I explained that the poles of the Earth move. On the Sun, they flip every 11 years and that is part of the Sunspot phenomenon. The poles are by mo means constant. They migrate routinely. However, about the time that Global Warming appears to have peaked, the poles also shifted direction in 2000. The North Pole mysteriously changed direction and began moving eastwards of the Greenwich meridian but at a shocking near twice its previous speed.

For most of the 1900s, the physical North Pole was moving westwards around 10 cm each year towards Canada’s Hudson Bay. Then all of a sudden, in 2000, it changed direction moving 75 degrees eastwards and began moving east at a rate of around 17 cm annually. Nobody has ever witnessed such a change. This is completely unprecedented!

The North Pole was previously in Hudson Bay about 54,000 until 48,000 years ago at 60 N and 83 W. Perhaps it is like lightening and just never strikes twice in the same spot. Now it is instead moving toward the British Isles according to NASA. Magnetic poles are defined in different ways but are commonly understood as positions on the Earth’s surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be opposite of each other. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole’s location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.

This rapid movement is striking. But the directional change is even more alarming for Europe. The summer in Europe barely saw many real scorching hot days but the winters are getting colder. In 2012, even the waterways in Venice were icing over. Germany relies upon its canal system to move goods and agriculture. In 2012, the canals froze. The canals in the Netherlands were not freezing during the winter during the global warming period. That changed in 2009. Hamburg was frozen to the bone in 2010.

Europe is rapidly turning colder much faster than expected. The real deep freeze for Europe came about 300 years ago and is known as the Deep Freeze of 1709. In the first few months of 1709 remained in a deep freeze for months. People were ice-skating on the canals of Venice. People could cross the Baltic Sea on horseback because it was completely frozen! You could not ring a church bell because it would shatter it was that cold. The length of the deep freeze has always been a mystery.

However, go to a museum that shows the changes in clothing. This illustration may be funny, to a large extent, it is true. Things were a lot colder 300 years ago and we are headed back in that direction.

The Southern region like Australia will see it get warmer in summer as Europe gets cooler in the winter. Things are changing much more rapidly ever since the North Pole reversed and changed direction moving at 55 km per year back in 2000.

COMMENT: Your stance on the global climate is absolutely correct. Global temperatures remain in a serious downtrend since the Minoan peak. As the Greenland ice cores show, today’s climate is COLDER than 90% of the past 10,000 years! The warming zealots are screaming about CO2, which has risen sharply in the last 150 years (well above the long-term trend of the last several million years). But the temperatures are near the bottom of the range of the last 10,000 years! The assumption has been that CO2 causes warming, but if that were true, the data would back it up, and it does not at all. From the Vostok ice core, we know that we remain (very fortunately) in an inter-glacial period, which began about 11,000 years ago, and that the previous inter-glacial ended about 100,000 years ago (that inter-glacial was much warmer than our’s – remains of hippopotamus from that time period have been found in Britain!). We are likely much closer to the end of the current inter-glacial than to it’s beginning, and when it finally runs out of steam the climate in which we have lived will not be seen again for about 100,000 years (and sea level will be 300 feet lower).

JD

REPLY: Generally, most people do not even know that the North Pole moves. If you have ever studied geology, rocks are magnetized to where the North Pole lies when they are formed. We know for a fact that the North Pole has shifted several times in the last 120,000 years. We know that 120,000 years ago the North Pole was in the territory of Yukon in Canada at 63 N and 135 W; then it went to the Greenland Sea at 72 N and 10 E about 84,000 years ago, moved from 54,000 until 48,000 years ago and settle in the middle of Hudson Bay at 60 N and 83 W; it rested there for 30,000 years, then wandered once again from about 18,000 to about 12,000 years ago when it came to its present location. However, there are actually four poles, which most people are never taught in school.

Keep in mind that about 100,000 years ago, homo sapiens arrived in the Middle East and about 50,000 years ago, they arrived in central Asia. Human progress has been to a large extent made possible by the inter-glacial period. Evidence from geomagnetism and continental drift, have failed to explain the ice ages and climatic changes such like the sudden melting of the ice sheets or the violent and rapid extinctions.

Recently F. Barbierio (1999) addressed the pole shift hypothesis by arguing that the Earth’s poles could be rapidly shifted due to the impact of objects from space as small as about a third of a mile diameter asteroid. Former NASA engineer Maurice Chatelain (1988) argued that during the Hudson Bay period (48,000 to 18,000 years ago) the equator was in fact 30 degrees further south in South America. It most likely passed through central Chile and Argentina. Antarctica was most likely free of all ice.

We tend to assume that the way the world is today means it always was that way. Human recorded history is only about 6,000 years. Humanity is nothing within the scale of things regarding geology. So we do not comprehend how fast the Earth can change and we seem to be so arrogant to think we possess even the power to alter the climate if we choose to. The powers that be have been distorting pollution with climate change misleading people for political gain. I lived in London back in 1985. The stench from buses burning diesel fuel was terrible. It would make your eyes water at times. That’s been cleaned up. We all want clean air and water. But do not distort that into climate change when we better be concerned about everything turning much colder. When it turns colder, migration is unleashed and starvation thins the herd. Civilization declines. Right now it is moving toward London and Europe is turning very cold.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

Back in 1971, the theory that burning fossil fuels would create an ice age, not global warming. The Washington Post reported on July 9, 1971, that Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University said that the fine dust from fossil fuel use would block out so much sunlight that the Earth’s “average temperature could drop by six degrees.” Rasool went on to argue that “such a temperature increase could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

Scientists with time figured out that this would not happen on any permanent basis. After all, when a volcano erupts, it hurls up ash which does block the sun. The major event of Mount Tambora  eruption  in 1816 threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. This account from history tells the story that 1816 was a year when the sunlight could not penetrate the natural pollution from Tambora. As a result of a volcanic eruption at Mount Tambora in Indonesia, weather patterns were disrupted worldwide for months, allowing for excessive rain, frost, and snowfall through much of the Northeastern U.S. and Europe in the summer of 1816. The global cooling altered the natural weather and it resulted in a serious food shortage that set off a mass migration from New England to the Midwest within the USA as people were trying to find the sun like me moving to Florida.

The theory that burning fossil fuels would also throw up pollutants from burning coal and other fuels thereby reflecting solar energy back into space, was not plausible since it would settle down just as it does in a volcano. Then on May 18, 1980 ,when Mount St Helens erupted triggering the largest avalanche in history, it released destructive magma and suffocating ashes, proving itself that it is a volcano is more devastating that burning fossil fuels. Mount St Helens is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and it is now respected that should there be a plate shift, the volcano eruptions could be devastating beyond the local region.

On that fateful day in 1980, approximately 80,000-feet of ash plume ascended to the sky. Simultaneously, very hot pyroclastic flows wiped out every living thing on its path at 50 to 80 miles per hour. More than 7,000 animals died and 57 humans. For the next nine hours, it seemed houses and buildings to bridges and highways, were burned and buried in deep lava mixed with snow. Then came the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo which produced about “5 cubic kilometers of dacitic magma and may be the second largest volcanic eruption of the century. Eruption columns reached 40 kilometers in altitude” creating a giant umbrella cloud. What was more shocking, the pollution it produced took only 3 weeks to engulf the world and indeed produced cooling – not warming.

Scientists were worried that such man-made aerosols would block out so much sunlight that global temperatures would drop — just like how volcanoes can cause some atmospheric cooling. This theory all proved to be false. Where volcanos produce mostly SO2, they needed a new villain and that became CO2. But CO2 was something every grade school child learns about. Indeed, the very first time we learn about carbon dioxide was in grade school. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact. So how did they manage to take CO2, which is vital to the system, and turn this into the villain?

When the global warming crowd has been pointing at reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, what they are really talking about behind the curtain is reducing population since we are a major exported of CO2. They are not telling everyone their real goal so they do not want to talk about how they are not taking into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect. Through the process of photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to humans. Plants also perform some form of respiration, since they too need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis. The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues composing roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. This enters our food chain as they are eaten by animals, including us, which are eaten by yet other animals, including us. Therefore, as humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

The natural way to offset CO2 would be to grow more trees and plants. They way global warming has become a religion, one would think the goal would be to eliminate all CO2. To accomplish that, we need to start thinning the herd. So the fear of global cooling was converted to global warming and the environmental agenda behind the curtain is to eliminate someone’s grandchild.