I've heard some people say that the shifting of the poles is accelerating (which has a certain YT channel pushing their "disaster cycle" narrative). Can anyone confirm or debunk this claim? All I have is hearsay.

1 hour ago, AScaredObserver said:

I've heard some people say that the shifting of the poles is accelerating (which has a certain YT channel pushing their "disaster cycle" narrative). Can anyone confirm or debunk this claim? All I have is hearsay.

I think you answered your own question there🤣 Few things are more despicable IMO than those who profit from others fear.   @Sam Warfel answered another person not long ago on this very subject, unless I am mistaken.  If I can find it, I’ll  post a link.  Mike 

9 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I think you answered your own question there🤣 Few things are more despicable IMO than those who profit from others fear.   @Sam Warfel answered another person not long ago on this very subject, unless I am mistaken.  If I can find it, I’ll  post a link.  Mike 

Part of the reason I chose the username "A SCARED Observer". I got into space weather to try and quell fears I had about the Sun.

3 minutes ago, AScaredObserver said:

Part of the reason I chose the username "A SCARED Observer". I got into space weather to try and quell fears I had about the Sun.

A very rational decision on your part.   I cannot find the discussion thread now.     We have a lot of very sharp people on this site though. Perhaps another will pop in and put those concerns to rest, where I think they probably should remain. A distant memory. Mike 

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by hamateur 1953

2 hours ago, AScaredObserver said:

I've heard some people say that the shifting of the poles is accelerating (which has a certain YT channel pushing their "disaster cycle" narrative). Can anyone confirm or debunk this claim? All I have is hearsay.

Yes there  is evidence to suggest that the Earth's magnetic poles are indeed accelerating in their movement. Over the past century, the magnetic north pole has been shifting at an increasing rate, moving several kilometres per year in recent decades. This acceleration in movement is of interest to scientists studying the Earth's magnetic field and its dynamics, although the exact causes and implications of this acceleration are still under investigation.

There is general consensus among scientists that the Earth's magnetic field undergoes natural variations over time, including changes in the position and strength of the magnetic poles. These variations are well-documented through geological and archaeological evidence. While the magnetic poles have been observed to be shifting at an accelerated rate in recent years, it's worth noting that such changes are not uncommon in the Earth's history.

Scientists attribute the pole shift to complex processes occurring within the Earth's core, such as the movement of molten iron and other materials. While the exact causes and mechanisms driving these changes are still being studied, there is broad agreement within the scientific community that they are part of the natural behaviour of magnetic field of the Earth.

While some media reports may sensationalise the idea of a "pole reversal" or "pole flip," as has been mentioned, where the magnetic north and south poles switch places, such events are extremely rare and occur over geological timescales, typically tens of thousands to millions of years. There is no evidence to suggest that a sudden pole reversal is imminent or that it would have catastrophic consequences for life on Earth. 
N.

54 minutes ago, Kayla Bisson said:

Out of curiosity is the few KM of movement actually noticeable? I thought I was crazy but since this actually came up, tonight I went to check for Auroras in a place I'm almost 100% postive was North facing the last time I was there a few months ago yet tonight multiple apps made me rotate to my left more than I remember to look North, not much but enough.....I chalked it up to needing to recalibrate my phone or the devils lettuce making me forgetful but can it actually move that much?

Yes @Kayla Bisson It is noticeable.
The rate of movement of Earth's magnetic poles is currently estimated to be several kilometres per year as mentioned. This movement is tracked using various methods, including satellite observations and ground-based magnetic field measurements. While the speed of the pole shift may not be readily apparent in day-to-day life, it is significant when viewed over longer periods.

As an example the shifting magnetic poles can affect navigation systems that rely on magnetic compasses, requiring periodic updates to maintain accuracy. 
I suppose phones need to be updated because of it and the devil’s lettuce? I’m not sure if we have that down this way!

N.

Edit: I guess as your viewings were months apart you may have observed this phenomenon in action.

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by Newbie

1 hour ago, Kayla Bisson said:

Out of curiosity is the few KM of movement actually noticeable? I thought I was crazy but since this actually came up, tonight I went to check for Auroras in a place I'm almost 100% postive was North facing the last time I was there a few months ago yet tonight multiple apps made me rotate to my left more than I remember to look North, not much but enough.....I chalked it up to needing to recalibrate my phone or the devils lettuce making me forgetful but can it actually move that much?

@Kayla Bisson  Perhaps the devils lettuce needs a downgrade.  Haha. Each to their own…. Nup officer those are non fruit bearing Japanese tomato plants….

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by hamateur 1953

9 hours ago, AScaredObserver said:

I've heard some people say that the shifting of the poles is accelerating (which has a certain YT channel pushing their "disaster cycle" narrative). Can anyone confirm or debunk this claim? All I have is hearsay.

You already made two threads about exactly this, where we already answered that question in great detail. Those threads are here and here. In the latter you were even referred back to the first one just like you are now being referred back to both of those. You were also urged to actually take the time to read the facts you were presented with, which it doesn't seem like you've done. There's nothing wrong with coming back and asking further questions, but if you're just going to ask the same question over and over again you're not really learning anything.

6 hours ago, Newbie said:

Yes there  is evidence to suggest that the Earth's magnetic poles are indeed accelerating in their movement. Over the past century, the magnetic north pole has been shifting at an increasing rate, moving several kilometres per year in recent decades. This acceleration in movement is of interest to scientists studying the Earth's magnetic field and its dynamics, although the exact causes and implications of this acceleration are still under investigation.

4 hours ago, Kayla Bisson said:

Out of curiosity is the few KM of movement actually noticeable?

It should be noted that what's moving is the magnetic north pole, which is not the same as the geomagnetic north pole; the former is a localized dipole, and as such is expected to move around more than the much more stable geomagnetic poles, which hardly move at all in comparison.

4 hours ago, Kayla Bisson said:

I thought I was crazy but since this actually came up, tonight I went to check for Auroras in a place I'm almost 100% postive was North facing the last time I was there a few months ago yet tonight multiple apps made me rotate to my left more than I remember to look North, not much but enough.....I chalked it up to needing to recalibrate my phone or the devils lettuce making me forgetful but can it actually move that much?

This is likely just your mind playing tricks on you, because the auroral oval is determined almost entirely by the location of the geomagnetic poles, which have hardly moved at all in decades, let alone in a few months. This is also measured empirically, and it's been observed that the movement of the magnetic north pole doesn't affect the location of the auroral oval.

However, I will not discount the possibility that perhaps the magnetic north pole has shifted sufficiently for the direction we consider north to have deviated from where you'd expect to see aurorae, and that your app(s) accounted for this, it could be the case; but even in that case it's still worth noting that it's the direction we call north which would have changed rather than the direction of the aurora relative to various local landmarks.

For reference you can see roughly how the pole moved in 10 years (from 2010 to 2020) relative to Canada here:

As you can see the movement is relatively well aligned with what was already north for at least the eastern parts of Canada; if you live in the western parts then you might have noticed a small change in direction over the years, but even then it's not very likely that you'd notice the change over a couple of months, especially not given how the change in direction itself becomes smaller and smaller as the pole moves further away.

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by Philalethes
diagram

There seems to be a consensus that magnetic pole reversals are a thing and happen quite often in the grand scale of things. The evidence used to argue this seems iffy for me (paleomagmetism), it's based on the alignment of solidified mineral structures and i can see a million other things that could affect this.

I have discussed with a professor who believes such events have not happened in the past based on records of radionuclides that are caused by flow of high energy particles into the polar regions. This professor said that the poles sway like a pendulum all the time and indeed now the "pendulum" is at peak velocity but will slow down once it moves across to the other side and the cycle repeats. It seems the north pole has been as far east as central siberia at some point and might be heading to somewhere there now.

A counter argument to all this would be that the pole reversal happens so fast that no trace of the polar flux would be seen in lower latitudes. Tho occams razor favors a continually moving but never reversing poles here. Paleomagnetism needs too many adsumptions to work. He continued to explain about the dynamics between the IMF, solar wind, stored energy in the ionosphere and the geomagnetic dynamo and i lost my track there.

8 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

There seems to be a consensus that magnetic pole reversals are a thing and happen quite often in the grand scale of things. The evidence used to argue this seems iffy for me (paleomagmetism), it's based on the alignment of solidified mineral structures and i can see a million other things that could affect this.

The scientific evidence for it is definitely not particularly "iffy", especially considering how the recorded change in intensity matches up perfectly with the recorded change in direction. You say you can see "a million other things that could effect this", so feel free to provide some. Personally I have a very hard time seeing how anything other than those specific large-scale changes could produce the observed evidence, but I'm all ears.

As for whether it happens "often" depends on what exactly one means by that, since it's a quite relative term. The evidence indicates that it happens roughly every ~500,000 years or so, which I suppose can be considered "often" from the perspectives of geology and paleontology.

16 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

I have discussed with a professor who believes such events have not happened in the past based on records of radionuclides that are caused by flow of high energy particles into the polar regions. This professor said that the poles sway like a pendulum all the time and indeed now the "pendulum" is at peak velocity but will slow down once it moves across to the other side and the cycle repeats. It seems the north pole has been as far east as central siberia at some point and might be heading to somewhere there now.

Well, again I must highlight the same difference as I mentioned above, which is that there's a big difference between the magnetic poles and the geomagnetic poles; the magnetic poles are the strongest localized dipoles in the respective hemispheres, which is why compasses point there, but the overall geomagnetic field consists of various dipoles that change in such a way that they offset the movements of each other for the most part, so that it remains more stable.

According to the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF), the north magnetic pole moved ~15.35° from 1990 to 2020, whereas the north geomagnetic pole only moved a tenth of that in the same time, at ~1.53°.

But even beyond that, it's also accepted that geomagnetic excursions without reversals also happen, so there's certainly no denying that there is movement to the geomagnetic field too, but it's definitely a lot more stable; and from the aforementioned evidence we see that it appears to remain stable over very long spans of time too, sometimes for many millions of years without much movement, and that it's mostly during excursions and reversals that more rapid movements are seen there.

26 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

Tho occams razor favors a continually moving but never reversing poles here. Paleomagnetism needs too many adsumptions to work.

I definitely don't agree with this, given what the evidence from the alignments of magnetic minerals worldwide points to, but as I said above I'm all ears as to what your alternative explanations for this would be.

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

The scientific evidence for it is definitely not particularly "iffy", especially considering how the recorded change in intensity matches up perfectly with the recorded change in direction. You say you can see "a million other things that could effect this", so feel free to provide some. Personally I have a very hard time seeing how anything other than those specific large-scale changes could produce the observed evidence, but I'm all ears.

As for whether it happens "often" depends on what exactly one means by that, since it's a quite relative term. The evidence indicates that it happens roughly every ~500,000 years or so, which I suppose can be considered "often" from the perspectives of geology and paleontology.

Well, again I must highlight the same difference as I mentioned above, which is that there's a big difference between the magnetic poles and the geomagnetic poles; the magnetic poles are the strongest localized dipoles in the respective hemispheres, which is why compasses point there, but the overall geomagnetic field consists of various dipoles that change in such a way that they offset the movements of each other for the most part, so that it remains more stable.

According to the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF), the north magnetic pole moved ~15.35° from 1990 to 2020, whereas the north geomagnetic pole only moved a tenth of that in the same time, at ~1.53°.

But even beyond that, it's also accepted that geomagnetic excursions without reversals also happen, so there's certainly no denying that there is movement to the geomagnetic field too, but it's definitely a lot more stable; and from the aforementioned evidence we see that it appears to remain stable over very long spans of time too, sometimes for many millions of years without much movement, and that it's mostly during excursions and reversals that more rapid movements are seen there.

I definitely don't agree with this, given what the evidence from the alignments of magnetic minerals worldwide points to, but as I said above I'm all ears as to what your alternative explanations for this would be.

There's a multitude of factors that cannot be reliably calculated into the paleomagnetic evidence. There's the obvious issue of curie point, magnetite and other natural magnetic formations, deformation and flow of material, local magnetic anomalies, effects of oxidation and other environmental factors. Also the method assumes the dipole state of geomagnetic field. It seems that paleomagnetic samples around the world are dated by the assumed reversal timeline, which is based on other paleomagnetic assumptions so the system is flawed. If other methods of dating are used like in continental samples mismatching findings are common. Radionuclide findings are taken for evidence of geomagnetic breakdown and rapid shift even tho they are usually made at latitudes that could easily host the shifting geomagnetic pole and thus accumulate high energy particles.

I would like to see findings of freshly solidified formations correlating with the now known 100yr or so history of the geomagnetic field to confirm the method but haven't found any.

Image: You can align peaks in any data if you scale the timeline to your choosing, but the rest is noise.

9 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

There's a multitude of factors that cannot be reliably calculated into the paleomagnetic evidence. There's the obvious issue of curie point, magnetite and other natural magnetic formations, deformation and flow of material, local magnetic anomalies, effects of oxidation and other environmental factors.

Those factors are most definitely accounted for in the overall paleomagnetic evidence, especially when it comes to reversals. In chapter 4 ("Magnetic Field Reversals") of Paleomagnetism: Continents and Oceans, which is on evidence for geomagnetic reversals, they very early on address e.g. local magnetic anomalies:

Quote

However, a paleomagnetic observation at one locality from rocks of a given age with field direction approximately opposite to the known mean field of that age is not sufficient evidence for a reversal of the axial dipole. This is because the nondipole field can produce large local deviations of the field, even to the extent of appearing locally to be a reversal. For example, the International Geomagnetic Reference Field for 1995 shows that the magnetic declination can be as much as -40° at a latitude of 40°S and there are locations at high latitudes where the declination can be 180°. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain effectively simultaneous observations of inverted field directions well distributed over the Earth's surface before it can be concluded that the axial dipole field has reversed. The change in sign of the field must also exhibit some stability before it can be considered to be a reversal. A reversal of the Earth's magnetic field is thus usefully defined as a globally observed 180° change in the axial dipole field averaged over a few thousand years.

As for the Curie point of different minerals, I'm not really sure what exactly your objection is here, because we're talking about the magnetization that remains after the mineral cools, its thermoremanent magnetization (TRM); as the mineral passes the Curie point on the way down to cooler temperature, there is spontaneous magnetization again, occurring successively over several different temperatures. Quoting the same book again, from chapter 2 ("Rock Magnetism"), section 2.3.5 ("Thermoremanent Magnetization"):

Quote

The remanence acquired by a rock specimen during cooling from the Curie point to room temperature is called the total TRM. Upon cooling from a high temperature, spontaneous magnetization appears at the Curie point T_c, and this assumes an equilibrium magnetization in the presence of an applied field. Grains of different volumes v will each have different blocking temperatures T_B. As the temperature cools below T_c and then passes through each T_B, the relaxation time of each of these grains increases very rapidly. The equilibrium magnetization becomes "frozen in" and subsequent changes in the field direction occurring at temperatures below T_B are ineffective in changing the direction of magnetization. From (2.3.16), using a value of 𝜏 = 100 s at the blocking temperature, a grain with T_B = 530 °C (800K) has relaxation time of 10^13 years on cooling to room temperature (30 °C). Even grains with relatively low blocking temperatures of 330 °C (600 K) have a relaxation time of 10^8 years on cooling to room temperature. This is one of the basic appeals of paleomagnetism; TRM is essentially stable on the geological time scale.

Thus it seems strange that you seem to believe that this can't be accounted for, when it's actually very thoroughly accounted for; the chapter and book at large really delves into the physics of it on even a much more detailed level.

41 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

Also the method assumes the dipole state of geomagnetic field.

This is because there are multiple strong lines of evidence that show clearly that the other zonal harmonics are weak enough relative to the dipole moment, so it's not like it's a baseless assumption. Quoting once more from the book above, this time from chapter 6 ("Continental Paleomagnetism"), section 6.3 "Testing the Geocentric Axial Dipole Model":

Quote

For the time interval 0-5 Ma the best estimate of the geocentric axial quadrupole term is given by the ratio g⁰_2/g⁰_1 = 0.038±0.012. That is, the geocentric axial quadrupole present in the time-averaged paleomagnetic field is less than 4% of the geocentric axial dipole and has the same value for the normal and reverse fields. The presence of such a geocentric axial quadrupole would mean that paleomagnetic poles would be in error by no more than 3-4° if only a geocentric axial dipole field is assumed. This is much less than the typical 95% confidence limits determined for paleomagnetic pole positions. Therefore, the GAD is an acceptable model for paleomagnetic data in the range 0-5 Ma.

Since we have plenty of evidence for the phenomena in question over the past 5 Myr, and that the field appears to behave in the manner described during that time, this is makes it fairly clear that the assumption itself is very reasonable. When going even further back it's not as clear, but there's still a lot of evidence that the same holds true for at least 3 Gyr; as the next section continues:

Quote

Attempts have been made to measure the ratio g⁰_2/g⁰_1 for epochs older than 5 Ma, but these analyses suffer even more from data artifact problems than the analysis of data for the time interval 0-5 Ma discussed in §6.3.1. It is reasonable to assume that continental drift has been small over the past few million years and that the relation of present continents to the axis of rotation has remained unchanged. For older times it is necessary to reconstruct the continents using sea-floor spreading data and then analyze the paleomagnetic data for each configuration. For Cretaceous and younger epochs these analyses suggest that it is unlikely that the geocentric axial quadrupole term has ever been more than a few percent of the geocentric axial dipole term.

If paleomagnetic poles for a given geological epoch (e.g., the Permian of Europe or North America) are consistent for rocks sampled over a large geologically stable region such as a craton of continental extent, this provides compelling evidence that the dipole assumption used in calculating the poles is essentially correct.

Note that these are just some of the comments on it, and that the existence of the other zonal harmonics is not at all brushed aside, but treated in great detail both in the book (including a section dedicated to the dipole hypothesis near the very beginning of the book too) and in the field of paleomagnetism at large.

58 minutes ago, Tino Lehtonen said:

It seems that paleomagnetic samples around the world are dated by the assumed reversal timeline, which is based on other paleomagnetic assumptions so the system is flawed.

Not sure what makes you say this, because dating is done in many different ways, some of which are independent of those assumptions, and in fact form the basis for the evidence in the first place. An example would be K-Ar dating, and that Wikipedia article also briefly mentions precisely that:

Quote

The quickly cooled lavas that make nearly ideal samples for K–Ar dating also preserve a record of the direction and intensity of the local magnetic field as the sample cooled past the Curie temperature of iron. The geomagnetic polarity time scale was calibrated largely using K–Ar dating.

I would also note that you seem to brush aside a century or two of scientific investigations into paleomagnetism a bit too nonchalantly here, and don't really appear to be that familiar with what the current state of the scientific evidence actually is. I would recommend that you at least grab yourself a book like the one mentioned and quoted above and read through it at least once before you hastily criticize the current body of evidence further, as I suspect it would probably answer many of the things you seem to find puzzling.