Greenhouse gases, global warming, and the magnetic field
The local PBS station is due to rebroadcast the Nova program Magnetic Storm. The significance of the program is twofold. On one hand there is the prediction that Earth is long overdue for its magnetic poles to once again flip; north to south, south to north. On the other hand, and more ominous, there is the prediction that the Earth's magnetic field is quickly fading away.
Excerpts from the program transcripts:
NARRATOR: Mario's team now knew that Mars had once had a magnetic shield which it must at some point have lost. They began to wonder whether this might be the solution to one of the great mysteries of the solar system.Scientists suspect that the young Mars was in many ways an Earth-like place, with a thick atmosphere and oceans which may have harbored primitive life. But then, around 4,000,000,000 years ago, the planet entered a catastrophic decline. Gradually the atmosphere and oceans of Mars mysteriously disappeared.
NARRATOR: It seems the Earth's magnetic field is rapidly fading, a puzzle that is challenging scientists around the globe.
NARRATOR: The fate of Mars suggests that without the protection of its magnetic shield, the Earth could also become a dead planet, which makes it all the more disturbing to learn that our own magnetic field is fading so rapidly.
OK, greenhouse gases and global warming have been trumped by the diminishing magnetic field. And, we have hard science to back our barren future.
This summer can I enjoy the little time left driving my SUV on frivolous trips while running the AC with the windows down? Or, do I have to await my magnetic fate suffering slow impoverishment under the socialist green agenda of an ever-encroaching assault on property rights and Liberty?
Can't PBS and Nova get the story straight for once? The magnetic field is certainly being depleted by the evil capitalist and ravenous consumer. That's the thread that holds political science - or, science of the political - together.
Comments (35)
The good news is that the poles, when they realign will mean a strong magnetic field again, and while they are realigning we all get aurora effects (which might be a pain if you like your nights dark.) I had a thought while watching the program though, if the magnetic field is weakening, allowing in more radiation, might this not be the cause of increasing temperatures? It might not be, but I doubt any scientists will even consider it, because to do so would clash with their agenda of saving the world through redemptive violence. You can't threaten the sun and the Earth's core with fines and prison.
Published: January 30, 2007 9:59 PM
Magnetic reversal is a regular occurence on Planet Earth, it is documented in the geologic layers of rock. We are very close to another reversal. In the years before the reversal the field will gradually weaken. The actual flip will occur fairly fast, in as little as 30 days. There will be during that period no magnetic field.
What is most interesting is that the last several magnetic reversals have been accompanied by full fledged glaciation. Full glaciation occured in a mere 20 years. Which means that the Earth could be very close to a new glaciation period.
The one thing we DO know. Anybody who tries to tie these events to man made events is smoking crack.
Published: January 30, 2007 10:22 PM
It simply amazes me that they can predict global warming disasters with absolute certainty, but when it comes to predicting government disasters they are clueless idiots. Especially since global warming is only a theory about something that might happen 100 years out, but the murder of hundreds of millions by abusive government is an observable measurable proven fact that has already happened several times over.
Does anyone want to live within Cuba's pristine environment, or Po Pot's "return to nature" program that resulted in the murder of two million Cambodians? It sounds to me like these "global warming" scientists have a problem taking things to their rational conclusion.
Published: January 30, 2007 10:38 PM
Will we be obliged to start making our world maps with the southern hemisphere at the top? That'd be trippy.
Published: January 31, 2007 2:00 AM
To David C, eh. So enviromentalists aren't that infuated to leave modern technology for simply gentler ways. Anarchist Libertarians weren't exactly rushing en masse to Somalia either.
But anyway if the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, which I find hard to believe (unless it's going take millions and millions of years and therefore neglible), then that the van Allan belt is going to weaken and the world's going to flooded with dangerous radiation and we'll all pretty much stuffed.
Curiously Vanmind there's no difference that I'm aware with putting the North Pole and the top or the bottom rather it's a matter convention. ;)
Published: January 31, 2007 4:24 AM
Come to think of it, Sam, the Earth's atmosphere has a remarkable dearth of hydrogen and helium in it. This fact might lead to worries about the Earth's gravitational constant being unacceptably low...
Published: January 31, 2007 6:25 AM
Sam
The decay of the Earth's magnetic field has been discussed ever since explanations were sought for the growth of the Southern Anomaly. Could be there's changes in the magnetic field a-brewing.
Upon what evidence do you base you comment that you find it hard to believe the magnetic field is decaying (unless it takes millions of years)?
Sione
Published: January 31, 2007 12:07 PM
Yeah, Sam, I know that--more (benign) Euro-centric bias that came upon us when maps started being mass-produced.
All I know is, I don't like standing on my head, so I'd hate to be forced to live in Australia.
Published: January 31, 2007 11:41 PM
Well, Sione, as I said if the magnetic field of the world is decaying then so is the van Allen belt which protects us from dangerous radiation from the Sun. I suppose lack of radiation poisoning amongst people, animals and plants might be a starter. And even if the magnetic field is decaying, how the heck are we going to stop it?
Published: February 1, 2007 12:53 AM
Sam
Go carefully read what Mr Brabson wrote (see above). Then read up on the Southern Anomaly- significant changes have already been recorded there, but since that's happening far out to sea there haven't been many people or animals about to experience the effects.
The S.A. could be part of a process that ultimately behaves as Mr Brabson explained. He described a gradual process that leads to a very sudden field reversal. That likely means that people and animals wouldn't experience much until the reversal process reaches a final sudden change-over phase. Now surely you could have had the wit to work that out for yourself rather than being silly.
As for stopping the process- why sould "we"? Anyway, as I understand the situation the technology to so do is not presently available (which you already knew didn't you?).
Sione
Published: February 1, 2007 2:29 AM
Well, mumble-grumble, Sione, I said corrected. X(
Nonetheless I read up about magnetic reversals and actually an article said that even though the Earth's magnetosphere does repel charged particles from the Sun, the Earth's atmosphere does a much better job. It actually said that without magnetic protection things wouldn't be that much different. Ouch. And that protection of the van Allen belt is debatable too. Eep!
Anyway it seems the dangers of magnetic flip-flops are none and buckleys. Hence there are plenty of much more natural dangers that are more worthy for suggestion that the world is coming-to-an-end-as-we-know-it.
Yes I'll say it: Sorry ;)
Published: February 1, 2007 4:30 AM
While speaking of NOVA, only about a year or so ago they had a show on the effects of cosmic rays on the cloud cover, which affects global temperature. I can't rememeber the researcher that was the subject of the show, but the premise was that global warming might be caused by these cosmic ray changes. And the implication was that it was not our fault!
I forget what was supposed to be causing the increased (or decreased) cosmic rays, but does anyone else recall this show and/or this research? Have the greens debunked that yet?
Published: February 1, 2007 9:40 PM
It doesn't matter if it's debunked, that's the sad thing. I don't pretend to know if global warming is happening or not, or if it is what causes it, but I do think that we need to be very skeptical of any science that can be used to advance a regulatory agenda. People with messiah complexes are unlikely to pay attention to any evidence that contradicts their agendas. If someone were to prove beyond any doubt that either global warming isn't happening or is not caused by humans he would be silenced (I wouldn't put homicide past the greenies as a method of achieving this) and ridiculed. They are engaged in doublethink, on the one hand they love the idea that they are saving the world from evil Western civilazation, on the other, they don't really care about the environment, they care about inflicting themselves on the rest of humanity. Even if human caused global warming exists, the agenda pushed by these dopes will not stop it, it will only compound human misery and something tells me that that's the idea.
Published: February 1, 2007 10:04 PM
Remember the good old days when people with messiah complexes were content to barge into economics?
Published: February 1, 2007 10:29 PM
Whereas I'm more sceptical of such predictions when they take the 'it's the end of the world as we know it' which also seems to fit a doomsday 'end of times' Christian outlook.
Published: February 1, 2007 10:40 PM
Jim:
"The magnetic field is certainly being depleted by the evil capitalist and ravenous consumer. That's the thread that holds political science - or, science of the political - together."
Come on Jim, keep your paradgims straight. There are purely exogenous events, such as the magnetic reversal and a possible meteor strike - that we can only try to anticipate, mitigate and adapt to using our creative abilities (but not using government research or action) - and then there are events that are are partially or wholly endogenous - such as destructive overfishing, pollution and human-affected climate change - that we can mitigate by changing our institutions (such as through agreements among users) and adapt to. Clearly magnetic field reversal is not human-caused - are you just so used to responding to claims that humans do cause problems, that you reflexively expect that a claim of human causation to be made here as well?
Dennis: Do you think Exxon cares about being ridiculed? There are enough people, beyond this board, who oppose government regulation (and hate enviros) that "if someone were to prove beyond any doubt that either global warming isn't happening or is not caused by humans" he would be lauded, feted and awarded a Nobel prize/McCarthur grant, not silenced (but some greenies might be QUITE upset).
Sam: I hadn't heard that "dangers of magnetic flip-flops are none" - are you talking strictly about effects on life and ecosystems? I imagine that there could be all kinds of effects on modern technology/satellites/communication/ electronics etc. No? As for life, I do suppose there would be some effect on animals that make use of the magnetic field for navigation (birds, sea critters), but there's little anyone can do about them.
Eric: Try these scientists (not greens) on cosmic rays:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/
For more, try running the Google search: ["cosmic ray" site:www.realclimate.org]
Mark:
NASA disagrees that recent magnetic reversals have caused glaciations:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/RevScience.html
Cheers,
Your friendly evil person,
TT
Published: February 2, 2007 6:19 AM
Actually, Sam, those end-of-the-world excursions are the "End of Days," secularized. The Evangelicals have finally figured that out.
[I always had the suspicion that Robert Welch's percent-communism scale was somewhat of a goof on the BAS's "Atomic Clock"...]
Published: February 2, 2007 7:14 AM
Tom,
"The magnetic field is certainly being depleted by the evil capitalist and ravenous consumer. That's the thread that holds political science - or, science of the political - together."
That's tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, not my view. The point is that supposed global warming may end up being the result of some other force; a force known but ignored.
You propose "human-affected global change" to be fact when those of my generation and older remember the coming ice age of the 70's to be the result of human activity; and fact.
Regardless of fault, if science is predicting a near-future end to the world, and science is fact and not political, can't you free me from short-term, green-based suffering. Or, is this all about control and not about science at all? Is science, in this and similar instances, simply the yoke of power?
Published: February 2, 2007 7:26 AM
Toykotom:
Here are some references to the contrary:
http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/publications/Related_pubs/Worm97.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr252003/1105.pdf
There are lots of reports out there and scientists have suggested a number of reasons for a correlation between glaciation and magnetic reversals.
Published: February 2, 2007 9:58 AM
Jim, thanks for the comments.
My memory of the 70s is a little different than yours: scientists were aware that GHGs emissions could lead to warming, but also that climbing particulate emissions produce a cooling effect. But was an imminent Ice Age predicted by scientists in the '70's? No.
The industrial world has since done a great job of improving the health of citizens by cleaning up particulate emissions, and the effects of GHG emissions now clearly predominate (despite the "Asian Brownd Cloud" of particulates that has led to a startling drop in insolation on the Earth's surface). In addition, we have had thirty years of extensive research and additional data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
I would asy that your sarcasm has not served you well - and the fact that the media have not laid the possibility of a field reversal at the door of human activity while they have with AGW might be seen as an indication that the media is able to make basic distinctions, which you and others should recognize as well: man is not responsible for magnetic reversals, but an excellent case (for many, a convincing one) can be made that human activity is at least partially responsible for increasingly noticeable chages in climate.
As to your questions: "Regardless of fault, if science is predicting a near-future end to the world, and science is fact and not political, can't you free me from short-term, green-based suffering. Or, is this all about control and not about science at all? Is science, in this and similar instances, simply the yoke of power?"
Let me comment as follows:
1. I don't agree that "science is predicting a near-future end to the world". The latest summary, released yesterday by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
2. The science is simply science, and of course does not itself dictate what policies, if any, are appropriate in response.
3. I would urge a little more clear-headed thinking instead of ideological hand-wringing. Economics tells us, and history shows us, that common, open-access resources, unless they are placed under the control of property-rights regimes that establish clear and enforceable rights of access and management, are likely to be over-used (as users cannot secure the benefits of moderating exploitation or investing in future harvests). This is easily seen in the exploitation of the great plains, many water resources and in the continuing collapse of the oceans' great fisheries.
4. The success of makind in generating true wealth has been in evolving mechanisms to solve tragedy of the commons problems: See Bruce Yandle, The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.
But while such mechanisms evolve over time, they take effort - especially in overcoming prisoners dilemma bargaining issues and entrenched special interests that benefit from the "free" use of unowned or "public" resources - and there is no assurance that effective private or common-property rights regimes will be crafted before valuable resources are much diminished.
5. I don't profess to speak for anyone but myself, but I suppose that greens have political pull mainly because they are aware of some real problems that the public also recognizes, even if the green misunderstand or misdiagnose them. Thus, the "science" is mainly of use simply in pointing to real problems, which science itself does not lead necessarily to changes in power.
On the other had, it is quite clear that corporate statism is a serious problem in the western economies, just as elites in developing countries continue to manage to keep their citizens poor by misappropriating national wealth for private benefit. In both cases, misinformation has provided an important yoke of power for the elites.
The arguments over climate change have many diffifcult aspects, from understanding the science to figuring out appropriate actions. The debate has been muddled by ideological positions (to no small degree with the purpose and effect of benefitting particular strong interest groups that have been reluctant to lose the free use of valuable resources. This is rational, but venal and has been well-represented by certain corporate statist groups.
Published: February 4, 2007 12:54 AM
Mark, thanks for the references on the possible links between glaciations and field reversals. Both are quite interesting.
I would just note that these references tend to point to changes in ice volumes as affecting field strength, excursions and reversals (by causing changes in the location of mass and thus changes in angular momentum), rather than to changes in magnetic fields producing changes in climate.
Regards,
TT
Published: February 4, 2007 1:33 AM
New report says global warming is negligible, short-lived, and now ended.
Published: February 4, 2007 4:35 AM
Bah! That link doesn't work; use http://pc.blogspot.com and scroll down to the second entry for February 3 (hopefully the permalink will work by the time it expires from the front page)
Published: February 4, 2007 4:40 AM
Oh; my fault; it should be here (if some admin can fix the link in the first post (change 01 to 02) and delete the followups, that would be cool!)
Published: February 4, 2007 4:43 AM
ToykoTom,
History shows cyclical temperature changes which cannot be denied. Certainly, you can correlate disparate pieces of data in order to establish causation, that's the fun found in statistical software. But, correlations used in climate change do not add up. Were previous periods of warming also associated with human activity due to a consumer-based capitalistic society? Or, were they the result of natural changes which we will still do not understand?
Temperature-wise, we have been here before; absent a human-affect.
One final comment: You state, "1. I don't agree that 'science is predicting a near-future end to the world'."
TT, Go back to the Nova program; science is predicting such an end. But, who or what does the word science reference in such statements? Unlike logic, there is no final proof as to what is or is not scientific fact. There are simply opinions and predictions of individual scientists. Many times, groupthink takes over and the individual scientist acquiesces to the opinion of influence and power at the given time and place. We are currently in such a groupthink cycle; a cycle whose roots are the result of human activity -- human political activity.
Published: February 4, 2007 10:15 AM
Jim:
I wish you luck as you try to figure things out on the climate and magnetic reversal.
On magnetic reversal, I'd start with a closer reading. Nova attracts attention to the potential importance of a magnetic field by pointing to Mars (which has none), but no one is suggesting that the Earth's will disappear. Rather, it wanders, weakens and flips.
On climate change, there's lots of reading - if you're really interested. A good start would be the latest IPCC summary, linked above, that was released Friday. Some additional angles that might pique your interest are here:
- Exxon recently said that "We believe climate change is a serious issue and that action must be taken”and indicated a preference for carbon taxes over cap and trade proposals.
http://watthead.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-conversations-with.html
- The following companies have called for "the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable":
http://www.us-cap.org/
Alcoa
BP America
Caterpillar Inc.
Duke Energy
DuPont
Florida Power
General Electric
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
http://www.aluminum.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10753
- These 42 companies, representing $2.4 trillion in market capitalization and over 3.3 million employees, are members of the PEW council of corporations that are focused on addressing climate change.
http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/company_profiles/index.cfm
- 86 evangelical Christian leaders have recently publicly urged prompt action on global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?ei=5088&en=c3998565b07f9657&ex=1297054800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1170648952-+yfRdRAEJrAWBqeF9WYE4w
In sum, it sounds like the "groupthink" you are so worried about has assumed epidemic proportions, and has gone way beyond an issue of a global conspiracy of venal and/or misled scientists.
As I previously noted, while property ownership (private and by groups/corporationns) has been key to the growth of wealth in the West (and lack of such ownership has hampered development in the formerly communist nations and the poorer parts of the world), no one owns the atmosphere. What do basic economic principles and history teach
us about what happens to resources for which there are no clear owners?
Regards,
TT
Published: February 4, 2007 10:51 PM
TokyoTom,
Interesting. You are refuting the existence of the above quote made by Peter Olson in the Nova program transcript which you claim to have given a "closer" read. A very Gore-ian tactic indeed! Or, have you fallen for groupthink?
Of course those companies have signed-on to global warming, there are vast amounts of taxed dollars waiting to be had.
Published: February 5, 2007 7:12 AM
Jim, you're reading me too closely, and don't seem to have a grasp on the science.
1. I haven't seen the Nova program and made no claims I had. I have, however, been reading about this generally over the past couple of years, and my point was simply that the scientists are are not expecting the Earth's magnetic field to shut down completely and forever. Rather, they can see that the magnetic poles wander and that there have been sudden period field reversals in the past, as a result of recurrent geophysical mechanisms that they are making headway in understanding.
Thus, I'm not so much "refuting the existence of the above quote made by Peter Olson in the Nova program transcript" as I am interpreting it in the manner it was likely intended.
A little bit of reading on this might help you avoid embarassment with silly aspersions, on this topic anyway.
2. "Of course those companies have signed-on to global warming, there are vast amounts of taxed dollars waiting to be had."
Good observation. But foremost, most of the companies sign on to "global warming" because they are convinced that it's occurring. But of course there's also plenty of money to be made simply in cleaning up their act to be more efficient energy users and lighter carbon emitters - which most of these firms have found. If you take a look, you'll see that most of the quiet support for climate change action comes from firms that have figured out that making changes improves their bottom lines and makes them better competitors. They also get a financial boost from telling that to consumers and customers, and a psychic boost from feeling they're doing the right thing anyway.
Corporate and investor support for climate change action is definitely not solely venal, even though the presence of good ol' rent-seeking efforts cannot be denied.
Regards,
TT
Published: February 5, 2007 12:57 PM
Ethanol gasoline is being praised as a partial solution to green house gas emisions in automobiles.
How much CO2 is released manufacturing the ethanol. Please take into consideration the equipment used to plow and harvest the crop, the fermentation process and the distilling.
If ethanol is to be used in vast quantities will food supplies thus be reduced (growing corn to produce ethanol will leave less land to produce food)?
The only option we have is Geothermal (earths core heat) or nuclear.
Published: February 12, 2007 4:59 AM
The price of tortillas in Mexico has already jumped. In the USofA where we spend less than 5% of our life's energy to obtain food we will be slower to catch on.
Published: February 12, 2007 12:00 PM
Regardless of who or what is changing our climate, Would'nt our planet just be a more beautiful place if we lived "green"?
Published: March 13, 2007 12:49 AM
Here's a link to a journal article that presents highlights of a study that uses one natural process (Earth Magnetic Field Variation) variable that can predict global temperatures 6 to 7 years in the future...
http://www.knowprose.com/comment/reply/11014/7182
Published: June 21, 2007 9:10 PM
hey guys, check out this interview I found with a geophysicist about the poles changing. seems like it's gonna have a big impact.
http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/interview/dr-dan-lathrop-the-study-of-the-earths-magnetic-field
Published: July 8, 2008 11:09 AM
hey guys, check out this interview I found with a geophysicist about the poles changing. seems like it's gonna have a big impact.
http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/interview/dr-dan-lathrop-the-study-of-the-earths-magnetic-field
Published: July 8, 2008 11:10 AM
Have stumbled into this page through a Google search on a related topic.
Am rather apalled at the superficially reasoned sarcastic chatter that begins this blog, and carries through the first few responses. Am I to understand that these are the "reasoning" of professional economists?
The tone of malicious and petty sarcasm, coupled with the juvenile level of scientific discourse, suggests people not sufficiently morally responsible to be trusted with the serious business of providing advice to the world on matters of economy (or science).
(Who in the world would fund such folly? Someone looking to defend their own predatory lifestyle?)
Are you truly so enamored of Darwinian human behavior and money that you would presume the transient victors in humanity no flaws, and make no mistakes, that they can't buy their way out of with ruthlessly acquired wealth?
Shame on you who impulsively, and compulsively, treat any critique of human selfishness with your own knee-jerk derision. And shame on you for searching like vultures for any weakness in a scientific argument (however petty) to superficially justify your own mean-spirted, predatory ideology.
Didn't your mother bother to teach you to shut up when you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
I'm reminded of the notion that your own field produces such incompetent reasoning that it is well said that when you put two economists in a room, you get three "incontrovertible" theories on how the world works -- none of which can accurately and reliably predict anything beyond next week.
By comparison, the scientific method demands the validation of theory by reproducibility and predictive validity -- something to which economics (a purely academic, commercial and political endeavor, rather than one grounded in physically empirical evidence) has never been truly and thoroughly beholden.
It's essentially the difference between a psychologist (never truly held accountable for outcomes) and a "real" doctor. In whose hands are we wisest to entrust our fate?
If you'll excuse me, I'm watching the news. I just finished watching the evening news' latest report of the official economic forecast, and am ready to focus on something I can actually trust: the meteorologist's weather forecast.
Good night.
Published: July 17, 2008 6:01 AM