Why is the climate changing. (Page 193)

kittybobo34: In this time of food shortages, it would be an opportune moment to discuss removing corn as the ethanol source for gas. There are many other sources much more efficient for the job, and corn could go back to being a food source.

Fractured fairy tale: It was a Mistake Doing That in The First Place It Makes every one Use More Energy
yeah there better thingys they could Use But The WE's are Not Suggesting any of it

Look at the People who Make Make Up The UN Climate Thingy the WE's , There All Bankers or Ex Bankers , Why Is That Like That Mark Karney , They Sit there So unaware of Them Selves and Start off by Bragging of The Party they had Last Night

There Done Heaps in The Last Decades too Reduce Pollution ,
But not any of them WE's There The Biggest Consumers

GeraldtheGnome: There are some grammatical errors on this forum.

There are places where it is hotter than usual, once again there are some places that a colder than usual, others that are different in another way than that and some areas where there has been no change whatsoever in quite a long while. I remember saying to my Mum, even though now it's back to what it usually is, that I don't want it to be this cold any more unless it snows. Technically it hasn't snowed in Brisbane and the only time that it 'did' technically (even though it evaporated before it fell on the ground) was in the early twentieth century. It certainly was colder than usual. Because of the conditions that were around shortly before now there is food problems due to unusual cold weather and rain in some areas that usually only have a hot wet season in summer. The cold problem was in almost all of the country, summer was more like a standard winter here most of the time, except with rain that continued on even into quite a fair bit of winter. I'd go out of my way to see snow, it's very rare, something that is unusual even in the most southern parts of my state. Temperatures have risen in some places and have also lowered in some places. So the 'they have' only applies to certain places. The false claim that there is global warming around at present is like a religion, like a very extreme one and it indeed is like a doomsday cult with the myth that it's not only here right now, it's also according to the far left caused by Humans. So a myth within a myth.

Once again an American is anyone from The America's, not just from one country which is not even named America anyway.

The greenhouse gas bit again, it's such an annoying term, yes there was gas around and there was a greenhouse effect long ago. Now the mythology that there is gas that is making a greenhouse effect happen right now, well it's not bloody so. Pollution is the problem and anything to counter mythical problems is a waste of time. There are more than Bugs that make up the entire Insect population, it is true that some think that everyone should turn to eating them as an alternative to other forms of meat. No one can get milk from a Cockroach.


It is a kind of religion and it is a doomsday cult.

To Kitty. There is no we, the indoctrinated far left has the collective 'we', there is nothing to turn around and there literally are no available tools, especially not to an imaginary problem. Do not use a comma before the word and at all. So you are into the myth I see. Carbon Tax was in Australia for a bit, either before it was brought about against that of the general public the one who brought it about lied about it before she brought it in.

Ironically she was in Brisbane at the time and I think she even went to The Ekka, it is Ekka time now. The Royal Brisbane Show that is. The interview is with her at the Kangaroo Point Cliffs (which I myself have abseiled down) here in Brisbane, Queensland Australia.





As you can tell with the video the Carbon Tax was met with a 'warm' welcome in Australia. I better not use the word warm, even that might be considering to be Human made warming by me according to the Tree Huggers and their mates. The Carbon Tax didn't help anyone but the scum politicians who wanted it, it never brought the temperature down in the country, it never brought it down in my State and it never brought it down in Brisbane or even within my suburb that is in it. If a carbon tax was on everyone in the world it would not bring down the worldwide temperatures, it would only make scum politicians rich. I hate all politicians, but that is another story. Things are dear enough right now without that crap anywhere in the world. The problem is not 'Carbon', without Carbon there will be no life whatsoever. Is that really what the silly zero carbon target is really about ? The Planet is not one with the imaginary carbon problem.

The tired and repeated far left statement about evil capitalist, many of those who make money from the far left myth are many capitalist, even Greta bloody Thunberg doesn't go around from country for free. She should be at home ? No, she should be locked up in a mental asylum or at least treated for her paranoia and other mental problems. You are paranoid about this subject, the doomsday cult should not include you as one of its members. No carbon tax for anyone, it does not really bring about the pressure where it is needed, which by the way is in regards to real problems, not the imaginary problems.

Food shortages are for different reasons in different parts of the world, including here. There is no need to remove corn for ethanol here at least though I wish there was just a cheaper and better fuel source that hopefully the government won't tax the hell out of to make them rich. Ethanol is literally not as gas in cars at least here, I filled my car up with E10 last night, it came out as a liquid, not as a gas.

ghostgeek: Did somebody once say that the science of climate change was all sewn up? Well, maybe so, but there's still things about the earth that can surprise:

Climate change is likely the cause of a recent shift in the Earth's axis of rotation, a new study suggests.

Melting glaciers around the world – a result of rising atmospheric temperatures from the burning of fossil fuels – redistributed enough water to cause the location of the North and South Poles to move eastward since the mid-1990s.

The locations of the poles aren't fixed and unchanging. The way that water moves around the planet's surface is one factor that causes the two poles to drift, the study said.

Each year, as the globe warms, hundreds of billions of tons of ice melt into the Earth's oceans.

“The faster ice melting under global warming was the most likely cause of the directional change of the polar drift in the 1990s,” study co-author Shanshan Deng of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research at the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a statement.

More Earth science: Scientists say Earth is spinning faster than it has in decades

Since 1980, each pole has moved roughly 13 feet.

In addition to melting glaciers, the pumping of groundwater has contributed to the shift in Earth's axis, the study said.

[ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/26/earth-axis-shift-climate-change-has-shifted-axis-of-rotation/7383383002/ ]

ghostgeek: At first, it seems like a case of extinction by climate change: More than 160 million years ago, during the Jurassic period, a fanciful menagerie crept, swam, and flew through the cool, damp forests of what is now northeastern China. Then, almost in a geologic instant, the air grew warmer and the land dried out. As the water disappeared, so too did the life. And yet, researchers have struggled to pin down a climate-related culprit behind this ecological collapse.

Now, a study published in the journal Geology suggests that it wasn’t the climate that changed, but the geographic location of the landscape. Paleomagnetic signatures in the area’s rocks indicate that sometime between 174 and 157 million years ago, the whole region shifted southward by a startling 25 degrees, plunging once lush landscapes into zones of desiccating heat.

The ancient rocky lurch was part of a phenomenon known as true polar wander, in which the topmost layers of the planet, likely all the way down to the liquid outer core, rotate significantly even as Earth continues its daily turn around its usual spin axis.

In the Jurassic, the surface and mantle made this twist around an imaginary line through the crook in Africa’s west coast known as the Bight of Benin. The change would have been massive: If a similar shift were to happen today, a flag planted in Dallas, Texas, would end up where Northern Manitoba, Canada, currently sits. On the other side of the world, the continent of Asia would soar southward.

[ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earths-odd-rotation-may-solve-ancient-climate-mystery ]

ghostgeek: Earth has likely experienced smaller amounts of true polar wander throughout its past, and some scientists think it continues today.

“We’re experiencing true polar wander as we speak,” says Dennis Kent, a paleomagnetist at both Rutgers and Columbia University who wasn’t part of the new study team.

To be clear, these more recent forays are not the source of modern-day climate change, which is driven by humans’ relentless release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. In addition, the magnitude of this Jurassic shift—and whether true polar wander is even a real phenomenon—remain under debate.

“It’s a reasonable area of discussion,” says Christopher Scotese, director of the PALEOMAP Project. “But it’s more controversial than people give it credit for.”

Studying Earth’s past and present geologic wanderings may not only help resolve the controversy, but also improve our understanding of the planet’s complex machinations.

“It’s so important that there’s still fundamental science being done,” says Lydian Boschman, a geologist at Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich who was not a study team member. “If we don’t understand the foundations, then there’s nothing we can do on top of that.”

[ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earths-odd-rotation-may-solve-ancient-climate-mystery ]

ghostgeek: ... many questions linger. For one, it’s unclear precisely what drives such a large shift, an event that must involve some significant redistribution of our planet’s mass. Perhaps the birth of subduction zones—regions where one tectonic plate drives under another—drives the wander, Boschman says. Or, it could be due to slabs that have already subducted breaking apart, which would then send pieces of crust sinking through the mantle, upsetting the planetary balance, Kent adds. For now, unraveling the many geological unknowns is all part of the intrigue.

[ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earths-odd-rotation-may-solve-ancient-climate-mystery ]

ghostgeek: You'll notice from the above that according to the experts polar wander cannot be connected with climate change, even though large shifts in ice sheets would certainly redistribute the planet's mass. Why are they so certain, I wonder, when so many questions linger?

ghostgeek: Earth experienced a dangerous tilt in axis about 84 million years ago, scientists have found. It's well-established by now that Earth will continue to tilt on its axis from time to time. The last time a tilt of 12 degrees was recorded was about 84 million years ago when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, scientists claim.

A similar tilt is currently underway on Earth, caused as a direct consequence of climate change, a study from April found. Now, there is evidence of Earth's axis movement in the past. ...

Essentially, scientists claim that whenever the Earth tilts, it also snaps back into its old position quickly, something the researchers called a "cosmic yo-yo"! ...

With these findings, it is no longer true that the Earth's spin axis has remained stable over the last 100 million years. The research adds that Earth has been doing this back and forth dance since the Late Cretaceous period, cancelling out the possibility of a stable axis.

[ https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/science-and-future/earth-axis-tilt-84-million-years-ago-552180.html ]

kittybobo34: I was under the impression that the polar tilt was a constant oscilation that takes about 26 thousand years to complete. That plus the mildly eccentric orbit gives us the Ice ages, and short warm periods, The name of that is called the Milankovitch Theory. Some people get the magnetic pole shift confused with that, but that is based on what the core of the planet is doing.

Fractured fairy tale: It's only a Theory is not fact like all the others
Look at the Investigations going on in Canada don't take my word for it
The people making decisions about travel Vaccine passports who had too be vaccinated None of them had any medical background just Sighting 'the models'
According too the study's
But they were all exempt from the rules they forced on everyone else
Even the police enforcing the trucker protests Didn't have too be vaccinated
But the Truckers were being forced out of business
It's the Definition of Communism
Men who Produce Nothing forcing rules on those who do

Fractured fairy tale: When I went into third class too the big School They changed the whole School Corruclum
The first thingy they said was forget everything you were taught before were gonna start again

I thought Really forgot everything why was it wrong What about everyone else who have already finished school

GeraldtheGnome: Mistakes were made on here. Any type of climate change is climate change, not just any past global warming or imagined to be around right now global warming. Not all glaciers are receding and I wish the crap about fossil fuels was not repeatedly referred to, especially not along with the mythology about it. There is no need for those hyphens. Studies literally can't say anything, they can show things though. The globe is not warming, when ice melts it forms elsewhere too. They have said, they aren't saying it at present, even though they think about it and will say all of that crap again. There is no need for the word and at the front of a sentence. Desiccating ? Why did that word oddly get used ? It's geological, not goelogic, Machinations ? It was and odd word to use. German that I couldn't understand, damn it. Heaps of full stops for no reason where used.

ghostgeek: Using satellite data on how water moves around Earth, NASA scientists have solved two mysteries about wobbles in the planet's rotation — one new and one more than a century old. The research may help improve our knowledge of past and future climate.

Although a desktop globe always spins smoothly around the axis running through its north and south poles, a real planet wobbles. Earth’s spin axis drifts slowly around the poles; the farthest away it has wobbled since observations began is 37 feet (12 meters). These wobbles don’t affect our daily life, but they must be taken into account to get accurate results from GPS, Earth-observing satellites and observatories on the ground.

In a paper published today in Science Advances, Surendra Adhikari and Erik Ivins of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, researched how the movement of water around the world contributes to Earth's rotational wobbles. Earlier studies have pinpointed many connections between processes on Earth's surface or interior and our planet's wandering ways. For example, Earth's mantle is still readjusting to the loss of ice on North America after the last ice age, and the reduced mass beneath that continent pulls the spin axis toward Canada at the rate of a few inches each year. But some motions are still puzzling.

[ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/ ]

ghostgeek: Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," said Adhikari. "That's a massive swing." Adhikari and Ivins set out to explain this unexpected change.

Scientists have suggested that the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica's rapidly melting ice sheet could be causing the eastward shift of the spin axis. The JPL scientists assessed this idea using observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which provide a monthly record of changes in mass around Earth. Those changes are largely caused by movements of water through everyday processes such as accumulating snowpack and groundwater depletion. They calculated how much mass was involved in water cycling between Earth's land areas and its oceans from 2003 to 2015, and the extent to which the mass losses and gains pulled and pushed on the spin axis.

Adhikari and Ivins' calculations showed that the changes in Greenland alone do not generate the gigantic amount of energy needed to pull the spin axis as far as it has shifted. In the Southern Hemisphere, ice mass loss from West Antarctica is pulling, and ice mass gain in East Antarctica is pushing Earth's spin axis in the same direction that Greenland is pulling it from the north, but the combined effect is still not enough to explain the speedup and new direction. Something east of Greenland has to be exerting an additional pull.

The researchers found the answer in Eurasia. "The bulk of the answer is a deficit of water in Eurasia: the Indian subcontinent and the Caspian Sea area," Adhikari said.

The finding was a surprise. This region has lost water mass due to depletion of aquifers and drought, but the loss is nowhere near as great as the change in the ice sheets.

So why did the smaller loss have such a strong effect? The researchers say it's because the spin axis is very sensitive to changes occurring around 45 degrees latitude, both north and south. "This is well explained in the theory of rotating objects," Adhikari explained. "That's why changes in the Indian subcontinent, for example, are so important."

[ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/ ]

ghostgeek: In the process of solving this recent mystery, the researchers unexpectedly came up with a promising new solution to a very old problem, as well. One particular wobble in Earth's rotation has perplexed scientists since observations began in 1899. Every six to 14 years, the spin axis wobbles about 20 to 60 inches (0.5 to 1.5 meters) either east or west of its general direction of drift. "Despite tremendous theoretical and modeling efforts, no plausible mechanism has been put forward that could explain this enigmatic oscillation," Adhikari said.

Lining up a graph of the east-west wobble during the period when GRACE data were available against a graph of changes in continental water storage for the same period, the JPL scientists spotted a startling similarity between the two. Changes in polar ice appeared to have no relationship to the wobble — only changes in water on land. Dry years in Eurasia, for example, corresponded to eastward swings, while wet years corresponded to westward swings.

When the researchers input the GRACE observations on changes in land water mass from April 2002 to March 2015 into classic physics equations that predict pole positions, they found that the results matched the observed east-west wobble very closely. "This is much more than a simple correlation," coauthor Ivins said. "We have isolated the cause."

The discovery raises the possibility that the 115-year record of east-west wobbles in Earth's spin axis may, in fact, be a remarkably good record of changes in land water storage. "That could tell us something about past climate — whether the intensity of drought or wetness has amplified over time, and in which locations," said Adhikari.

[ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/ ]

ghostgeek: Then again, glaciers may have something to do with it:

The Earth’s spin axis is the figurative line about which the Earth rotates. The poles, north and south, are situated at either end of the spin axis. By contrast, the magnetic poles — the ones you can find using a compass — are usually offset from the geographic poles, and their location shifts with the magnetic field.

“The Earth rotates around its axis somewhat like a spinning top,” explained Suxia Liu in an interview with GlacierHub. “If the weight from one area is moved to another area, the spinning top will start to lean, causing the rotation axis to change.” Liu co-led the paper with colleague Shanshan Deng at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Bernhard Steinberger, a researcher at the GFZ German Research Centers for Geosciences who did not work on this paper, explained how glaciers influence mass distribution. “The Earth always orients itself relative to the pole in a way to move masses as far as possible away from the pole,” he wrote in an interview with GlacierHub. “As an example, if there is a glacier growing on Greenland, the Earth’s orientation will change in such a way that Greenland is further away from the pole. If a glacier melts on Greenland, it would change in the opposite direction.”

Prior to human-caused forces, the primary drivers of polar drift were ocean currents and the movements of the molten rock deep below the Earth’s surface. The research team reanalyzed existing data to determine what role terrestrial water storage — how water is dispersed above Earth’s surface and in oceans and groundwater — played in the shift. They determined that the key driver of the directional change was glacier melt, and the change in mass distribution that arose from it.

Most of the world’s glaciers are above ground, and when these glaciers melt, the water that they contain moves into bodies of water. “Shifting water storage away from above-ground glaciers in one area on the Earth’s surface to another results in the polar shift due to the weight change,” said Liu.

[ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/05/19/melting-glaciers-shifted-earths-axis/ ]

kittybobo34: This is old news to geologists.

ghostgeek: OK, so what happens, according to geologists, when you get miles of ice piling up at the poles? Does the earth suddenly tip? And if it does tip, does it change earth's climate?

ghostgeek: You may have heard of Earth's tectonic plates, you know, the pieces of mantle and crust that slide around, breaking continents and kind of - and smooshing them together. But did you know that Earth's entire solid exterior can move, too?

OK, imagine this. Imagine the globe, and now take the surface of the planet and rotate it in your mind so that Boston is at the equator. Whoa. Some scientists think that a shift of this actually happened about 800 million years ago.

[ https://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/164797147/scientists-solve-mystery-of-earths-shifting-poles ]

ghostgeek: LICHTMAN: Let's talk about the terminology first. We're not talking about the magnetic poles, right?

MALOOF: Right. The magnetic pole is not moving, here. The magnetic pole stays aligned with the spin axis, and they should be unchanging as viewed from space.

LICHTMAN: OK. So what are we talking about?

MALOOF: We're talking about the rest of the Earth: the crust, the rest of the lithosphere and the entire mantle sliding over the outer core. So the way you imagine this is the core of the Earth, the outer part, is actually fluid iron, and it has about the viscosity of water. So we're literally sliding, you know, 2,700 kilometers of mantle over this so that, as perceived from space, what you'd see is the spin axis is staying the same, but all the continents are moving together to a new location.

LICHTMAN: Is this happening now?

MALOOF: This is happening now, in fact. It's happening at about 10 centimeters per year, which is slightly faster than that tectonic mashing of plates that you describe, maybe a little faster than your fingernail grows.

LICHTMAN: That's a good way to put it. So you've got this sliding going on, and then on top of that, different sliding of the tectonic plates.

MALOOF: Yup, exactly.

LICHTMAN: OK. OK. And what's driving the movement?

MALOOF: Well, the movement that's happening today - and actually any kind of true polar wander, or this motion of whole, solid Earth - is driven by redistributions of mass. So the way to think about it is you have a rotating body, and any rotating body will want to adjust to maintain equilibrium, so that any excess mass is located in the equator, and any mass deficiencies are aligned with the spin axis.

So, for example, today, as glaciers melt and atmosphere moves, some places get extra mass. Some places get less, and the Earth will always be adjusting so that any mass excesses get pushed towards the equator.

LICHTMAN: We've got a bulge in our belly region of the Earth.

MALOOF: Yeah. So that bulge, that's there just because the Earth rotates. The fact that Earth deforms and rotates means that - it raises a bulge called the equatorial bulge about 20 kilometers in amplitude. It's actually quite large.

LICHTMAN: And, I mean, this is partly what keeps us stable, too, right?

MALOOF: Exactly. It's the main stabilizing effect, certainly on short timescales. It's also what sticks out into the solar system and is torqued by other planets, like the moon and stuff, and cause the Earth to wobble.

LICHTMAN: Why doesn't that - why does that move the whole surface of the planet?

MALOOF: Well, what you should imagine is this, is that on long timescales, that bulge will actually deform, OK. We can actually observe this deformation because, for example, as the glaciers melt, the solid Earth rebounds beneath them. And we can measure how fast the Earth is rising, and that's the same kind of deformation.

So when true polar wander occurs, this wholesale motion of all the continents, what literally has to happen is you have to push the full thickness of mantle through a standing wave, through this 20-kilometer bulge. So the time it takes to push yourself through this big wave is about how fast you can move all the continents around.

LICHTMAN: I feel like - let me just make sure I understand. What's causing the Earth's surface to move in one direction and not the other?

MALOOF: Really just where you end up with mass excesses and deficiencies.

LICHTMAN: OK.

MALOOF: So, for example, on a large scale today, let's say you were to remove a ton of mass in the form of ice and place it into the oceans as water.

LICHTMAN: OK.

MALOOF: And generally, you're moving masses away from poles and towards the equator, then the Earth rebounds. So the Earth starts to move back towards the poles to replace that excess mass. This is a kind of mass redistribution.

Now, what's important 800 million years ago, and what was described in this recent paper by J.C. Creveling, et al, is that there, we're talking about much, much larger masses. We're talking probably about things moving around in the mantle, such as subducting plates of oceanic lithosphere or rising plumes. And these very, very large-scale changes in the distribution of mass would be driving these much larger-scale true polar wander events.

[ https://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/164797147/scientists-solve-mystery-of-earths-shifting-poles ]

ghostgeek: And before the break, you were telling us that - about this huge, colossal slip and slide that happened 800 million years ago.

MALOOF: That's right. About 800 million years ago, we were actually looking at sedimentary rocks in Svalbard and Australia, two - today - opposite sides of the Earth, where we saw evidence that Earth seemed to have a shift in the poles relative to the continents on the order of 40 to 50 degrees.

And what was particularly bizarre about this shift is that it was a there-and-back-again motion. It seemed to rotate one way, and then rotate back.

LICHTMAN: And where did it rotate? Give us a sense. I mean, I know that the continents didn't look like they do now. But where would we be?

MALOOF: Yeah, well, if you were to imagine - so today, Earth's shape is not quite right to undergo this kind of true polar wander. But for the sake of a thought experiment, if it were, what you could imagine is if you were far away from the true polar wander axis, you'd essentially change 50 degrees in latitude. So, like, you open the show, you'd say Boston would end up on the equator.

If, on the other hand, you were very close to the true polar wander axis - in other words, the axis around which all this rotation is going on - you'd end up just spinning around. So if that was - if, for example, you were in, say, the - I don't know, somewhere in the tropics, say, the Bahamas, and this happened, you would literally - your shoreline would just rotate around 50 degrees. You might be facing north instead of east.

LICHTMAN: How fast did this happen?

MALOOF: Well, our time constraints are not very good, but based on what we can say, we're guessing somewhere between 10 and 20 million years.

LICHTMAN: How much is that a day?

MALOOF: Yeah. Per day, on the order of, say, 50 centimeters. So, for a geologist, this is extremely fast, believe it or not. Right?

MALOOF: And, you know, when we talk about plate tectonics, we talk about the fastest plates moving on the order of five centimeters today. So it's almost an order of magnitude faster, which is a big deal for geologists.

[ https://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/164797147/scientists-solve-mystery-of-earths-shifting-poles ]

ghostgeek: ALLISON: Hi. I just wondered: Do the poles' movement - excuse me. Do the poles' movement around - on the Earth, do they affect climate? And is this anything like climate change, what we're experiencing today? Is there any reason for that?

MALOOF: Excellent question. So first, let me just get it straight, that remember, this process is slow. So it - pole shifting would definitely have an impact on climate in two ways, which I'll explain in a second. But today, their impact is so slow on a human timescale, it would be imperceptible. But if you turn on your geologist eyes and imagine a timescale of millions of years, it has two very important effects on climate.

Regionally, as you might imagine, if you moved Boston to the equator, Boston would become warmer. So you'd have a local climatic change. But in some ways, more importantly, pole shifting can actually cause global climate change. And here's just one example of how it does so.

By redistributing the continents on the surface of the Earth, you change the global albedo - in other words you change how reflective the Earth is, because you change the percent of continental land masses in different equatorial zones. For example, the more equatorial continents you have, the more reflective the Earth is and the cooler it will get.

Likewise, you redirect ocean currents and completely change the way the ocean circulates and where is warm and where is cold. So pole shifting definitely has impacts both on local and global climate. It's just that the timescale is much beyond the human timescale.

[ https://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/164797147/scientists-solve-mystery-of-earths-shifting-poles ]

ghostgeek: In previous studies of more than two hundred archaeological sites, it was discovered that the alignments of almost half of the sites could not be explained, and about 80% of the unexplained sites appear to reference four locations within 30° of the North Pole. Based on their correlation with Hapgood’s estimated positions of the North Pole over the past 100,000 years, we proposed that, by association, sites aligned to these locations could be tens to hundreds of thousands of years old. That such an extraordinary claim rests on Hapgood’s unproven theory of earth crustal displacement/pole shifts is problematic, even given the extraordinary number of aligned sites (more than several hundred) that have been discovered thus far. Using a numerical model we test his hypothesis that mass imbalances in the crust due to a buildup of polar ice are sufficient to displace the crust to the extent required in his theory. We discover in the process that the crust is not currently in equilibrium with the whole earth in terms of its moments of inertia. Based on a review of the literature that reveals a possible connection between the timing of short-term reversals of the geomagnetic field (geomagnetic excursions), super-volcanic eruptions, and glacial events, we hypothesize that crustal displacements might be triggered by geomagnetic excursions that “unlock” the crust from the mantle to the extent that available forces, specifically earth–moon–sun tidal forces, the same forces that move earth’s oceans, can displace the crust over the mantle. It is demonstrated how such a model, when combined with existing climate change theory, may be able to explain periodic changes in sea level associated with the buildup and melting of polar ice over past glacial cycles by a combination of Milanković cycles and Hapgood pole shifts.

[ https://web.p.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=08923310&AN=157333293&h=31psq06%2b9%2fw4xwJ13mnn%2b0%2bZ%2fLDeEUbXsyh2%2f1%2bG6tex6oCVCYqQROL8SVJQPEaaEXwleZZ1ptNIFwravhEIaA%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d08923310%26AN%3d157333293 ]

zeffur: This is pretty good info: