Magnetic Poles shifting grand alignment

[IanC]

No YOU'RE lying, Frank. In your other post you said "pH", now you're saying "acidity". You really shouldn't be posting in a science forum, if you don't know the difference. Personally, I think you do, hence the lying charge.

konradv- you are confused again. the commonly used scale for acids and bases is the pH scale. it is logarithmic not linear, that is why conflating a 30% rise in [H+] as a 30% rise in acidity is misleading at best. also because the oceans are basic, any move towards pH 7 is properly termed neutralization not acidification. the problem is that the 2 parts per million change in [H+] is not a 0.1 change in pH anywhere else but going from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1, so it is a rather meaningless statistic.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The part I bolded isn't misleading, if you understand the topic. What I was talking about was Frank conflating % acidity and pH. What's the problem with saying there's been a 30% increase in H+? It's true and easier to understand by the non-scientifically inclined. The "acidification/neutralization" comment is just playing with words. Those who deal with it daily would not be confused in the slightest.

OK, if you know exactly what you are talking about, why are acids measured in molality, normality and weight/volume? what is the term percent acidity associated with. why is acidity of a complex liquid measured in pH?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No YOU'RE lying, Frank. In your other post you said "pH", now you're saying "acidity". You really shouldn't be posting in a science forum, if you don't know the difference. Personally, I think you do, hence the lying charge.

Is English not your first language or are you just a fucking retard

Whoa, seems someone's butthurt over getting called out!!! Your little games may work with the "Rush is God" crowd, but I demand higher levels of logic. % acidity is one thing ph is the negative log of the H+ concentration. You can't use them interchangebly.

So we cleared that up, you're a fucking retard

 

[Old Rocks]

But all of the attempts at redefinition cannot hide the problem of aragonite saturation. And that is the problem with the decrease in Ph.

Unprecedented, man-made trends in ocean's acidity

Unprecedented, man-made trends in ocean's acidity

Nearly one-third of CO2 emissions due to human activities enters the world's oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO2 increases the water's acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.

Combining computer modeling with observations, an international team of scientists concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 100 to 200 years have already raised ocean acidity far beyond the range of natural variations. The study is published in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

The team of climate modelers, marine conservationists, ocean chemists, biologists and ecologists, led by Tobias Friedrich and Axel Timmermann at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, came to their conclusions by using Earth system models that simulate climate and ocean conditions 21,000 years back in time, to the Last Glacial Maximum, and forward in time to the end of the 21st century. They studied in their models changes in the saturation level of aragonite (a form of calcium carbonate) typically used to measure of ocean acidification. As acidity of seawater rises, the saturation level of aragonite drops. Their models captured well the current observed seasonal and annual variations in this quantity in several key coral reef regions.

 

[bobgnote]

AGW, amiright?

Oh and its turning our oceans acidic too! 30% increase in pH!

Dumb schmuck or inveterate liar? You be the judge. Where has anyone said there's a 30% increase in pH?

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity."

NOAA. Caught lying

What is Ocean Acidification?

Oopsies.

Wiki must have updated their site after the real scientists here called you guys out on your lie

"30% increase in pH!"

Crosstard sucks dicks with shit on them, so don't ever go in the same room he's in.

 

[zonly1]

Dumb schmuck or inveterate liar? You be the judge. Where has anyone said there's a 30% increase in pH?

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity."

NOAA. Caught lying

What is Ocean Acidification?

Oopsies.

Wiki must have updated their site after the real scientists here called you guys out on your lie

"30% increase in pH!"

Crosstard sucks dicks with shit on them, so don't ever go in the same room he's in.

it is known as a weak accident, low molarity. and you still have no point other than some enviro bible thumber you follow as GOD which there can be false GODS.

 

[bobgnote]

Your ice is melting, there is a hockey stick graph or forty, you will get in fights, off the ice, and the cold melt carries acid, better than warmer water.

The persistent problems for ocean life remain, in the following order, following HUMANS INCLUDE A LARGE NUMBER OF WINGPUNK FUCKTARDS, to whom black Obamney panders:

Oceanic:
1. acidification
2. warming
a. bacteria
b. anoxia

 

[Old Rocks]

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity."

NOAA. Caught lying

What is Ocean Acidification?

Oopsies.

Wiki must have updated their site after the real scientists here called you guys out on your lie

"30% increase in pH!"

Crosstard sucks dicks with shit on them, so don't ever go in the same room he's in.

it is known as a weak accident, low molarity. and you still have no point other than some enviro bible thumber you follow as GOD which there can be false GODS.

Zonedout, are you ever going to post something that is reasonably intelligiable?

 

[Politico]

This wobble didn't just start. It's an ongoing thing.

Seriously. I am wobbbling right now. I suspect it was from all the Rum last night.

 

[flacaltenn]

For some reason -- the OP video is gone.. But I had heard reports of magnetic north moving by as much as 200 miles per year.. If I had known this when I was flying magnetic compass (pre - GPS), I would have been shocked and maybe lost(er) in the higher latitudes.

Good thing we HAVE a GPS system now isn't it?

Not so sure we can vouch for the lack of consequences if it does go beserk. Since many inertial guidance systems still depend on magnetic readings.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, just more of them pointy headed 'Liberul' scientists talking.

The 16.6 Ma Steens Mountain Geomagnetic Polarity Reversal: Additional Complexity

Abstract
The best known record of the earth's magnetic field behavior during a geomagnetic polarity reversal preserved in volcanic rock is the reverse to normal (R-N) polarity reversal found in the Steens Basalts of SE Oregon. At three locations where reverse to normal sections are found (Steens Mountain, Catlow Peak, and Poker Jim Ridge), four high precision 40Ar/39Ar plateau ages of plagioclase separates from transitionally magnetized rocks were determined. The ages are the same within error and have a weighted mean age of 16.58 ± 0.14 Ma. Errors are two sigma. A more precise constraint on the youngest possible age of the reversal is 16.548 ± 0.050 Ma determined from the normally magnetized Oregon Canyon tuff capping the Catlow Peak section. Comparison of these ages to the new geomagnetic polarity time scale of Gradstein et al. (A Geologic Time Scale 2004, 589 pp., Cambridge University Press, 2004.), after adjustments due to differences in Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs) standard ages (28.02 Ma, this study; 28.24 Ma, Gradstein et al.), shows that the Steens reversal is uniquely identified as the top of the C5Cr chron. The high precision of the ages and the Steens' reversal location in the geomagnetic polarity timescale convincingly demonstrate that these stratigraphically uncorrelated transitional sections were erupted during the same transition and their transitional paths should be combined. The high-quality, detailed benchmark record of this reversal (Mankinen et al., JGR, 90(B), 10.393-10.416, 1985; Prevot et al., Nature, 316, 230-234, 1985) is a composite derived from two sampled sections 2 km apart on Steens Mountain that overlapped significantly, Steens A above and Steens B below. This study showed that the magnetic field during the reversal moved from reverse to normal and then bounced back to transitional before finally returning to normal (a R-T-N-T-N path). The unexamined upper part of the Steens B section was later sampled and revealed an additional bounce of the field during the transition (Camps et al., JGR, 104(B8), 17747- 58, 1999). This increased the reversal's complexity to a R-T-N-T-N-T-N pattern. We have studied a R-N volcanic section at Catlow Peak 70 km SSE of Steens Mountain with 32 flows erupted during the transition. The transitional directions trace a path very close to the Steens A and B reversal path but contain an additional large swing through the reversed field direction, demonstrating an even more complex R-T-N-T-N-T-R-T-N path. We will also report on two R-N sections recently sampled at Poker Jim Ridge 80 km west of Steens Mountain that add new directions to the Steens record. The complex composite Steens reversal path recorded in these high fidelity lavas gives some credence to suggestions of very complex magnetic field behavior during reversals, previously seen only in sediment records where the acquisition of magnetization is less well understood.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, of course, Sis would deny that it is 'peer reviewed'. Doesn't meet her political standards.

 

[zonly1]

"30% increase in pH!"

Crosstard sucks dicks with shit on them, so don't ever go in the same room he's in.

it is known as a weak accident, low molarity. and you still have no point other than some enviro bible thumber you follow as GOD which there can be false GODS.

Zonedout, are you ever going to post something that is reasonably intelligiable?

Following false GODS with abstracts you can barely read/comprehend as proof to your blind assertions only prove your following of false GODS.
Furthermore, let me know your basic understanding of magnetics and to note the equation of a charge particle replicates the same equation of gravity. When you take the limit of both equations, it's the square of the distance or 1/r^2.

 

[konradv]

konradv- you are confused again. the commonly used scale for acids and bases is the pH scale. it is logarithmic not linear, that is why conflating a 30% rise in [H+] as a 30% rise in acidity is misleading at best. also because the oceans are basic, any move towards pH 7 is properly termed neutralization not acidification. the problem is that the 2 parts per million change in [H+] is not a 0.1 change in pH anywhere else but going from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1, so it is a rather meaningless statistic.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The part I bolded isn't misleading, if you understand the topic. What I was talking about was Frank conflating % acidity and pH. What's the problem with saying there's been a 30% increase in H+? It's true and easier to understand by the non-scientifically inclined. The "acidification/neutralization" comment is just playing with words. Those who deal with it daily would not be confused in the slightest.

OK, if you know exactly what you are talking about, why are acids measured in molality, normality and weight/volume? what is the term percent acidity associated with. why is acidity of a complex liquid measured in pH?

Don't really get your question. % with regard to acidic solutions is used all the time.

 

[flacaltenn]

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The part I bolded isn't misleading, if you understand the topic. What I was talking about was Frank conflating % acidity and pH. What's the problem with saying there's been a 30% increase in H+? It's true and easier to understand by the non-scientifically inclined. The "acidification/neutralization" comment is just playing with words. Those who deal with it daily would not be confused in the slightest.

OK, if you know exactly what you are talking about, why are acids measured in molality, normality and weight/volume? what is the term percent acidity associated with. why is acidity of a complex liquid measured in pH?

Don't really get your question. % with regard to acidic solutions is used all the time.

The math dishonesty we're referring to is to take a H+ increase and express it as a linear percentage. If THAT is useful (it is not) -- then the oceans are 30% more acidic, but FRESH GLACIAL MELT WATER is 920% more acidic than sea water..

And yet SOMEHOW eh -- it's just got a neutral PH of 7.0..

Not exactly useful to compare acidity to neutral in NON-LOG units is it??

 

[bobgnote]

. . . and rainwater can go from pH 7, to 5.5, by the time it hits the ground.

So the first thing that will happen will be aragonite shellfish will fail, and then corals, eggs, little fish, and the oceanic food chain will be stressed, but by the time the oceans warm, they will out-gas a whole lot of CO2 and CH4. We sure don't have to see oceans get all the way, to 7.0, for things to screw way up.

One of the feedbacks which will do a lot of damage is from warming ocean waters, which aren't particularly acidic, but they will out-gas CO2, into an atmosphere, which is already badly polluted.

Jellyfish will take over. A jellyfish explosion can happen, when their predators fail, and it can expand, when jellies proliferate, since they can attack their predators, before anti-jelly forms are mature.

Earth will be hot. This will be worse, than a shift in magnetic poles.

HS2 respirators will evolve. Will humans see the complete reversal, of the magnetic poles? Not if greedy and DD keep their lock, on public agendas!

 

[zonly1]

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The part I bolded isn't misleading, if you understand the topic. What I was talking about was Frank conflating % acidity and pH. What's the problem with saying there's been a 30% increase in H+? It's true and easier to understand by the non-scientifically inclined. The "acidification/neutralization" comment is just playing with words. Those who deal with it daily would not be confused in the slightest.

OK, if you know exactly what you are talking about, why are acids measured in molality, normality and weight/volume? what is the term percent acidity associated with. why is acidity of a complex liquid measured in pH?

Don't really get your question. % with regard to acidic solutions is used all the time.

I don't think that is what he said and it's apparent you are clumsily trying 2 wiggle out.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, if you know exactly what you are talking about, why are acids measured in molality, normality and weight/volume? what is the term percent acidity associated with. why is acidity of a complex liquid measured in pH?

Don't really get your question. % with regard to acidic solutions is used all the time.

The math dishonesty we're referring to is to take a H+ increase and express it as a linear percentage. If THAT is useful (it is not) -- then the oceans are 30% more acidic, but FRESH GLACIAL MELT WATER is 920% more acidic than sea water..

And yet SOMEHOW eh -- it's just got a neutral PH of 7.0..

Not exactly useful to compare acidity to neutral in NON-LOG units is it??

Given that the major problem with a change in the Ph of seawater is the solubility of aragonite, let's just have a look at what the changes mean in that context.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/mcneil2-1HI76.pdf

Future acidification (lowering of pH) may adversely impact marine biota, but our present understanding of the potential biological response is unknown. It is recognised however
that a decrease in pH will alter the acid-base balance with the cells of marine organisms. Marine organisms regulate intercellular pH by the metabolic interconversion of acids
and bases, the passive chemical buffering of intra- and extracellular fluids, and the active ion transport (e.g. proton transport by extra-cellular respiratory proteins such as
hemoglobin). Acid-base imbalances in marine organisms can lead to the dissolution of exoskeletal components such as calcareous shells, metabolic suppression, reduced protein
synthesis and reduced activity [Pedersen and Hansen, 2003]. As both Ω and pH changes have the potential to directly impact marine biota it is important to understand the
magnitude of these changes under elevated CO2 levels and global warming. We use climate model simulations to explore the relationship between climate change and these
two carbon parameters to allow an improved assessment of the potential impacts they may have on marine organisms.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - earthquakes in various places, its the end times like it says inna Bible - we all gonna die...

Bizarre 2012 earthquake signals birth of world's newest tectonic plate
September 27, 2012 - After millions more years of similar earthquakes, the ruptures will begin to favor a particular path, giving rise to a new plate boundary, and separating today's existing plate into two.

On the afternoon of April 11, 2012, one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded — and now revealed to be among the weirdest — struck in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Sumatra. It's a region all too familiar with geological catastrophe. Eight years earlier, in December 2004, the third largest earthquake on record had ripped through a nearby region of the ocean floor. The magnitude-9.1 earthquake and the monstrous tsunami that soon followed killed more than 227,000 people in 14 countries, So when a magnitude-8.7 earthquake (some put the magnitude at 8.6) shook the Indonesian island on that Wednesday afternoon earlier this year, many expected the worst. Yet, no monster wave appeared. A wave did come ashore, but it was a miniature tsunami, just 12 inches (31 centimeters) high.

All told, the earthquake did very little damage — yet only five higher earthquake magnitudes have ever been recorded. So what was the deal? New research published today (Sept. 26) in the journal Nature delves into the intimate details of this earthquake, along with the powerful, magnitude-8.2 quake that followed two hours later. The new studies add to an existing body of research that shows this was a remarkable event — one of the most surprising earthquakes ever recorded — and one that offers an unlikely snapshot of a geological process millions of years in the making.

Turning a corner

Data captured by a global network of seismometers on April 11 revealed almost immediately that this quake was a strike-slip earthquake — the sort that races along the San Andreas Fault. Strike-slip earthquakes occur when two sides of a fault jolt horizontally, displacing the ground sideways. Since these earthquakes don't shove the ocean floor upward — a required move for tsunami generation — no deadly wave appeared. Tsunamis are typically the devastating handiwork of quakes known as subduction earthquakes. They're the most powerful earthquakes on the planet, and they occur at plate boundaries, where one tectonic plate is grinding inexorably beneath another. When the bottom plate suddenly lurches deeper, a colossal amount of energy is released, unleashing the sorts of massive earthquakes and calamitous tsunamis that hit the Indian Ocean in 2004 and the coast of Japan in March 2011.

It quickly became apparent that the April 11 earthquake was the most powerful strike-slip quake ever recorded. Which was strange. Not only was the quake of unparalleled power, it hit in the middle of a tectonic plate, not at a plate boundary, like the San Andreas Fault. "So already it has two unusual attributes," said Thorne Lay, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an author on one of the papers published today. Lay and his team set out to construct a blow-by-blow account of how the earthquake progressed, and what they found added to the quake's mystique. This earthquake was able to turn corners.

MORE

 

[skookerasbil]

Experiencing the great platonic year. Precission of the earths equinox refers to the earth's axis wobble moving in an unconventional way. Time period event is a 25765 yrs wobble path.

Notice the ice cap weight shifting it is due to earths own inertia and the sun moon alignment.
This vid indicates inertia shifts in ice not to be due to global warming but due to physics of the earth, sun, moon system.
This inertia of the sun earth moon generates potential physical plate movements on earth, ie earthquakes.

Magnetic Pole Shifting/Grand Alignment - YouTube
Very cool stuff.

LOL.......more bad news for the k00ks............imagine they fall all over themselves for a couple of decades throwing bombs about the global warming crap and the earth wobbling takes whats left of their narrative and takes a big old poop on it!! And I'll be laughing...........and they'll all be blaming the earth wobbling on ocean acidification!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Granny says, "Dat's right - earthquakes in various places, its the end times like it says inna Bible - we all gonna die...

Bizarre 2012 earthquake signals birth of world's newest tectonic plate
September 27, 2012 - After millions more years of similar earthquakes, the ruptures will begin to favor a particular path, giving rise to a new plate boundary, and separating today's existing plate into two.

On the afternoon of April 11, 2012, one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded — and now revealed to be among the weirdest — struck in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Sumatra. It's a region all too familiar with geological catastrophe. Eight years earlier, in December 2004, the third largest earthquake on record had ripped through a nearby region of the ocean floor. The magnitude-9.1 earthquake and the monstrous tsunami that soon followed killed more than 227,000 people in 14 countries, So when a magnitude-8.7 earthquake (some put the magnitude at 8.6) shook the Indonesian island on that Wednesday afternoon earlier this year, many expected the worst. Yet, no monster wave appeared. A wave did come ashore, but it was a miniature tsunami, just 12 inches (31 centimeters) high.

All told, the earthquake did very little damage — yet only five higher earthquake magnitudes have ever been recorded. So what was the deal? New research published today (Sept. 26) in the journal Nature delves into the intimate details of this earthquake, along with the powerful, magnitude-8.2 quake that followed two hours later. The new studies add to an existing body of research that shows this was a remarkable event — one of the most surprising earthquakes ever recorded — and one that offers an unlikely snapshot of a geological process millions of years in the making.

Turning a corner

Data captured by a global network of seismometers on April 11 revealed almost immediately that this quake was a strike-slip earthquake — the sort that races along the San Andreas Fault. Strike-slip earthquakes occur when two sides of a fault jolt horizontally, displacing the ground sideways. Since these earthquakes don't shove the ocean floor upward — a required move for tsunami generation — no deadly wave appeared. Tsunamis are typically the devastating handiwork of quakes known as subduction earthquakes. They're the most powerful earthquakes on the planet, and they occur at plate boundaries, where one tectonic plate is grinding inexorably beneath another. When the bottom plate suddenly lurches deeper, a colossal amount of energy is released, unleashing the sorts of massive earthquakes and calamitous tsunamis that hit the Indian Ocean in 2004 and the coast of Japan in March 2011.

It quickly became apparent that the April 11 earthquake was the most powerful strike-slip quake ever recorded. Which was strange. Not only was the quake of unparalleled power, it hit in the middle of a tectonic plate, not at a plate boundary, like the San Andreas Fault. "So already it has two unusual attributes," said Thorne Lay, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an author on one of the papers published today. Lay and his team set out to construct a blow-by-blow account of how the earthquake progressed, and what they found added to the quake's mystique. This earthquake was able to turn corners.

MORE

It's humbling to imagine that it's only been 60 yrs or so Waltky since science wised up and figured out that the earth's crust actually moved on plates. Just barely made it into my elementary school science books. Makes you wonder how silly some of the arguments we have here are gonna look in 20 or 30 yrs..

We THINK we have it all figured out.. And then some smart science "denialist" kicks the whole damn structure apart..