So this map of a pole shift looks like a positive to me...
- Thread starter hmt5000
- Start date
It kind of makes sense why a lot of silicon valley is so scared of global warming after looking at this.
We'd lose a lot of good people but cost benefit analysis is looking positive for the future of human kind.
Im not cheering for it but Im just saying that if it happens that it may actually be a long term positive.... Glass half full kinda guy!
Cowboy1stn10
Elite
Did Guam make it? Or did it capsize?
Jtrain80
Legendary
We'd lose a lot of good people but cost benefit analysis is looking positive for the future of human kind.
Im not cheering for it but Im just saying that if it happens that it may actually be a long term positive.... Glass half full kinda guy!
Is that when the polar caps melt?
I hate to be that guy, but water shrinks when it melts.
Shit my place will be beachfront
I was told I had to be joking or sick when I suggested having California nuked was for the betterment of the country...
We'd lose a lot of good people but cost benefit analysis is looking positive for the future of human kind.
Im not cheering for it but Im just saying that if it happens that it may actually be a long term positive.... Glass half full kinda guy!
Concrete Cowboy
Poster
Can't happen soon enough... I will take some of that ocean front property in Arizona... Maybe call it otisburgh.
Its a shifting of Earths axis. Think of the SEC conf being near Argentina. You get a slow flood going North/West but there will be slosh back effect that will ravage South/East facing. Earth rotates at around 1000mph. The Earth will tilt off its axis but the water is going to do the whole... object in motion tends to stay in motion. Ice caps will melt which will increase sea level but the big thing is that the loss of weight on top of that area will cause depression in other areas.
This is supposedly a revamp of a map that the CIA did that showed what a pole shift would do.
Yea. The Miss. River area will be insane fishing. Im guessing that would be brackish water and feed form multiple points.... Damn the luck.
My guess is something like that would take millions of years. Certainly not something I am worried about.
Supposedly the CIA.. Time frame was 15 years to 35 or 35 to 75 or 75 to 200. They looked at pole shifts in the past and just guessed. There really isn't any good science on this because it's so scary.
The pole shifting is known and the fact it is moving towards Russia at a faster rate is known... but we just don't talk about it.
Jtrain80
Legendary
Stay in your lane bro.
Yes magnetic pole shifts have preceded mass extinction events for a couple millions years. Biggest fear anyone who has studied geology has. Not the world tilting over.
Ice melting will shrink. Not expand. Hence glaciers melting melting will not increase sea levels.
Dont get scared over shit you have no understanding of.
Supposedly there are around 40,000 year cycles of this happening and out to 100,000+. But NASA says its in the 200,000+yr range.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
So you are saying that if I take a couple hundred pounds of weight off a water bed that the other area on that bed will not go down when I take that weight off?
Again... this is a declassified CIA doc. It may be bs or could be hidden science. Its just fun to discuss especially when you look at rain forest in Canadas in the past.
Jtrain80
Legendary
No, I am saying that if you freeze your water bed it will take up more space than in liquid form.
Dont take my word for it. Put a sealed bottle of water in the freezer and see if it shrinks or expands and breaks the seal.
If global warming was an issue, banks would not offer 100 yr notes on ocean front property.
There is a difference in magnetic and geographic poles.
Never heard of that. Knew the earth wobbled on its axis, but didn't know it shifted dramatically. 200,000 years is fine, humans will have likely been long extinct before this becomes a problem.
Hahaha, holy shit. Thanks for pointing that out. I did not click the link, and of course assumed we were discussing geographic poles. What a joke.
Is there more ice on land or in water? I think you think most ice is out in the ocean but its pushing down on land at the north and south pole. If we get an axis shift then that melts and those area will rise and the other areas will subside. It has nothing to do with the melt raising the water level. It is the loss of mass over certain areas.
Just to be clear. The magnetic pole shifting will not cause any of those things to happen. It will allow different places to see the northern lights, so that'd be cool...but it will not change the sea levels or anything else mentioned in this thread.
The north pole ice is over the ocean, but that aside, the magnetic poles shifting will not cause the earth to tilt on its axis. 2 unrelated things, unless I am misundersranding you.
They are saying that a magnetic pole shift precedes a geographical shift. It's a given that the equator has moved several times at a minimum. Ocean fossils in Wyoming and ancient rainforest in Canada.... Its not just magnetic pole shift showing those fossil records.
I'd like to hear if there is a causation between the two. I have never heard of that, but perhaps.
I didn't do the study Im just repeating what is supposedly in a CIA study on a pole shift... mush of which has been proven to be sensationalist. But the underlying reasons for those sensationalist results were proof of axis shift and massive flooding from those shifts.
It would explain why there is an ancient map that shows the south pole as an iceless land mass that was completely mapped.
Jtrain80
Legendary
I wont respond any further.
I just find it a good thought experiment. We won't know if its true until it happens. Maybe they can find a smoking gun but I think this will be something that is ignored until/if it happens.
Thanks for the open mind and serious thought then. God speed.
Jtrain80
Legendary
I renege on my previous post.
The Earth is dynamic, not static. Continents shift. Mountains are pushed up due to colliding tectonic plates, then eroded. Seas are formed, then drained.
The "shale revolution" that has revolutionized the oil and gas industry is due to microscopic oceanic organisms that lived and died in modern day TX to ND.
Very interesting subject that people spend their entire lives studying.
I'm really hoping we get a flat earth discussion going out of this.
Had a straight up flatty on the home board before I left and it was nice seeing someone stick to their beliefs without attacking the other side and call names.
That dude took soooooo much grief but always had another video or map to share. Thought provoking stuff IYAM and the Atlantis / mapped Antarctica / middle earth stuff isn't something you really see discussed here a lot.
Had a straight up flatty on the home board before I left and it was nice seeing someone stick to their beliefs without attacking the other side and call names.
That dude took soooooo much grief but always had another video or map to share. Thought provoking stuff IYAM and the Atlantis / mapped Antarctica / middle earth stuff isn't something you really see discussed here a lot.
But would you admit that if millions and billions of tons of ice melted off the earth that that area would rise and other areas would fall? You would admit that the Earth bulges at the equator? Im not saying this is accurate Im just saying that this is something that cia thought was a worst case scenario of an axis shift. You would agree that geographical north has not always been geographical north correct?
Jtrain80
Legendary
No. Ice is less dense than "earth".
What is "geographical north"?
I'm about half drunk and dont have all the answers you are seeking.
We live in an information age where it is all available at the touch of a button. Below is a link that talks about a sea through middle America.
Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia
Another one about pole reversal.
Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia
Im definitely not a flat earther and think that is really easily debunked on several levels... ie... I've flown on a plane. lol
My interest is based on the wobble of a spinning top. That makes sense to me. If you aren't spinning perfectly then you get those wild wobbles. I could see a sequence of events where the Earth shifts leaving the Philippines as the North Pole.
Yep. Less dense doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. There are massive ice sheets on solid land. That area is going to be depressed from the force of gravity pulling down on more mass. You are thinking of this as sea ice and climate change... this has nothing to do with either. When the ice sheet receded in North America the last ice age we know that certain areas saw inflation. This is known science and not a theory.No. Ice is less dense than "earth".
What is "geographical north"?
I'm about half drunk and dont have all the answers you are seeking.
We live in an information age where it is all available at the touch of a button. Below is a link that talks about a sea through middle America.
Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Another one about pole reversal.
Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia
I'm not a flatty either but there is so much to flat earth theories that tie into this current discussion and so much more.
For example flat earthers generally don't think the earth is perfectly flat but more of a disk or shield shape. Seeing a curve to the earth via a plane wouldn't disprove this theory at all and unless one had actually flown various paths around the earth, within visual range of the surface, you wouldn't be able to disprove it personally assuming tech helps cover up this dynamic with the help of governments (a generally accepted flat theory).
Jtrain80
Legendary
Rising elevations arent caused from melting ice, but from colliding land masses. I.E. Tectonic plates.
Looks to me compasses getting more accurate is a good thing. Little jog right and we got it.Supposedly the CIA.. Time frame was 15 years to 35 or 35 to 75 or 75 to 200. They looked at pole shifts in the past and just guessed. There really isn't any good science on this because it's so scary.
The pole shifting is known and the fact it is moving towards Russia at a faster rate is known... but we just don't talk about it.
Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how some areas currently thousands of feet above sea level are overcapped while other areas mere hundreds of feet above remain 'dry'?
We'd lose a lot of good people but cost benefit analysis is looking positive for the future of human kind.
Im not cheering for it but Im just saying that if it happens that it may actually be a long term positive.... Glass half full kinda guy!
So you don't agree that when the ice sheets receded from North America that the land rose? Because I've watched several ice age docs that all say that areas around the Canadian and US border actually rose due to the weight being taken off it. Miles thick ice sheets pushing down on the land on top of a magma core... Its not a solid ball man.
I think you think Im trying to make a point Im not making. If you push down on something you will get a rise somewhere else... this is fucking Newton stuff man. equal and opposite reaction. Fill a water balloon and push on a point and see if you don't get other areas to move. Put super glue on some areas to hold those spots in place and see what happens after.
No, no one can explain that, because it is bullshit.
That is my biggest problem with this. Areas that are higher are suddenly underwater.... Im guessing they are thinking tectonic shift but I didn't ever see a reason mentioned. I know the New Madrid fault basically follows the Ohio River depression in the map so thats just a guess.
Similar threads
