Arctic Sea Ice May Be Gone in 30 Years

Hi StandardsGuy

I was hoping someone would comment on the sun's magnetic field being 2X+ what it was in 1900. That is a very significant change. Let's make this a discussion now that the debate is over. What do you say?

So far my searches on this haven't shown much.

I would like to know where the BBC got the info about the sun's magnetic field being 2.3x that in 1900. I can't seem to find it.

The magnetic field of the sun does seem to be subject to very large fluctuations, although I haven't quantified how big yet. It seems likely that normal variation with the sunspot cycles is more than this 2.3x and this occurs over a 22 year (some say 11 year) cycle.

Longer cycles of a couple of hundred years also seem to occur. It is suspected that much longer cycles are also operating.

There is a theory that a significant proportion of cloud cover is due to ionization in the upper atmosphere due to cosmic rays and that the level of these is regulated by the sun's magnetic field.

Increased cloud cover leads to global cooling, while decreased cover allows warming.

The effect is most noticeable in the tropics, which provides the heat engine to drive the world's air circulation and hence global climate.

I wonder if the guy who came up with this has ever spent much time in the dry tropics? At Mt Isa we could go a month without seeing a single cloud.

I don't know if this is much help, but it does provide something to think about.

If you would like to make this a separate topic, please do. I'll happily observe and participate (Having no knowledge of a subject has never yet interfered with my having an opinion)

"I would like to know where the BBC got the info about the sun's magnetic field being 2.3x that in 1900. I can't seem to find it."

I suspect this is from geomagnetic data, some of the protons from the Sun may cause changes in materials on Earth. Either these changes or the crystallographic disturbance from passing high energy particles that can be made visible by etching may be used for estimates on the Sun's magnetic field.

This is speculation only, not based on any knowledge.

"There is a theory that a significant proportion of cloud cover is due to ionization in the upper atmosphere due to cosmic rays and that the level of these is regulated by the sun's magnetic field."

Not this way as these are far too energetic. But if the sun's magnetic field is high then this seems to be in parallel with high particle emission at moderate to high energies.

These particles - the solar wind - are mostly electrons and protons.

Any particle inside a magnetic field will move along a spiraling path around the field lines.

Radius can be calculated by centrifugal force equaling the Lorentz-force.

If the velocity of the particles is very high then the path of the particle will not change significantly.

If there is a medium velocity of the particles and the resulting radius is in between 500 to 6000 Km, then the particle is directly diverted towards Earth (one side only) and by hits on atmospheric molecules generating ions and electrons that act as nucleation and condensation sites thus creating clouds.

If there is a low velocity of the particles (radius of path below 300 Km) these will spiral the field-lines until near north-pole or south-pole the field lines plunge into Earth. The particles will collide with atmospheric molecules, excite these so that the effect is to be seen as polar light.

At very high sun-activity (very many particles extending to high energies) these may be seen down to 30° latitude.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26330

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/13nov_africa.htm?friend

Links are from earlier discussion on the effects of magnetic storms on the sun.

RHABE

"I would like to know where the BBC got the info about the sun's magnetic field being 2.3x that in 1900. I can't seem to find it."

"I suspect this is from geomagnetic data"

I don't think so. "... the strength of the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing, at a rate of about 5% a century, since we first started directly measuring it in the mid 1800s."

Hi,

yes, declining of Earths magnetic field is a reality,

easily measured in the magnetisation of new basaltic seafloor.

This had triggered a debate about a next reversal of Earths magnetic field with some severe showering of fast solar particles reaching us. These reversals take place roughly with (80+-50) Kyears intervals.

I had in my mind a speculation about the fast particles emitted by the sun leaving their signatures (as trajectories of disturbed crystal lattice) in some minerals.

So I should have formulated more carefully: "I suspect from traces of fast particles in minerals". (Speculation only, no real knowledge about.)

RHABE

So a (minor?) cause of the "global warming" maybe due the enlargement of solar "wind" particles hitting the atmosphere?

Most experts think that the solar wind is responsible for some cooling,

as there are more condensation nuclei to form clouds and thus enhance reflectivity of earth.

But atmospheric physics is a difficult topic as more clouds will also block infrared radiation or cooling at clear sky.

So in total it may come out as an equilibrum of daytime to night-time cloudiness.

Cooling opr warming may be possible.

RHABE

Thanks i am not an expert on Solar winds

Thank you for the link, very good information.

RHABE

Same link I gave you. So, any ideas for titles for a new thread, or should we just call it over?

Hi Roger,

I have more on the lack of consensus about global warming. The following link has the names of 690 scientists from 404 separate research institutions in 40 countries that disagree with you. Please watch the video that has a graph:

http://www.co2science.org/

Here is another one with a video with graphs. It point out that the CO₂ is not the cause, but the effect of the global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig

Here is more about the sun's magnetic field affecting earth's climate:

http://www.cgfi.org/2007/07/26/water-experts-find-earths-warming-rainfall-linked-to-sun/

Some highlights are: "…They say variations in South African rainfall patterns are keyed to periodic reversals of the sun's magnetic field—and to the constantly changing distance between the sun and the earth as both move through space."

"Earth's recent global warming occurred too early—before 1940—to be blamed on human CO₂ emissions. The net global warming since 1940 is only 0.2 degrees C, with none at all since 1998. There's little correlation between the earth's recent temperatures and CO₂ levels, but a strong correlation between the sunspot index and subsequent changes in our sea-surface temperatures."

"The evidence for a sun/climate connection keeps pouring in, while all we hear from the Kyoto crowd is "The computer models agree with each other."

With your knowledge of statistics, the word "correlation" in paragraph 2 should be significant to you.

The sun's magnetic field affects the rotation of the billions of tons of metal in the earth's core. That, in turn, can affect the activity of volcanoes (that, BTW, produce CO₂). Here is a link about volcanoes and ice melting:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/volcano-not-global-warming-effects-may-be-melting-an-antarctic-glacier/714

With all these conflicting "facts", what are we to believe? Convince us that your "facts" are really the facts.

-S

Dear StandardsGuy, I feel you are close to convincing yourself that essentially Roger is correct. Now I have noticed that predictions made in the 70s about Global Conditions seem to have been borne out.

My education is a bit odd. I had a job once recording an entire series of ecology lectures at UNCG, so though I was not a "student", I did end up listening to the entire course. From what I can tell this university level was of the same caliber that Mr. Gore was exposed to at Harvard.

In the end what I took away from all the information was that where we needed to be most concerned, and it was vital that if we wanted to survive as a species, we needed to pay very close attention to effects of what we did on the oceans, and the food chain there.

Hence when discussions of Global Warming, Climate Change, or even weather come up I pay particular attention to reports on the conditions in the seas.

As a bottom line I want to know if the seas are rising. To my simple mind if they are, this is evidence of Global Warming.

Now even if the oceans are not rising the second thing I am concerned with is whether or not basic foundational food creatures of the ocean food chain are being diminished.

Are the oceans rising?

Seems like I heard that they were.

How many of us on this particular Blog Thread agree that the Oceans are rising?

I'm moving on from this thread. I simply don't have the time to debate three different people. Many points being brought up now I've addressed multiple times on multiple threads. Others are new and should be addressed, but I'm not getting paid for this, and lets face it, I'm not convincing any of you of anything. I wish I did have the time for the interactions, but I just don't. I'll see you guys around cr4. I'm sure we'll probably pick up this never ending debate in another thread.

Thanks man. It's been a real pleasure interacting with you, but I don't think I'll be doing it anymore. You're a little too much for me to handle. I'm going to run back to my ivory tower, sit around and group think with the other scientists. Send my regards to S.G. and his ancient Egytian map with the ice-free Antarctica on it. He's a rock in the foundation of your CR4 consensus.

Seriously?

Seriously?

I think one obvious thing to emerge so far from the discussion is that support for anthropogenic global warming is far from unanimous among the scientific community.

Our politicians should be cautious about following the IPCC because threre is considerable disagreement among scientists about the validity of the IPCC reports.

Precipitate action now could have the world economy stuffed for years to come.

I suspect man is still too small to be able to make a significant alteration to the long term climate. (That last suspicion is not a majority conclusion from this discussion but more in the nature of a private opinion).

Personally, I think one good thing to come from this is the emphasis being placed on more efficient use of our resources. When global cooling commences (probably within the next 20 years, although the Russians seem to believe within the next decade), I hope we don't lose this efficiency emphasis.

We need to continue debating this issue, not to change other people's minds as more to bring additional facts to light.

I have certainly learned a lot from it.

You Wrote:"I think one obvious thing to emerge so far from the discussion is that support for anthropogenic global warming is far from unanimous among the scientific community."

I don't know how you can possibly write this as a conclusion of this debate. I provide a link below that shows that, far from your conclusion, there is consensus among the major scientific societies which has been demonstrated by their official statements on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I find it insane that I have to address "facts" like Mars Temperature is rising over and over, and even after you yourself admit on another thread that I had probably convinced you (which is no small feat), you don't so much as utter a whisper when it was brought up by standards guy in this thread. When things like this occur, it reminds me that this isn't a debate for the truth, rather a debate to win an argument.

Go ahead and review this thread and imagine the hours I would have to put in in order to address all of these points being raised. Points I have addressed in many other threads in the past and some already in this thread. There is a difference between debate and filibuster.

We are never going to agree on this.

Did you even read my posts?

"I provide a link below that shows that, far from your conclusion, there is consensus among the major scientific societies"

Your own link has lists of dissenting scientists with high credentials, and lots of them!

"fact after fact after fact"

Say what? As they say "put up or shut up". well I guess your shutting up.

Roger interesting thread but one notion, you link wiki too much, wikipedia is great for basic information, but a highly debated thing like "global warming" doesn't give the wiki links much value as any pro- or contra- global warming scientist can change the wiki-page.

IMHO it is better to give links to the scientific papers themselves it give your replies more weight

Hi Sceptic,

thanks for the data on CO2 and water on greenhouse effect. This helps a lot with arguments. (GA).

We can only speculate why this is not known widely.

The references are from so many different well reputed sources that there can be little doubt.

"To return to the theme of melting Arctic ice, it should be noted this is a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. The Antarctic ice has been thickening."

This statement you made is explainable if you think about Antarctica and the nearby oceans are also warming, more evaporation will result, that will yield more snow over regions that stay -despite warming- below freezing point thus accumulating ice.

This happens in regions that have been very cold with not much snow.

Now developing into regions that are not so cold and get more snow.

So although warmer there will be thicker ice.

I never heard about estimates how much of the snow is going to be transferred to ice, how much is evaporated, how much is molten in contact with warmer ground and in antarctic summer.

RHABE

Hi RHABE

So although warmer there will be thicker ice.

I initially thought so too.

Apparently Antarctic precipitation has stayed similar for the last few years, but the ice has been thickening, therefore there must be less melting.

In addition, temperatures have been down rather than up.

Of course warmer oceans some distance away could still cause increased snowfall, but this doesn't seem to be happening.

The concern of the 1990's that Antarctic warming was increasing has since disappeared. You'll notice that it rarely gets a mention now.

Sorry not to include a reference to support this. I'll look one up and post it when not so rushed.

(BTW is there a treatment program around to cure people of CR4 addiction? I think I've got it! or or ?)

Hey guys, why don't we switch to this one or this one? Watch out though, the second one doesn't want any extremists, and Riger Punk has been there!