Can we control the temperature of Earth?

lomiller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first thing most of them need to get a grip on is the difference between climate and weather and correspondingly why only a degree raise or lowering is quite significant as an overall average but insignificant for a few months of summer or winter in a specific location (i.e. yes, you can have a winter that averages five degrees colder while you have an average world wide drop of 5 degrees, rise of five degrees, no change in overall temp. etc). Nothing about a climate change that can affect major agricultural production/glacier development/breakdown, changes in climate zones, etc. precludes a really cold winter once in a while - or, in the reverse, a really hot spring and summer. Learn the difference between climate and weather - especially those of you who do not see why global warming/human related is a problem and really does exist (trust me, I know I am talking to a wall here, but, hell, I have to try to explain this concept/fact to 9th graders).
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
If there was any sense in this speculation, it should at least be able to predict what time a new ice age should begin.

But the fact is you can not.
Not at all .
Click to expand...
But the fact is we can.
An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).

FYI, Bjarne: These are predictions from Milankovitch cycles.

However Milankovitch cycles by themselves are not able to predict ice ages very well. You have to take in consideration other factors
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).
Click to expand...
 
Yes but clearly he meant to say “there are no predictions about future glaciations, which have come true!”
Click to expand...

Right, - what is the Milankovitch speculation worth, when it can't predict when the next ice age will begin.

And I forgot:
http://www.science27.com/images/400.000 T.gif
In an ice age suddenly temperatures increased 3 to 5 degree and than suddenly decrease again.
This as well can't be predicted by the Milankovitch speculation.
It makes (to me) a lot more sense that we have a lot more to learn about the Sun’s secret.
For example we have believed that the 11 years period solar storms were stabile.
In exactly these years we discover it wasn’t so.

We know sunstorm affects / increases the strength of the magnetic field on Earth
We just don’t know why these contributions (right now) not are permanent..

The answer is simple: the “entrance” of the Earth’s magnetic field is very important.
This means it just depend on whether the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) is situated in an area with good or bad magnetic conductivity.

I think it is important to understand what temperature on Earth has to do with the magnetic field.
And that’s why Henrik Svensmark theory is important, - of course combined with the fact that the inner geodynamo is a “hypothetic flop” - The real “dynamo” is the solar activity.
Sometimes the Earth is receptive for solar-magnetic contribution, and sometimes not able to keep the contributions. Only depending on where is MNP.

So all it require is only that the Earth magnetic “entrance” is "open" or weak and "entangled" and hence if it is able to “accumulate” magnetic strength.
That’s why it’s a challenge to trap MNP in a area with good magnetic conductivity (in a strong magnetic crust anomaly) – if this is possible.

This is important, because ice ages as well as a weak magnetic strength both are threat; - we know will strike again, - sooner or later.

We know there is a temperature – magnetic coincidence, we certainly also in these years will begin to understand the secrets of the Sun better.

So rather than inventing more “spacy” incoherent Milankovitch thesis, - Lets instead try to crack the obvious simple code just in front of our eyes.
 
Bjarne said:
Right, - what is the Milankovitch speculation worth, when it can't predict when the next ice age will begin.
Click to expand...
Still wrong. The Milankovitch theory does predict when the next ice age will begin.

However Milankovitch cycles by themselves are not able to predict ice ages very well. You have to take in consideration other factors
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that we can control the temperature of the planet, specifically.

If you think about it, once we remove our influence, the planet will continue to carry on doing its own thing. Cooling, warming, whatever that may be.

Another words, our share of the warming influence will cease, but if the planet has any natural factors to any degree that are also contributing to warming (which seems quite likely) then :

We can't control anything at that point. And all we can do is adapt.
 
Xephyr said:
I don't believe that we can control the temperature of the planet, specifically.

If you think about it, once we remove our influence, the planet will continue to carry on doing its own thing. Cooling, warming, whatever that may be.

Another words, our share of the warming influence will cease, but if the planet has any natural factors to any degree that are also contributing to warming (which seems quite likely) then :

We can't control anything at that point. And all we can do is adapt.
Click to expand...

It sound like you haven’t understood Svensmarks Theory

Shortly:
Cosmic rays that penetrate first the magnetic field (MF) of the Sun and then the MF of the Earth cause clouds formation.
This mean the number of clouds is determinate by 3 factors, - the 2 mentioned above but also how strong the rays are in the orbit around the MW we (the solar system) are right now.

We know the MF of the Earth is coincident with the temperature of Earth, - but we don't know why.

We also know that solar storm increases the strength of the MF of Earth, but the Earth can’t (right now) keep these contributions.

Soon we will discover that the real magnetic dynamo is the solar wind, - and that the magnetic susceptibility of the Earth as well as the ability to "absorb" (keep) the magnetic contribution from the solar wind, is determinate by the ferro-magnetic conductivity of Earth, and hence by whether MNP (the magnetic entrance) is inside a positive or negative crust anomaly.

This mean; if just if we can trap MNP, - preferable in the middle of the huge positive crust anomaly in the Arctic Ocean, - we can insure that the magnetic entrance to the Earth’s MF, is at the best possible place. – This must keep the field both stable and strong.

This will protect us from cosmic rays that cause ice ages, as well as cancer, disturbing of air traffic and destruction electronic on board of satellites.
I am sure it is worth a try. - I can’t see why it shouldn’t be possible.

Off course we can never control the MF of the Sun. A weak MF on the Sun will affect us, but bases on all the data we have, we will have very good (enough) protection if we can keep MNP in the centre of the big arctic anomaly, - also even though the MF of the Sun will weakening, - (simple statistic point to the fact it will soon).

Right now MNP is on its way into the big positive arctic anomaly heading Siberia.
We have time to build a power station on the ice, and trap MNP when it arrives.

Notice in approximated 2500 years MNP have been travelling in negative magnetic crust anomalies, - that have entangled the whole MF of the Earth, and this of course must cause magnetic weakening, -that we know also have been the case in exact that period. .
 
Last edited:
Source for your statement that the MF of the Earth is coincident with its temperature

Bjarne said:
It sound like you haven’t understood Svensmarks Theory

Shortly:
Cosmic rays that penetrate first the magnetic field (MF) of the Sun and then the MF of the Earth cause clouds formation.
This mean the number of clouds is determinate by 3 factors, - the 2 mentioned above but also how strong the rays are in the orbit around the MW we (the solar system) are right now.
Click to expand...
Nice summary (you forgot the galactic MF though). Also see Wikipedia.
What it means is that cosmic rays may have an influence on the global temperture of the Earth by influencing cloud cover. This is disputed.
But we know that there are other causes of global temperature variations - and so do you - e.g. Milankovitch cycles and human activity.

Bjarne said:
We know the MF of the Earth is coincident with the temperature of Earth, - but we don't know why.
Click to expand...
We know the MF of the Earth is not coincident with the temperature of Earth.
See I can make unsupported assertions just like you. An my one must be better because it has two words in bold :rolleyes:!

First asked 30 January 2010
Bjarne,
Please state your source for your statement that the MF of the Earth is coincident with the temperature of Earth?

Bjarne said:
Soon we will discover that the real magnetic dynamo is the solar wind, - and that the magnetic susceptibility of the Earth as well as the ability to "absorb" (keep) the magnetic contribution from the solar wind, is determinate by the ferro-magnetic conductivity of Earth, and hence by whether MNP (the magnetic entrance) is inside a positive or negative crust anomaly.
Click to expand...
We have already discovered that the Earth's real magnetic dynamo is the Earth.

Bjarne said:
I am sure it is worth a try. - I can’t see why it shouldn’t be possible.
Click to expand...
Then you know nothing about physics.
As you state next "Off course we can never control the MF of the Sun".
Of course we can never control the MF of the Earth.
Earth's magnetic field
The field is similar to that of a bar magnet. The Earth's magnetic field is mostly caused by electric currents in the liquid outer core. The Earth's core is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature above which the orientations of spins within iron become randomized. Such randomization causes the substance to lose its magnetization.

Convection of molten iron within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation, tends to organize these "electric currents" in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself. This is called the Dynamo Theory and it explains how the Earth's magnetic field is sustained.
Click to expand...
 
But we know that there are other causes of global temperature variations - and so do you - e.g. Milankovitch cycles and human activity.
Click to expand...

The Milankovitch cycles is only speculation
If that should't be the case, you should be able to tell me which dd/mm/yy the next age will start.
You can’t – And if you clam you can; do it.

The: Human Activity
You don’t know if the humans activity is to blame for 0.0000001 % of the 1 degree temperature increase the last 100 years or if it is 99.999 % .
All you can prove is: mainstream emotions.
Let me mention a example.
For 5 years ago the Danish prime minister did not believe that we were to blame for the 1 degree temperature increase.
Suddenly he changed his mind, not based on new scientific facts showing he was wrong, but based on mainstream emotion.

Please state your source for your statement that the MF of the Earth is coincident with the temperature of Earth?
Click to expand...
Everyone working in that field knows that.
You can check it you self by comparing temperature and magnetic variation.
You can find plenty of such at the internet.
Its evidently that th coincidence is a fact.

Of course we can never control the MF of the Earth.
Click to expand...
This is not the point
The point is to control the motion of the Earth MF. I think this is possible, and that the future will force us to try.
 
The Milankovitch cycles is only speculation
Click to expand...

:dl:

oh my the woo factor just went through the roof.....you do know the orbital dynamics of the earth is rather well understood??

That and a bit of physics should tell you how wrong you are...but then considering the remainder of your postulation..why am I not surprised :garfield:
 
Bjarne said:
This is not the point
The point is to control the motion of the Earth MF. I think this is possible, and that the future will force us to try.
Click to expand...
I know that it is not possible except in science fiction.
Here is how we can control the Earth MF:
  • Change the rotation of the Earth's core or
  • Build a gigantic electromagnet around the Earth's equator to provise an opposing or additional magnetic field.
In either case it would be a lot easier and cheaper to build a umbrealla in space to shield us from the Sun.
 
Change the rotation of the Earth's core or
Click to expand...
So you believe the inner geo dynamo speculation reflect reality?
If the so-called “inner dynamo” really existed, how on Earth can you explain that temperatures and magnetic variation are coincident?
It’s beyond common sense, even to try connect the so-called geodynamo with the coincident magnetic variation.
There is no way, - except off course denying indisputable fact.
The only possible way is to realize that the Solar wind is the real and only magnetic dynamo.
 
Does Bjarne think that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by the solar wind

Bjarne said:
So you believe the inner geo dynamo speculation reflect reality?
If the so-called “inner dynamo” really existed, how on Earth can you explain that temperatures and magnetic variation are coincident?
It’s beyond common sense, even to try connect the so-called geodynamo with the coincident magnetic variation.
There is no way, - except off course denying indisputable fact.
The only possible way is to realize that the Solar wind is the real and only magnetic dynamo.
Click to expand...
Dynamo theory exists and is a good explanation of the Earth's magnetic field.

You are deluded that temperatures and magnetic variation are coincident.

The only conclusion is that anyone who thinks that the Solar wind generates the Earth's magnetic field is truly ignorant of basic physics. But then you are (see the next post)
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his three threads

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his three threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?

    First asked 9 December 2009. You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
  13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
  14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
  15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
And from this thread it seems as he thinks that the Earth's solar wind is generated by the solar wind (but that may be his bad English).


And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
The only conclusion is that anyone who thinks that the Solar wind generates the Earth's magnetic field is truly ignorant of basic physics.
Click to expand...
Did you not forgot: Amen ?
 
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