for this fact is not currently available via the internet, as far as I'm aware, but can likely still be accessed from the stacks of major university libraries. I was fortunate enough to inherit this volume from my father and mentor.
The citation is Smithsonian Physical Tables, First Reprint of Eighth Revised Edition, volume 88, printed 1934, Table 704, Atmospheric Ozone, dated 1926 and 1929, by Dr. Gordon Dobson. The table and accompanying text shows large variations by season and latitude. The farther north (or south), the greater the seasonal variation. Doctor Dobson specifically states in the table text that "large variations occur(up to 0.1 cm)" that he ascribed to seasonal "meteorological conditions".
Since CFC's were not introduced to the public until 1930, Dr. Dobson's 1929 observations of a large seasonal variation in atmospheric ozone, that occurs in the extreme latitudes, predates that introduction.
Compare the magnitude of the effect Dr. Dobson observed in 1929 to the graph you posted in #78 and you'll see that Dopson's 0.1 cm change is a far greater change than what your source described as "a dramatic loss of ozone".
If one can measure a natural seasonal and latitudinal variation in atmospheric ozone, why then should we be surprised that there might also be a natural periodic (over decades and centuries) variation in that same ozone?
I believe that Dr. Dobson's initial appraisal that the observed effect was due to "meteorological conditions", was essentially correct, but would add that our better understanding of the high energy flux of charged particles from the sun that enter the atmosphere in the vicinity of the poles can also help explain the ozone thinning over the poles.
Keep in mind that the O3 bond is a particularly weak bond (hence its natural scarcity) and one subject to disruption from a multitude of extraneous sources, not the least of which would be from conditions originating outside our own planet, like the aforementioned high energy solar particle flux.
--Boot Hill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.