Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Earth's Magnetic Field Drives Climate Change

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Earth's Magnetic Field Drives Climate Change

    Here's a nice plot of strength of the Earth's magnetic field as a function of time and Global temperature. The correlation coefficient is 81% which is quite good. Also, this data shows a very nice "thermal lag" as the mass of the atmosphere slowly warms, as the B-field changes, and the plasma in the upper Earth's atmosphere changes shape and temperature (not a well understood process, as it not well funded research). This is exactly what one would expect.





    "The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been thought to be the main cause of climatic changes at these high altitudes. This study suggests that magnetic field changes that have taken place over the past century are as important."
    https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-...t-climate.html

    Science continues to learn new factors that influence long and short term climate variability. The easy explanation for the B-field effect, is that as the field strength increases, we trap more energetic particles from the Solar Wind. The energy then heats the upper atmosphere. If so, then a magnetic field reversal could lead to some chilly times for a few centuries as all the warming plasma surrounding our planet would disappear and only be replenish over some long period of time, even after the magnetic field returned. Perhaps such an event could lead to the onset of an ice age or at least a serious cooling period.
    Attached Files
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

  • #2
    Well, if you can link this to human activity, it would get all the funding it needed for research. After all, the whole point of Gorebal Warming is for scientists and others to make huge amounts of money off dealing with Anthropogenic climate change (aka Gorebal Warming).

    Anything naturally occurring can be ignored as it won't bring home the bacon.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Well, if you can link this to human activity, it would get all the funding it needed for research. After all, the whole point of Gorebal Warming is for scientists and others to make huge amounts of money off dealing with Anthropogenic climate change (aka Gorebal Warming).

      Anything naturally occurring can be ignored as it won't bring home the bacon.
      You can't link it to anything which is why reality deniers love these sort of findings. Which of course is why they are so alike to some super naturalists. 'Nothing to do with us, its all down to forces/beings beyond our control. We can carry on pigging on the rest of the world without blame'
      Last edited by MarkV; 16 May 18, 12:51.
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MarkV View Post

        You can't link it to anything which is why reality deniers love these sort of findings. Which of course is why they are so alike to some super naturalists. 'Nothing to do with us, its all down to forces/beings beyond our control. We can carry on pigging on the rest of the world without blame'
        Since 99+% of life on this planet needs CO2 and current levels are barely above the optimum needed average of 300ppm, and not all that increase to 400ppm can be explained by human activity, how exactly are we "pigging the world" ???

        The problem with ACC/AGW is it assumes we humans have a beyond real affect on the environment/climate, that the effect has all been negative to date, and that we know enough to geo-engineer corrections. These are all assumptions, with little proof to support and more hubris than science.
        Last edited by G David Bock; 15 Apr 19, 12:54.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Magnetic north just changed. Here's what that means.

          The foundation of many navigation systems, the World Magnetic Model finally got a much-needed update with the end of the U.S. government shutdown.

          Magnetic north has never sat still. In the last hundred years or so, the direction in which our compasses steadfastly point has lumbered ever northward, driven by Earth's churning liquid outer core some 1,800 miles beneath the surface. Yet in recent years, scientists noticed something unusual: Magnetic north's routine plod has shifted into high gear, sending it galloping across the Northern Hemisphere—and no one can entirely explain why.

          The changes have been so large that scientists began working on an emergency update for the World Magnetic Model, the mathematical system that lays the foundations for navigation, from cell phones and ships to commercial airlines. But then the U.S. government shut down, placing the model's official release on hold, as Nature News first reported earlier this year.

          Now, the wait for a new north is over. The World Magnetic Model update was officially released on Monday, and magnetic north can again be precisely located for people around the world.

          ...
          What is magnetic north?

          Magnetic north is one of three “north poles” on our globe. First, there's true north, which is the northern end of the axis on which our planet turns.

          But our planet's protective magnetic bubble, or magnetosphere, isn't perfectly aligned with this spin. Instead, the dynamo of Earth's core creates a magnetic field that is slightly tilted from the planet's rotational axis. The northern end of this planet-size bar magnet is what's known as geomagnetic north—a point sitting off the northwest coast of Greenland that's changed position little over the last century.

          Then there's magnetic north, what your compass locates, which is defined as the point at which magnetic field lines point vertically down. Unlike geomagnetic north, this position is more susceptible to the surges and flows in the swirl of liquid iron in the core. These currents tug on the magnetic field, sending magnetic north hopping across the globe.

          “The north magnetic pole is quite a sensitive place,” says Phil Livermore, a geophysicist at the University of Leeds.

          ...
          https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...vigation-maps/
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            The Weakening Of Earth's Magnetic Field Has Greatly Accelerated

            ....
            Earth’s magnetic field is getting significantly weaker, the magnetic north pole is shifting at an accelerating pace, and scientists readily admit that a sudden pole shift could potentially cause “trillions of dollars” in damage. Today, most of us take the protection provided by Earth’s magnetic field completely for granted. It is essentially a colossal force field which surrounds our planet and makes life possible. And even with such protection, a giant solar storm could still potentially hit our planet and completely fry our power grid. But as our magnetic field continues to get weaker and weaker, even much smaller solar storms will have the potential to be cataclysmic. And once the magnetic field gets weak enough, we will be facing much bigger problems. As you will see below, if enough solar radiation starts reaching our planet none of us will survive.
            ...
            But now we are being told that data collected from the SWARM satellite indicate that the rate of decay is now 5 percent per decade
            It’s well established that in modern times, the axial dipole component of Earth’s main magnetic field is decreasing by approximately 5% per century. Recently, scientists using the SWARM satellite announced that their data indicate a decay rate ten times faster, or 5% per decade.
            In case you didn’t quite get that, 5 percent per decade is 10 times faster than 5 percent per century.
            ...
            https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ly-accelerated
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Since 99+% of life on this planet needs CO2 and current levels are barely above the optimum needed average of 300ppm, and not all that increase to 400ppm can be explained by human activity, how exactly are we "pigging the world"

              The problem with ACC/AGW is it assumes we humans have a beyond real affect on the environment/climate, that the effect has all been negative to date, and that we know enough to geo-engineer corrections. These are all assumptions, with little proof to support and more hubris than science.
              Uhhhhhh- G David, both myself, and posters on the board, with much more scientific knowledge, have repeatedly explained how CO2 traps heat form radiating back into space from earth.

              CO2 also contributes to the acidification of the oceans as the percentage increases in the atmosphere.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                Uhhhhhh- G David, both myself, and posters on the board, with much more scientific knowledge, have repeatedly explained how CO2 traps heat form radiating back into space from earth.

                CO2 also contributes to the acidification of the oceans as the percentage increases in the atmosphere.
                Uhhhhhh - Reg S., I'm flattered you and other posters, have such a gauge on my limited science knowledge.

                However, I think you and they are going down that "consensus" path, which if still valid as an approach to science and knowledge, would have us believing that the Earth is flat, and the Sun, planets and cosmos revolves around Earth(Earth-centric Universe),and many other similar examples. I'm certain your knowledge of chemistry is such that you'll agree that adding ammonia to bleach makes an improved cleaning and sanitizing solution.

                However, it may be possible that you and other posters have overlooked some essential basics of chemistry, physics, and related maths, so for your benefit and that of the others reading here, I submit the following for consideration;



                Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat
                ...
                We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). ...

                The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

                As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

                You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:
                ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                I recall learning this back in high school chemistry, but perhaps the Periodic Table of Elements, and atomic weights have changed since @ 50 years ago ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ...
                There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:
                “As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”


                You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]

                By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:
                “Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]


                So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

                But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.
                ....
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                So CO2 doesn't retain "heat" for long and gets rid of such almost as quickly ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ....
                And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

                So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

                It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).
                ....
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                So CO2 doesn't hold "heat" for very long and sinks to lower atmosphere ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ...
                Now back to some Geology:

                And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

                This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

                It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]

                If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):
                ....
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                In your reply to my post above, you dodged this math related issue. Are you disputing that an optimal minimum for 99+% of life on this planet, the flora/planets should be at least 300ppm ???
                Also, if we look at the current CO2 level of 400ppm, that can also be expressed as 400/1,000,000; which reduces to 1/2,500. So one un-answered question is how can that one part CO2 transfer the heat it retains(briefly) to the other 2,499 molecules of the atmosphere?

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ...
                And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.

                If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2

                Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).
                ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                So, ... no ocean acidification and possibly dangerously low levels of CO2 ...
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ...
                Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.
                ....
                https://principia-scientific.org/cli...p-retain-heat/

                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was referring to my limited scientific knowledge...

                  CO2 is not, I agree, the only driver.

                  I also recall producing the Agriculture Canada research stations temperature figures from 1960 to 2010 in 2012, and having the Doc, and some others, tell me
                  "that evidence doesn't matter"...
                  perhaps the temperature increase over time is just a "Canadian phenomenon."
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    I was referring to my limited scientific knowledge...

                    CO2 is not, I agree, the only driver.

                    I also recall producing the Agriculture Canada research stations temperature figures from 1960 to 2010 in 2012, and having the Doc, and some others, tell me
                    "that evidence doesn't matter"...
                    perhaps the temperature increase over time is just a "Canadian phenomenon."
                    OK

                    But a good chance both of us are as smart or smarter than the many elected reps we vote for, whom then make legislation and oversee the agencies that make regulations, or want to, based upon some of the questionable tenants of ACC/AGW.

                    I'm not sure that CO2 is even a minor driver, given the ratio of 1/2500 it has with the atmosphere, and the many points presented in the article/excerpts of my above post.

                    As for the "Canadian phenomenon."; perhaps the point was if talking about "" "GLOBAL" Warming/Climate Change ""; local temperature figures need to be taken in context of others from around the rest of the planet, during the same time periods.

                    My "dispute" isn't about "climate change", I'll readily acknowledge it is, and has been doing so ever since there was a Climate.

                    What I'm skeptical about is if we have full range and accurate measures of temperature, from enough locations and altitudes around the planet over a meaningful span of time ...
                    AND
                    ... Do we have an accurate gauge on the full range of "drivers", in terms of quality and quantity ???

                    So far I'm not convinced the "evidence" presented shows a positive linkage of CO2, nor an accurate measure of how much recent slight increase is due to human "emissions" and/or(versus) flora biomass decrease.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                      Here's a nice plot of strength of the Earth's magnetic field as a function of time and Global temperature. The correlation coefficient is 81% which is quite good. Also, this data shows a very nice "thermal lag" as the mass of the atmosphere slowly warms, as the B-field changes, and the plasma in the upper Earth's atmosphere changes shape and temperature (not a well understood process, as it not well funded research). This is exactly what one would expect.





                      "The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been thought to be the main cause of climatic changes at these high altitudes. This study suggests that magnetic field changes that have taken place over the past century are as important."
                      https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-...t-climate.html

                      Science continues to learn new factors that influence long and short term climate variability. The easy explanation for the B-field effect, is that as the field strength increases, we trap more energetic particles from the Solar Wind. The energy then heats the upper atmosphere. If so, then a magnetic field reversal could lead to some chilly times for a few centuries as all the warming plasma surrounding our planet would disappear and only be replenish over some long period of time, even after the magnetic field returned. Perhaps such an event could lead to the onset of an ice age or at least a serious cooling period.
                      Good topic , however , your graphs do not print...

                      While Water vapor is the leading greenhouse effect gas: it's presence is a feedback cycle phenomenon :

                      The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in a planet's atmosphere warm its lower atmosphere and surface. On Earth, an atmosphere containing naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases causes air temperature near the surface to be warmer by about 33 °C (59 °F) than it would be in their absence.[66][d] Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water.[67] The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.[68][69

                      Wikipedia.
                      Methane and Carbon dioxide are
                      our best controllable cycle gases. Planting trees is low tech, but highly effective.
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ^ Got a Wiki link for this Wiki excerpt?
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X