My own input on why we are experiencing climate change/global warming

[Narmer]

A lot of scientists are blaming the change on man. However, isn't it possible that this change could be natural? One little discussed topic is the Earth's magnetic field. It is getting weaker. That means that it is about to "flip" from South-North polarity to North-South polarity. Records show that we are long overdue for a flip. Well, when the Earth's magnetic field flips, it does so fast, almost instataneously. However, this is relative to the 200k year period this happens. In other words, the flip may occur over 200-300 years. When the field is flipping, it gets weaker. When it gets weaker, there is less protection from the Sun's cosmic rays, particularily at the poles. Once the flip occurs, we are at full protection again. Today, scientists believe that the earth's magnetic field is getting weak.

Are there any models that make the earth's magnetic field a significant variable?

 

[shiner]

Flip

 

[NeoV]

wow, why didn't someone else think of this - amazing that the issue was solved here on AT

Narmer - the sad thing is that some people can't even admit the changes are taking place at all

 

[Fear No Evil]

Al Gore said the debate is over. Why are we still discussing this?!

 

[Danube]

Sounds better than blaming camp fires, algae gas, cow farts and all the other rubbish I see "scientists" making claims over.

 

[monovillage]

It's just so much easier (profitable) to blame humans for the increase of CO2 then either blaming the sun or a changing magnetic field. It's too hard to tax the sun or the magnetic field, but trillions can be made off cap and trade and carbon taxes. Follow the money. Here's an interesting article on the Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Variety of articles with a search of magnetic field at wuwt.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=magnetic+field

 

[Throckmorton]

It's not because of the sun. The sun hasn't gotten brighter over the last hundred years. It's not the earth's magnetic field, because the changes we've seen don't explain the current warming.

You're basically saying "what about these other possible causes", when there is one thing that absolutely unequivocally causes more heat retention-- a 40% increase in CO2.

 

[jhbball]

It's not because of the sun. The sun hasn't gotten brighter over the last hundred years. It's not the earth's magnetic field, because the changes we've seen don't explain the current warming.

You're basically saying "what about these other possible causes", when there is one thing that absolutely unequivocally causes more heat retention-- a 40% increase in CO2.

Sensible responses have no place in P&N. Please leave.

 

[Ronstang]

The government can't regulate, tax, and profit from a natural occurrence so you are not going to hear any Democrat ever say anything other than man is causing changes in the climate. The truth does not matter in cases such as this.

 

[Throckmorton]

The government can't regulate, tax, and profit from a natural occurrence so you are not going to hear any Democrat ever say anything other than man is causing changes in the climate. The truth does not matter in cases such as this.

Oh, so we've burned a bunch of fossil fuel and increased CO2, yet that increase isn't from burning fossil fuel? WTF?

 

[Narmer]

It's not because of the sun. The sun hasn't gotten brighter over the last hundred years. It's not the earth's magnetic field, because the changes we've seen don't explain the current warming.

You're basically saying "what about these other possible causes", when there is one thing that absolutely unequivocally causes more heat retention-- a 40% increase in CO2.

I said nothing about the sun getting brighter. I said we have less protection from the sun.

 

[Matthiasa]

It's not because of the sun. The sun hasn't gotten brighter over the last hundred years. It's not the earth's magnetic field, because the changes we've seen don't explain the current warming.

You're basically saying "what about these other possible causes", when there is one thing that absolutely unequivocally causes more heat retention-- a 40% increase in CO2.

How are you going to explain the other planets though?

 

[irishScott]

We're all fucked, badgers will inherit the Earth.

/world

 

[monovillage]

Here's a site Narmer that might have some information you're interested in.
"Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity"

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/

 

[Matthiasa]

That equation fits the data horribly.

In fact it fits so bad that I could probably fit an equation better.

 

[Throckmorton]

How are you going to explain the other planets though?

The other planets are warming/cooling because of their own orbital cycles and the 11 year solar cycle.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is the man caused mining of iron ore that is weakening the earth's magnetic field and causing global warming. And for the 1% of you with the brains to question how the weakening field could affect temperature that's easy. The more cosmic rays that get through the more CO2 fixing plankton die in the sea reducing the oceans ability to absorb carbon our of the atmosphere.

 

[Paul98]

This is not the forum to get the answer your looking for. You might want to search for a science forum and ask your question there. As people who work in the field can actually answer your question. Plus explain any more questions you have about it, instead of just hearing political talking points as you mostly get on P&N.

I know that I have found some of them very helpful on questions I have had about all sorts of different areas.

 

[soccerballtux]

we aren't now stfu

 

[Matthiasa]

The other planets are warming/cooling because of their own orbital cycles and the 11 year solar cycle.

Exactly, and that also applies to this planet as well, the models that model other planets climates the best also model ours the best but those are also not the ones being used.

It is the man caused mining of iron ore that is weakening the earth's magnetic field and causing global warming. And for the 1% of you with the brains to question how the weakening field could affect temperature that's easy. The more cosmic rays that get through the more CO2 fixing plankton die in the sea reducing the oceans ability to absorb carbon our of the atmosphere.

Um, the earths magnetic field originates in the core of the planet not its ultra thin skin.

 

[shiner]

We're all fucked, badgers will inherit the Earth.

/world

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin badgers!

 

[Throckmorton]

Exactly, and that also applies to this planet as well, the models that model other planets climates the best also model ours the best but those are also not the ones being used.



Um, the earths magnetic field originates in the core of the planet not its ultra thin skin.

No... The Milankovitch Cycle and solar cycle don't explain the past 100 years of warming. That's exactly the point....

 

[Lemon law]

The assumption that our suns output is a constant is clearly wrong, as the three or so years of minimum sunspots has already showed.

Yet in the larger thread, our OP seems to go GaGa over adding one more variable, namely the possibility of a global magnetic field shift as a explanation for global warming.
But sadly, that does not come close to rising to scientific theory, and it barely amounts to a mere hypothesis.

1. Even if magnetic field flips occur on average, every 200,000 years, man kind at best has decent measuring instrument based magnetic records stretching back only a few hundred years. Therefore, we have no idea what causes such magnetic field shifts and even if the magnetic field is now weakening, we have no idea if it will later strengthen, or enter a flip condition.

2. To even amount to a hypothesis, our OP has to demonstrate past climate change is related to those flips. Our records of the recent past are fairly reliable that such comparisons are easily researched.

3. Its clear, as we better research climate change theory, that there is a tremendous amount we don't understand. Even if we understand how some variables work, we don't understand how they interact together as we find more and more variables every year.

4. I do not see this as a productive thread, all our OP has done is introduced more FUD to mix in without going through the bother of supporting his hypothesis in any way. Its clear that events unprecedented in the last million years are happening in just a hundred years. Sadly, we cannot prove its man made, and we have to deal with that probability, or risk playing Russian Roulette with our climate.

 

[monovillage]

If climate change was an actual Theory, climate scientists would be able to make accurate predictions about future climate and have those predictions proved. So far none of their predictions have been accurate and every one of their GCMs (global climate models) have been wildly inaccurate. All 6 of the GCMs in IPCC AR4 have failed. Climate change as it relates to AGW is still a mere hypothesis. As climate scientist Kevin Trenberth a lead author of IPCC AR4 stated in one of the climategate e-mails ""The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." "

 

[Matthiasa]

No... The Milankovitch Cycle and solar cycle don't explain the past 100 years of warming. That's exactly the point....

We are still colder then during part of the middle ages.

Also not to worried about a not even 1 degree change.

I could pull out more graphs but thats no fun.

Besides that we've been in basically the most stable climate in the past few hundred thousand years minimum.