NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.

Introduction:
"The various extinction events which have occurred during the world’s history have attracted a number explanations. One such hypothesis is that these events coincided with the earth crossing the galactic plane and encountering the dense matter in the form of comets which struck the earth. This is known as the Shiva Hypotheisis. Its author is Michael Rampino, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences."

The Myth
"December 21st, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count) therefore represents an extremely close conjunction of the winter solstice sun with the crossing point of Galactic Equator and the ecliptic, what the ancient Maya recognized as the Sacred Tree. It is critical to understand that the winter solstice sun rarely conjuncts the Sacred Tree. In fact, this is an event that has been coming to resonance very slowly over thousands and thousands of years. What this might mean astrologically, how this might effect the "energy weather" on earth, must be treated as a separate topic."

The Scientific Version
Solar System - Did you notice? In February 2001, the Sun did a magnetic polar shift. The next one is due again in 2012. NASA scientists who monitor the Sun say that our star's awesome magnetic field flipped 22 months ago, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum. But it wasn't so obvious to the average human.

The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few months ago, now points south. It's a topsy-turvy situation, but not an unexpected one. "This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."

The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.

Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur."

Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...

ZOMG, Repent, for the end is nigh!!!!

So what does this mean for you and I and our day-to-day lives? Change in environment, or anything of that nature?

So what does this mean for you and I and our day-to-day lives? Change in environment, or anything of that nature?

It means all the crazies will be out telling us that the end is near. Damn irritating.

I like GWAR's version better, where they just went and made Antarctica too heavy and it tilted to the bottom of the planet.

So what does this mean for you and I and our day-to-day lives? Change in environment, or anything of that nature?

Well.. if earths poles flip we all get cancer, due to not being protected from radiation for a while. Electronics will also not like it much.

Other than that we will survive.

It means a north becoms south and a lot more lost hitchhikers

yes, it's true, both science and crazy people believe that the year 2012 will exist. will the amazing coincidences never cease?

Ok, so your scientific backing to this is the solar maximum?
You did read the article that stated that solar maximums occur every 11 years, right?
Calm down. There's nothing to worry about from the sun's poles reversing. Hell, there's nothing to worry about when it comes to the earth's poles reversing. It happens, there are no mass extinctions associated with either event.

It means all the crazies will be out telling us that the end is near. Damn irritating.
:p

Well.. if earths poles flip we all get cancer, due to not being protected from radiation for a while. Electronics will also not like it much.

Other than that we will survive.
We won't all get cancer, and we're not discussing the earth's poles reversing, we're discussing the sun's poles reversing. I'm 22, this has happened twice in my lifetime already.

Ok, so your scientific backing to this is the solar maximum?
You did read the article that stated that solar maximums occur every 11 years, right?
Calm down. There's nothing to worry about from the sun's poles reversing. Hell, there's nothing to worry about when it comes to the earth's poles reversing. It happens, there are no mass extinctions associated with either event.

but the maya, who are clearly the descendents of atlantians and actually built the great pyramid in egypt (with the help of the ufos from surius), sort of said that the world will end then - as long as you don't actually try to learn anything about it from non-morons.

We won't all get cancer, and we're not discussing the earth's poles reversing, we're discussing the sun's poles reversing. I'm 22, this has happened twice in my lifetime already.

The last paragraph of the "science" bit actually did refer to the reversal of earth poles, which some people believe is overdue. If those poles actually do flip we *will* get cancer - or at least an unhealthy dose of interstellar radiation - since earths magnetic field will temporarily not protect us.
But as I said: the race will survive it.

Hey Assis, which one is next? The moonlanding didn't happen? Or a more obscure one?

Hey Assis, which one is next? The moonlanding didn't happen? Or a more obscure one?

i demand rosicrucians

The last paragraph of the "science" bit actually did refer to the reversal of earth poles, which some people believe is overdue. If those poles actually do flip we *will* get cancer - or at least an unhealthy dose of interstellar radiation - since earths magnetic field will temporarily not protect us.
But as I said: the race will survive it.
I agree... Even if it happens some of us will survive. But society won't.

"The deepest ice core ever sunk, it would stretch from Nelson’s Column to Harrods if laid on end in Central London. The core has provided researchers with the oldest and most detailed record of climate change ever obtained, stretching back 740,000 years."

"Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur."

Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.

[B]Introduction:


[B]The Myth


[B]The Scientific Version


Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...


JESUS H WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh

The same thing that happens every 11 years is GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN AFTE THE 11 YEARS IS UP.

!!!!!

Troubling scientific facts, right.

Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.

[B]Introduction:


[B]The Myth


[B]The Scientific Version


Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...

But it didn't end in February 2001... The Sun's polar shifts appear not to be a huge deal.

Ah, the Mayan prophecy.
A couple of interesting things about the Mayans:
They used a base 20 system for counting, which is pretty cool.
They were incredbily accurate in their astronomical calculations, like being within a few minutes of Venus orbital period.
Do you know why?
Not because they had been visited by spacemen, not because they were more advanced than us, not because they had some sort of special mystical ability.
Nope.
Unfortunately the truth is a little more mundane.
They were really good at plotting the planets and stars because they spent centuries doing it.

So for them to know about the 'galatic equator' and basing their calender on it, isn't that far-fetched.
They wouldn't know what the galatic equator was per se, but their (hundreds of) years of astronomical plotting and calculations would have been more than enough for them to see we were moving towards something, and thus based their calender on that.


The Mayan 'doomsday' isn't one, either. They didn't speak of it as the destruction of the Earth, rather the dawn of the new era.
So even if we believe that they had some sort of special mystical propehtic powers no other civilisation possessed (a power that didn't let them see the demise of their own civilisation, I notice), it's still nothing to worry about.

Pfft....please....I think these magnetic reversal patterns aren't much to worry about, and what's more, we're going to have even more people going on about the end of the world...but wait!

I though these people had decided the world was going to end on tuesday? hehehe....what a load of balls...:rolleyes:

I wonder if the mayans responsible for ending their calendar when they did could possibly have understood or predicted all the nonsense it would spawn from hucksters and rubes nowadays.

The Mayan 'doomsday' isn't one, either. They didn't speak of it as the destruction of the Earth, rather the dawn of the new era.
So even if we believe that they had some sort of special mystical propehtic powers no other civilisation possessed (a power that didn't let them see the demise of their own civilisation, I notice), it's still nothing to worry about.

Exactly, all it means is that they have to order a new Mayan calendar from the catalogue.

Obviously its all a vast conspiracy planned for millenia by the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the CIA, the UN, the greys, and the Salvation Army (is it any coincidence that Salvation uses many of the same letters as "slave", in the sense of enslaving the human race?). We are all doomed.

Come 21/12/2012, I'm going to hire out a lead-lined underground bunker and me and all my friends are going to have a 24-hour lock-in tequilla party - it's what the Mayans would have wanted.

So then we'll emerge the next day, slightly dizzy-headed, and take our positions as the ruling elite of the Novum Terra Ordus.

*hoardes tequilla*

Well according to Nostradamus,we're all going to die 2 days from now,courtesy of the Anti-Christ.
And to think your all banging on about 2012.

Pffft.
The worlds been meant to end several times,and we're all still here.
I'm not worried.

Come 21/12/2012, I'm going to hire out a lead-lined underground bunker and me and all my friends are going to have a 24-hour lock-in tequilla party - it's what the Mayans would have wanted.

So then we'll emerge the next day, slightly dizzy-headed, and take our positions as the ruling elite of the Novum Terra Ordus.

*hoardes tequilla*

Now THAT'S an apocalypse.
I like your style.

Ah, the Mayan prophecy.
A couple of interesting things about the Mayans:
They used a base 20 system for counting, which is pretty cool.
They were incredbily accurate in their astronomical calculations, like being within a few minutes of Venus orbital period.
Do you know why?
Not because they had been visited by spacemen, not because they were more advanced than us, not because they had some sort of special mystical ability.
Nope.
Unfortunately the truth is a little more mundane.
They were really good at plotting the planets and stars because they spent centuries doing it.

So for them to know about the 'galatic equator' and basing their calender on it, isn't that far-fetched.
They wouldn't know what the galatic equator was per se, but their (hundreds of) years of astronomical plotting and calculations would have been more than enough for them to see we were moving towards something, and thus based their calender on that.


The Mayan 'doomsday' isn't one, either. They didn't speak of it as the destruction of the Earth, rather the dawn of the new era.
So even if we believe that they had some sort of special mystical propehtic powers no other civilisation possessed (a power that didn't let them see the demise of their own civilisation, I notice), it's still nothing to worry about.
I would say there is nothing we can do about crossing the Galactic plane, not that there is nothing to be worried about. We've never watched that happen yet, so we have nothing to base our worries or ease of mind on, other than old prophecies and science. It's unknown territory.

Still, if the last earth pole shift happened 740,000 years ago and only then the Ice started to build on Antarctica, I wander what will come out of the next earth pole shift...

Its important to remember that "prophesy" means "something fictional that a liar or a rambling crazy person came up with."

Does this mean everything becomes opposite? Things turn inside out?

but the maya, who are clearly the descendents of atlantians and actually built the great pyramid in egypt (with the help of the ufos from surius), sort of said that the world will end then - as long as you don't actually try to learn anything about it from non-morons.
The Mayans didn't predict that the world would end in 2012, that's just when their calendar flips. It's the mayan y2k. Nothing happened to the world last time their calendar changed over.

Does this mean everything becomes opposite? Things turn inside out?
Yep. And you start wanking with your left hand (or right, whichever one you don't do it with now).

The last paragraph of the "science" bit actually did refer to the reversal of earth poles, which some people believe is overdue. If those poles actually do flip we *will* get cancer - or at least an unhealthy dose of interstellar radiation - since earths magnetic field will temporarily not protect us.
But as I said: the race will survive it.
It didn't say that the earth's magnetic poles were going to reverse in 2012. And no, our entire species will not end up with cancer and die out if this is the case. There is no evidence in the fossil record for mass extinctions or even excessive mutations when the earth's poles flip.

Exactly, all it means is that they have to order a new Mayan calendar from the catalogue.
Ah yes, the new Mayan 120 000 month calender.
I've already pre-booked mine on Amazon.

but the maya, who are clearly the descendents of atlantians and actually built the great pyramid in egypt (with the help of the ufos from surius), sort of said that the world will end then - as long as you don't actually try to learn anything about it from non-morons.


This is pretty close, but you dont mention how when they were in the middle east building the pyramid half of them broke off and became the Jews. From hence all the world's wickedness, &c.

Its important to remember that "prophesy" means "something fictional that a liar or a rambling crazy person came up with."
The Maya predicted something astronomically big for 2012. Nasa pretty much confirms this. Amazing how liars and rambling crazy people can be right.

The Maya predicted something astronomically big for 2012. Nasa pretty much confirms this. Amazing how liars and rambling crazy people can be right.
NASA did not confirm something astronomically big. A solar maximum and the reversal of the sun's poles is not astronomically big.

Furthermore, the mayans predicted that the earth would end in earthquakes, not radiation.

The Maya predicted something astronomically big for 2012. Nasa pretty much confirms this. Amazing how liars and rambling crazy people can be right.


These arent true statements the way you intend them.

Astronomical predictions based on observational knowledge of the patterns of the movement of celestial bodies arent "prophesies" any more than "I prophesy that this water shall turn solid after i make it very cold."

An empirical scientific prediction is not the same as some swindler or maniac's hoodoo.

Where did the mayans predict a solar pole shift, and why would you consider it something "astronomically big" if it happens once every 11 years?

Where did the mayans predict a solar pole shift, and why would you consider it something "astronomically big" if it happens once every 11 years?
Well, I would say that it's not astronomically big more for the scale of the thing than the frequency with which it occurs. I mean, we see thousands of Gamma Ray Bursts every day from all over the sky and they are astronomically big events. When our sun dies off it won't even be an astronimically big event in the grand scheme of things.

Ah yes, the new Mayan 120 000 month calender.
I've already pre-booked mine on Amazon.

I got the Swimsuit Edition. it's pretty good, especially since with a calendar so big, they run out of swimsuits in about 3000 months.

Still, if the last earth pole shift happened 740,000 years ago and only then the Ice started to build on Antarctica

antarctica has been building ice for millions of years (starting after the breakup of gondwana and the start of the antarctic circumpolar current) and was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago.

you are an embarassment even to new agers (who are quite embarassing enough on their own).

the theory COULD be right..
but of course, no one knows what will really happen
they say Earth wil 'refresh' itself so we will get troubled by earthquakes and vulcanic eruptions and hurricanes and stuff like that..
also it is said we get more DNA strings or so..
and borned children since then will be paranormal..
it is said that their also will be a time with war between many groups like Opus Dei..
also some believe this time may already have begon.. think of al quaida and Katrina and the tsunami in Asia and the chance for a meteor crash last week..
but they say, after this time there will a unknown time of peace and all good things.. without leaders like bush and hussein and whoever you say..

I'm just telling some theories here.. I'm not saying I think it is that way..
but what do I think.. I'm just a 15 years old boy from the netherlands so my English sucks too :p

Does this mean everything becomes opposite? Things turn inside out?
We don't know what it means... Only that when it happened 740,000 years ago, big changes seem to have been initiated. Those changes could happen over thousands of years but we cannot ignore the possibility of increasing seismic activity, like we are currently watching around the globe.

Y'know, whenever I look at the title of this thread ( 2012: Myth and Science agree on a date),
I think it says:
2012: Myrth and Science agree on a date

My first thought is, "That's odd - how do you go on a date with Science?"
My next is, "Aww..that's sweet. Nice to see Myrth has finally got himself a date, even if it isn't for another 6 years. There's hope for him yet."

So what does this mean for you and I and our day-to-day lives? Change in environment, or anything of that nature?
Maybe we should appreciate it, because we may not have a "nice" world as it is for long.

Come 21/12/2012, I'm going to hire out a lead-lined underground bunker and me and all my friends are going to have a 24-hour lock-in tequilla party - it's what the Mayans would have wanted.

So then we'll emerge the next day, slightly dizzy-headed, and take our positions as the ruling elite of the Novum Terra Ordus.

*hoardes tequilla*

How will you connect to Nationstates in your Tequilla-lined underground bunker?

antarctica has been building ice for millions of years (starting after the breakup of gondwana and the start of the antarctic circumpolar current) and was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago.

you are an embarassment even to new agers (who are quite embarassing enough on their own).
And you are an ignorant fool who's happy to talk shit of your mouth.
New Scientist disagrees with you. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121)

And you are an ignorant fool who's happy to talk shit of your mouth.
New Scientist disagrees with you. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121)


Maybe you should tone this sort of thing down so that you dont get thrown out of the forum, Assis.

Maybe you should tone this sort of thing down so that you dont get thrown out of the forum, Assis.
And maybe people should stop calling me crazy when I'm talking of science, not myth. He's been trolling me for days...

And maybe people should stop calling me crazy when I'm talking of science, not myth. He's been trolling me for days...


You will find that people won't take you seriously if you piffle on about things like the "mayan calendar prophesy." Just a heads-up.

You will find that people won't take you seriously if you piffle on about things like the "mayan calendar prophesy." Just a heads-up.
If they don't take science seriously, how could take myths?

Ah yes, the new Mayan 120 000 month calender.
I've already pre-booked mine on Amazon.

YAY! I want a Playboy Mayan Calendar! :D


...or maybe something with kittens.

If they don't take science seriously, how could take myths?

Say again?

And you are an ignorant fool who's happy to talk shit of your mouth.
New Scientist disagrees with you. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121)
You lack reading comprehension skills. The article states that the oldest ice at the bottom is around one million years old (not supporting your statement at all). There is most likely older ice somewhere, mostly because ice moves messing up the deepest layers. Your assertation that ice started to collect on the bottom some ~800,000 YBP is not justified by that article (or any science)

And you are an ignorant fool who's happy to talk shit of your mouth.
New Scientist disagrees with you. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121)
First of all, it says the ice core is 750,000 years old, so it was started 10,000 years before the last pole reversal according to you. Secondly it just says that this is the oldest ice core retrived, not the furthest back ice in Antarctica goes.

Thirdly, the article states that you're wrong about the date of the most recent pole reversal, which apparantly happened 780,000 years ago and fourthly it states that there's ice a million years old below that.

And maybe people should stop calling me crazy when I'm talking of science, not myth. He's been trolling me for days...
You're talking about your own (mis)interpretation of science. Not actual science.

First of all, it says the ice core is 750,000 years old, so it was started 10,000 years before the last pole reversal according to you. Secondly it just says that this is the oldest ice core retrived, not the furthest back ice in Antarctica goes.

Thirdly, the article states that you're wrong about the date of the most recent pole reversal, which apparantly happened 780,000 years ago and fourthly it states that there's ice a million years old below that.

numbers tend to be a bit confusing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11089261&postcount=163) for him

You lack reading comprehension skills. The article states that the oldest ice at the bottom is around one million years old (not supporting your statement at all). There is most likely older ice somewhere, mostly because ice moves messing up the deepest layers. Your assertation that ice started to collect on the bottom some ~800,000 YBP is not justified by that article (or any science)
You are right, still my assertation is much closer than the one he uses to slander me:
Antarctica has been building ice for millions of years (starting after the breakup of gondwana and the start of the antarctic circumpolar current) and was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago."
Thickest Ice The greatest recorded thickness of ice is 4.78 km (2.97 miles), measured by radio echo soundings from a US Antarctic research aircraft.
The thickest ice is +1.5km than this sample. Antarctica was hardly completely covered 3 millions years ago... Still, he feels himself in the right to call me an "embaressment".

I may be wrong but I'm much closer than him. Still, I'm "the embaressement?"

numbers tend to be a bit confusing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11089261&postcount=163) for him
Yeah, that's pretty bad, he could at least add the numbers up and make them self consistent within the same post.

You're talking about your own (mis)interpretation of science. Not actual science.
Jeeez people... Where did I say "this will happen"? I am asking questions FFS...

Yeah, that's pretty bad, he could at least add the numbers up and make them self consistent within the same post.

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].
...
"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC. These works contain the earliest known references to Atlantis.
...
Atlantis is a 5,000 year old myth.

math isn't your strong suit, is it?
math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Certainly not as good as your ability to distort people's arguments:

The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].

Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC.

Critias claims that his account of ancient Athens and Atlantis stems from a visit to Egypt by the Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.

In Egypt, Solon met Sonchis, a priest of Thebes, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on pillars in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek.

I got the 12,000BC wrong. it was 9,500BC - around 12,000 years ago.
Egyptian hieroglyphs are about 5,000 years old.

The first post in that thread isn't my text. It's clearly marked as sourced.

Still, if the last earth pole shift happened 740,000 years ago and only then the Ice started to build on Antarctica, I wander what will come out of the next earth pole shift...

The ice formed on Antarctica because the continent floated down there.

As for this whole nonsense about crossing the galactic equator, so what. We're damn near enough to it as it is now and we're still alive. So what if we cross the 0 co-ordinate.

Anybody remember the Jupiter Effect? The planets we're supposed to align and Earth was supposed to be ripped to shreds. That never happened. Atomic testing was supposed to ignite the atmosphere, never happened. I'm more concerned about a cosmic collision with a hell bent asteroid then some alignment of the heavens.

It makes good late night conversation, but don't go cancelling your 2012 time-share reservation.

Now the Anti-Christ making an appearance next Tuesday, that's a real concern. Why a Tuesday? Satan's weird.:confused:

These arent true statements the way you intend them.

Astronomical predictions based on observational knowledge of the patterns of the movement of celestial bodies arent "prophesies" any more than "I prophesy that this water shall turn solid after i make it very cold."

An empirical scientific prediction is not the same as some swindler or maniac's hoodoo.

Where did the mayans predict a solar pole shift, and why would you consider it something "astronomically big" if it happens once every 11 years?
The Mayans seem to have predicted something astronomically big for 2012, we don't know what. Science is predicting the next solar pole shift for 2012. As we cross the galactic plane, we just don't know if this next solar shift could cause the earth pole shift that scientists believe may be due to happen soon. It may be coincidence or not...

Humanity does not know what happens when the earth poles shift or when the next will happen...

Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...
I'll believe it when I see it.

Come 21/12/2012, I'm going to hire out a lead-lined underground bunker and me and all my friends are going to have a 24-hour lock-in tequilla party - it's what the Mayans would have wanted.

So then we'll emerge the next day, slightly dizzy-headed, and take our positions as the ruling elite of the Novum Terra Ordus.

*hoardes tequilla*

Amen to that!

The Earths magnetic poles may already be "flipping." What does this mean for us? Very little. It's no big deal. It takes centuries to complete and has no effect on life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2889127.stm

"But something else is happening to the Earth's magnetic field: it is getting weaker.

David Kerridge, of the British Geological Survey, told BBC News Online: "There is strong evidence that the field is decreasing by about 5% per century."

Some researchers suggest that it could be the start of a geomagnetic reversal, when the strength of the Earth's magnetic field decreases and then returns a few thousand years later with the north and south magnetic poles reversed.

Looking back in the geological record it is clear that on average such events occur about every 250,000 years. However, it has been 750,000 years since the last reversal - so we are certainly overdue.

Magnetic measurements made on the surface suggest that a region of the Earth's core under South Africa is of a different polarity to the rest of the magnetic field in the core. It may grow and initiate a flip, or it may die down.

Whatever happens will not happen quickly. It will take thousands of years and there is no evidence that when it has happened in the past it has seriously affected life on Earth. "

Antartica split from South America about 41 million years ago thus starting it's rapid cool down and the forming of its ice sheets. It had nothing to do with polar shifts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4928010.stm

"The research shows that the rift in the plates of the Earth that caused the gap to open up happened about 41 million years ago, which fits in with the build-up of ice sheets on Antarctica a few million years later.

Scientists believe the formation of the ocean current that circulates around Antarctica played a key role in the cooling as it deflects warm streams of water coming from the equator. "

The first post in that thread isn't my text. It's clearly marked as sourced.

But you didn't provide the source, just some quotes. The actual source is just as important as the quotes if not more so. How are we supposed to know if it is a reputable source if you don't provide it?

Jeeez people... Where did I say "this will happen"? I am asking questions FFS...
You made several erroneous statements not involving predictions and claimed to be speaking about science.

The Mayans seem to have predicted something astronomically big for 2012, we don't know what. Science is predicting the next solar pole shift for 2012. As we cross the galactic plane, we just don't know if this next solar shift could cause the earth pole shift that scientists believe may be due to happen soon. It may be coincidence or not...

Humanity does not know what happens when the earth poles shift or when the next will happen...
The Mayans didn't predict anythign big for 2012, their calendars just expire then. The solar pole shift isn't a big deal and you haven't given any scientific evidence for crossing the galactic plane in 2012. And there's no evidence that solar pole shifts cause the earth's magnetic field to shift poles.

The ice formed on Antarctica because the continent floated down there.

actually, it was already down there (mostly). but the continent of gondwana used to force cold water currents north rather than in a loop, which moderated the temperature.

But you didn't provide the source, just some quotes. The actual source is just as important as the quotes if not more so. How are we supposed to know if it is a reputable source if you don't provide it?
Source: World Mysteries

In 1929, a group of historians found an...
The very first post on the map thread is where I found the map. The original site is biased towards the more sciences of the occult. The rest of the information I started picking up around from reliable sources, like BBC, like Ancient Archeology: A Scientific Review, etc. and throwing them at people to see what they thought of it.

Of course, instead of saying "hey Assis, fact A doesn't match fact B" or "mind providing that link", they had to say "hey you embarassing crazy lunatic that believes in UFOs, fact A doesn't match fact B". I haven't even bothered looking in sites that mention UFOs...

I'll believe it when I see it.
Same here, which doesn't mean I know it can't happen...

The ice formed on Antarctica because the continent floated down there.

As for this whole nonsense about crossing the galactic equator, so what. We're damn near enough to it as it is now and we're still alive. So what if we cross the 0 co-ordinate.

Anybody remember the Jupiter Effect? The planets we're supposed to align and Earth was supposed to be ripped to shreds. That never happened. Atomic testing was supposed to ignite the atmosphere, never happened. I'm more concerned about a cosmic collision with a hell bent asteroid then some alignment of the heavens.

It makes good late night conversation, but don't go cancelling your 2012 time-share reservation.

Now the Anti-Christ making an appearance next Tuesday, that's a real concern. Why a Tuesday? Satan's weird.:confused:
I don't believe in the Anti-Christ...

You made several erroneous statements not involving predictions and claimed to be speaking about science.
Well, science wouldn't exist if poeple didn't question what they don't understand. I've tried as much as possible to use words like "if" and "maybe" throughout, while using scientific data.

Well, science wouldn't exist if poeple didn't question what they don't understand. I've tried as much as possible to use words like "if" and "maybe" throughout, while using scientific data.
Science wouldn't exist if people were premitted to just throw out wild theories and hypotheses that don't match up with observations as you have done. Science isn't just questioning things that aren't understood, it's a method of figuring it out, you can't just make shit up and call it science.

Wait!

If The Poles Switch, Will Hamburgers Eat People?!?!?!

Wait!

If The Poles Switch, Will Hamburgers Eat People?!?!?!

Hamburgers will BE people!

You are right, still my assertation is much closer than the one he uses to slander me:


The thickest ice is +1.5km than this sample. Antarctica was hardly completely covered 3 millions years ago... Still, he feels himself in the right to call me an "embaressment".

I may be wrong but I'm much closer than him. Still, I'm "the embaressement?"
Which really isn't revelant. Your entire thread is built around the assertation that something omfug bad will happen when the poles reverse, and wouldn't you know it, ice only started forming after the last pole reversal. Which is rather disproven by the fact that the ice is over 1 million years old, and that's only the stuff we have a record for. As I said, there is most likely was older ice, as there exists a limit as to how much ice can exist over one point at any given time. I'm inclined to believe FS when he says that there has been ice on anarctica for over 3 million years, but notice that he never said that there exists a record for those 3 million years.

Science wouldn't exist if people were premitted to just throw out wild theories and hypotheses that don't match up with observations as you have done. Science isn't just questioning things that aren't understood, it's a method of figuring it out, you can't just make shit up and call it science.
Science exists because people were permitted to throw our wild theories. If not, Einstein would have been burned at the stake.

Science needs questions, which only what I offered... Let scientists answer them...

However, the Maya abbreviated their long counts to just the last five vigesimal places. There were an infinitely larger number of units that were usually not shown. When the larger units were shown (notably on a monument from Coba), the end of the last creation is expressed as 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0, where the units are obviously supposed to be 13s in all larger places. In this age we are only approaching 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0, and the larger places are nowhere near the 13s that would match the end of the last creation. (Schele and Friedel 1990: 430)

Nope, we've got plenty of time left before the end of the world happens according to the Mayan calendar. This is pretty much the end of one of many, many eras...it's no more remarkable than any other, really.

This is confirmed by a date from Palenque, which projects forward in time to 1.0.0.0.0.0, which will occur on 13 October, 4772. The Classic Period Maya obviously did not believe that the end of this age would occur in 2012. According to the Maya, there will be a baktun ending in 2012, a significant event being the end of a 13th 400 year period, but not the end of the world.

Huh, so it appears 2012 will be a moderately interesting date but far from the end of the world. Seeing as how nothing of major interest occured in 1618 other than the Second Defenestration of Prague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague), I'm not really concerned.

Perhaps another defenestration will occur...although I hope there isn't another Thirty Years War...that'll pretty much delay indefinitely any trips to Germany or Eastern Europe I'm planning on taking.

Science exists because people were permitted to throw our wild theories. If not, Einstein would have been burned at the stake.

Science needs questions, which only what I offered... Let scientists answer them...
Yes, they're permitted to throw out wild theories, and then be laughed at. Especially when the wild theories presented disagree with observational evidence. (Einstein's theories did not disagree with observational evidence at the time and in fact explained many phenomena, don't compare yourself to him)
Science doesn't need questions -- especially the sort you're bringing up -- it has enough sensical questions to answer.

The very first post on the map thread is where I found the map.

This isn't the map thread. This is the 2012 thread. This thread has nothing to do with the map thread. The map thread hasn't even been linked to this thread. The OP of this thread is thus....

2012: Myth and Science agree on a date
Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.

Introduction:
Quote:
"The various extinction events which have occurred during the world’s history have attracted a number explanations. One such hypothesis is that these events coincided with the earth crossing the galactic plane and encountering the dense matter in the form of comets which struck the earth. This is known as the Shiva Hypotheisis. Its author is Michael Rampino, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences."

The Myth
Quote:
"December 21st, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count) therefore represents an extremely close conjunction of the winter solstice sun with the crossing point of Galactic Equator and the ecliptic, what the ancient Maya recognized as the Sacred Tree. It is critical to understand that the winter solstice sun rarely conjuncts the Sacred Tree. In fact, this is an event that has been coming to resonance very slowly over thousands and thousands of years. What this might mean astrologically, how this might effect the "energy weather" on earth, must be treated as a separate topic."

The Scientific Version
Quote:
Solar System - Did you notice? In February 2001, the Sun did a magnetic polar shift. The next one is due again in 2012. NASA scientists who monitor the Sun say that our star's awesome magnetic field flipped 22 months ago, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum. But it wasn't so obvious to the average human.

The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few months ago, now points south. It's a topsy-turvy situation, but not an unexpected one. "This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."

The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.

Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur."

Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...

There is no source in your OP. What is the source of these quotes? You have to source your information in every thread, not just one in hopes that everyone will read that thread.

Which really isn't revelant. Your entire thread is built around the assertation that something omfug bad will happen when the poles reverse...
Is it? Where do I say something bad will happen? Show me please...
I'm inclined to believe FS when he says that there has been ice on anarctica for over 3 million years
Read his post and tell me that is what he said:

Antarctica has been building ice for millions of years (...) and was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago."

This isn't the map thread. This is the 2012 thread. This thread has nothing to do with the map thread. The map thread hasn't even been linked to this thread. The OP of this thread is thus....
Check his post and tell me he didn't link to this thread. Why are you calling me a liar?
numbers tend to be a bit confusing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11089261&postcount=163) for him
There is no source in your OP. What is the source of these quotes? You have to source your information in every thread, not just one in hopes that everyone will read that thread.
On the other there was and I'm happy to provide my links at anytime, when people ask politely.

Read his post and tell me that is what he said:

That is EXACTLY what he said!

Antarctica has been building ice for millions of years (...) and was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago."

At least generally means by the time of. How the hell do you interpret FS saying anything else with that quote?

If The Poles Switch, Will Hamburgers Eat People?!?!?!

No, that's only in Soviet Russia...

Yes, they're permitted to throw out wild theories, and then be laughed at. Especially when the wild theories presented disagree with observational evidence.
The Mayan had a theory something would happen in 2012.
In 2012, the sun will switch poles again.
The earth poles are already moving, acording to someone else's source.
The earth Magnetic field is loosing strength by 5% a century.
However, this is the beginning of that switch. We don't know if or how much it will speed up.
We have no idea of the impact of these events may be or how slow or quick they may happen.
Einstein's theories did not disagree with observational evidence at the time and in fact explained many phenomena, don't compare yourself to him.
Never did, wouldn't dare do. Was giving an example. Also, you're forgetting that I did not present any theory here; the Mayans did and it looks like they were right. Something big is happening in this century and even if nothing particular happens in 2012, other than possibly reaching point 0 (didn't they love their zero?), they're already proven right.
Science doesn't need questions -- especially the sort you're bringing up -- it has enough sensical questions to answer.
Well, scientists are looking a lot into pole shifts now, possibly thanks to Mayans raising awareness to 2012.

The Mayan had a theory something would happen in 2012.
In 2012, the sun will switch poles again.
The earth poles are already moving, acording to someone else's source.
The earth Magnetic field is loosing strength by 5% a century.
However, this is the beginning of that switch. We don't know if or how much it will speed up.

Never did, would dare do. Was giving an example. Also, you're forgetting that I did not present any theory here; the Mayans did and it looks like they were right. Something big is happening in this century and even if nothing particular happens in 2012, other than possibly reaching point 0 (didn't they love their zero?), they're already proven right.

Well, scientists are looking a lot into pole shifts now, possibly thanks to Mayans raising awareness to 2012.


What did they predict would happen in 2012?

What theory of theirs seems right?

What centuries haven't had "something big happen" ?

Is it? Where do I say something bad will happen? Show me please...
We don't know what it means... Only that when it happened 740,000 years ago, big changes seem to have been initiated. Those changes could happen over thousands of years but we cannot ignore the possibility of increasing seismic activity, like we are currently watching around the globe.



Read his post and tell me that is what he said:
What he said was that there was ice over on Antarctica three million years ago. I don't see your point.

What did they predict would happen in 2012?
Something big...
What theory of theirs seems right?
"If Humanity Wishes To Save Itself From Biospheric Destruction It Must Return To Living in Natural Time"
What centuries haven't had "something big happen" ?
On this cosmic scale? None.

The last paragraph of the "science" bit actually did refer to the reversal of earth poles, which some people believe is overdue. If those poles actually do flip we *will* get cancer - or at least an unhealthy dose of interstellar radiation - since earths magnetic field will temporarily not protect us.
But as I said: the race will survive it.
When the Earth's mag-poles reverse, we will not be unprotected. The normal, steady protection we enjoy now will become sporadic. No one point will be left unprotected for long periods of time. The protection matrix will fluctuate and most areas will take solar wind/cosmic ray hits of tiny to small sizes. It isn't like the whole field just shuts off and comes back on some years later, fully reversed. Life already vulnerable to increases in radiation could likely be adversely affected, but it's not going to be a global catastrophe.

Next!

The Mayan had a theory something would happen in 2012.
In 2012, the sun will switch poles again.
The mayans did not "have a theory" their calendar moves into the next age, that's all. Even if they did make a prediction, it's not a theory, it's a prediction. If you're going to argue scientifically, at least use scientific terms correctly.

The earth poles are already moving, acording to someone else's source.
The earth Magnetic field is loosing strength by 5% a century.
However, this is the beginning of that switch. We don't know if or how much it will speed up.
We have no idea of the impact of these events may be or how slow or quick they may happen.
We do have an idea of the impact of the reversal of the poles, nothing has happened to life on this planet in previous flips, so it's likely that nothing major will happen when they flip again.

Never did, wouldn't dare do. Was giving an example.
Your example does not fit the situation.

Also, you're forgetting that I did not present any theory here; the Mayans did and it looks like they were right. Something big is happening in this century and even if nothing particular happens in 2012, other than possibly reaching point 0 (didn't they love their zero?), they're already proven right.
1. Not a theory.
2. The mayans didn't say this, people have inferred this and made some huge deal about it.
3. The solar pole reversal isn't a big deal.

Well, scientists are looking a lot into pole shifts now, possibly thanks to Mayans raising awareness to 2012.
:rolleyes: Scientists are looking into pole reversal because it's possible that it might happen in the near future. They do not take their cue from hocus pocus and superstition.

Something big...
Nope. If you're predicting the end of the earth using a mayan system, the fifth sun sets (the final age ends...) in massive earthquakes.

"If Humanity Wishes To Save Itself From Biospheric Destruction It Must Return To Living in Natural Time"
Source on this if you're claiming it's part of the mayan prophesy.

On this cosmic scale? None.
Except that if you're claiming that the sun's poles reversing is the phenomena mentioned to be predicted in 2012, it happens on a regular basis, in fact, we can predict it through non-supernatural means.

Hamburgers will BE people!
You mean they aren't now?
*rushes to E*TRADE and drops his stock in SoylentCo.*

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I love Dakini.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I love Dakini.
Aww... thanks. :D

Something big...

"If Humanity Wishes To Save Itself From Biospheric Destruction It Must Return To Living in Natural Time"

On this cosmic scale? None.

"Something big" is always happening, when lying hucksters concoct "prophesies" to dupe rubes, they have to be vague.

Is that the mayan theory that is going to be proved?

What is "natural time"?

What does it have to do with the once-every-eleven-year solar pole shift?

The mayans seem to have had a 1/11 chance of getting the trivial and common solar pole shift correct. I wonder what "cosmic" events happened in... say the 1100s. Anyone knowledgeable care to contribute on that?

That is EXACTLY what he said!
Since when saying "There has been ice on Antarctica for over 3 million years" means exactly the same as "[Antarctica] was essentially fully covered at least 3 million years ago."? Only in the mind of a blind...
At least generally means by the time of. How the hell do you interpret FS saying anything else with that quote?
*sigh*

Back to CSW:
Is it? Where do I say something bad will happen? Show me please...
We don't know what it means... Only that when it happened 740,000 years ago, big changes seem to have been initiated. Those changes could happen over thousands of years but we cannot ignore the possibility of increasing seismic activity, like we are currently watching around the globe.
What he said was that there was ice over on Antarctica three million years ago. I don't see your point.
Read my previous post, please.

When the Earth's mag-poles reverse, we will not be unprotected. The normal, steady protection we enjoy now will become sporadic. No one point will be left unprotected for long periods of time. The protection matrix will fluctuate and most areas will take solar wind/cosmic ray hits of tiny to small sizes. It isn't like the whole field just shuts off and comes back on some years later, fully reversed. Life already vulnerable to increases in radiation could likely be adversely affected, but it's not going to be a global catastrophe.

Next!
Do you people realise the earth rotates on an axis that goes from the North Pole to the South Pole and that there is a real possibility that messing up with that axis could shake us around?

http://www.dieoff.org/synopsis_files/image002.gif

Notes: (1) 1930 => Industrial Civilization began when (ê) reached 30% of its peak value. (2) 1979 => ê reached its peak value of 11.15 boe/c. (3) 1999 => The end of cheap oil. (4) 2000 => Start of the "Jerusalem Jihad". (5) 2006 => Predicted peak of world oil production (Figure 1, this paper). (6) 2008 => The OPEC crossover event (Figure 1). (7) 2012 => Permanent blackouts occur worldwide. (8) 2030 => Industrial Civilization ends when ê falls to its 1930 value. (9) Observe that there are three intervals of decline in the Olduvai schema: slope, slide and cliff — each steeper than the previous. (10) The small cartoons stress that electricity is the essential end-use energy for Industrial Civilization.


Figure 4 shows the complete Olduvai curve from 1930 to 2030. Historic data appears from 1930 to 1999 and hypothetical values from 2000 to 2030. These 100 years are labeled "Industrial Civilization." The curve and the events together constitute the "Olduvai schema." Observe that the overall curve has a pulse-like waveform — namely overshoot and collapse. Eight key energy events define the Olduvai schema.

Eight Events: The 1st event in 1930 (see Note 1, Figure 4) marks the beginning of Industrial Civilization when ê reached 3.32 boe/c. This is the "leading 30% point", a standard way to define the duration of a pulse. The 2nd event in 1979 (Note 2) marks the all-time peak of world energy production per capita when ê reached 11.15 boe/c. The 3rd event in 1999 (Note 3) marks the end of cheap oil. The 4th event on September 28, 2000 (Note 4) marks the eruption of violence in the Middle East — i.e. the "Jerusalem Jihad". Moreover, the "JJ" marks the end of the Olduvai "slope" wherein ê declined at 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999.

Next in Figure 4 we come the future intervals in the Olduvai schema. The Olduvai "slide", the first of the future intervals, begins in 2000 with the escalating warfare in the Middle East. The 5th event in 2006 (Note 5) marks the all-time peak of world oil production (Figure 1, this paper). The 6th event in 2008 (Note 6) marks the OPEC crossover event when the 11 OPEC nations produce 51% of the world's oil and control nearly 100% of the world's oil exports. The year 2011 marks the end of the Olduvai slide, wherein ê declines at 0.67 %/year from 2000 to 2011.

The "cliff" is the final interval in the Olduvai schema. It begins with the 7th event in 2012 (Note 7) when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire. The 8th event in 2030 (Note 8) marks the fall of world energy production (use) per capita to the 1930 level (Figure 4). This is the lagging 30% point when Industrial Civilization has become history. The average rate of decline of ê is 5.44 %/year from 2012 to 2030.


www.dieoff.org

When the Earth's mag-poles reverse, we will not be unprotected. The normal, steady protection we enjoy now will become sporadic. No one point will be left unprotected for long periods of time. The protection matrix will fluctuate and most areas will take solar wind/cosmic ray hits of tiny to small sizes. It isn't like the whole field just shuts off and comes back on some years later, fully reversed. Life already vulnerable to increases in radiation could likely be adversely affected, but it's not going to be a global catastrophe.
Next!
Are you a God to say "nothing will happen" out of a pole shift? Do you realise what a pole shift means? A distortion of our planet's axis of rotation... It's big...

Are you a God to say "nothing will happen" out of a pole shift? Do you realise what a pole shift means? A distortion of our planet's axis of rotation... It's big...

...Oy...

Magnetic Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pole#North-south_pole_designation_and_the_Earth.27s_magnetic_field)
Axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_rotation)

Just wondering, how do blackouts occur when only 9% of electricity worldwide comes from oil? Even if oil were to peak in 2006, it would still take until at least 2016-2031 for natural gas to peak and even that only generates 20% of power. Coal has 200 years at current consumption, and we have only barely started to tap renewables. Nuclear is also pretty plentiful and would definitely be a major component of any future power grid.

But then again, is the death of "industrial" civilization a bad thing? The environment is cleaner, the economy is healthier, industry is much more productive and living standards are much higher than they were in the pre-1979 period...if anything, it seems a lot more desirable from an economic and technological standpoint for the focus to shift away from industry to technology and services. The death of industrial civilization seems more the death of industrial waste than the death of our society, and perhaps the death of places that don't adapt to economic change and energy reality.

After all, 65% of oil goes to transportation and only 21% to all industry...and a number of industries use no oil at all. 88% of residential natural gas usage goes to water heating and space heating...one of those can be replaced and the other is just plain unnecessary if you use space heaters and minimize losses due to poor insulation. Only 31.9 percent of natural gas consumed goes to industry, which includes all fertilizers and similar chemicals for agriculture...the rest is either replaceable (electricity) and conservable (heating), or unnecessary; that last one includes the 8% used in oil/gas pipelines and production, and if these facilities aren't used, it's not going to be needed.

I think too many people simply don't realize how much we waste relative to the amount of energy is actually needed to sustain growth. Plus, they make the mistake of assuming everyone is like the US; the world's population growth is not coming from developed nations or places with intensive resource consumption, it is coming from places with subsistence agriculture and zero access to electricity or other resources. After all, if energy per capita can decline despite strong global GDP growth and massive gains in productivity, then growth in energy consumption may not be necessary to continue growth and will definitely not be necessary to keep it constant.

Do you people realise the earth rotates on an axis that goes from the North Pole to the South Pole and that there is a real possibility that messing up with that axis could shake us around?
The earth's axis won't change, the geographical north and south poles will remain the same, we're talking about the magnetic poles, which is completely different.

In other words: the axis of rotation will stay the same (it wobbles a bit, but that's it) the magnetic dipole will change.

I can't believe you just argued this.

Are you a God to say "nothing will happen" out of a pole shift? Do you realise what a pole shift means? A distortion of our planet's axis of rotation... It's big...
Well, you don't have to be a god to know how stupid your argument is.

Just wondering, how do blackouts occur when only 9% of electricity worldwide comes from oil? Even if oil were to peak in 2006, it would still take until at least 2016-2031 for natural gas to peak and even that only generates 20% of power. Coal has 200 years at current consumption, and we have only barely started to tap renewables. Nuclear is also pretty plentiful and would definitely be a major component of any future power grid.

But then again, is the death of "industrial" civilization a bad thing? The environment is cleaner, the economy is healthier, industry is much more productive and living standards are much higher than they were in the pre-1979 period...if anything, it seems a lot more desirable from an economic and technological standpoint for the focus to shift away from industry to technology and services. The death of industrial civilization seems more the death of industrial waste than the death of our society, and perhaps the death of places that don't adapt to economic change and energy reality.

After all, 65% of oil goes to transportation and only 21% to all industry...and a number of industries use no oil at all. 88% of residential natural gas usage goes to water heating and space heating...one of those can be replaced and the other is just plain unnecessary if you use space heaters and minimize losses due to poor insulation. Only 31.9 percent of natural gas consumed goes to industry, which includes all fertilizers and similar chemicals for agriculture...the rest is either replaceable (electricity) and conservable (heating), or unnecessary; that last one includes the 8% used in oil/gas pipelines and production, and if these facilities aren't used, it's not going to be needed.

I think too many people simply don't realize how much we waste relative to the amount of energy is actually needed to sustain growth. Plus, they make the mistake of assuming everyone is like the US; the world's population growth is not coming from developed nations or places with intensive resource consumption, it is coming from places with subsistence agriculture and zero access to electricity or other resources. After all, if energy per capita can decline despite strong global GDP growth and massive gains in productivity, then growth in energy consumption may not be necessary to continue growth and will definitely not be necessary to keep it constant.

THAT IS AGAINST THE OLUVAI CURVE STOP SAYING THAT THE PEEK OIL IS GONNA DISTROY ALL THE CIVALIZATION NOBODY CAN DO NOTHING TO STOP IT>

The earth's axis won't change, the geographical north and south poles will remain the same, we're talking about the magnetic poles, which is completely different.

In other words: the axis of rotation will stay the same (it wobbles a bit, but that's it) the magnetic dipole will change.

I can't believe you just argued this.
Why can't you read my posts and stop putting word in my mouth? Where did I say the rotational axis will switch? I said:
"real possibility that messing up with that axis could shake us around?"
The text I've highlighted on your quote is not so different in concept: "It wobbles a bit". You've decided how much it wobbles when scientists are still asking the question.

Plus, on a planetary scale, a bit could be a lot. We don't know.

Well, you don't have to be a god to know how stupid your argument is.
*ignores*

...Oy...

Magnetic Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pole#North-south_pole_designation_and_the_Earth.27s_magnetic_field)
Axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_rotation)
Thanks Dinaverg, even if I never said that the axis of rotation would switch.

Why can't you read my posts and stop putting word in my mouth? Where did I say the rotational axis will switch? I said:

The text I've highlighted on your quote is not so different in concept: "It wobbles a bit". You've decided how much it wobbles when scientists are still asking the question.

Plus, on a planetary scale, a bit could be a lot. We don't know.
No, the earth doesn't wobble so much, not enough to seriously impact life for certain. The existence of a large moon keeps our orbit relatively stable.
And that is not at all what you were arguing. You were arguing that because the poles will flip, the axis of rotation would flip and become severely distorted. Stop lying about what arguments you were making and then pretend that you aren't debating with people who might know a hell of a lot more about planetary astronomy than you do.

*ignores*


That about sums it up, doesnt it.

Sense - "*ignores*"
Reason - "*ignores*"
Honesty - "*ignores*"

Just wondering, how do blackouts occur when only 9% of electricity worldwide comes from oil? Even if oil were to peak in 2006, it would still take until at least 2016-2031 for natural gas to peak and even that only generates 20% of power. Coal has 200 years at current consumption, and we have only barely started to tap renewables. Nuclear is also pretty plentiful and would definitely be a major component of any future power grid.

But then again, is the death of "industrial" civilization a bad thing? The environment is cleaner, the economy is healthier, industry is much more productive and living standards are much higher than they were in the pre-1979 period...if anything, it seems a lot more desirable from an economic and technological standpoint for the focus to shift away from industry to technology and services. The death of industrial civilization seems more the death of industrial waste than the death of our society, and perhaps the death of places that don't adapt to economic change and energy reality.

After all, 65% of oil goes to transportation and only 21% to all industry...and a number of industries use no oil at all. 88% of residential natural gas usage goes to water heating and space heating...one of those can be replaced and the other is just plain unnecessary if you use space heaters and minimize losses due to poor insulation. Only 31.9 percent of natural gas consumed goes to industry, which includes all fertilizers and similar chemicals for agriculture...the rest is either replaceable (electricity) and conservable (heating), or unnecessary; that last one includes the 8% used in oil/gas pipelines and production, and if these facilities aren't used, it's not going to be needed.

I think too many people simply don't realize how much we waste relative to the amount of energy is actually needed to sustain growth. Plus, they make the mistake of assuming everyone is like the US; the world's population growth is not coming from developed nations or places with intensive resource consumption, it is coming from places with subsistence agriculture and zero access to electricity or other resources. After all, if energy per capita can decline despite strong global GDP growth and massive gains in productivity, then growth in energy consumption may not be necessary to continue growth and will definitely not be necessary to keep it constant.
We're so obsessed with our own self that we can't see past our own nose and admit that are much larger forces in the universe and nature regulating our little lives, than our leaders and employers...

Thanks Dinaverg, even if I never said that the axis of rotation would switch.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11091476&postcount=100
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11091476&postcount=102
These are both talking about the axis of rotation. Nothing out of the ordinary is going to happen to the axis of rotation. It moves in a few ways, always has, currently is, always will (till we're engulfed by the sun).

What're going to switch are the magnetic poles. They're quite a few degrees away from the axis of rotation and dont have much of anything to do with it.

I was going to post something intelligent, but after reading all of Assis's posts it would be too hard to resist resorting to ad hominem. Gah! Watch as Assis denies saying anything that he's already said...

Thanks Dinaverg, even if I never said that the axis of rotation would switch.
You know that other people quoted you saying it would, right?

You know that other people quoted you saying it would, right?

*husten* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11091965&postcount=114)

We're so obsessed with our own self that we can't see past our own nose and admit that are much larger forces in the universe and nature regulating our little lives, than our leaders and employers...


LIK THE MAGICKEL DRAGINS!!!!! ALIENS!!!!!!

*husten* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11091965&postcount=114)
Yay for me being redundant!

No, the earth doesn't wobble so much, not enough to seriously impact life for certain."
On what observations do you make this "certain" statement? Show me a reference please...
The existence of a large moon keeps our orbit relatively stable.
Against a whole galaxy in point 0 (my favourite invention of the Mayas)? If they are correct, I think you will have to re-consider another "certain" statement. A little moon against a galaxy? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't blindly assume we're safe and ignore the possibility.
You were arguing that because the poles will flip, the axis of rotation would flip and become severely distorted.
Show me where. Try again.
Stop lying about what arguments you were making and then pretend that you aren't debating with people who might know a hell of a lot more about planetary astronomy than you do.
Show me my certainties, other than what is shown by scientists, show me my lies. Since I've got no certainties, your job is difficult...

I'm arguing possibilities... You are in denial.

I was going to post something intelligent, but after reading all of Assis's posts it would be too hard to resist resorting to ad hominem. Gah! Watch as Assis denies saying anything that he's already said...
Show me one example of a certainity of mine. Can you talk about possibilities?

LIK THE MAGICKEL DRAGINS!!!!! ALIENS!!!!!!
Not aliens, the magnetic forces of the Milky Way. Passing point 0 on the upper and lower plane and the possible effect.

It is still a possibility.

Show me one example of a certainity of mine. Can you talk about possibilities?

You can't just argue, "well this might happen", and then when someone tells you it won't, you say "I only said maybe", or "I didn't say that". The way you're arguing these things, it doesn't matter if you say "maybe", you're still going to be laughed at.

Ah, the Mayan prophecy.
A couple of interesting things about the Mayans:
They used a base 20 system for counting, which is pretty cool.
They were incredbily accurate in their astronomical calculations, like being within a few minutes of Venus orbital period.
Do you know why?
Not because they had been visited by spacemen, not because they were more advanced than us, not because they had some sort of special mystical ability.
Nope.
Unfortunately the truth is a little more mundane.
They were really good at plotting the planets and stars because they spent centuries doing it.

So for them to know about the 'galatic equator' and basing their calender on it, isn't that far-fetched.
They wouldn't know what the galatic equator was per se, but their (hundreds of) years of astronomical plotting and calculations would have been more than enough for them to see we were moving towards something, and thus based their calender on that.


The Mayan 'doomsday' isn't one, either. They didn't speak of it as the destruction of the Earth, rather the dawn of the new era.
So even if we believe that they had some sort of special mystical propehtic powers no other civilisation possessed (a power that didn't let them see the demise of their own civilisation, I notice), it's still nothing to worry about.
Thank you! All stupid questions answered. Class dismissed.

On what observations do you make this "certain" statement? Show me a reference please...
From my planetary astronomy textbook, Worlds Apart: A textbook in Planetary Astronomy by Consolmango and Schaefer p113
We also know that the Earth is tilted on its axis, at about 23 deg from the plane of its orbit. But this tilt tents to rock back and forth, varying from 21 to 24 deg. This rocking motion, called nutation, can also be calculated, taking into account the effect of the other plenets' gravity on the harmonidcs of the Earth's gravitational field. It takes 41,000 years to complete one cycle... Likewise, the intensity of the seasons depends on the tilt of the axis. The more the axis is tilted, the stronger the contrast in weather will be between winter and summer... The single biggest problem is that, of all the periods, the 105,000-year eccentricity fluctuation is the one most strongly correlated with Earth's temperature history.

The tilt of the axis only changes the contrast between winter and summer, it doesn't do much to the average global temperature, the change in the eccentricity of the orbit has the most impact on the average global temperature. Furthermore, the change in the earth's axis is well documented and predicted.

Against a whole galaxy in point 0 (my favourite invention of the Mayas)? If they are correct, I think you will have to re-consider another "certain" statement. A little moon against a galaxy? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't blindly assume we're safe and ignore the possibility.
The two bodies that have the biggest gravitational impact on the earth are the sun and the moon. The moon keeps the Earth's axis of rotation relatively stable. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with this "rest of the galaxy" business. I mean, if you want to talk about an extra solar phenomenon impacting our planet, you'd need a (really) nearby supernova or another star coming close enough to rip our planet from the sun, neither of which are predicted, we don't have enough big stars nearby to make a supernova close enough to impact Earth, and we can track the motion of the stars and none are on an intercept course for our own.
Also, our moon isn't little, certainly not for the size of our planet.

Show me where. Try again.
Ok:

Do you people realise the earth rotates on an axis that goes from the North Pole to the South Pole and that there is a real possibility that messing up with that axis could shake us around?
Yes, I don't see how this could possibly be interpreted to mean that you think the earth's axis is going to change dramatically, seeing as that is clearly what you are stating here.

Ready to eat your words?

I'm arguing possibilities... You are in denial.
Bullshit. You argued with another person in a condescending manner asserting that the earth's axis of rotation was going to shift.

snip.
Because they recognize that all other energy sources ultimately rely on oil for the mining of the resource, the construction of the plants, the construction of roads and rail systems to move the resource and the people around who run it and to maintain these things. I'm not a big dieoff.org guy, as you've seen me say I think the real situation will be somewhere in the middle, I just thought this would be a good thread for dieoff.org because of the date 2012. That's when we're supposed to fall over the cliff. It certtainly has more science behind it than anything that says we're all gonna die from sunspots and magnetic pole shifting.

Because they recognize that all other energy sources ultimately rely on oil for the mining of the resource, the construction of the plants, the construction of roads and rail systems to move the resource and the people around who run it and to maintain these things. I'm not a big dieoff.org guy, as you've seen me say I think the real situation will be somewhere in the middle, I just thought this would be a good thread for dieoff.org because of the date 2012. That's when we're supposed to fall over the cliff. It certtainly has more science behind it than anything that says we're all gonna die from sunspots and magnetic pole shifting.


AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY ANYONE COULD EVER POSSIBLY FIND OTHER WAYS OF DOING THINGS NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY THEY COULD MAKE OR LOSE BECAUSE IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD

We're so obsessed with our own self that we can't see past our own nose and admit that are much larger forces in the universe and nature regulating our little lives, than our leaders and employers...

But then again, if we're that primitive than a superior deity would have nothing to gain from destroying us...it would be like killing birds or rabbits for the sake of doing so. Even then, it raises the serious question of why a being so many times more advanced than ourselves would derive satisfaction from destruction.

But then again, if we're that primitive than a superior deity would have nothing to gain from destroying us...it would be like killing birds or rabbits for the sake of doing so. Even then, it raises the serious question of why a being so many times more advanced than ourselves would derive satisfaction from destruction.
We were created in it's image remember?

Yes, it is rather unusual for science and spirituality to agree, but anyone who makes a big deal out of this reversal, saying it is the end of the world is full of hooey. It happens every eleven years, so there's a lot of history behind it not being the end of the world.:rolleyes:

Because they recognize that all other energy sources ultimately rely on oil for the mining of the resource, the construction of the plants, the construction of roads and rail systems to move the resource and the people around who run it and to maintain these things. I'm not a big dieoff.org guy, as you've seen me say I think the real situation will be somewhere in the middle, I just thought this would be a good thread for dieoff.org because of the date 2012. That's when we're supposed to fall over the cliff. It certtainly has more science behind it than anything that says we're all gonna die from sunspots and magnetic pole shifting.

The problem is, oil is still a relatively subsitutable good for a number of uses in particular that consumed in industry and agriculture. For example, the amount of oil consumed as diesel fuel is only 26% of our total demand while gasoline is almost 60%; gasoline is almost entirely used in private cars and similar transportation while diesel is the backbone of industrial usage. Residual oil, jet fuel, and the rest only consume 20%, with the remaining 4% used for plastics and similar miscellaneous purposes. All industry only uses about 27% of oil consumed, which means only about one of every four barrels of oil is used to make the products necessary to manufacture alternatives to oil and to build the infrastructure to transport it. Another 10% is used by commercial, power and residential sectors; the only barrier to replacing that is the cost of retrofitting and replacing old heating systems.

The oil will be available for transitioning to alternatives and building the infrastructure; the main issue is whether or not people make the transition to avoid the soaring price of oil, because if they do not they will suffer economically and possibly for a prolonged time. The only thing really threatened by a decline in oil is the automobile centered economy; the transition from that will be very difficult for places that don't adapt to the rise in oil prices, and will result in inflation and economic slowdowns when price shocks occur but the transition will be made without any kind of dieoff or similar permanent collapse.

This is without factoring in technological improvements or the growth in an Internet economy, the latter of which helps to circumvent the need for automobiles as a means of obtaining products from stores. Really, the main barrier to a transition from oil is the cost advantage it has over some alternatives, and technology is the main way that gap is closing aside from the rising cost for oil. All industry, shipping, power, and agriculture use less than half of oil and less than half of natural gas; they can be conserved and replaced, and the other half can also be conserved and replaced.

We were created in it's image remember?

Well, depending on what religion you believe. It's also possible that what we consider deities are simply more advanced civilizations or even an elaborate scheme for the purpose of encouraging social development and cohesion, be it perpetrated by humans or by more advanced aliens nurturing us in a "galactic zoo" type of situation.

Nope. If you're predicting the end of the earth using a mayan system, the fifth sun sets (the final age ends...) in massive earthquakes.
I don't think the world will end. Never said that. Society could if we're shaken about a bit too much. We don't know the impact of a poleshift; this is my point. There are no observations to be based on:
"There's not a defined pattern of reversion in Earth's magnetic field history. We have times of intense reversing, and times of stability, and these times could not give us some clue of periodicity.

In the other planets of the solar system, we have little knowledge of their magnetic field histories before now. If the planet has a fluid core (some planets had in past, but have now solidified) in a condition similar to Earth, we may have this inversion occurring, but, as far as I know, nothing about this has been observed yet."
Source here. (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/912372013.Es.r.html)

Could poles be shifting already?
North Magnetic Pole may shift
CORVALLIS, Ore., Dec. 9 (UPI) -- Earth's North Magnetic Pole has moved nearly 660 miles out into the Arctic Ocean and the pole could shift from Canada to Siberia, Russia.
However, the shift would occur in the next 50 years and the rapid movement of the magnetic pole doesn't necessarily mean the planet is going through a large-scale change says Oregon State University paleomagnetist Joseph Stoner.
Stoner examined sediments -- magnetic particles called magnetite -- that record the Earth's magnetic field at the time they were deposited. Using carbon dating and other technologies the scientists can determine approximately when the sediments were deposited and track changes in the magnetic field.
"This may be part of a normal oscillation and it will eventually migrate back toward Canada," said Stoner. "There is a lot of variability in its movement."
Source here. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051209-20425600-bc-us-northpole.xml)

He says it will migrate back to Canada, based on the only existing observations. We have to account that we have no observations to know when it won't go back and just continue flipping. Sooner or later, this will happen and some researchers do be believe it to be happening.

Some damage is a possibility if the poles are definitely flippling.
David Kerridge, of the British Geological Survey, told BBC News Online: "There is strong evidence that the field is decreasing by about 5% per century."

Some researchers suggest that it could be the start of a geomagnetic reversal, when the strength of the Earth's magnetic field decreases and then returns a few thousand years later with the north and south magnetic poles reversed.

Looking back in the geological record it is clear that on average such events occur about every 250,000 years. However, it has been 750,000 years since the last reversal - so we are certainly overdue."
Source here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2889127.stm)

While they say they believe the change could happen in thousands of years and that we're loosing 5% a century, these are only hypothesies, not theories, since there are no previous observations. However, we do know the sun flips in only 11 years. Could the same happen with the earth? Could we be in the very beginning and gathering pace up to a "quick" event similar to the sun? I don't know but no one can actually have a theory, only hypothesis, since there are no observations.

I do not know why scientists are saying no flip happened 250,000 years ago, because I do not know exactly how they know one happened around 700,000 years ago. What I do know, is that 250,000 years ago was the dawn of mankind. Maybe, just maybe, we were forced by nature to abandon our habits. There are signs of the peak of an Ice Age around 260,000 years ago and a peak increase of temperatures 240,000 years ago. We don't know what provoked it.

Around 700,000 years ago, the warm climate of the time deteriorated markedly and the savannah plains of Europe, Asia and North America gave way to colder and less fertile steppes. The southern mammoth consequently declined, being replaced across most of its territory by the cold-adapted steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii).
Source here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth)

The sediments contained a huge amount of microscopic mammal bones - important evidence rarely seen in the Cromer Forest-bed, with teeth from squirrel and hamster, a very rare extinct aquatic shrew, a bat and other small creatures. I also identified a second species of Mimomys vole. In European Russia this is known to have died out before MIS16, an extremely severe cold stage, consistent with an age of 700,000 years ago.
Source here. (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml)

Source on this if you're claiming it's part of the mayan prophesy.
"In addition to these calendrical cycles, the Maya also made use of a calendar known as the Long Count, which places dates in linear rather than cyclical time. The Long Count calendar was established during the Preclassic era, perhaps by the Olmec, and appears to have been astronomically motivated. The beginning of the current era (August 11, 3114 B.C.) may be linked to a solar zenith passage in the southern Maya area, whereas the end of the era (December 21, A.D. 2012) corresponds to the date of a winter solstice. Although not all Mayanists agree on the best means of correlating the Maya and Christian calendars, the two solutions preferred by most epigraphers today differ from each other by only two days. An overview of the correlation question may be found in The Ancient Maya by Robert Sharer."
Source here. (http://www.mayacodices.org/codex2/calendar.asp)

This seems to be a very serious site about the Maya Prophecies. This is their opening statement:
Why another web site about the Maya? Although there's a lot of information (and misinformation) about Maya astronomy on the Web, you won't find much about how we know what the Maya knew and how the Maya knew it. That's the focus of this web site. I hope it will be an antidote to some of the fantastic claims about the Maya that rest on very thin evidence, or none at all. I think the feats of Maya astronomers were pretty fantastic without attributing super-human knowledge to them.
Doesn't mean they didn't know something was going to happen. That's not what the web site is about...
"[When the world was created] a pillar of the sky was set up . . . . The [great] green [ceiba] tree of abundance was set up in the center [of the world]". (Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel)"
This is what the author tells us about the pillar of the sky:
The World Tree is the most pervasive Mesoamerican symbol of the creation and ordering of the world. It is the axis of the Earth-Sky. Its roots lie in Xibalba, the Underworld, and its top reaches into the heavens. After the Conquest, the World Tree came to be identified with the Christian Cross. The Cross, conceived as a living thing, continues to figure in Maya religious practices that combine Christianity and native traditions.
"The Maya long count measured the time elapsed since creation of the present world. Classical Maya creation accounts suggest that this world began after dissolution of a previous world that had lasted 13 baktuns. The baktun is 20 katuns in length. The tzolk'in date at the beginning of the long count was 4 Ahaw. The count will reach a total of 13 baktuns again on a katun 4 Ahaw end date, in 2012 AD (according to he GMT correlation between the Maya and European calendars).

No Maya text actually tells us explicitly what the Maya believed would transpire in 2012 AD, but the the end of the cycle was no doubt regarded as a highly significant time of transition between epochs. According to the Books of Chilam Balam, Kulkulcan will return in katun 4 Ahaw.
Despite the fact that this calendar is claimed to be more accurate than ours (which needs to add one day every four years), right now I'm more interested in finding present facts, not details of the prophecy which, in general, talk about great and rapid environmental change at the end of an era.
Source here. (http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/katun.html)
Except that if you're claiming that the sun's poles reversing is the phenomena mentioned to be predicted in 2012, it happens on a regular basis, in fact, we can predict it through non-supernatural means.
I don't know what the Mayans thought about 2012 exactly, no one does, but their calendar Long Count ends in 2012 while they announce on written prophecies the end of an era and beginning of a new one (not the end of the world), envolving great environmental change. The Mayans looked at the skies and pointed to 2012. They mention the Tree of Life, the axis of earth and sky. Maybe it was a coincidence, maybe not. If the earth poles have begun switching and if we follow the pattern of the sun, we may complete the cycle by 2012.

Beyond the hypothesis (learned the word) of the pole flip there is also an hypothesis that passing a certain point in the galaxy could be a major event. Scientists are not discarding it at all.
"The solar system's up-and-down motion across our galaxy's disc periodically exposes it to higher doses of dangerous cosmic rays, new calculations suggest. The effect could explain a mysterious dip in the Earth's biodiversity [B]every 62 million years."
This source (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8923.html) shows unavailable now but this value is generally held as accurate.

"Although the last true mass extinction took place at the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago, there have been several other less drastic waves of extinction since that time."
Source here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/lastintro.htm)
According to these two values, we're overdue. They are actually linking mass extinctions with the cycle of this movement. Now, believing that the Mayan had such knowledge is crazy, since there is no way an ancient civilisation could have known that, unless you really want to believe in the alternative that UFOs or Angels in shining armor are coming to save us. I actually hold that this is where the prophecies fail. Because no one comes to save us from such regular and natural disasters. That was their faith... I'm more sceptic than that. I don't particularly believe in God or UFO's, but I also say I have no way to know, because there are no observations (let's assume all UFOs sightings are hoaxes).

Still, Mayans predicted big and fast environmental changes and they had a calendar pointing to 2012. It is a extraordinary coincidence that about the same time we are seeing signs that the magnetic poles may be switching. There are other signs:
Sunspot activity to peak in 2012

The year 2012 might not be such a good one if you happen to own a satellite or a lot of shares in the electricity generating business. That's because 2012 is being forecast as the peak of the next sunspot cycle, and physicists are saying it's going to be an active one.

Sunspots are regions of the solar surface that are darker and cooler than their surroundings. Caused by fluctuations in the intense magnetic field that surrounds our closest star, sunspot activity increases and decreases on an 11-year cycle. Intense sunspot activity brings with it solar storms. , events where charged particles stream off the surface of the sun, with the potential to wreak havoc with our planet's upper atmosphere. During solar storms, satellites can be damaged, power transmission can be disrupted and the skies light up with auroras. There are also links between sunspot activity and climate.

Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, have used a new model of the sun's interior to refine predictions of future sunspot activity. By using data going back over a century, the scientists were able to determine that the sun's magnetic field has a memory of around 20 years. This model was able to predict the past six cycles with around 97 percent accuracy, and has led to revised predictions about the next cycle, number 24.

According to Mausimi Dikpati, one of the physicists who gave a press conference yesterday, the next sunspot cycle will be between 30 and 50 percent stronger than the current cycle, with a peak in activity in 2012. Armed with a six year warning, mission planners at NASA, satellite controllers and engineers in the power industry ought to have ample time to take this looming danger into account."
Source here. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/3/7/3086)
The original source of this article was in New Scientist as well. The link is also broken. If you do a search on New Scientist for "Mausimi Dikpati" the article still appears listed:
You have 3 results - Showing 1 to 3

sort by: relevance | date

[B]1. Bumper sunspot crop forecast for next solar cycle
A promising new model predicts the next one will be late, but up to 50% stronger – a potential danger for satellites and astronauts.
07 March 2006 Breaking News

2. Jupiter's influence
20 March 2004 From magazine issue 2439 Letters

3. Dark side of the sun
What makes sunspots follow their mysterious 11-year ebb and flow? The answer, Gerry Byrne discovers, seems to lie in the last place anyone was looking
06 March 2004 From magazine issue 2437 Features

Both relevant articles are missing.

Now do a search on "62 Million":
This should appear...
You have 83 results - Showing 1 to 25

sort by: relevance | date
1. Interview: Meet the alloparents
Primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy worries that by withdrawing our children from collective rearing practices, we may lose our capacity for empathy
08 April 2006 From magazine issue 2546 Talking Point

2. Life waxes and wanes with bobbing of the Solar System
The regular movement of our solar system above and below the galactic plane matches dips in biodiversity – deadly cosmic rays may be to blame
30 March 2006 Breaking News

3. ...
Not working either...

Fortunately, there are other articles:
"Cientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle

March 6, 2006

BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.

The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy. The forecasts are generated, in part, by tracking the subsurface movements of the sunspot remnants of the previous two solar cycles. The team is publishing its forecast in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Our model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool," says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR's High Altitude Observatory that also includes Peter Gilman and Giuliana de Toma.

[...]

The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012."
Source here. (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml)

Several points come out of here:

1. We seem to be overdue in the 62 million year cycle of extinction. We don't want to believe the Mayans could know about it, because we don't believe in God or UFOs. For someone accepting such accurate date, like 2012, we have to believe in supernatural saviors. Don't think the White Shining Armored Knights will come to save us. I don't...
2. Prophecies talk of a new era, not the end of the world, where society will fall apart (kind of already is, but that's another issue). It involves major environemental changes.
3. They seem to have believed a cycle [Long Count] would end at some point. They looked upon the stars and associated their calendar with their prophecies. Their Long Count Calendar ends on 2012.
4. There are signs that the magnetic poles may be shifting.
5. The sun shifts in 11 years.
6. We have no observation of how quick or slow it can happen on earth.
7. There are signs from the last shift (740,000 years) of a large extinction, with the Mammoth declining and evolving to wear a fur-coat.
8. Solar activity will be at its peak in 2012 and scientists are predicting a 30 to 50% increase, from the current cycle.
9. They have issued an unprecedented solar storm warning for 2012.
10. The next sun pole shift is due to 2012.

Well, what can I say? I know nothing for sure, other the information here which is all from very serious sources. All I know is that it's a hell of a lot of coincidences for one subject... I have heard a lot of people saying how we sometimes have to find a way to strip Shakespeare from his merits and all that. Maybe, just maybe, we're doing the same with the Mayans. Let us hope it is you laughing in the end... Maybe it's about time humanity learns its lesson. 2012 will tell. Either way, I won't be caught laughing. That is for sure.

Why do I get the feeling that had the mayans kept going without Europe storming in and taking over they would have updated it, pushing back the last date on it by a century or three?

Why do I get the feeling that had the mayans kept going without Europe storming in and taking over they would have updated it, pushing back the last date on it by a century or three?
Like Bush is doing with Global Warming? :D

Don't drag us down that road. We just got done with a string of threads devoted to global warming sparked by the new movie that shall remain nameless. This is about a calendar ending at 2012. When it comes and goes I'll laugh at everyone who said the world would end. This lump of iron is 4.5 billion years old and is made to last.

Don't drag us down that road. We just got done with a string of threads devoted to global warming sparked by the new movie that shall remain nameless. This is about a calendar ending at 2012. When it comes and goes I'll laugh at everyone who said the world would end. This lump of iron is 4.5 billion years old and is made to last.
Who's saying the world will end? Bush? Not me for sure...

Wow, didn't they say the same thing about the year 2000?

Aren't we still around?

Wow, didn't they say the same thing about the year 2000?

Aren't we still around?
EXACTLY! Doompreachers always say the world will end and they've never been right.

EXACTLY! Doompreachers always say the world will end and they've never been right.
Yet

Ahhahahahahhahahahhhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

eh...heh... well, nvm

Wow, didn't they say the same thing about the year 2000?
The Mayans? No. They spoke about 2012 only.

EXACTLY! Doompreachers always say the world will end and they've never been right.
No one is saying the world will end... Don't get so excited...

The Mayans? No. They spoke about 2012 only.
And why are we trusting them exactly?

I could probably find a civilization that has a painting of the world ending in the year 2011, 2024, 2035, and 2413. I don't know how much I would trust this civilization over the others out there. Mine says that 2012 will be just fine, except for the fact that it's an election year

No one is saying the world will end...
Wait, so what's happening?

That about sums it up, doesnt it.

Sense - "*ignores*"
Reason - "*ignores*"
Honesty - "*ignores*"
You forgot:
rationality- "*ignores*"
logic- "*ignores*"

tinfoilhat whacked conspiracy theories - "*merrily dances round waving underpants in air and whooping happily*"

Wait, so what's happening?

The planets will align. If you jump at exactly 12 noon you can stay aloft for a full minute. Wowzers! :cool:

The planets will align. If you jump at exactly 12 noon you can stay aloft for a full minute. Wowzers! :cool:
Oh, well that's kinda cool. I had thought this was an end of the world thread. My bad :p

And why are we trusting them exactly?
I'm not trusting or distrusting the Mayans. I'm looking at what scientists tell us about what is going on in 2012 and the extraordinary coincidence with the Mayan prophecies for 2012. Did you look at the source links? they are not from crazy web sites.

BBC
New Scientist
University Corporation of Atmospheric Science
Science Daily
British Archeology
Wikipidea

Not exacly doompreaching websites, are they?

Wait, so what's happening?
You have to read the long post, if you want to know what is already happening and what may or may not happen.

You forgot:
rationality- "*ignores*"
logic- "*ignores*"

tinfoilhat whacked conspiracy theories - "*merrily dances round waving underpants in air and whooping happily*"
Isn't he funny? :D

I'm not trusting or distrusting the Mayans. I'm looking at what scientists tell us about what is going on in 2012 and the extraordinary coincidence with the Mayan prophecies for 2012. Did you look at the source links? they are not from crazy web sites.

BBC
New Scientist
University Corporation of Atmospheric Science
Science Daily
British Archeology
Wikipidea

Not exacly doompreaching websites, are they?


You have to read the long post, if you want to know what is already happening and what may or may not happen.
k, see post #147

http://www.dieoff.org/synopsis_files/image002.gif

Notes: (1) 1930 => Industrial Civilization began when (ê) reached 30% of its peak value. (2) 1979 => ê reached its peak value of 11.15 boe/c. (3) 1999 => The end of cheap oil. (4) 2000 => Start of the "Jerusalem Jihad". (5) 2006 => Predicted peak of world oil production (Figure 1, this paper). (6) 2008 => The OPEC crossover event (Figure 1). (7) 2012 => Permanent blackouts occur worldwide. (8) 2030 => Industrial Civilization ends when ê falls to its 1930 value. (9) Observe that there are three intervals of decline in the Olduvai schema: slope, slide and cliff — each steeper than the previous. (10) The small cartoons stress that electricity is the essential end-use energy for Industrial Civilization.


Figure 4 shows the complete Olduvai curve from 1930 to 2030. Historic data appears from 1930 to 1999 and hypothetical values from 2000 to 2030. These 100 years are labeled "Industrial Civilization." The curve and the events together constitute the "Olduvai schema." Observe that the overall curve has a pulse-like waveform — namely overshoot and collapse. Eight key energy events define the Olduvai schema.

Eight Events: The 1st event in 1930 (see Note 1, Figure 4) marks the beginning of Industrial Civilization when ê reached 3.32 boe/c. This is the "leading 30% point", a standard way to define the duration of a pulse. The 2nd event in 1979 (Note 2) marks the all-time peak of world energy production per capita when ê reached 11.15 boe/c. The 3rd event in 1999 (Note 3) marks the end of cheap oil. The 4th event on September 28, 2000 (Note 4) marks the eruption of violence in the Middle East — i.e. the "Jerusalem Jihad". Moreover, the "JJ" marks the end of the Olduvai "slope" wherein ê declined at 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999.

Next in Figure 4 we come the future intervals in the Olduvai schema. The Olduvai "slide", the first of the future intervals, begins in 2000 with the escalating warfare in the Middle East. The 5th event in 2006 (Note 5) marks the all-time peak of world oil production (Figure 1, this paper). The 6th event in 2008 (Note 6) marks the OPEC crossover event when the 11 OPEC nations produce 51% of the world's oil and control nearly 100% of the world's oil exports. The year 2011 marks the end of the Olduvai slide, wherein ê declines at 0.67 %/year from 2000 to 2011.

The "cliff" is the final interval in the Olduvai schema. It begins with the 7th event in 2012 (Note 7) when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire. The 8th event in 2030 (Note 8) marks the fall of world energy production (use) per capita to the 1930 level (Figure 4). This is the lagging 30% point when Industrial Civilization has become history. The average rate of decline of ê is 5.44 %/year from 2012 to 2030.


www.dieoff.org

Psudeo science. The graph is pure speculation - how is the "fictional" part of the graph determined? There is no calculations or algorithm, its mearly invention - doesn't even fit the existing trend. Rubbish - why is this presented as science?

P.S. 2012? did the Mayans predict this in the Gregorian or Julian calander?

On what observations do you make this "certain" statement? Show me a reference please...
how about the fact that pole shift has occured dozens of times in the past since animals walked the earth, and not once did it destroy, wipe out, decimate, extinguish, exterminate, wrought wholesale extinction upon the animal kingdom.
So why would it do it now?

Psudeo science. The graph is pure speculation - how is the "fictional" part of the graph determined? There is no calculations or algorithm, its mearly invention - doesn't even fit the existing trend. Rubbish - why is this presented as science?
Not my post... You will have to ask who did.
P.S. 2012? did the Mayans predict this in the Gregorian or Julian calander?
The source mentions European calendars. It's says 2012AD.

how about the fact that pole shift has occured dozens of times in the past since animals walked the earth, and not once did it destroy, wipe out, decimate, extinguish, exterminate, wrought wholesale extinction upon the animal kingdom.
So why would it do it now?
When one earth pole shift happened around 700,000 ago, it coincided with a severe change of weather and the decline of the Mammoth, who then developed fur to withstand an extreme cold snap. There are regular events of large exterminations, between the Mass exterminations every 62 million years. We don't know what cause these intermediary exterminations, only that they are associated with increased emissions of gases to the atmosphere (possibly as a result of rising temperatures and the dying of fauna and flora).

Some species and specimen survive these events and adapt. We don't know if the 700,000-740-000 decline of the Mammoth and the extreme change of weather were a coincidence with the pole shift that scientists think that did happen around that time. There are no observations on the effects of a pole shift, only hypothesis.

Asis, 2 of your quoted sources:
Around 700,000 years ago, the warm climate of the time deteriorated markedly and the savannah plains of Europe, Asia and North America gave way to colder and less fertile steppes. The southern mammoth consequently declined, being replaced across most of its territory by the cold-adapted steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii).


Originally Posted by British Archeology
The sediments contained a huge amount of microscopic mammal bones - important evidence rarely seen in the Cromer Forest-bed, with teeth from squirrel and hamster, a very rare extinct aquatic shrew, a bat and other small creatures. I also identified a second species of Mimomys vole. In European Russia this is known to have died out before MIS16, an extremely severe cold stage, consistent with an age of 700,000 years ago.

Note:
700000 years ago.

The last pole shift occured 750000 years ago.

Those two numbers are not even close. There's 50 millenium between them!
And no, you can't say 'close enough'. That's in no way scientific to say that, and I assume by your chucking up of random facts and figures, that's what you're trying to pass yourself off as: scientific.

There's no way an event could have caused a major shift in global temperatures 50000 years later, and it's ludicrous to even consider it.

This is perhaps the worst, most irritating aspect of pseudo-scientists, crackpot theorists and conspiracy nuts: They grab any and every fact and figure, mix them all together and throw it at you, in the hope that it'll blind you to the reality that there's nothing in common between the facts stated. They think the more random facts they have, the stronger their argument, regardless of whether they can find a connection there. You'll feel overwhelmed by the facts and figures and start believing that 'there may be something there'.

750 000 years ago: pole shift
700 000 years ago: ice age ends.

Oh, look! they both have a 7 in them. It's 'close enough'! That 'proves' it!
:rolleyes:


You may as well say Brutus killed JFK, as well as Julis. I mean, they were 'close enough', weren't they? Only 2000 years between them, unlike the 50000 we see here.!




And anyway, even if it did somehow cause global temperature shift 50 millenium later we needn't worry until 52012AD. Plenty of time to stock up with blankies and bottles of vodka.

When one earth pole shift happened around 700,000 ago.
See what I mean? conveniently changing facts to suit the hypothesis. Mark of a pseudo-scientist and crackpot theorist.

It didn't happen 'around' 700 000 years ago.
It happened 750 000 years ago.

That Ice age ended 700 000 years ago.

There's ~50 000 years difference between them.

Psudeo science. The graph is pure speculation - how is the "fictional" part of the graph determined? There is no calculations or algorithm, its mearly invention - doesn't even fit the existing trend. Rubbish - why is this presented as science?

P.S. 2012? did the Mayans predict this in the Gregorian or Julian calander?
And yet it was written in 1999 and all the steps outlines up until now have come true.

Who's saying the world will end? Bush? Not me for sure...
uh, huh?
We seem to be overdue in the 62 million year cycle of extinction.
7. There are signs from the last shift (740,000 years) of a large extinction
"If Humanity Wishes To Save Itself From Biospheric Destruction It Must Return To Living in Natural Time"
Something big...On this cosmic scale

And just what do you mean by natural time? Living in the dirt on some communal hippie farm like a bunch of serfs? Do you want a life expectancy of 30 years? Do you want to have to wear a little ball with a drop of honey in it so that all the things living in your clothes are attracted to it and not your blood and skin? (They really used to do that, stuff like lice was that big a problem)

Throughout history, there have been those that csaid we would over populate and there would be mass starvings in even the most developed nations, that we'd see millions dead by some date. All those dates have come and gone and none of the prophecies have come true. They said back in the 70's that we'd be out of oil by now. We're still pumping that texas tea. They say this and that all the time and they're usually just crying wolf.

Asis, 2 of your quoted sources:

Those two numbers are not even close. There's 50 millenium between them!
Note how the first quote about the mammoth say "around 700,000"? 50,000 years in 750,000 years is 6.6% margin of error. I have not found any indication of how accurate the last polar shift date is or how scientists managed to know when the last happened, since they haven't been able to observe on happening. Maybe you can help me.

There's no way an event could have caused a major shift in global temperatures 50000 years later, and it's ludicrous to even consider it.
There are no observations for you to say "there's no way" about anything regarding poleshifts (Only Hypothesis remember? No theories or laws allowed I'm afraid, since we have no observations). Read the MadSci source.

Margin of error: Dating anything so precisely 750,000 years ago, particularly an event that is supposed to happen only every 250,000 years and yet hasn't happened for so long. Mmmm... I don't know... I'll have to investigate a bit further on our abilities to pin down the exact date of something that happened 750,000 years ago.

And anyway, even if it did somehow cause global temperature shift 50 millenium later we needn't worry until 52012AD. Plenty of time to stock up with blankies and bottles of vodka.
No observation, no theory right? Try again and word your arguments as the mere hypothetises they are, like I've learned how to do. The sun shifts in 11 years, and we have no way to know how quickly earth's poles may flip or how quick the impact will be felt, if it will be felt.

See what I mean? conveniently changing facts to suit the hypothesis. Mark of a pseudo-scientist and crackpot theorist.
Until I find very accurate datings going back 750,000 years, 50,000 years is a 6,6% margin of error. Since there are no observations of earth pole shifts, I'll have to know how accurate that prediction may be.

There also seem to be few certain dates on extinctions that happened around that time, which is how the disappearing of the Mammoth is worded in one of the sources "Around 700,000". Look for other examples...

Note how the first quote about the mammoth say "around 700,000"? 50,000 years in 750,000 years is 6.6% margin of error. I have not found any indication of how accurate the last polar shift date is or how scientists managed to know when the last happened, since they haven't been able to observe on happening. Maybe you can help me.
Ohh..what a surprise. Doing exactly what I said you'd do and say the two numbers are 'close enough'.
Do you not think that if a scientist meant around 750 000 years, he would have said "around 750 000 years"?
Around 700 000 years means just that. Around 700 000 years ago. NOT around 750 000 years ago.
Even if we take the largest margin it could be (725 to 675 years ago), it's still 25000 years after the pole shift.
But hey! That's 'close enough' in a nutjob theorists fevered mind, isn't it?

As for when they know the last pole shift happened, they look at the polarity of rocks. That's one way of knowing when it occurred. And that's how they know there was still an Ice age before and after it happened. Because areas that were under ice show rocks with the old polarity and other areas which were also under ice show the new polarity.
Also ice core samples, which now stretch back 800 000 years (perhaps 1 mill now) show when the Ice age finished and can show the pole shift (due to rocks being in the ice).
So that's two ways they can know. Also marine sediments and rock samples.

Ohh..what a surprise. Doing exactly what I said you'd do and say the two numbers are 'close enough'.
Do you not think that if a scientist meant around 750 000 years, he would have said "around 750 000 years"?
Around 700 000 years means just that. Around 700 000 years ago. NOT around 750 000 years ago.
Let me draw a simpler picture, since you sound a bit uncertain about what around 700,000 years means:

AROUND (X YEARS)<------------------700,000------------------>AROUND (X YEARS).
Even if we take the largest margin it could be (725 to 675 years ago), it's still 25000 years after the pole shift.
But hey! That's 'close enough' in a nutjob theorists fevered mind, isn't it?
For the moment and for a non-scientist, I'm quite happy with a 50,000 years margin. I will try to refine these dates next, if it's possible.

As for when they know the last pole shift happened, they look at the polarity of rocks. That's one way of knowing when it occurred. And that's how they know there was still an Ice age before and after it happened. Because areas that were under ice show rocks with the old polarity and other areas which were also under ice show the new polarity. Also ice core samples, which now stretch back 800 000 years (perhaps 1 mill now) show when the Ice age finished and can show the pole shift (due to rocks being in the ice). So that's two ways they can know. Also marine sediments and rock samples.
Thank you for elucidating me. It may help me on further research.
In the meantime, here's a bit more science for you...

What is a pole shift?

A pole shift refers to the Earth's magnetic field reversing its polarity. If a magnetic reversal occurred today, compasses would point south rather than north.

In the past 15 million years scientists found pole shifts occurred four times every 1 million years. Though this averages out to once every 250,000 years, switches do not occur at regular intervals. During one period in the Cretaceous, polarity remained constant for as long as 30 million years, though this is believed to be an anomaly. The last pole shift took place 790,000 years ago; causing some scientists to believe we're due, while others speculate a reversal is already underway.
BBC says 750,000 years ago and Wise Geek says 790,000 ago! 40,000 years error margin?! :eek: Bad science... Could BBC's scientists be turning pseudo-scientists like me??? Good grief... We are doomed. First they say a poleshift happened every 250,000 years, for 15 million years, then they say we've been without one for 790,000 years! What a bunch of pseudo-scientists. Did they miss something or did the Universe decided to toy with us a bit?
Dynamic processes taking place deep inside the planet generate Earth's magnetic field. A core of molten iron surrounds the inner core of solid iron, each rotating at different rates. Their interaction, and perhaps other geophysical processes not yet understood, creates what scientists call a "hydromagnetic dynamo." This self-perpetuating electric field acts in some ways like a gigantic bar magnet. The Earth's magnetic field extends into space for tens of thousands of miles from the planet's poles. It not only protects the Earth from solar radiation but plays a fundamental role in overall climate, weather patterns, and migratory habits of animals. If the poles were to reverse instantly, destruction would be global, from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to melting of Arctic ice and vast flooding. However, evidence suggests pole shifts happen gradually taking anywhere from 1,000 — 28,000 years. The last four flip-flops took about 7,000 years each.
:eek: a 28,000 years range of error for projections??! Preposterous... How many years have we been on the initial slow move on the poles? 1,000? 2,000?
Evidence for pole shifts came unexpectedly in the 1950s while exploring seafloor spreading along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Here molten material wells up, cools and hardens, creating new sea crust, pushing the old crust outwards. Magnetic particles or iron oxides in the lava act like tiny compass needles, aligning themselves with the magnetic field, leaving a permanent record of the Earth's polarity at the time the crust is created. By reading the orientation of the oxides at various distances out from the point of welling, scientists can "look back in time." What they found was striping or alternating bands -- periods of reversal throughout history.

Some researchers believe a pole shift is underway today because the magnetic field has decreased in intensity as much as 10% - 15% over the last 150 years, with the rate of decay increasing more significantly in recent years. If this trend continues, the magnetic field will be gone in 1000-2000 years.
WHAT? But-but-but Demented Hamsters said we would have until 52012AD, if it happened on 2012 It can't be! This could mean the earth magnetic field will be gone by 3006! Do you think we/our children will only feel the impact of a magnetic field disappearing when it's already gone? You are naive, if you think that. Has it crossed your mind that we're watching some of those changes (increased storms)? How may generations left until the collapse?
A weakening magnetic field is a precursor to pole shifts, though it's acknowledged the current decay might also be attributable to other unknown causes, or might reverse itself. In the case of a pole shift, once the magnetic field weakens enough, the field directions undergo a near-180 degree switch before strengthening and stabilizing in the new orientation. However, scientists don't really know how long this process takes. What is known is that it takes twice as long at the poles as at the equator.
I.e. it could be speeding up until reaching the equator and then loosing speed as it reaches the poles... Still, all hypothesis...
So while compasses at the mid-latitudes might point south after a 3,000-year transition, compasses at the poles would continue to point north for another 3,000 years."
And here, as usual, is my source. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-pole-shift.htm)
Now, let's get a few things straight:
1. The Mayan pointed to 2012AD.
2. Based on their calendar and scriptures, it has been hypothesised that they were looking towards the end of an age and beginning of a new one.
3. As far as I know, they did not say, neither am I saying, that on 21 of December of 2012 the sky is going to fall or Angels will come to save us etc. etc. Even if the Mayans had said it, I would most likely think "they wish". At least it would be quick and we would get over and done with, to start repopulating the earth.
4. If the poles are indeed shifting, the transition between the old age and the new age is already happening. Right here, right now. Remember the Tree of Life? The earthquakes, tsunamis and violent weather?
5. Why the Mayans pointed to that date, is still a mystery. There is an hypothesis of representing the day we align with the galactic arm or even a particular star, but this is an outsider's view... We don't know.
6. However, we know at least the Sun will switch poles once again and we'll watch a very strong solar cycle.
7. Both these things will happen in 2012AD.

In your blindness to prove me wrong, you forgot that the Mayans could have already got something right; something much larger than Iraq, Iran and Israel together is happening in the core of the earth, under our own eyes, but we're ignoring it while we squabble for oil and money. It confirmed, it may/will be the first time civilisation will live through such a cosmic and/or planetary event. We have no way to know or predict the consequences, how fast or how slow; no observations or past recorded experience (unless you want me to bring out the myths, which I have hardly done). All we know is that the magnetic forces of the earth must have a huge influence on us, on our oceans, on our weather, in the core, on our relationship with the moon... Ignore them for your dollars, if you wish and at the peril of your own children.

Our estimates and hypothesis are based on the idea that the universe works like a clock. Guess what, it doesn't. From one cycle to the next, things can happen twice as fast or twice as slow, causes and effects, with ranges as wild as a mere thousand and the long lasting tens and even hundreds of thousands of years.

Our idea of time is not shared by the scientific monsters that lurk in the skies. They are not ruled by the inferior size of a solar system, never mind a planet.

It's happening (according to some scientists). Wake up. From now on, we're possibly walking towards uncharted territory and on very dangerous waters. Ask your parents how quickly the world, weather and environment has changed. I'm sure they'll tell you "very quick". Wrong; if the scientists you love so much are right, we're just starting to speed up and tomorrow we may find ourselves shortening the deadline, for the magnetic field's disappearance, just like we've doing in the last years with our global temperatures projections for the near future. They can't even agree on the weather and they watch it every day, never mind the impact of something they've never seen; a polarshift.

Instead of preparing our future generations for a hard future "just ahead" (on a planetary scale) we are sending them for war... But I am the lunatic.

BBC says 750,000 years ago and Wise Geek says 790,000 ago! 40,000 years error margin?! :eek: Bad science... Could BBC's scientists be turning pseudo-scientists like me??? Good grief... We are doomed. First they say a poleshift happened every 250,000 years, for 15 million years, then they say we've been without one for 790,000 years! What a bunch of pseudo-scientists. Did they miss something or did the Universe decided to toy with us a bit?
Now it's 790 000 to 750 000. Did you know that it takes thousands of years to fully flip?
Computer modelling has it taking 36 000 years.
Now, THAT is a coincidence!

Science has shown us that the pole shift took, according to your two sources, either 790 000 or 750 000 years ago, a difference of 40 000 years.
Computer modelling shows us that it can take 36 000 years to complete.

Do I have to draw you a diagram?


While we're at it - the numbers you're supplying, in case you haven't noticed, are getting further away from the 700 000 years mark. So I really can't see how they bolster your case that the pole shift caused the end of that Ice Age. It's now even further back in time!

As for your "It occurs every 250 000 years", read it again slowly this time. It occurs on average every 1/4 mill years.
If I have $990 000 and 3 others have $10 000 between them, the average for the group is $250 000. Doesn't mean every has that though, does it?
take a look at this, it might help you understand better:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/images/timeline.gif
Notice something? Notice how random the switches are? Also notice that for 40 million years during the Cretaceous period there was no shift.
Sure, statistically we overdue for one, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
The fields have been weakening for 300 years - but it takes up to 40 000 years for it to happen. Also, the fields can 'bounce' back.
So we can't read anything into the weakening.


You should check this site out:
Magnetic Storm (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/)
It's a very interesting, factual and informative site about what will happen, how it will happen and what it all means. Even has a very cool demo of the poles switching.

And it has this page:
Impact on Animals

Would a dramatic change in the Earth's magnetic field affect creatures that rely on it during migration?
...
the researchers I spoke with all thought that organisms would be able to adjust to an acute weakening or even complete reversal of the magnetic field. "My gut reaction is it's not going to have an impact," says Frank Paladino, the Indiana-Purdue University leatherback researcher whose project I was visiting that night in 1993.

History seems to back this up. There is no firm evidence that the many magnetic field reversals that have taken place throughout our planet's history have coincided with or triggered extinctions. Reversals take hundreds if not thousands of years to complete, and because for any one type of animal that represents hundreds or thousands of generations, species have time to accommodate to the change. Moreover, Kirschvink notes that even if the main dipole field were to collapse—an event that can last for up to 10,000 years during a reversal—residual fields 5 or 10 percent as strong as the main field would remain on the surface, and animals would be able to use those quite well for migration.

Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.


Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...
Since the Mayan mythology was the basis of their calendar, which was one that could predict events like eclipses and conjuctions, it's hardly surprising that the two events are timed.

Just curious: What would a pole shift on earth actually do?

P.S. 2012? did the Mayans predict this in the Gregorian or Julian calander?
Neither. They had their own calendar, more exact than any other at the time. Only with the help of computers and very precise astronomical and atomic observations have we been able to measure time more accurately.

Just curious: What would a pole shift on earth actually do?
Make compasses act a bit weird.

Some researchers believe a pole shift is underway today because the magnetic field has decreased in intensity as much as 10% - 15% over the last 150 years, with the rate of decay increasing more significantly in recent years. If this trend continues, the magnetic field will be gone in 1000-2000 years.
WHAT? But-but-but Demented Hamsters said we would have until 52012AD, if it happened on 2012 It can't be! This could mean the earth magnetic field will be gone by 3006! Do you think we/our children will only feel the impact of a magnetic field disappearing when it's already gone? You are naive, if you think that. Has it crossed your mind that we're watching some of those changes (increased storms)? How may generations left until the collapse?
Note the bolded parts.
"Some researchers" Which ones? How many? What are their credentials?
I don't believe anything told to me, especially via the internet, unless it can be backed up with a few more facts than 'some people'.
"If this trend continues" That's a mighty big IF you got there. Why do they think it will continue? What are the mechanisms behind it continuing to weaken? What would be the effects?
None of those are answered by these mysterious, unnamed 'researchers'.
So forgive me for being sceptical of them. If they exist.

Joe Kirschvink of the California Institute of Technology (notice something there? I use a real person and state what institute they work at, unlike Wise Geek) notes that even if (again, notice the 'if' - means nobody knows) the main dipole field were to collapse—an event that can last for up to 10,000 years during a reversal—residual fields 5 or 10 percent as strong as the main field would remain on the surface. Which is enough for migrating animals, some of which have been around 120 million years, through (how many? 300+) numerous pole switches and manage to survive and continue their species.

Y'know, whenever I look at the title of this thread ( 2012: Myth and Science agree on a date),
I think it says:
2012: Myrth and Science agree on a date

My first thought is, "That's odd - how do you go on a date with Science?"
My next is, "Aww..that's sweet. Nice to see Myrth has finally got himself a date, even if it isn't for another 6 years. There's hope for him yet."

There was a guy on one of the Big Brother series called Science!

Now it's 790 000 to 750 000. Did you know that it takes thousands of years to fully flip?
Computer modelling has it taking 36 000 years.
Now, THAT is a coincidence!
Science has shown us that the pole shift took, according to your two sources, either 790 000 or 750 000 years ago, a difference of 40 000 years.
Computer modelling shows us that it can take 36 000 years to complete.
Now read the bit you refer:
"By 1995, they had created a model that not only created a self-sustaining magnetic field (the first to do so), but after simulating the passage of 36,000 years, the field it generated spontaneously flipped."
They say after 36,000 years the field flipped. How quickly?

This text is by the pole shift animation, from the link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html) you provided:

"A reversal usually takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete."
Do I have to draw you a diagram?
No, thank you. The one you provided did just fine...
While we're at it - the numbers you're supplying, in case you haven't noticed, are getting further away from the 700 000 years mark. So I really can't see how they bolster your case that the pole shift caused the end of that Ice Age. It's now even further back in time!
And your's are doing better are they? I haven't looked into detail of the 750,000-790,000 period just yet... Will try to...
As for your "It occurs every 250 000 years", read it again slowly this time. It occurs on average every 1/4 mill years.
Read the end of my last post. Surely someone who wrote so much about the irregular Time of Nature wouldn't say he was certain about a perfect cycle of 250,000 years? If you understood that, maybe I chose the wording wrong. You are right of course, we shouldn't think of it as a perfect cycle.

Average 1/4 Mill = Average 250,000 years
If I have $990 000 and 3 others have $10 000 between them, the average for the group is $250 000. Doesn't mean every has that though, does it?
Means you are more selfish than others? Just joking :D ... I've answered above...
take a look at this, it might help you understand better:

[DIAGRAM]

Notice something? Notice how random the switches are? Also notice that for 40 million years during the Cretaceous period there was no shift.
Sure, statistically we overdue for one, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The fields have been weakening for 300 years - but it takes up to 40 000 years for it to happen. Also, the fields can 'bounce' back.
So we can't read anything into the weakening.
The cycle may take 40,000 years, not the reversal. Your source, not mine:
"A reversal usually takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete."
You should check this site out:
Magnetic Storm (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/)
It's a very interesting, factual and informative site about what will happen, how it will happen and what it all means. Even has a very cool demo of the poles switching.
The diagram was great. Nice website. Thanks.

Well, so something might happen sometime between February and December? That's a pretty broad range...but I guess it's more believable than an exact date, as the "myth" part would have us believe.

Just curious: What would a pole shift on earth actually do?
Make compasses act a bit weird.
No one can claim that for a fact, since we have no observations to base theory on. We're stuck with a bunch of hypothesis.
"If the poles were to reverse instantly, destruction would be global, from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to melting of Arctic ice and vast flooding."
While no one here is arguing that an instant swap could happen, there isn't a consensus on how quickly it may happen. However, if an instant snap may cause colossal damage why may not a slower one cause some/substantial damage? We really don't know since it will be the first time we seem to be watching such a major event.

Two quotes:
"A reversal usually takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete."
Some researchers believe a pole shift is underway today because the magnetic field has decreased in intensity as much as 10% - 15% over the last 150 years, with the rate of decay increasing more significantly in recent years. If this trend continues, the magnetic field will be gone in 1000-2000 years"
One should always take into account that a mistake on a projection could equal thousands of years. The Universe has a Natural Time of it's own. Just like an ocean wave, it is irregular. One cycle (not reversal) could last 36,000 years and the next 16,000 years or 45,000 years. Huge differences that makes our projections a mere exercise of chance, creating averages.

Earth without a magnetic field within hundreds or thousands of years and the poles reaching the equator? What will happen to weather patterns, to currents? Why are wales and dolphins beaching everywhere? The earth magnetic flip messing with their sonar? I don't know if it would...

No one can claim that for a fact, since we have no observations to base theory on. We're stuck with a bunch of hypothesis.
We have a fossil record which shows little to no impact on life.

While no one here is arguing that an instant swap could happen, there isn't a consensus on how quickly it may happen. However, if an instant snap may cause colossal damage why may not a slower one cause some/substantial damage? We really don't know since it will be the first time we seem to be watching such a major event.
You're grasping at straws and unwilling to admit your loss.

Earth without a magnetic field within hundreds or thousands of years and the poles reaching the equator? What will happen to weather patterns, to currents? Why are wales and dolphins beaching everywhere? The earth magnetic flip messing with their sonar? I don't know if it would...What will happen with our relationship with the moon, as the gravitational field weakens? Our lives are bound to this cosmological dance by the gravity of the earth. In a universe where gravity is so important, should we ignore such a major event? I don't think so...
You want to know what's messing with dolphins' sonar? Boats.
The graviational field isn't weakening, it's not going to weaken. What the fuck are you talking about anymore? The only way for the gravitational field to weaken is to lose a hell of a lot of mass. The magnetic field has nothing to do with the gravitational field.

Well, how would a pole change initiate such natural disasters? Is everything really that dependent on the poles? From what I've read, it would affect our atmosphere, causing cosmic radiation to be let in, but thats about it.

Well, how would a pole change initiate such natural disasters? Is everything really that dependent on the poles? From what I've read, it would affect our atmosphere, causing cosmic radiation to be let in, but thats about it.
It would let some cosmic radiation in, that's it. It's not the world- or even species-ending disaster Assis is trying to force it into in order to fit his "theory". If you'll notice, the earth's magnetic pole flip wasn't even his original premise for disaster, originally he was saying that the sun's magnetic pole flip (something that happens every 11 years) was the huge, world-ending disaster the mayans predicted.

Well, so something might happen sometime between February and December? That's a pretty broad range...but I guess it's more believable than an exact date, as the "myth" part would have us believe.
The scientific projections for 2012 right now are:
1. The Solar Pole shift will swap. (the sun, not the earth)
2 The next Sun cycle will peak with 30% to 50% extra activity that the current cycle's. This may throw a big spanner into electronic equipment. Scientists have issued an unprecedented warning for Solar Storms for 2012, endangering electronics and astronauts in space.
3. The Earth will align with Venus. Source here. (http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/Venus.html)
4. We may already be in the process of switching poles.
5. We may be crossing point 0 of the galactic plane? Big may... I don't know.

My very wild guess Ilie, is that nothing will happen specifically on 2012AD, other than those things already stated, unless you believe in Angels of UFOs coming to save us. I don't think they will but what do I know about the mysteries of the Universe? So, other than seeing the alignment with Venus, the sun flipping poles and being at peak of activity, bombarding us and our atmosphere with 30% to 50% extra radiation... Maybe you won't note any difference. My recommendation? Avoid the sun because it will be dangerous in 2012 (that's not prophecy, that's science).

One has to understand this very clearly:
The Mayan didn't predict the end of the world. They predicted the end of an Era and beginning of a New one. I could go into more detail, but I've refrained as much as possible to talk about the prophecies and - instead - focus on the science. They did predict a great detachment from Humanity and its Natural world. They saw an age of environmental collapse. As you can see, parts of their prophecy are already happening. They are not one day events of course, like in the Day After Tomorrow. Having said that, I have heard of Mammoths being found in the past, frozen with undigested food still in their stomachs. Nature seems to be pretty quicker than we think it to be sometimes...

Now, All this magnetic activity may already be playing a part in some world events I described earlier and will continue for a very long time if the poles are switching... And if they are switching and if this does cause damage, Humanity should prepare for a very difficult period, within as little as hundreds and as much as thousands of years.

Life goes on... We shouldn't change our habits or hide in bunkers during 2012, but we should be preparing our children to face a increasingly tougher future. If the poles are indeed switching, they will be gathering speed until reaching the equator. Sooner or later the poles will flip and, according to science, we are long overdue. The signs are out there, yet so little is certain. Unfortunately we don't even bother looking, since we are looking for oil...

It would let some cosmic radiation in, that's it. It's not the world- or even species-ending disaster Assis is trying to force it into in order to fit his "theory".
I'm presenting no theories, just hypothesis... There's a difference. And nowhere I actually say that "the world will end" on 2012. It's more likely to be an event that takes hundreds or thousands of years. 2012 is the the end of an Era and beginning of a new one. I don't think the world will end but we're sure entering unknown and possibly dangerous waters within the next centuries. Also, there are things that seem to be happening already, like the pole-shift. Plus there is a number of events scheduled by science for 2012AD. Read the posts and tell me nothing at all is going on in 2012AD. A lot is and it's science telling us. I'm just a compiler... Are we in such denial to ignore scientific warnings that link to a Mayan Prophecy of a time of great suffering, before humanity could repopulate the earth?

Also... We are loosing our magnetic field. That's not theory of mine. That's a fact.

If you'll notice, the earth's magnetic pole flip wasn't even his original premise for disaster, originally he was saying that the sun's magnetic pole flip (something that happens every 11 years) was the huge, world-ending disaster the mayans predicted.
Never I said it would be the disaster. Hypothesis, hypothesis...

As to talking about my original premise, that was in fact the very first piece of scientific projection that pointed to something unusual happening in 2012. Later I realised there where more; like the earth's pole shifts and the unusually strong Sun cycle that will also peak on 2012. The rest I discovered as people asked questions...

There is an hypothesis that something as big as a pole-switch won't cause any degree of damage.
There is an hypothesis that something as big as a pole-switch will cause some unknown degree of damage.
Well, how would a pole change initiate such natural disasters? Is everything really that dependent on the poles? From what I've read, it would affect our atmosphere, causing cosmic radiation to be let in, but thats about it.
Yes, this is one hypothesis. However, since the last pole switch happened around 750,000-790,000 years, we obviously have no observations. We do believe there were dramatic weather changes following that period (a new Ice age) but it is hard to know exactly how quickly it followed or how much they were related. We don't know if the pole shift triggered the new Ice Age. It's possible.

Magnetic fields have an effect on the oceans, on the weather, on the winds and on the atmosphere. Can we really discard that the possibility that such a displacement and moving of such big forces could come with a big hiccup? We don't know. Since we have no observations of a pole-shift, it's a valid hypothesis. It's an event that only happens - on average - 4 times every 1 million years (average 250,000 years). Still, the last time it happened was around 750,000-790,000 years ago.

What will happen with our relationship with the moon, as the gravitational field weakens? Our lives are bound to this cosmological dance by the gravity of the earth. In a universe where gravity is so important, should we ignore such a major event? I don't think so...
Why would gravity weaken?

Gravity has an effect on the oceans, on the moon, on the atmosphere and our magnetic field.

...Gravity doesn't do anything to magnetic fields, and why are we even talking about gravity now?

...Gravity doesn't do anything to magnetic fields, and why are we even talking about gravity now?
Ooops... I meant magnetic fields. heheh :headbang: :D will correct. I read a bit on Gravity and my tired sleepless mind played a trick on me. Sorry.

The scientific projections for 2012 right now are:
1. The Solar Pole shift will swap. (the sun, not the earth)

Just like 1989, and 2000-2001. Unrelated.

2 The next Sun cycle will peak with 30% to 50% extra activity that the current cycle's. This may throw a big spanner into electronic equipment. Scientists have issued an unprecedented warning for Solar Storms for 2012, endangering electronics and astronauts in space.

One reasonable thing you've mentioned, but...So what? electronics may malfunction....okay.

3. The Earth will align with Venus. Source here. (http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/Venus.html)

The heck? That's out of the blue. Also unrelated, there's a dot on the sun, big whoop.

4. We may already be in the process of switching poles.

Which takes hundred to thousands of years, as you seem to enjoy mentioning. Point?

5. We may be crossing point 0 of the galactic plane? Big may... I don't know.

It would please many if you stopped saying what you dont know.

One has to understand this very clearly:
The Mayan didn't predict the end of the world...I've refrained as much as possible to talk about the prophecies and - instead - focus on the science...

Wanna talk about the science? The Mayans were good scientists, who accurately observed and made a calender. This calender had a measure call a long count. After five, the calender stopped. There's the science of it.

Unfortunately we don't even bother looking, since we are looking for oil...

The hell does this have to do with oil?

Magnetic fields have an effect on the oceans, on the weather, on the winds and on the atmosphere. Can we really discard that the possibility that such a displacement and moving of such big forces could come with a big hiccup? We don't know. Since we have no observations of a pole-shift, it's a valid hypothesis. It's an event that only happens - on average - 4 times every 1 million years (average 250,000 years). Still, the last time it happened was around 750,000-790,000 years ago.
No, they don't. The Earth's magnetic field is hundreds and thousands of kilometres above the ocean and the atmosphere. There's evidence of it changing polarity several times over Earth's history, but none of it affecting life or weather. And indeed there's no reason why it should.

There's a difference between presenting hypothesis, which should be at least partially based on known facts and accepted theories, and wild speculation, which is what you're doing.

The only effect one can hypothesize about is the ionization of the upper atmosphere, as a consequence of more radiation reaching it. This will disturb radio communications, and perhaps increase a bit the risk of cancer and mutations. Further than that, it's pure speculation.

Because they recognize that all other energy sources ultimately rely on oil for the mining of the resource, the construction of the plants, the construction of roads and rail systems to move the resource and the people around who run it and to maintain these things.

Currently, yes. But that hasn't always been the case. Befoe oil, they used coal powerd steam shovels to mine coal and other minerals (as well as good old human power). They used coal powerd steam engines to transport goods and people in trains and ships. They used coal powerd steam engines to power construction equipment and factories. And when the oil is gone, we can easily go back to doing just that. If they could manage to quickly gear up the industrial revolution from scratch with coal and eighteenth century technology, I see no problem in us convering our existing economy back to it. And yes, I'm aware of the polution issues involved with coal. It will be addressed as well. This isn't the eighteenth century after all and we have other power sources such as nucler, renewables and ITER is researching mass produced fussion power.

Modern industrial society isn't going to end. Change? Yes. Personal transportation (cars) and air travel for the masses will likely come to an end. But we'll go on just fine.

Oh, and here is a link to a steam powerd robotic arm. Old tech with new applications. :D

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/05/steam-powered-machines.html

Currently, yes. But that hasn't always been the case. Befoe oil, they used coal powerd steam shovels to mine coal and other minerals (as well as good old human power). They used coal powerd steam engines to transport goods and people in trains and ships. They used coal powerd steam engines to power construction equipment and factories. And when the oil is gone, we can easily go back to doing just that. If they could manage to quickly gear up the industrial revolution from scratch with coal and eighteenth century technology, I see no problem in us convering our existing economy back to it. And yes, I'm aware of the polution issues involved with coal. It will be addressed as well. This isn't the eighteenth century after all and we have other power sources such as nucler, renewables and ITER is researching mass produced fussion power.

Modern industrial society isn't going to end. Change? Yes. Personal transportation (cars) and air travel for the masses will likely come to an end. But we'll go on just fine.

Oh, and here is a link to a steam powerd robotic arm. Old tech with new applications. :D

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/05/steam-powered-machines.html

Care to guess how many more people there are now compared to the 1700's?

Care to guess how many more people there are now compared to the 1700's?

Care to guess how much more efficent industry and agriculture have become since the 1700's?

I'm not suggesting there will be no changes. But our civilization will go on.

Care to guess how many more people there are now compared to the 1700's?

Something else to consider. China, which is roughly the same size as the US, grew to a population of one billion using primarily subsistance agriculture. The US has yet to hit three hundred million. And the US has 19% arable land while china only has 10% arable land. We wont starve.

Care to guess how much more efficent industry and agriculture have become since the 1700's?

I'm not suggesting there will be no changes. But our civilization will go on.

...I'd venture that industry and agriculture are more efficient partially due to not using coal aymore?

Something else to consider. China, which is roughly the same size as the US, grew to a population of one billion using primarily subsistance agriculture. The US has yet to hit three hundred million. And the US has 19% arable land while china only has 10% arable land. We wont starve.
Feel like living like that?

...I'd venture that industry and agriculture are more efficient partially due to not using coal aymore?

In part, yes. But most of the gains have been due to advances in technology, knowelge of physics, ergonomics, agricultural methods, hybrids, etc. Much of that technology could be powerd by any source, not just oil. And as most of our electricity is provided by coal with small portions coming from nuclear, oil, natural gas, hydro, and wind, it already is powerd by multiple sources.

Feel like living like that?

Want to? No. I enjoy my exteremly wasteful western lifestyle. But we'll all do what we have to when the time comes. The waste will get cut only when it has to be cut. And there's a lot of waste in our society. Civilization will go on.

In part, yes. But most of the gains have been due to advances in technology, knowelge of physics, ergonomics, agricultural methods, hybrids, etc. Much of that technology could be powerd by any source, not just oil. And as most of our electricity is provided by coal with small portions coming from nuclear, oil, natural gas, hydro, and wind, it already is powerd by multiple sources.
We could just look at history as a guide. Everytime mankind has faced a decline in energy resources one of two things has happened. If the deline was quick and there was no subsititute immediately available the society collapsed, usually accompanied by a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. If it was gradual and there was a substitute, something that has happened only once in our history, then we moved to that resource. I think we're facing the former. We are looking square in the face of the deline of our primary energy source and we don't even know it's happening and are not remotely concerned. When we realize what is happening, and it will be soon, it will feel like an ambush.

Care to guess how many more people there are now compared to the 1700's?

Well, almost all of that growth is coming from the undeveloped world, where they use almost no electricity or oil. The fastest growing nations are the ones that are least industrialized, least mechanized, and who rely almost entirely on subsistence agriculture to support their populations.

World Population Growth (http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicswisconsin/e_lecture/pop_images/pop_growth.jpg)

The developed world's population growth has been flat for years and is turning negative in a lot of places.

Want to? No. I enjoy my exteremly wasteful western lifestyle. But we'll all do what we have to when the time comes. The waste will get cut only when it has to be cut. And there's a lot of waste in our society. Civilization will go on.
See, people who wanr about Peak oil don't usually say things like, "if we don't do something about this we'll all be rotting carcases by 2020." They say exactly what you are saying now. "Our standard of living is about to plunge. We may not all die, but most of us are going to be much poorer than we are acustomed to. There are going to be a lot of political and economic upheavals. There will be wars over the remaining energy reserves. Food will be much more expensive and will no longer be a throw away item that is available at the corner Taco Bell. People are going to have to go back to much more physical types of existence in agriculture, maufacturing and even retail. The days of the weekend drive to teh beach are coming to a close. We're gonna have to grow a lot more food around where we live."

That's the point. It's not, we're all gonna die, although I sometimes say that sort of tongue and cheek. The problem is that we are facing, for the first time in a couple centuries, a decline in the quality and availability of energy and we aren't prepared for it. We're desperately going to need things like railroads and walkable communities. We're going to need local agriculture and local production of energy sources and we don't have any of that and Peak Oil is here now.

We could just look at history as a guide. Everytime mankind has faced a decline in energy resources one of two things has happened. If the deline was quick and there was no subsititute immediately available the society collapsed, usually accompanied by a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. If it was gradual and there was a substitute, something that has happened only once in our history, then we moved to that resource. I think we're facing the former. We are looking square in the face of the deline of our primary energy source and we don't even know it's happening and are not remotely concerned. When we realize what is happening, and it will be soon, it will feel like an ambush.

Well, the last time we switched over was from wood to coal, and initial coal production was far from energy-superior to wood. The situation was the same; soaring costs for fuel, dependence on particular areas for a bulk of wood production, and levelling off of wood production due to the depletion of forests. Humanity was able to make that transition successfully, so we should have no difficulty doing again.

The alternatives to oil by and large are superior to oil. The EROEI of oil has been falling since the 1940's...it's hardly the wonder fuel it was, with an EROEI that is hovering around 5:1. That's less than coal and almost all alternatives except for non-cellulosic ethanol; refined petroleum products like gasoline are negative, and residual fuel and distillates are only somewhat positive.

Want to? No. I enjoy my exteremly wasteful western lifestyle. But we'll all do what we have to when the time comes. The waste will get cut only when it has to be cut. And there's a lot of waste in our society. Civilization will go on.

Put it in perspective:

65% of oil is used by cars, and only 21% by industry. The remaining fraction is used by easily replaceable power and heating oil. A lot could be conserved and a lot could be replaced from industry, and the remaining amount is so small as to be negligible. The only real reason for oil consumption is cars, and they can be replaced by alternative fuels, hybrids, and public transportation; once the price of oil gets high enough those transitions will not occur.

74% of our natural gas is used by nonindustrial sources, all of which could be replaced or conserved through alternative energy, better energy efficiency, and replacement/redesign of heating systems. All industry only uses 26% of natural gas, and that includes all agriculture and production of industrial goods. Natural gas can be produced through other sources than drilling.

Even so, transitioning from oil is not a step down. Oil is no longer a source of energy superior to coal or alternatives, so it wouldn't even be a step down if we made the transition now. It's only going to decline as the easy oil disappears and we have to rely on more and more unconventional oil...an EROEI of 5:1 is nothing compared to alternative energy or fuels.

Well, the last time we switched over was from wood to coal, and initial coal production was far from energy-superior to wood. The situation was the same; soaring costs for fuel, dependence on particular areas for a bulk of wood production, and levelling off of wood production due to the depletion of forests. Humanity was able to make that transition successfully, so we should have no difficulty doing again.

The alternatives to oil by and large are superior to oil. The EROEI of oil has been falling since the 1940's...it's hardly the wonder fuel it was, with an EROEI that is hovering around 5:1. That's less than coal and almost all alternatives except for non-cellulosic ethanol; refined petroleum products like gasoline are negative, and residual fuel and distillates are only somewhat positive.
First, according to teh API, the EROEI of oil is currently about 10 to 1. Second, no other source save coal comes close to that. Most "alternatives" to oil are negative. As for gasoline, you have cited that a bunch of times and it's crap. The only way you come to a negative EROEI for gasoline is if you forget tha it comes from oil. You can make the same claim about any fuel. You can say corn based ethanol is positive if you forget growing the corn and transporting it to a processing distillery. If you track the energy cost from oil field to gas tank it is overwhelmingly positive even now with the end of cheap oil.

Put it in perspective:

65% of oil is used by cars, and only 21% by industry. The remaining fraction is used by easily replaceable power and heating oil. A lot could be conserved and a lot could be replaced from industry, and the remaining amount is so small as to be negligible. The only real reason for oil consumption is cars, and they can be replaced by alternative fuels, hybrids, and public transportation; once the price of oil gets high enough those transitions will not occur.

74% of our natural gas is used by nonindustrial sources, all of which could be replaced or conserved through alternative energy, better energy efficiency, and replacement/redesign of heating systems. All industry only uses 26% of natural gas, and that includes all agriculture and production of industrial goods. Natural gas can be produced through other sources than drilling.

Even so, transitioning from oil is not a step down. Oil is no longer a source of energy superior to coal or alternatives, so it wouldn't even be a step down if we made the transition now. It's only going to decline as the easy oil disappears and we have to rely on more and more unconventional oil...an EROEI of 5:1 is nothing compared to alternative energy or fuels.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes you make sense, sometimes it's almost like you got off a Disney ride called, "The city of tomorrow." Name me a fuel that has a better than 5:1 EROEI that isn't fossil fuel based. You're a market guy. You know that if that were true we'd already have switched.

Here's a little reality check. This is a from a letter written by Dr. Rob Millar, Associate Professor The Department of Civil Engineering, to the University of Brittish Columbia's UBC Public Affairs website.





While conventional oil supply growth appears flat and may soon begin to decline, demand for liquid fuels continues to grow. This means that by 2015, we could be facing a global shortfall of some 22 million barrels per day, representing the gap between global demand and conventional oil supply. To put this in perspective, a deficit of 22 million barrels per day would be greater than the current US consumption of oil.

The question is: can production from non-conventional sources such as the Alberta tar sands or synthetic fuels using coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology be ramped up to anything even approaching a supply deficit of 22 million barrels per day by 2015? The answer appears to be a clear no. Not by a long shot. The forecast increase in Alberta oil sands production in the decade out to 2015 is for an additional 1.7 million barrels per day3. While this is a sizeable number (and a big deal for Alberta), it represents only about 8% of the projected shortfall. The possible contribution from CTL is more difficult to determine because currently there are so few projects worldwide. The South African petrochemical company Sasol currently operates the only commercial-scale CTL plants in the world and produces 150 thousand barrels per day of synthetic fuel. With vast coal reserves, China is aggressively pursuing CTL projects in partnership with western companies including Sasol. Even so, total CTL production in China is projected to grow to only 100 thousand barrels per day by 2010 and then to 600 thousand barrels per day by 20204. In the US, one small 5,000 barrels per day coal-to-diesel project was recently announced5, the first for North America. Thus, based on projects that are currently on the books, at best, Alberta oil sands and CTL might yield perhaps 3 million barrels per day by 2015, leaving us short by some 19 million barrels per day. Hirsch1 considered gas-to-liquids and enhanced oil recovery, as well as non-conventional supply, and concluded that under a concerted crash program, perhaps 12 million barrels per day of new supply could be developed within 10 years. This still represents only slightly more than half of the projected deficit.

First, according to teh API, the EROEI of oil is currently about 10 to 1. Second, no other source save coal comes close to that. Most "alternatives" to oil are negative. As for gasoline, you have cited that a bunch of times and it's crap. The only way you come to a negative EROEI for gasoline is if you forget tha it comes from oil. You can make the same claim about any fuel. You can say corn based ethanol is positive if you forget growing the corn and transporting it to a processing distillery. If you track the energy cost from oil field to gas tank it is overwhelmingly positive even now with the end of cheap oil.

The only alternative fuels now are corn ethanol and biodiesel. Corn ethanol is a joke but biodiesel is a viable fuel. However, we also have to take in to account improvements in fuel economy, hybrids, and improvements in technology all of which will become a much larger factor if and when oil prices spike.

Oil shale and coal-to-oil are far lower than 10:1, and discoveries in the 1970's were already down to 8:1. Corn ethanol is just plain not a viable fuel, so it's not really part of alternative energy options. Biodiesel is, especially if it is produce from a high-yield crop like algae, and the potential of cellulosic ethanol is still relatively unknown.

Wind can get as high as 30:1 depending on where it's placed with an average of 10:1, hydroelectric projects get 11+:1, solar power gets an average of 10:1, geothermal and tidal/wave are in the 13-20:1 range all with current technology. Coal, distributed generation, geothermal, and nuclear all provide 4.5:1+ of load stabilization, as can natural gas if necessary. These technologies are both economically viable and have a better EROEI than oil.

This doesn't even include marginal technologies like fuel cells, methanol, butanol, or any technological improvements. The EROEI of alternatives is rising across the board while the EROEI of fossil fuels is declining across the board...the only reason we don't transition is the cost of oil and the cost of switching over our infrastructure, both of which are still too in favor of oil.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes you make sense, sometimes it's almost like you got off a Disney ride called, "The city of tomorrow." Name me a fuel that has a better than 5:1 EROEI that isn't fossil fuel based. You're a market guy. You know that if that were true we'd already have switched.

Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and tidal power are all better. The main reason why we don't switch is because the sheer cost of switching over infrastructure, replacing the car fleet, and building out the distributed generation. The growth of wind, however, is taking off at a rate faster than natural gas or any other power source...it's cheaper and energy positive, so it's a clear example of successful alternative energy.

Plus, many of these have only become viable in the past decade due to technological improvement which made them economical compared to oil. From the 1970's to the early 1990's, neither wind nor solar had energy returns comparable to oil and solar was just plain not energy positive.

They're simply too new as viable technologies to become adopted in a major fashion; it took until the 1920's for oil to emerge as a major source of energy and until the 1950's to displace coal, which were 75 and nearly 100 years after its discovery respectively.

The only alternative fuels now are corn ethanol and biodiesel. Corn ethanol is a joke but biodiesel is a viable fuel.And yet here we are dumping billions into corn ethanol.
However, we also have to take in to account improvements in fuel economy, hybrids, and improvements in technology all of which will become a much larger factor if and when oil prices spike.We also have to take into accout the time and resources necessary to turn over the US automobile fleet and the fuel distribution and networks because neither ethanol nor biodeisel can travel well in our existing pipelines. If oil peaks now, as it probably is, then we need to build all of those cars and all those new pipelines with oil because the "alternatives" are not ready to go.

Oil shale and coal-to-oil are far lower than 10:1, and discoveries in the 1970's were already down to 8:1. Corn ethanol is just plain not a viable fuel, so it's not really part of alternative energy options. Biodiesel is, especially if it is produce from a high-yield crop like algae, and the potential of cellulosic ethanol is still relatively unknown.And the production of biodeisel from algae is theorhetical. How many barrels a day do you think we're making? Nine? Ten? maybe by this time next year we'll be making 100 barrels a day. Of course we may have lost 400,000 barrels/day of conventional oil production. Too bad we're spending all that money on corn ethanol or we could build rail.

Wind can get as high as 30:1 depending on where it's placed with an average of 10:1, hydroelectric projects get 11+:1, solar power gets an average of 10:1, geothermal and tidal/wave are in the 13-20:1 range all with current technology. Coal, distributed generation, geothermal, and nuclear all provide 4.5:1+ of load stabilization, as can natural gas if necessary. These technologies are both economically viable and have a better EROEI than oil. What we're talking about is shortages of liquid fuels. Also, natural gas is already in decline in North America and will soon enter steep decline. Better build those windmills fast because hydro electric is maxed and about 70% of all our electricity generation comes from natural gas.

This doesn't even include marginal technologies like fuel cells, methanol, butanol, or any technological improvements. The EROEI of alternatives is rising across the board while the EROEI of fossil fuels is declining across the board...the only reason we don't transition is the cost of oil and the cost of switching over our infrastructure, both of which are still too in favor of oil.
Fuel cells will always be an energy sink until you can find a natrually occuring hydrogen gas well. Methanol and butanol are either oil proucts or come from rotting vegetation or animal farts. You don't really expect them to ever be ramped up in a way that can actually make a dent in our oil habits, right?

Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and tidal power are all better. The main reason why we don't switch is because the sheer cost of switching over infrastructure, replacing the car fleet, and building out the distributed generation. The growth of wind, however, is taking off at a rate faster than natural gas or any other power source...it's cheaper and energy positive, so it's a clear example of successful alternative energy.

*tries to picture a wind powered tractor trailor*

Here's a little reality check. This is a from a letter written by Dr. Rob Millar, Associate Professor The Department of Civil Engineering, to the University of Brittish Columbia's UBC Public Affairs website.
Forgot to source myself.

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2006/06jun01/06jun01letter.html

Here's a little reality check. This is a from a letter written by Dr. Rob Millar, Associate Professor The Department of Civil Engineering, to the University of Brittish Columbia's UBC Public Affairs website.

22 million bpd by 2016, if oil peaked this year, would be equivalent to a 2.6% per year decline. That's serious, but manageable without societal collapse. If the FT-synthesis program were adopted, oil production only declines at a 1.3% rate.

Either way, there is still more than enough oil for building out alternative energy and public transportation; oil demand remained below its 1979 peak from 1979-1995 or 16 years worth of flat consumption and increasing efficiency even at a time of consistently falling nominal and real prices and strong economic growth during the 1983-1990 and 1992-1995 periods.

We'll stagnate and suffer high inflation and possibly a world Depression, but not the end of society or technology.

the only reason we don't transition is the cost of oil and the cost of switching over our infrastructure, both of which are still too in favor of oil.
Exactly.

No.

*tries to picture a wind powered tractor trailor*

Hybrid tractors, perhaps? There are prototypes...perhaps on site windmills will charge them, or perhaps it will have a braking mechanism.

Even so, agriculture will always get its oil as will industry. The main people that are screwed are the people who own fuel inefficient cars or can't commute via public transportation or walk; in the event that things get bad enough, rationing will have to be imposed and a massive WPA-type project will have to be undertaken throughout the nation to build alternative energy facilities.

22 million bpd by 2016, if oil peaked this year, would be equivalent to a 2.6% per year decline. That's serious, but manageable without societal collapse. If the FT-synthesis program were adopted, oil production only declines at a 1.3% rate. Great! We're doing that, right... I mean... We are, right? No? You mean to tell me there is not one single solitary commercial CTL plant in all of North America? Well, how long would it take to start producing the stuff if we were we to start today? No!!!! 10 years before we start to see anything at all and 20 - 30 before we have meaningful production?

Either way, there is still more than enough oil for building out alternative energy and public transportation; oil demand remained below its 1979 peak from 1979-1995 or 16 years worth of flat consumption and increasing efficiency even at a time of consistently falling nominal and real prices and strong economic growth during the 1983-1990 and 1992-1995 periods.What?
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.pngWhere did you ever get that idea?

We'll stagnate and suffer high inflation and possibly a world Depression, but not the end of society or technology.
No. It's gonna suck really bad, though, and we won't be alive to see the end of it.

Exactly.

Well, if oil hits $200 or $300 or more, then it will become a lot more economically attractive to switch over the infrastructure.

The cost of building out new, postfossil infrastructure worldwide is something like $11.3 trillion dollars; interestingly enough, if one divides the price of that switchover by world oil production of 30.3 billion bpd/year, it comes to a cost of $372.94/barrel for the cost of oil to equal $11.3 trillion dollars. That's $8.87 per gallon...

A transition from oil will not be a non-event (unless you've already hedged yourself) or even a mild one for most people, but it will happen. We're most likely looking at an extended version of the late 1970's, with stagflation, recession, and falling real wages...or at worst another Depression.

Hybrid tractors, perhaps? There are prototypes...perhaps on site windmills will charge them, or perhaps it will have a braking mechanism. And when the wind isn't blowing? You know, the last crop of electric cars were scrapped because they couldn't get more than 130 miles out of a charge.


In a double seater 800 pound passenger car.

Even so, agriculture will always get its oil as will industry. The main people that are screwed are the people who own fuel inefficient cars or can't commute via public transportation or walk; You mean most people.


in the event that things get bad enough, rationing will have to be imposed and a massive WPA-type project will have to be undertaken throughout the nation to build alternative energy facilities.
Command economy here we come. Wonder if we'll have the politics to go with it.

Great! We're doing that, right... I mean... We are, right? No? You mean to tell me there is not one single solitary commercial CTL plant in all of North America? Well, how long would it take to start producing the stuff if we were we to start today? No!!!! 10 years before we start to see anything at all and 20 - 30 before we have meaningful production?

If oil prices get out of control, F-T synthesis plants will be built and at a record rate. Right now, too many companies are unwilling to invest due to the failure of coal liquefaction during the 80's and the corruption surrounding the tax breaks for the industry during that period. Oil is still too cheap for F-T synthesis, but once it spikes the stuff will take off either by government mandate or market demand,

What?
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.pngWhere did you ever get that idea?

I'm only looking at conventional oil, the cheap-to-produce and refine light sweet crude that is going to peak first. The other stuff is more expensive and is going to keep getting more expensive as conventional oil is replaced with nonconventional sources.

No. It's gonna suck really bad, though, and we won't be alive to see the end of it.

Well, it'll suck if you don't prepare for it. If you do, you will probably be able to minimize its effects on you personally...but those who don't will quite likely see the 1979-1982 period as an attractive alternative to their current situation. An inflationary depression could be very, very real; however, Matt Simmons does discuss some interesting paths for global growth in the post-Peak era.

It's possible that the Middle East could become an economic leader in that era, and the global balance could shift totally to Asia and the ME instead of the US and EU.

*tries to picture a wind powered tractor trailor*

Give me a couple bean burrito's and I'll get it working for ya!

I'm only looking at conventional oil, the cheap-to-produce and refine light sweet crude that is going to peak first. The other stuff is more expensive and is going to keep getting more expensive as conventional oil is replaced with nonconventional sources.
You missed the point. You said oil consumption was flat from '79 to '95. It wasn't anything close to flat. It took a dive from about '79 to '82-'83 then started right back on it's way up. Since every barrel of oil produced is consumed a production profile also shows oil consumption.

In anycase, as to your other mitigation plans, they sound very optimistic in comparison to what people who have spent their whole lives studying these things say.

http://misi-net.com/publications/economicimpactsexecsummary.pdf

And when the wind isn't blowing? You know, the last crop of electric cars were scrapped because they couldn't get more than 130 miles out of a charge.

In a double seater 800 pound passenger car.

Well, I'm thinking that if people are forced to choose between not getting places and driving a small, short-distance electric vehicle they'll take the electric vehicle. 130 miles on a charge is still 130 miles...

Perhaps Segways and golf carts will get more popular for short-distance travel as well...they can hold small quantities of things and get pretty good mileage.

You mean most people.

It might be, it might not be most people. If those people buy more fuel efficient cars and hybrids, then those people will be less affected, if at all, by a rationing program or severe price spikes. And if they don't, then they will have to suffer the consequences of their decision...and those will be far from pleasant. Economic reality eventually hits everyone, although some much harder than others.

Command economy here we come. Wonder if we'll have the politics to go with it.

Well, we did it during the Depression, WWI, WWII and during the Civil War despite fierce political opposition and a chaotic economic environment. Economic reality does eventually force people to accept or support decisions they might not in a normal economic environment. Although, I hope command-type decisions are far more level headed than the ridiculous ethanol mandate...that's nothing more than a handout and a waste of useful money that could be spent on other alternatives and research.

You missed the point. You said oil consumption was flat from '79 to '95. It wasn't anything close to flat. It took a dive from about '79 to '82-'83 then started right back on it's way up. Since every barrel of oil produced is consumed a production profile also shows oil consumption.

Well, I guess I was wrong. I'm not sure about US demand, though; if I recall correctly our demand was mitigated for a period similar to that 1979-1995 one.

In anycase, as to your other mitigation plans, they sound very optimistic in comparison to what people who have spent their whole lives studying these things say.

http://misi-net.com/publications/economicimpactsexecsummary.pdf

My ideas can and will work, but they are not going to be cheap or easy and might not have an effect soon enough to stave off serious, albeit not permanent, problems.

However, conservation and efficiency are the wild cards here; we have no real idea of the scale or degree of these variables, and likely won't until the event actually happens. It really depends on the degree of conservation and efficiency upgrades whether the Peak will be mild, moderate, or severe since those two factors are the only way to mitigate in the short term.

Well, I'm thinking that if people are forced to choose between not getting places and driving a small, short-distance electric vehicle they'll take the electric vehicle. 130 miles on a charge is still 130 miles...

Perhaps Segways and golf carts will get more popular for short-distance travel as well...they can hold small quantities of things and get pretty good mileage.You missed the point here. You were talking about charging up tractor trailors and industrial equipment with midmills overnight. If you can't get an 800 pound electric passenger car more than 130 miles, how far do you expect to get a 50 ton fully loaded tractor trailer across town?



It might be, it might not be most people. If those people buy more fuel efficient cars and hybrids, then those people will be less affected, if at all, by a rationing program or severe price spikes. And if they don't, then they will have to suffer the consequences of their decision...and those will be far from pleasant. Economic reality eventually hits everyone, although some much harder than others.Then there are those who can't afford to. there are those who have bet their whole life on a house 60 miles from the city center. These people also carry disproportionate political weight. There is also the loss in idustrial output as a result of changing consumption, namely everyone scraping together desperately so they can buy a new car or move to a ne home. There are the people who can't afford to because they were working in a factory that makes door mats and no one is buying them because they need a new car instead. There are those who ARM loans suddenly go through the roof as the rate of default on homes skyrockets... so they default. The economic impacts of this event are hard to overstate. They will be pervassive and will impact people at every level of society.


And we haven't discussed who gets to tell China and India that they get to have what we've got. Think they'll try to take it from us? Do you think all those formerly middle class people in the US might want to take what's left of the oil from them? Who do you think they'll elect?



Well, we did it during the Depression, WWI, WWII and during the Civil War despite fierce political opposition and a chaotic economic environment. Economic reality does eventually force people to accept or support decisions they might not in a normal economic environment. Although, I hope command-type decisions are far more level headed than the ridiculous ethanol mandate...that's nothing more than a handout and a waste of useful money that could be spent on other alternatives and research.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~harpham/_borders/george%20bush.jpg

AHAHAHAHAAH...

Now I see... You must be Americans... because I mentioned Oil, you took it personally... AHAHAHAA

It doesn't work. I have good friends there...

:headbang: :D

AHAHAHAHAAH...

Now I see... You must be Americans... because I mentioned Oil, you took it personally... AHAHAHAA

It doesn't work. I have good friends there...

:headbang: :D
We always talk about oil. No one takes it personally.

You missed the point here. You were talking about charging up tractor trailors and industrial equipment with midmills overnight. If you can't get an 800 pound electric passenger car more than 130 miles, how far do you expect to get a 50 ton fully loaded tractor trailer across town?

I'm thinking biodiesel and ethanol will be the major fuels for agricultural machinery; the main reason why is because farmers would prefer to use fuels that are made from their crops and that can be made on site rather that purchased from abroad. Tractors might be hybridized, but will most likely be run on farm-produced biodiesel, perhaps using the new reactors that speed up the process to effectively instant speed.

Most likely, electric vehicles will only be used for personal transportation and light duty, not the backbone of industry. But we have no idea what will happen in the ensuing decades, so it's possible that electric vehicles will branch in to heavy duty.


Then there are those who can't afford to. there are those who have bet their whole life on a house 60 miles from the city center. These people also carry disproportionate political weight. There is also the loss in idustrial output as a result of changing consumption, namely everyone scraping together desperately so they can buy a new car or move to a ne home. There are the people who can't afford to because they were working in a factory that makes door mats and no one is buying them because they need a new car instead. There are those who ARM loans suddenly go through the roof as the rate of default on homes skyrockets... so they default. The economic impacts of this event are hard to overstate. They will be pervassive and will impact people at every level of society.

That's an unfortunate economic reality and there isn't much we can do about it; the main problem of the free market is that people who can afford it or who can skirt the system can get their goods and keep prices high, hurting everyone below them until they are finally priced out of oil and leaving the product solely in the possession of those who can afford the much higher price.

The people who do well will be those that are prepared, but unfortunately too many people will simply be unable to either afford or manage such a transition. Nevertheless, technology will not stagnate or slow and there will be alternatives built...however, it's possible that the price is another Depression or at least stagflation and recessions for the people who can't afford their current lifestyle in a world of expensive oil. The problem is, we simply don't know what will happen.

And we haven't discussed who gets to tell China and India that they get to have what we've got. Think they'll try to take it from us? Do you think all those formerly middle class people in the US might want to take what's left of the oil from them? Who do you think they'll elect?

If we elect someone who tries to steal oil or other fossil fuels from India, China or anywhere else, we will be counterattacked and we will lose. After all, the US doesn't have to survive Peak Oil for the world to keep advancing technologically and growing...and it is us that is most vulnerable to the world of Peak Oil. All superpowers before us failed eventually, so perhaps this is the end of our run as dominant nation. Again, the US doesn't have to survive for the world to survive and grow.

Europe and Japan have well-developed and minimally oil dependent public transportation, strict fuel economy and hybrid standards, advanced technology, public awareness, and extensive consevation. Also, they lead in alternative energy and have the high tech, low resource consumption manufacturing necessary to weather a world of expensive commodities. They are prepared for a Peak and will survive, with the very real possibility that they will become dominant again...something that is likely not true for the US.

Then again, during the Depression or the 1970's the US did not succumb to fascism or even true socialism; it's not likely that we would do so again for the simple fact that US citizens' patience for war and their patriotism is simply not irrational or strong enough to sustain the kind of extremism that flourished in other places during these times.


http://www.utdallas.edu/~harpham/_borders/george%20bush.jpg

Thank God oil didn't peak in November 2000...

We always talk about oil. No one takes it personally.

Hell, these forums start to get boring if there's no energy discussions going on.

well there really hasnt been all the signs yet and the world is gonna end by man not meteors and i will be there when it ends fighting i will die by a bullet before i die by a meteor. and in the bible and yes i know not everyone is christian but it says the kings from the 4 corners of the earth will end the earth and with bush in office osama been hidin out there russian hating usi wouldnt doubt it we make people hate us and we dont care "we" as in the president.

To PsychoticDan and Vestalia:
Interesting debate you're having. You should start a whole new thread about it.
It's a lot more interesting than what this op is.

Well according to Nostradamus,we're all going to die 2 days from now,courtesy of the Anti-Christ.
And to think your all banging on about 2012.

Pffft.
The worlds been meant to end several times,and we're all still here.
I'm not worried.

actually the original number was 616

"Something big" is always happening, when lying hucksters concoct "prophesies" to dupe rubes, they have to be vague.

Is that the mayan theory that is going to be proved?

What is "natural time"?

What does it have to do with the once-every-eleven-year solar pole shift?

The mayans seem to have had a 1/11 chance of getting the trivial and common solar pole shift correct. I wonder what "cosmic" events happened in... say the 1100s. Anyone knowledgeable care to contribute on that?

Well, natural or Mayan time is based on a 13:20 scale, not a 12:60 scale.

13:20 is much better, and used by midwives and in the birth science, if I am correct. It is much in tune with life cicles. I am simply clarifying.

Do you people realise the earth rotates on an axis that goes from the North Pole to the South Pole and that there is a real possibility that messing up with that axis could shake us around?

THE AXIS DOES NOT MOVE AND IS NOT AFFECTED! THERE IS A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND EARTH THAT IS FUELED BY THE CORE WHICH IN TURN IS FUELED BY THE FIELD!

THE FIELD REVERSAL KEEPS THE CORE SPINNING, AND EVEN THOUGH IT WILL EVENTUALLY STOP, IT WILL NOT SLOW DOWN TO A CRITICAL LEVEL BEFORE THE SUN ENGULFS THE EARTH.

WHAT HAPPENS IS SIMPLY THAT COMPASSES WILL POINT SOUTH! THAT IS ALL!

MAYBE WE WILL BE ABLE TO FLOAT, NO CONTROLLED FLOATING, BUT THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE AFTER A GENERATION.

ASSIS, STFU! first of all this sort of shit could happen all the time, second you have it all wrong. You don't know how close we are every single day. God, I am so pissed with you, and I am gradually reading this thread, so it pisses my off by degrees.

Here ya go ;)
http://www.exitmundi.nl/poleshift.htm

Not good: the magnetic field of the Earth is fading -- and fast. It seems to be preparing to flip over. Suddenly, our compasses would point southwards. But will there still be someone around to notice it?

They say it gives you cancer. That it makes the use of electricity impossible, throwing us back into the Middle Ages. It should turn the atmosphere into a deadly brew of toxic gases. That’s how it goes, when suddenly, the Earth’s magnetic field stops -- and flips over.

In case you didn’t know -- the Earth is in fact a giant magnet. Around it, there’s this huge magnetic field, invisible to the eye. It's a force field, really. It protects us against dangerous, incoming radiation from the sun and from deep space. If you’re an incoming space particle, the field will drag you away, and drop you somewhere on the south pole or the north pole. You can see this as it is happening: the rain of space particles is what we call the Aurora Borealis, the northern light.

But every now and then, the magnetic field fades, and flips over. North becomes south, and south becomes north. Such magnetic flip-overs are probably just as common as Ice Ages. On average, they occur once every 250,000. But the last time it happened, it was 780,000 years ago -- so you could say it’s time for the planet to flip again.


The Earth strikes back: the magnetic field pushes radiation from the Sun away

And hold your horses, our world might be doing just that. For at least three centuries, the Earth’s magnetic field has been fading, in an ever faster pace. Right now, it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when scientists started keeping track of it in 1845. Also, there’s the poetically named ‘South Atlantic Anomaly’. That’s a huge chunk of Earth, deep underneath the ocean floor, where the turnover has already begun.

Gladly, the pole shift doesn’t mean the world is about to ‘fall over’ or something, as many people fear. The ice caps won’t suddenly move to Africa. During flip-over, only the magnetic poles change position. You will have to change the name ‘north pole’ into ‘south pole’ and get used to the fact that compass needles point southwards from now on. That’s basically it.

But you wouldn’t be reading this on a site about the end of the world, if there wasn’t some problem, too. When north and south swap, our magnetic space shield will be down for a while. In fact, computer simulations suggest an even more bizarre scenario. For thousands of years, there will be multiple magnetic poles, aimlessly wandering about. There will be a few magnetic north poles lumbering through your backyard, while another magnetic pole -- say, a south pole -- will pass in front of your house.

This will have all kind of bizarre effects. Birds and other migrating animals will lose their way. Ships, airplanes and travelers relying on compasses will get lost, too.

Meanwhile, the night sky is filled with ghostly streaks of colored light -- that Aurora Borealis again, but this time in your backyard. There will be power cuts, as the Earth is hit by solar radiation. Watching TV, listening to the radio or talking over the telephone will become difficult, and sometimes impossible. Communication lines will be downed; satellites will be zapped. There could even be spontaneous outbreaks of fires -- this is what happened during an extreme solar radiation storm in 1859. And back then, the magnetic field was on!

Meanwhile, your body is zapped, too. The invisibly small space particles shoot through your body, ripping through your DNA. This can give you cancer, or horribly mutated offspring. For several thousands of years, it will be like living next to the crashed nuclear plant of Chernobyl. Well, with the exception that in Chernobyl, you could at least use the telephone!

So gradually, humanity will be reduced to a monstrous, sick, cancerous and demented bunch, right? Well -- perhaps not.

Indeed, all unpleasant effects outlined above are real. But science agrees that they won’t be that severe. The magnetic flip won’t wipe out our civilization, as many doom sayers suggest. Fact is, we can do without our magnetic blanket for a while.


The field
Take a look at the cancers. It is estimated that without magnetic field, we would have 15 extra cases of cancer in every 1 million people a year. That is of course awful -- but hardly catastrophic. Each year, more people die of the common flu!

Without magnetic field, Earth is still protected by its thick atmosphere. If you’re that evil particle from outer space again, you will have to zig zag your way through a thick soup of oxygen, nitrogen and other gases first, before you can finally shoot a human being. Chances are that long before, you will have bumped into an atmospheric gas molecule.

In fact, there are two places where the magnetic field is almost zero already: the north and the south pole. There, the field dumps the space particles it has caught -- right on the heads of the Inuit (Eskimos) and polar explorers. But despite all that, the Inuit and the explorers are doing fine. Even their electricity works.

And if that doesn’t calm you down, consider this. You and I won’t live to witness the next swap. It should take at least a few more centuries, before the poles come marching in.

That being said -- one nightmarish fact remains. In the long run, the magnetic field could indeed kill us all. In a few billions of years, chances are the field shuts down for good because the Earth’s core freezes... But that’s another story, coming soon on this site!

http://www.exitmundi.nl

For other crap, I think it deserves its own thread.

Pfft....please....I think these magnetic reversal patterns aren't much to worry about, and what's more, we're going to have even more people going on about the end of the world...but wait!

I though these people had decided the world was going to end on tuesday? hehehe....what a load of balls...:rolleyes:
The sun's reversals are normal. It will happen many times during our lifetimes, but if the earth's poles shift, we will have a problem. It won't destroy humanity, but the people around that time will have shortened life spans due to cancer.

To PsychoticDan and Vestalia:
Interesting debate you're having. You should start a whole new thread about it.
It's a lot more interesting than what this op is.
We always do, but no one posts in them except us and occasionally Tactical Grace so they fall off pretty quick.

We always talk about oil. No one takes it personally.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA :D

Not looking forward to it - I fully expect unshielded electronics will have problems and those satellites we have in the skies now might not be working at all.

Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...
If you believe this sort of thing you might also note that:

* The Myan Calendar comes to an end in 2012

* The Chinese Y Ching will not work beyond 2012

* The "Bible Codes" indicate some major event in 2012

Whether or not I will survive that long to witness it is an issue that is in doubt. Sigh.

Interesting, The Mayan and Aztec calendars ends 2012, December 12th.

NOW that's 12/12/2012 or 12/12/12 (it's 06/06/06 today).
Some say it's the 21st though.

AND

December 21 - Winter solstice will occur at 11:11 universal time.

:confused: