Still confused about climate change...

Post Reply New Topic

Everything credible I've ever read about Global Warming is that the warming will be very minimal at the equator and most pronounced near the poles.



The movement of the magnetic pole has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming. It is thought to be due to very deep currents in the magma, not as an artifact of continental drift.

It is possible that the magnetic poles may be getting ready to "flip", a process that could take a thousand years or more. Naturally, manhy of those who are easily panicked are not happy with that prospect.

The core is heated by nuclear fission. As the heat slowly makes its way to the surface, it does cause geothermal heat. It is true that there are some places in the Antarctic where the crust is thin that there is some melting at the bottom of glaciers due to geothermal heat.



We've been in an ice age for nearly 2.6 million years. An interglacial warm period is a warm period during the ice age, not a period between ice ages. Our current interglacial warm period might last for another few thousand years or it may already be ending. If the ice age should end soon, this would be an extremely short ice age.

What you seem to be calling an ice age is not an ice age, but a period of glaciation within an ice age. That is a very common error.

Also known as the Quaternary glaciation. The ice age might never end as the core of the Earth is cooling, leaving us doomed to a frozen fate. 2015 looks set to become the coldest year on record. Equator is currently freezing over:

The cooling of the core is very, very slow. The crust is currently between something like 20 and 30 miles thick depending on location. That's after about 4 billion years of cooling or a rate of about 5 to 7 miles per billion years. It's hard to see why the effect on the surface would be much different in the next billion years than in the last billion years.

More importantly is that the friction from the tides is slowing the rotation of the Earth. A billion or so years from now, the rotation of the Earth is expected to approach the time it takes the moon to orbit the Earth. When we have nights and days that are approximately fifteen times today, the nights are going to be very, very cold and the days are going to be very, very hot.

So by the time that the core of the Earth cools down enough to permit the surface to go into a permanent ice age, the Earth is going to be rather uninhabitable anyway.

The world continues to get warmer. There has been no pause.
http://www.livescience.com/50189-warmes ... -2015.html
“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1”
FROM
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Of course you will say that NASA (along with ALL scientific organizations in the world) is part of the conspiracy. Or you will doctor their graphs like you did previously.

Once again, your photos of snow prove nothing. The world in its entirety keeps getting warmer. Your argument is like saying , since July 4 was very cold summer is a myth.
See my last post, first link. Tho parts may have been unusually cool for limited periods of time, the earth as a whole is still breaking warming records.

Hahahaha.

The warmest year by 0.03 C.

As one climate researcher pointed out elsewhere, that is by a number so much smaller than the margin of error in measuring an average temperature of the Earth that it is meaningless.

Are you falsely accusing me of "doctoring graphs"?

Let's put it this way. Who are you accusing of "doctoring graphs"?

He's not talking to you, he's talking to Humanaut (whose position is that the world was warming until 1998 and is now cooling, on the grounds that he can draw a trendline from an El Nino summer to a La Nina winter).

As for the global warming pause, it is hokum.

Some links you might find useful, all accessible to the non-scientist:
Blind statistical analysis confirms there is no slowdown: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/200 ... 33941.html
No pause in the GISS data: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ing-pause/
And this recent piece explains the statistics well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... nt-page-4/

Regardless of what very clearly biased sources such as the Huffington Post says, there has indeed been a pause in the rate of Global Warming. The scientists admit that there is a pause. The IPCC admits that there is a pause. The only ones who don't say there is no pause are the true believers who seem to want nothing more than to create panic.

If there is no pause, then why would the IPCC feel the need to explain the pause?

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10337858/IPCC-report-the-temperature-pause-explained.html:

Notice that the scientists are not denying the pause -- they are trying to find reasons for the pause and think that when it ends, warming will continue as before.

It is interesting to see how the true believers ignore the IPCC whenever the IPCC becomes the least bit inconvenient to them.

Only a True Believer would exclude Magnetic Fields as effecting climate.

The Magnetic field is not caused by Atomic Decay in the Earth.

Heat is a disrupter of magnetic fields.

The Earth has a strong magnetic field, it reaches into space, and interacts with Solar Energy.

Cut a line of magnetic flux, with a conductor, it generates a current.

We are the Rotor in the Solar Field Coil.

Induction heating is real, used in steel mills.

Atomic decay came from the atomic era, along with atomic ice cream, and tooth brushes. Buck Rogers stuff always had atomic added.

The Moon and Mars do not have magnetic fields, and are cold rocks. If atomic, they should have gotten their share.

Solar storms have caused sparks to fly from telegraphs, and even burned down a few offices. Magnetic fields do have heat potential. The same storm today would most likely take out most of our electronics.

While the light output of the Sun is fairly constant, the magnetic field can vary greatly.

What I am looking for is things that can change, that by doing so can produce heat, that can account for the changes during the last hundred thousand years of the ice age. A three mile thick cap of ice has come and gone three times, so what force could melt nine miles of ice in such a short time?

It was not hairless ground apes. It was not the constant decay rate of atomics. it was not Mammoth Farts.

Some have proposed we passed through dust clouds, dimmed sunlight, but that would not melt three miles of ice when it ended. Being very cold is the natural state of the planet.

What force could cause the rapid melting of three miles of ice?

If sunlight varied that much, a doubling of light, this planet would burst into flames. Imagine a double sun, we would be toast.

We know the Earth has reversed magnetic polarity many times, and they question has been over what time? The rocks do not show a transitional period, over thousands of years, it just flips.

The magnetic field seems connected to the solid core, and to the Sun's magnetic field. If the Sun's polarity changed ours would follow.

Hairless ground apes blocking the return path of The Carbon Cycle is too recent to count. They also litter and smell bad. That does not melt ice.

Atomic Decay is a constant. Normal is bone chilling cold. There is only Heat, and something has been producing great amounts of it on a regular cycle, over hundreds of thousands of years.

The Sun's magnetic field, our part in induction heating, seems the only force which has been around, and has the power.

It is indirectly the result of fission. It is caused by the convection currents of molten metal within the core. That is possible primarily because of nuclear fission within the core as well as by residual heat left over from the formation of the Earth.

Heat is a disrupter of magnetic fields.[/quote]

Huh? Maybe in the sense that if you heat a magnet sufficiently, but that is not the case with the Earth.



If you were to wrap a coil of wire around the Earth and keep it fixed as the Earth rotated beneath it, then you could certainly produce electricity.



Yes. The Earth is not a steel mill.

You do realize, don't you, that to use inductive heating, the material being heated must be electrically conductive.



Atomic ice cream?



The moon and Mars both have traces of magnetic fields.



To the limited extent that there is a natural state over the last billion years, it is much warmer than today.



Precisely what electrically conductive material does it seem to be heating?

Money Is the reason some people are denying it I think. If the acknowledge that the earth is being damaged then for example: we can't drill for oil anymore and people get filthy rich from oil. Even if we have the ability to use renewable energy it is not being used as much as it could be because of the amount of money in fossil fuels.

For a variety of reasons, using oil, gas, and coal for power is currently less expensive, in general, than other sources of power. Over time, that will change.

Geothermal would be nice, but it is only available in some places. Also, electrical generation from dams.

Wind and solar vary quite a bit. If we were to go with wind and solar on a large scale, I think that out electrical systems would need to be engineered to tolerate low power and power outages. In our modern electrical system, power companies must be ready to respond very quickly to differences in demand for power.

Nuclear fission works, but the construction of the plants are very expensive. What happens when we need to scrap them after their useful life ends is also problematic.

And nuclear fusion isn't here yet.