Can we control the temperature of Earth?

Bjarne

Philosopher
Bjarne
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
5,087
We know from temperature measurement in the pacific, that there hasn’t been any global temperature increase since 1995.

We also know that the Suns activity have been very weak the last 2 years.

Source to both these claims are here:

This winter is cold, so fare I understand everywhere on Earth.
It’s really long ago since we had had such cold winter.

Is there really a connection between the solar activity and global temperatures?

Could the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark be right ?

(If so, - sunspots and temperature coincidence, - will sooner or later proves it.)

http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg
We also know that global temperature is connected /coincidence with the strength of the Earths magnetic field.
How this may be possible red this
(It is necessary to read this article to understand the point that follows.)

This autumn the world’s leaders were assembled in Copenhagen to discuss global climate change.
We have all hear how terrible it is when land is swallowed by the Oceans.

But forgotten in that debate is what is going on the Sun right now.
The Sun has not in the past 450 years been so quite.
More and more scientist now believes that a “small ice age” like the one in 1650 just now have started.

http://www.science27.com/images/Solpletter_kurve.jpg
Sunspots

http://www.science27.com/images/400.000 T.gif
The interglacial period that now has lasted in 15.000 years “should” seen from a static perspective right now be finish.
Hence the question is off course; Is the "small ice age" that now maybe is going to start only “ a small one", - or is it a BIG one ?
We simply don't know.

Imaging it is a "BIG" ice age that now have started, - what will happen with people living in Canada, Scandinavia and Northern Russia, ?
Where will these people live in year 2100?

What will the cost be for the destructive effect a next ice age will cause?

What makes us believe a new BIG ice age not should turn back soon - or maybe right now?

http://www.sciencenewsden.com/images/nrthrnhemisphere.jpg
It's could be real, it could be now .



Is there ANYTHING we can do to prevent a huge part of the globe (sooner or later) to be uninhabitable because of increasing amount of ice ?

Immediately, it seems impossible to prevent that to happen.
But wait a minute?
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg
Look at the image again.
What if we could control the magnetic field (the red curve) of the Earth?

If it is true that the strength of the magnetic field of the Earth is very important for the global temperature, we must be able to control the magnetic field of the Earth, to any cost, - if this is possible.

But this mean we do not need to produce the magnetic field of the Earth, but only to prevent the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) to move away from the areas we already have good reason to believe have good magnetic conductivity.

http://www.science27.com/Earth/g.jpg

Therefore the question is:
Can we prevent the MNP to move to areas with bad magnetic conductivity...?

The way this maybe could be possible is to be to build a huge electro magnetic circuit in the Northern Greenland and hence se if this would affect the ever moving / dislocating Magnetic field of the Earth. I don’t know if there would be any effect, - I think it would, - but such experiment is according to my opinion necessary soon.

If we are able to determinate the direction of the ever moving MNP, there is hope that we can manipulate the field into a direction we want, - preventing the magnetic field from dislocating into an unwanted direction and hence getting weaker.

Notice we do not need to produce a similar magnetic field, or replace it, but only to keep MNP where we want, or to force it to move in a certain direction.

Well, - a such experiment would cost a lot, but what would be the cost if people no more can live in the northern countries, after let say 100 years. ? Sooner or later a new ice age must come.

I believe we seriously should prepare us self for a possible destructive ice age, that statistic can come sooner as we normally think.
This scenario is according to my opinion a bigger threat rather as possible global heating.
If we can control the moving MNP I am sure we can prevent an ice age, or at least minimize its effect.

Edited by Locknar: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed; please do not hotlink to copyrighted material.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad question. We cannot exercise fine control over the earths climate, this doesn’t mean we can’t do things that influence the earths climate in potentially major ways. The rest of your post is largely based on internet woo rather then real science.


Your claim that there has been no warming since 1996 is simply false. In fact if you draw the trend line from 1960 to the present, 2009 was exactly on that line. 2009 is in fact tied for the second warmest year on record.

The first thing you need to understand about solar variation is that it’s really small. From the height of the Medieval warm period to the depths of the little ice age solar intensity may have dropped a few tenths of a percent. Over that same 300 year period global temperatures seem to have dropped anywhere from 0.3 deg C to 0.7 deg C. In comparison we have measured 0.7 deg C worth of warming in the last 50 years and a full deg C in the last 100.

Even if you assume strong positive feedback, and the associated high climate sensitivity (which would increase the warming expected from CO2) a 0.1% increase in solar output would take decades to influence the amount of energy in the oceans to measurably change global temperature. In fact, however direct measurement shows the suns intensity has been decreasing since the 1970’s , just as the earth has been warming most rapidly.
 
The rest of your post is largely based on internet woo rather then real science.
Click to expand...
So are the climate debate
http://www.science27.com/forum/skrig.jpg

Your claim that there has been no warming since 1996 is simply false.
Click to expand...
According to Henrik Svensmark it’s a fact.
I do not believe he is a liar.
You can see it in the video (link) above but only Danish.
It’s well known.

The first thing you need to understand about solar variation is that it’s really small. From the height of the Medieval warm period to the depths of the little ice age solar intensity may have dropped a few tenths of a percent. Over that same 300 year period global temperatures seem to have dropped anywhere from 0.3 deg C to 0.7 deg C. In comparison we have measured 0.7 deg C worth of warming in the last 50 years and a full deg C in the last 100.
Click to expand...
The amount of clouds is certainly important.
We have more to learn.
We must know why there is coincidence between the Earth's magnetic field and temperature.

Edited by Locknar: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed; please do not hotlink to copyrighted material
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bjarne said:
According to Henrik Svensmark it’s a fact.
I do not believe he is a liar.
You can see it in the video (link) above but only Danish.
It’s well known.
Click to expand...


If it was well known, wouldn't you be able to find some sort of evidence other than a link to a Danish video?

And honestly, all of that makes me think of this:
 
Last edited:
If it was well known, wouldn't you be able to find some sort of evidence other than a link to a Danish video?
Click to expand...

It must be possible to find many palces at the internet, just try to ask a question in some of all the climate discussion talking place. - Its a fact. – There is nice coincidence between temperature and sunspots, no doubt.
 
Bjarne said:
It must be possible to find many palces at the internet, just try to ask a question in some of all the climate discussion talking place. - Its a fact. – There is nice coincidence between temperature and sunspots, no doubt.
Click to expand...

It's certainly an interesting fact...
His conclusions have been controversial as the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change considers solar activity unlikely to be a major contributor to recent warming, though it is thought to be the primary driver of many earlier changes in climate.wk
Click to expand...
At least in that it doesn't appear to be considered a fact about the current cycle.
 
Why bother with the magnetic field?
Would it not be more effective to change the Earth rotation speed.
 
Bjarne said:
We know from temperature measurement in the pacific, that there hasn’t been any global temperature increase since 1995.
Click to expand...

Surely, measurements in the pacific will tell us about the temperature increase in the pacific rather than global temperature. I guess it can be a proxy for global temperatures but would you think it would be a good one for such short term prognistications? I'd have thought that if there'd been a global temperature increase you could look directely at the global average surface temperatures.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Then plotting since 1995 and adding a trendline is pretty simple.

So anyway doing that I find out that trendline tells us theres been roughly 0.2oC warming since 1995. That's incompatible with your first claim. I guess that would be unsusprising if the reasoning behind that claim was really as spurious as it seems.

Tell me why did you choose pacific temperatures to talk about global temperatures. Isn't that rather like saying that from measurements of your inside leg, you haven't put on any weight since you were 18?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
This winter is cold, so fare I understand everywhere on Earth.
Click to expand...
Then your understanding is wrong. For one thing it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere. For another the unusually cold weather at certain latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the Arctic Oscillation being in an extreme negative phase, a phenomenon which results in other latitudes being much warmer than usual.

The rest of your post seems equally erroneous.
 
The graph shows a temperature drop of around 8oC over about 10,000 years or longer at the end of each interglacial.
Surely the easiest approach is to hold a massive store of greenhouses gases back and gradually eke out the release of the gas over that time period to compensate for the cooling. We could maybe keep in in some hydrocarbon form and store it underground, and encourage people not to use it too much until it's really needed. We can try to produce about 20 Gtonnes annually by 2050 and maybe 10 Gtonnes by 2100? That should help us hold reserves until we notice the global temperature has dropped by, say 0.4oC, in around 500 years time?
 
Last edited:
NASA doesn’t agree.
Click to expand...
A lot of facts that doesn’t agree with the fanatic believe: “that we are to believe for the 1 degree temperature rise” - has demonstrably and systematically been repressed from decision takers.

I am sure a big surprise is just round the corner, the so called “global heating” is over, and it’s the opposite that will happen.

Only time will show who is right

I am not saying CO2 is not to blame, but only it is an exaggeration, and we simply don’t know how much of the climate change is caused by CO2.
 
Bjarne said:
A lot of facts that doesn’t agree with the fanatic believe: “that we are to believe for the 1 degree temperature rise” - has demonstrably and systematically been repressed from decision takers.

I am sure a big surprise is just round the corner, the so called “global heating” is over, and it’s the opposite that will happen.

Only time will show who is right

I am not saying CO2 is not to blame, but only it is an exaggeration, and we simply don’t know how much of the climate change is caused by CO2.
Click to expand...

If we "simply don't know", then how do you conclude it's an exaggeration? might it not be an understatement?
 
Bjarne said:
We know from temperature measurement in the pacific, that there hasn’t been any global temperature increase since 1995.
Click to expand...
Wrong:
  • Temperature measurements in the Pacific do not measure global temperatures. They measure temperatures iin the Pacific.
We know from global temperature readings that the global temperature has increases throughout the century and especially over the last decade (since 1999).

Bjarne said:
...snip...
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg
We also know that global temperature is connected /coincidence with the strength of the Earths magnetic field.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Look at the graph and try to understand it. Notice all of the peaks in the temperature that are not in the magnetic field strength? They show that there are other things causing the temperature to change.
In the past there is a weak correlation between the strength of the Earths magnetic field. This does not mean that there is causation but indicates that could be a conection.
Now look at the recent temperatures. There is no correlation at all between them and the strength of the Earths magnetic field.

Bjarne said:
...snip...
If we can control the moving MNP I am sure we can prevent an ice age, or at least minimize its effect.
Click to expand...
It is physically impossible to move the magnetic north pole. You would have to change the how the interior of the Earth rotates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom