Climate Change & Magnetism.

wulos · 18-12-2009, 09:24 PM

With all the 'mumbo jumbo' surrounding the climate change debate, it is difficult to understand why there hasn't been discussion as to 'alternative theories, rather then simply pushing the CO2 argument.
Whilst there has been ongoing argument about comparing increases? in CO2, with temperature rises - even going as far as levying carbon taxes, little discussion has been forward coming about the contribution of changes in the Earths magnetic fields.
One study out there, contends that variations in the earths magnetic field effects climate.
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
puts forward that a reduction in the earths magnetic fields, weakens the 'shielding' effect, allowing more solar radiation through
Another recently released study investigates the connection between shifts in the Earths magnetic poles, & temperature variations. Is climate change, & the fact that the shift in the magnetic poles has increased from 9km / year in the 70s, to over 40km / per year a coincidence?
Magnetic pole shift & climate change
Discussion on the correlation between changes in magnetic fields and temperature change. Tis interesting to note that the graphs comparing mag fields, and temp variations appear to be a lot closer, then similar ones comparing increases in CO2, and temp increases.
http://pool.org.au/image/peter_raven..._is_the_driver

http://sd-1.archive-host.com/membres...courtillot.pdf

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarmin...neticField.htm

I don't think that anyone out there is arguing about whether climate change is happening or not - the real question that needs solving is WHY?

Iggypoppin' · 18-12-2009, 10:23 PM

I am very uneducated on climate change but it is good to have an alternative to look into, thank you wulos.

MO · 18-12-2009, 10:24 PM

Exactly,Wulos 'why'?. Perhaps the magnetic field theory doesn't stir enough reaction because it can't be blamed on us whereas the CO2 theory can be.
Or so they are trying to convince us that it is our fault thereby raising the guilt factor and lessening the reaction against us being hit in the hip pocket.
To pay for the gov't to clean up the mess we made?

wulos · 18-12-2009, 10:28 PM

I dont want to turn this thread into yet another carbon trading scheme bashing exercise. moot point as I am sure Im not the only one out there that views the ETS as the biggest farce since the Y2K bug.
Considering the mess that the countries infrastructure is in, I suspect that the ETS is intended as a 'cash' grab exercise. To go there would be to take the thread further off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

MO · 18-12-2009, 10:48 PM

No intent to steer thread just trying to give one possible answer to your question,as it is a very valid one.

wulos · 18-12-2009, 10:55 PM

Tis all good Mo - just wanting to see some new discussion.

**cs123** · 18-12-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

moot point as I am sure Im not the only one out there that views the ETS as the biggest farce since the Y2K bug.

Interesting point there. Y2K was very real, however there was also a lot of hysteria surrounding it and allowed some opportunists to make serious money.

Perhaps a parallel with ETS, who knows......

As for the magnetic theory. I don't know. These things tend to be a little to complex for the lay person to understand.

Wally · 19-12-2009, 09:20 AM

The National Geographic ran an article a few years ago about the magnetic poles reversing in the near distant future. Their assessment was there would be very little effect on much at all, unless you were navigating by compass. I can't remember the month/year of the issue, but it might be in their site archives.

wulos · 19-12-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Interesting point there. Y2K was very real, however there was also a lot of hysteria surrounding it and allowed some opportunists to make serious money.

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

Maggot · 19-12-2009, 10:30 AM

Magnetic field on Earth has been shifting and reversing ever since it existed.. so this is probably just alarmist.

MO · 19-12-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

Well I know nothing happened to my pc nor my then employers Oz wide system.

Wally · 19-12-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

Trust when I say many automation systems controlling plant and equipment would have been problematic. That's not to say many wouldn't have, but money was still collected from the Govt to upgrade firmware versions just in case. I was cynical myself until I changed forward the clocks on a few systems to 1 minute before midnight and observed the transition.

onfire · 19-12-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggot

Magnetic field on Earth has been shifting and reversing ever since it existed.. so this is probably just alarmist.

Yeah, but someone in Government would argue that because of how excessive use of magnets in the west, we're destroying the world.

Now we'll be taxed on the basis of how many fridge magnets we have. The " Excessive Magnetism Tax " it's got a ring to it.

:

**cs123** · 19-12-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

I worked in IT during the Y2K era. Let me assure you there was plenty of problems associated with the century rollover. There was a massive amount of work done by lots of companies to test and fix code to ensure nothing happened. A lot of work was done on systems running arcane environments that were never suppose to be running in 2000.

Most of the hysteria was whipped up by business men trying to cash in on Y2K and they did a good job of it. Y2K toasters come to mind, I did actually see an add for one.

1970XW351 · 19-12-2009, 02:13 PM

There was an article I read in Nexus magazine 6 or more years ago on a pole shift being on it's way... Seems they have occured at reasonably regular intervals throughout the earth's lifespan and the fluctuations within the magnetic field seemed to indicate it would be on it's way sooner rather than later. The last one was in conjunction with the last big ice age and there was conjecture on whether or not the next one will herald such a massive change. It's just a natural occurance and there's nothing to do but wait and see...

**SSD-85** · 19-12-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

My old 386 was still running hehe.

As for magnetic shift. Not as big a deal as Solar radiation (ie: a solar flare) completely stripping it apart. It would return in that event eventually. Unless of course the planetary dynamo shut down like on Mars. It has been well documented that sea level temp. averages have been much higher than they are today. Mans' CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to what the planet can churn out on it's own. This "climate change" is normal for Earth, just easier to blame ourselves, and it makes money that way. Sounds much more like what Man does IMO as opposed to "saving" anything.

jamesson1980 · 19-12-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

The theory behind Y2K may have been sound, but I would be VERY interested to know how many actual instances of failure (whether catastrophic, or simple inconvenience) were caused by it.

My local Caltex service station's dockets consistently showed my fuel purchase date as January 17, 1909 for the first 4 months of year 2000.. until the shop was facelifted and had new computer consoles installed that year..

As for the magnetic theory, I'm a novice about it all.. My question is not so much about the climatic impact of it, that's far too advanced for me to enter into, I'm more interested in the Actual physical gravity/orbit changes if the poles moved tomorrow. For instance to be south pole in Southern Africa and north pole in China (cos we all know as children, China is directly beneath every place on Earth when digging a hole in the back yard, hell, even those in China dig to China at some stage), would the earth then rotate on that new axis? If not then disregard the rest of the post.. is so then read on..

The Earth should still carry on it's usual orbit around America.. sorry, the Sun, so the mind boggles to work out who will get day and night at what times, for how long and at what times of years will the seasons occur.. If it was almost true East and West Poles will the new 'polar zones' be in full summer sun for 4 straight months? And total darkness for the rest.

Sorry to stray off topic but I do get interested in marginally irrelevant theories like that.

jamesson1980 · 19-12-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty85

Mans' CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to what the planet can churn out on it's own. This "climate change" is normal for Earth, just easier to blame ourselves, and it makes money that way.

..and this is exactly my stance on climate change, you'll see it in any of the 400 LOCKED climate change/political threads

rodderz · 19-12-2009, 03:05 PM

There was also something mentioned in an article I read a few days back, about the sun spot activity being a reason for temperature variation as well. Basically if there are more flare ups and hot spots on the sun this can cause more heat to be thrown out.

Who knows, the earth's orbit for all we know could be slowly getting closer to the sun as well, raising temps constantly

gocruzin · 19-12-2009, 08:15 PM

One thing that always makes me think, is when the news broadcasters say this is the hottest day since january 1870 or so, and I always wonder what was around back then to cause the high tempature? Cow farts, wood fired ovens,
There was no industry back then and nowhere near the amount of people we have today so why was it so hot.
Yet they always seem to atribute our high temp to global warming, kinda makes you wonder eh?

SilentDave · 19-12-2009, 11:42 PM

i know this may bit off on a different tangent to magnatism but i was listening to a couple of well respected astronomers the other day and they both mentioned that they have noticed that other planets have either heated up by a few degrees or cooled down by as much aswell. To my knowledge NASA are driving solar powered remote control buggies around Mars but nowhere else so maybe this whole thing is just Mother Nature playing around.

Ohio XB · 20-12-2009, 07:05 AM

Maybe all the refrigerator magnets are throwing off the Earth's magnetic field? Hhhhmmm.... Besides the magnetic seal around the door most every house has magnets from various businesses holding up some pieces of paper on the fridge, or are there just for reference. Finally, all these millions of magnets are affecting the Earth.....

Steve

wulos · 20-12-2009, 09:13 AM

lol @ fridge magnets....
On a more serious note - you can't have AC electicity without magnetism. Could the increased usage of electricity be a contributor??
No idea? Tooo little knowledge on the subject, too many unknowns = good excuse to hit people in the back pocket.

Bossxr8 · 20-12-2009, 12:17 PM

I'm pretty sure someone tried to bring this up in Copenhagon and was rejected as not having a clue because everyone knows we humans are making the climate change.

:

I think I read that on the first day, that someone said we should be investigating alterate theories.

onfire · 20-12-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'm pretty sure someone tried to bring this up in Copenhagon and was rejected as not having a clue because everyone knows we humans are making the climate change.

:

I think I read that on the first day, that someone said we should be investigating alterate theories.

Shows the sheer ignorance and narrow mindedness of those running this summit.

This wasn't a summit to discuss all extremes, and theories on climate change, this was a summit to make sure every nation that matters is on the same ignorant page.

rodderz · 20-12-2009, 02:09 PM

There is a video on youtube of a press conference with a leading scientist, who got asked by one reporter about the leaked Anglia university emails and how they have tarnished their reputation and story. He got warned about it, and when he kept going got kicked out of there by UN officials. So much for free speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

xtremerus · 20-12-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onfire

Shows the sheer ignorance and narrow mindedness of those running this summit.

This wasn't a summit to discuss all extremes, and theories on climate change, this was a summit to make sure every nation that matters is on the same ignorant page.

Spot on!!!!

**cs123** · 20-12-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onfire

Shows the sheer ignorance and narrow mindedness of those running this summit.

This wasn't a summit to discuss all extremes, and theories on climate change, this was a summit to make sure every nation that matters is on the same ignorant page.

No, it wasn't a summit to discuss theories. Amongst scientists there is a overwhelming belief that green house gasses are a problem. This was a summit to reach agreement on how to reduce it.

It wasn't very successful.

bluestreak · 21-12-2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

No, it wasn't a summit to discuss theories. Amongst an exclusive group of climate scientists there is a overwhelming belief that green house gasses are a problem. This was a summit to reach agreement on how to reduce it.

It wasn't very successful.

I do agree with the above post that the Copenhagen meeting wasn't very successful, but that sentence was wrong so I fixed it for you. As most should be aware from the recent Climategate scandal, even Climate scientists, including Tim Flannery, have complained that there is no actual evidence of dangerous Climate Change - man made or otherwise - to back up their computer modelling.

That's right - no evidence. The alarmist predictions that have been getting all the press are based solely on computer models. This has also been covered in other CC threads.

As for the magnetism, my understanding of it is that the true poles always stay where they always were, only the magnetic poles move as they have since the dawn of time (presumably). The effect of this is only detectable if you are using a compass (navigating), otherwise, nil net change.

Cheers

:

onfire · 21-12-2009, 02:07 PM

I see Kevin has bought in " Little Gracie " .. a young girl, he's sworn he'll protect from climate change.. ahh, putting a face on ' future generations ' PR at it's finest or most cunning.