CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Naggdefy

It was Christmas Eve babe
In the drunk tank
Greta Thunburg says
Won't see another one..

I propose, ala WW1 Christmas 1914, we have a Climate change discussion ceasefire 6pm Christmas Eve until 9am Stephen's Day

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Anyone interested in actual data from the Canadian arctic over the past 70 years or so (sadly that's all we have, some anecdotal reports from earlier) could find most of what they seek in this file. There is a discussion thread on this one over on Netweather with a few additional pieces of information. I took some care a few years ago not to wrap this study with any sort of theme, it's just the facts and make of them what you will. I have very recently added in the latest information available.

The study looks at key climate indicators from two sites with longish periods of record, Cambridge Bay on the south coast of Victoria Island (western arctic) and Resolute on Cornwallis Island (central arctic).

Here are links to the file, which has a guide to what's contained in it around the top left portion of the excel domain, and also to the Net-weather thread.

https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/87367-climate-change-study-at-cambridge-bay-and-resolute-nu-canada-1940-to-2019/page/2/#comments

Nice data, MT. A good bit to have a study of over the Christmas

Both stations are showing an increasing trend in temperature since 1950, though as Coles was very quick to point out, "it doesn't mean the whole globe is warming up"! :pac:

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Thank you. It’s an interesting paper and if she is right, then it makes our predicament worse although there are other factors that affect the solar irradiance other than the suns raw output (variation in the earths orbit and wobbles in its axial rotation for example)

In terms of the currently observed warming, the low solar output today should be causing slight cooling and therefore the point I made before about human influence likely being greater than 100% of observed warming has been reinforced

What are your thoughts on the Arctic charts I posted for you? And about the latest reduced probabilities for an ice-free Arctic from the IPCC's latest report? And the fact that they admit that current models really don't have a clue why the drop in Antarctic ice dropped in the past 3 years? I was surprised not to see you comment on any of those...

Hooter23

Thargor wrote: »

Hurrr durrr gravity is just a theory you know, and don't even get me started on those young people with their smartphones!

Yes well those smart sciencetists also have "the theory of evolution" and the "big bang theory" and neither can be proven as fact so whats your point...and as for your "theory of gravity" there was this one guy who defied the "laws of gravity" and his birthday is actually tomorrow...:rolleyes: so I hope all you science nerds are not celebrating tomorrow because that would make you hypocrites...

Naggdefy

Hooter23 wrote: »

Yes well those smart sciencetists also have "the theory of evolution" and the "big bang theory" and neither can be proven as fact so whats your point...and as for your "theory of gravity" there was this one guy who defied the "laws of gravity" and his birthday is actually tomorrow...:rolleyes: so I hope all you science nerds are not celebrating tomorrow because that would make you hypocrites...

Science is so important and has led us to so many discoveries in areas such as medicine, navigation, weather, climate, physics, biology, astronomy etc.

But it can never define the full human experience, the range of feeling, emotion and soul which is the essence of humanity.

Happy Christmas everyone

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

A new paper has analyzed the climate models since the 70s and compared their results with observed warming and the findings are that they have performed remarkably well

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

Did you actually read Zeke Hausfather’s "study"? or just the spin.


Hansen et al 1988, retrospective

In 1988 NASA's James Hansen and seven co-au­thors wrote a highly influ­en­tial, ground­break­ing cli­mate mod­el­ing paper entitled, Global Cli­mate Changes as Fore­cast by God­dard Insti­tute for Space Stud­ies Three-Di­men­sional Model (pdf). They used NASA GISS's GCM Model II (a pre­de­cessor of the cur­rent Model E2) to pre­dict future cli­mate change, under sev­eral scen­arios. They con­sidered the com­bined effects of five green­house gases: CO2, CFC11, CFC12, N2O, and CH4.

They pre­dicted a “warm­ing of 0.5°C per dec­ade” if emis­sions growth was not curbed (though their graph showed only about 0.37°C per dec­ade). That was their “scen­ario A,” (“bus­i­ness as usual”) which they described as fol­lows: “Scen­ario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emis­sions typ­ical of the 1970s and 1980s will con­tinue indef­in­itely; the assumed annual growth aver­ages about 1.5% of cur­rent emis­sions, so the net green­house for­cing increases expo­nen­tially.”

source

Thargor

Hooter23 wrote: »

Yes well those smart sciencetists also have "the theory of evolution" and the "big bang theory" and neither can be proven as fact so whats your point...and as for your "theory of gravity" there was this one guy who defied the "laws of gravity" and his birthday is actually tomorrow...:rolleyes: so I hope all you science nerds are not celebrating tomorrow because that would make you hypocrites...

Yeah! Take dat u stoopid sciencetistisis's!

Birdnuts

An excellent synopsis of the real reasons behind the Aussie wild fire situation by an on the ground conservationist in the middle of it

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3938450&postcount=33

Akrasia

Birdnuts wrote: »

An excellent synopsis of the real reasons behind the Aussie wild fire situation by an on the ground conservationist in the middle of it

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3938450&postcount=33

So you’re introducing a contrarian from a different discussion forum as if we didn’t already have enough on this one?

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

So you’re introducing a contrarian from a different discussion forum as if we didn’t already have enough on this one?

I'm simply pointing out the realities on the ground in Australia - if it doesn't suit your agenda then thats just tough

Hamsterchops

David Bellamy R.I.P

He has passed, but his memory lives on...

vistafinder

Birdnuts wrote: »

An excellent synopsis of the real reasons behind the Aussie wild fire situation by an on the ground conservationist in the middle of it



There is an answer to it. People like Peter Andrews and Jeoff Lawton have springs popping up on their own lands.

Its human beings blindness thats the problem.

Australia is being stripped to the bone and it going hand and hand with a warming planet.

Both being caused by our blindness.

Tony Coote explains one part of it well.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What are your thoughts on the Arctic charts I posted for you? And about the latest reduced probabilities for an ice-free Arctic from the IPCC's latest report? And the fact that they admit that current models really don't have a clue why the drop in Antarctic ice dropped in the past 3 years? I was surprised not to see you comment on any of those...

I wasn't really following the thread carefully when you posted a link to them last week.

There have been periods where ice loss flattened out in recent decades, even times when ice started to recover slightly, only for the subsequent losses to wipe out that trend and losses to accelerate.

As you well know, there are natural variations in climate, and periods where ice would be increasing if it was not for climate change, are instead showing ice as decreasing at a steady or slower rate

When these naturally colder periods end, it manifests itself as a surge in climate change when the cooler signal is replaced with a naturally warming signal on top of the climate change that has been masked during the cooler period

This is why no climate scientists expect to see straight smooth graphs showing year on year warming of the climate. And it is why climate change 'skeptics' always have sections on graphs that they can point to showing that warming is slower than expected. Somewhere in the world, this is always true, however, a lot of this is just variations on heat distribution rather than an actual decline in the overall rate of warming.

Exceptionally low ice years become normal years within a few years
2012 was exceptionally bad for arctic sea ice, 2019 will be very close to matching this, and there is every chance that 2020 will beat that record
The next exceptionally warm year will create a new extreme which will become the new target for 'normal' losses to reach within a few years and while it takes time for this to become the new normal, people like you will be on forums saying that ice loss has paused or slowed down.

Hooter23

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah! Take dat u stoopid sciencetistisis's!

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I wasn't really following the thread carefully when you posted a link to them last week.

There have been periods where ice loss flattened out in recent decades, even times when ice started to recover slightly, only for the subsequent losses to wipe out that trend and losses to accelerate.

When exactly were those flat periods in recent decades? The only one has been the one I've highlighted. To say that's happened before is just not true.

As you well know, there are natural variations in climate, and periods where ice would be increasing if it was not for climate change, are instead showing ice as decreasing at a steady or slower rate

When these naturally colder periods end, it manifests itself as a surge in climate change when the cooler signal is replaced with a naturally warming signal on top of the climate change that has been masked during the cooler period

So what has caused this flat trend? I say it's the AMO, what do you say?

This is why no climate scientists expect to see straight smooth graphs showing year on year warming of the climate. And it is why climate change 'skeptics' always have sections on graphs that they can point to showing that warming is slower than expected. Somewhere in the world, this is always true, however, a lot of this is just variations on heat distribution rather than an actual decline in the overall rate of warming.

Exceptionally low ice years become normal years within a few years
2012 was exceptionally bad for arctic sea ice, 2019 will be very close to matching this, and there is every chance that 2020 will beat that record
The next exceptionally warm year will create a new extreme which will become the new target for 'normal' losses to reach within a few years and while it takes time for this to become the new normal, people like you will be on forums saying that ice loss has paused or slowed down.

The flat trend is not just there for "skeptics" to point out. It's not cherrypicking. It's a large period that covers 25% of the total satellite record, and it was completely unforecasted back when there was talk of ice-free Septembers being imminent. Not only do I not see any reference to the fact that it's happened, there is also no discussion on WHY it's happened. The IPCC now admit that an ice-free September is pretty unlikely by the end of the century. They have also recently highlighted how badly the current models have handled the Antarctic trend (something that you didn't comment on either).


What are the reasons that 2020 will likely exceed 2019's loss? Have you a link? It might be lower than 2019, it might be higher. Who knows, given that the current state of the science is, according to the IPCC, not settled at all.

M.T. Cranium

A real unknown is the role played by the setting of the earth's magnetic field. In the late 20th century, Milankovitch was generally hailed as the person who had "solved" the puzzle of cause and effect of glacial periods in the recent past (in geological time scales) and I don't doubt this is legitimate, but I do wonder if a strong enough connection might exist between the magnetic grid and climate to introduce a wild card to the equation.

Our knowledge of where the NMP has wandered in recent centuries is increasingly speculative the further back we go, the position is only known with certainty since 1839 when the Ross expedition located the NMP in the northern part of the Canadian mainland. Since then as I've mentioned the NMP has drifted generally off to the northwest and more recently almost due west, leaving the Canadian arctic islands around 1990 and ending up north of the Bering Strait.

The reason why I suspect some cause and effect is because of research I've done into earth's interactions with the solar system magnetic field. If those have some validity, then our geomagnetic grid becomes relevant to climate. The simplistic version would be that the NMP forms one forcing component along with other climatological factors to set up a position for the mean centre of the arctic vortex (which by observation over decades appears to be in the vicinity of the NMP rather than over the north pole or anywhere in the eastern hemisphere).

If the NMP continues to drift west and then later southwest towards the New Siberian Islands as one might extrapolate, then it reaches uncharted territory since our estimates of earlier positions are mainly over the western Canadian arctic. What effects could this potentially have on climate?

In theory it should continue to warm the Canadian eastern arctic islands, Greenland and to a lesser extent the far northern Atlantic. Perhaps around Franz Josef Land or certainly Novaya Zemlya, the effects would switch to a negative temperature signal that would extend through most of Russia and Siberia into western Alaska. That might be enough of a source region boost to include the Yukon and parts of northern BC and even the NWT of Canada, although on position alone those areas should be getting a boost in temperatures.

While I don't expect this theory to gain a lot of acceptance in the mainstream, my more immediate interest is that we may start to see signs of this shift in the next decade if the magnetic pole continues its rather steady westward drift. The effects on European climate could be more negative than positive (for temperature trends) since any strengthening of Siberian cold or west Russian cold would likely have a ripple effect westward.

Then if the NMP were to make further advances later in the 21st century, this could offset my postulated combined natural and AGW warming to create a significant cooling trend over the Atlantic basin and Europe. Eastern Siberia and Alaska would probably start to warm significantly at that point.

The NMP may have been in its predicted 2030 position around the time the Vikings discovered Newfoundland since the climate there was evidently quite a bit warmer than in most recent decades.

Is there any position of the NMP which could trigger an "ice age" or more accurately termed, a glacial advance? Possibly any position further south than normal would be one prerequisite, as well as an intensity of the field greater than the 19th century (it has been declining which may be a safety valve for our climate). North America came very close to meeting glacial advance criteria around 1816 with the year without a summer phenomenon (somewhat over-sold as there was a summer, just a cool summer with frosts at both ends). The key observation was that lakes in central Quebec remained frozen well into July that year and barely thawed out at all. This sort of close call (during a volcanic dust veil event and during a low solar period, the Dalton minimum) tells us that we are not always very far away from a dramatic swing to much colder climates.

The irony is that our greenhouse gas emissions may prove to be the thing that saves us from another glacial onset if we get some nasty combination of low solar, high volcanic dust, and unknown forcing from natural variability of a colder climatic period. I still think the odds are high enough for the reverse to be true, that I would be in favour of advising governments to plan for warmer climates and their consequences, but with a more realistic foundation than is presently the case.

I also think that the current practice of scaring the wits out of school children and gullible adults needs to end. This is psychological abuse that has no obvious merit other than to increase the chances of stampeding governments into possibly foolish over-reactions to what I would call a "situation" rather than an "emergency."

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

A real unknown is the role played by the setting of the earth's magnetic field. ......"

What's the reason for such an increase in the speed of the NMP over the last few decades? Is it down to the decreasing solar activity?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

When exactly were those flat periods in recent decades? The only one has been the one I've highlighted. To say that's happened before is just not true.

.


So what has caused this flat trend? I say it's the AMO, what do you say?

The first 10 years of that graph show a pretty flat trend. You blame the slowdown on the AMO, that’s as good an explanation as any (at a high level at least)

The thing with these oscillating weather patterns is that absent climate change, they would oscillate around a central mean so when they are in a cooling phase, temperatures are lower than average. With global warming, temperatures are never lower than average anymore, the cooling merely reduces the warming signal for a few years until the oscillating cycle flips back to a warming phase

The flat trend is not just there for "skeptics" to point out. It's not cherrypicking. It's a large period that covers 25% of the total satellite record, and it was completely unforecasted back when there was talk of ice-free Septembers being imminent. Not only do I not see any reference to the fact that it's happened, there is also no discussion on WHY it's happened. The IPCC now admit that an ice-free September is pretty unlikely by the end of the century. They have also recently highlighted how badly the current models have handled the Antarctic trend (something that you didn't comment on either).


What are the reasons that 2020 will likely exceed 2019's loss? Have you a link? It might be lower than 2019, it might be higher. Who knows, given that the current state of the science is, according to the IPCC, not settled at all.

It’s likely because global warming is shifting the mean. How likely is up for debate but the trend is clear and the 2012 record minimum is a dead record walking which will certainly be broken sooner rather than later

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The first 10 years of that graph show a pretty flat trend. You blame the slowdown on the AMO, that’s as good an explanation as any (at a high level at least)

The thing with these oscillating weather patterns is that absent climate change, they would oscillate around a central mean so when they are in a cooling phase, temperatures are lower than average. With global warming, temperatures are never lower than average anymore, the cooling merely reduces the warming signal for a few years until the oscillating cycle flips back to a warming phase

It's more of a blip than a flattening, and all the hysteria has occured since then anyway based in the 90s and especially the 00s. Nobody foresaw the recent flattening, at least publicly anyway.

It’s likely because global warming is shifting the mean. How likely is up for debate but the trend is clear and the 2012 record minimum is a dead record walking which will certainly be broken sooner rather than later

In 2012 they said that too. You're still ignoring the IPCC's latest backtrack on an ice-free Arctic. Cherrypicking your responses, it seems.

M.T. Cranium

This may surprise you -- I have no theory whatsoever to account for motions of the magnetic poles. This doesn't mean that I haven't looked at the question but taking what data we have (and if we can even rely on the back-casting of where the pole was supposedly located before being pinpointed in 1839) there is nothing happening in the solar system that shows much relationship to it.

You would have to think something is influencing its location, but I have not stumbled across any literature on the subject or made even an incorrect first stab at a theory. If we ever figure this one out, it could be very useful in many different ways. A further weakening of the magnetic poles and field is widely expected and could lead to a breakdown of the current field structure, probably long after we are all gone, but within a few centuries. It will be very interesting to see if the weather patterns show some response to that. But our health will be a bigger concern -- a weaker magnetic field will allow more harmful radiation to reach the earth's lower atmosphere where we are, and could increase skin cancer rates among other problems. If we still have any sort of aviation technology by then, it would play havoc with navigation too, presumably.

Gaoth Laidir

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1210414308754182144?s=19

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

This may surprise you -- I have no theory whatsoever to account for motions of the magnetic poles. This doesn't mean that I haven't looked at the question but taking what data we have (and if we can even rely on the back-casting of where the pole was supposedly located before being pinpointed in 1839) there is nothing happening in the solar system that shows much relationship to it.

You would have to think something is influencing its location, but I have not stumbled across any literature on the subject or made even an incorrect first stab at a theory. If we ever figure this one out, it could be very useful in many different ways. A further weakening of the magnetic poles and field is widely expected and could lead to a breakdown of the current field structure, probably long after we are all gone, but within a few centuries. It will be very interesting to see if the weather patterns show some response to that. But our health will be a bigger concern -- a weaker magnetic field will allow more harmful radiation to reach the earth's lower atmosphere where we are, and could increase skin cancer rates among other problems. If we still have any sort of aviation technology by then, it would play havoc with navigation too, presumably.

In general the acceleration seems to have stumped the experts, with no real theory as to why it's increased tenfold. Of course, there's always one who is "certain" it's down to climate change and the loss of Greenland ice.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NASA_suggests_magnetic_North_Pole_drift_is_caused_by_climate_change

Citing Surendra Adhikari at NASA, I would like to ask how it is possible to claim that the North Pole drift is caused by climate change:


"Climate change does not only cause the rise of the oceans, it also disturbs the magnetic field of the Earth. "There has been a dramatic change in the direction of pole drift, undoubtedly caused by climate change, which is linked to the disappearance of the ice sheets, especially in Greenland," said Surendra Adhikari, researcher at the NASA. The North Pole has lost 278 gigatonnes of ice since the beginning of the third millennium. As a result, the magnetic north pole moves eastward, and faster than before. The melting of ice would account for 66% in the acceleration of the phenomenon."

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

This may surprise you -- I have no theory whatsoever to account for motions of the magnetic poles. This doesn't mean that I haven't looked at the question but taking what data we have (and if we can even rely on the back-casting of where the pole was supposedly located before being pinpointed in 1839) there is nothing happening in the solar system that shows much relationship to it.

You would have to think something is influencing its location, but I have not stumbled across any literature on the subject or made even an incorrect first stab at a theory. If we ever figure this one out, it could be very useful in many different ways. A further weakening of the magnetic poles and field is widely expected and could lead to a breakdown of the current field structure, probably long after we are all gone, but within a few centuries. It will be very interesting to see if the weather patterns show some response to that. But our health will be a bigger concern -- a weaker magnetic field will allow more harmful radiation to reach the earth's lower atmosphere where we are, and could increase skin cancer rates among other problems. If we still have any sort of aviation technology by then, it would play havoc with navigation too, presumably.

MT changes to the earth’s magnetic field leave a lot of geological evidence to allow researchers to go back into the historical record to see if these changes line up with previous instances of climate change.

Have you been able to find multiple events where rapid climate change correlate with rapid shifts in the magnetic field? This would be a good starting place, and then you could see if these events also correlate with other atmospheric changes like CO2 concentration events

The polar vortex has shifted but I think Jennifer Francis arctic amplification explains this very well and there is a very high degree of plausibility to her theories because they rely solely on mechanisms that we already have a good understanding of.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051000

Your theory does not have any mechanism attached to it other than a hypothetical interaction between cosmic rays and the magnetosphere

I think it is more likely that the polar vortex is shifting due to arctic amplification, and this in turn is affecting the magnetic field (shifting the equilibrium sends a lot of charges particles through the upper atmosphere to places they would rarely travel before the AGW weakened the boundaries between the polar and boreal and temperate regions
You can bend a magnetic field by putting another magnetic field near to it
But of course that’s just my own best guess given my extremely limited understanding of this

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's more of a blip than a flattening, and all the hysteria has occured since then anyway based in the 90s and especially the 00s. Nobody foresaw the recent flattening, at least publicly anyway.



In 2012 they said that too. You're still ignoring the IPCC's latest backtrack on an ice-free Arctic. Cherrypicking your responses, it seems.

I’m not ignoring anything. You keep talking about these ‘back tracking’ statements but I don’t have time to go through every post looking for your link to this one sentence you are referring to

The IPCC talk about scenarios and associated projections. Under RCP 2.5 the chances of delaying it avoiding ice free arctic summers are much higher than under RCP 8.5 where we will have exhausted our ‘carbon budget’ in a little over 13 years and will be entirely reliant on negative feedbacks emerging to limit warming (not very likely at all) while hoping that the positive feedbacks are less harmful than expected

One negative feedback is a double edged sword. Low salinity water freezes faster than high salinity water, so if Greenland melts faster it could help preserve sea ice at the cost of raising sea levels and potentially disrupting the Gulf Stream

Drumpot

I’ve read the OP post and a lot of it makes sense. I’d also respect what MT has to say as I’ve followed his weather reports a lot.

As a cynic of pretty much everything , I do enjoy alternative assumptions and theories. I’m not educated enough to engage in this topic but would suggest that perhaps trying to find a more simple way of communicating your message might help your cause.

One of the best examples I heard of a simple explanation of how we introduce Gases into our environment was by a scientist who said to think of it like a bath. The eco system has its own natural cycle, in a bath think of it like 10% of the water going out and 10A% being added. So there is an order/balance to it.

But human activity has disrupted this natural cycle and the difference is compounded annually. I would take this to mean that MTs suggested one third “man made” influence would most likely increase over time. To what degree I suppose we can’t be sure. The suns own impact lowering the damage or heating of the earth sounds like it’s just delaying the damage we are causing rather then reducing it.

I am curious to understand if our weather experts are speaking about the Carbon tax proposals purely from a weather POV or just in general? Again, I was under the impression that our oceans are becoming more acidic and it’s killing among other things plankton that’s the biggest producer of Oxigen in the world. This also potentially heats up our planet (smoke locking in heat) which in turn melts Ice which deflects sun rays which in turn releases further gases locked below the ice.

I don’t know enough technical information to challange either side but this all sounds very straight forward. We are effectively an unknown quantity in this topic and it’s difficult to quantify how much of an effect we are having on the earths natural or changing cycle so taking us out of the equation at least means we are not part of the problem?! Too simplistic?

Are there any good links to educated scientists on both sides having a meaningful, respectable debate on this topic? Seems very hard to find a balanced discussion on this.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I’m not ignoring anything. You keep talking about these ‘back tracking’ statements but I don’t have time to go through every post looking for your link to this one sentence you are referring to

The IPCC talk about scenarios and associated projections. Under RCP 2.5 the chances of delaying it avoiding ice free arctic summers are much higher than under RCP 8.5 where we will have exhausted our ‘carbon budget’ in a little over 13 years and will be entirely reliant on negative feedbacks emerging to limit warming (not very likely at all) while hoping that the positive feedbacks are less harmful than expected

One negative feedback is a double edged sword. Low salinity water freezes faster than high salinity water, so if Greenland melts faster it could help preserve sea ice at the cost of raising sea levels and potentially disrupting the Gulf Stream

You seem to have no problem finding the sentences you want to find...:pac: But in case you missed it, in September the IPCC said that

For stabilised global warming of 1.5°C, an approximately 1% chance of a given September being sea ice free at the end of century is projected; for stabilised warming at a 2°C increase, this rises to 10–35% (high confidence).

This comes after previous reports from the "settled science" that projected ice-free in a few decades. Now you introduce the idea of Greenland actually helping preserve sea ice. Where did that one come from? It seems to be grasping at straws. If this was indeed a real thing then I reckon we'd have been reading about it and the polar bears would be rejoicing about it by now.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Your theory does not have any mechanism attached to it other than a hypothetical interaction between cosmic rays and the magnetosphere

I think it is more likely that the polar vortex is shifting due to arctic amplification, and this in turn is affecting the magnetic field (shifting the equilibrium sends a lot of charges particles through the upper atmosphere to places they would rarely travel before the AGW weakened the boundaries between the polar and boreal and temperate regions
You can bend a magnetic field by putting another magnetic field near to it
But of course that’s just my own best guess given my extremely limited understanding of this

In both cases I don't understand how shifting tropospheric patterns could affect the MNP, given that the Earth's outer core is what drives the magnetic field in the first place. I doubt a shift in the average polar vortex position will have any effects way up in the ionosphere. As far as I'm aware, isostatic adjustment (if the theory about the Greenland melt has any merit) doesn't really affect the depths of the outer core.

All we know is that there is a lot that we don't know.

Akrasia

Drumpot wrote: »

I’ve read the OP post and a lot of it makes sense. I’d also respect what MT has to say as I’ve followed his weather reports a lot.

As a cynic of pretty much everything , I do enjoy alternative assumptions and theories. I’m not educated enough to engage in this topic but would suggest that perhaps trying to find a more simple way of communicating your message might help your cause.

One of the best examples I heard of a simple explanation of how we introduce Gases into our environment was by a scientist who said to think of it like a bath. The eco system has its own natural cycle, in a bath think of it like 10% of the water going out and 10A% being added. So there is an order/balance to it.

But human activity has disrupted this natural cycle and the difference is compounded annually. I would take this to mean that MTs suggested one third “man made” influence would most likely increase over time. To what degree I suppose we can’t be sure. The suns own impact lowering the damage or heating of the earth sounds like it’s just delaying the damage we are causing rather then reducing it.

I am curious to understand if our weather experts are speaking about the Carbon tax proposals purely from a weather POV or just in general? Again, I was under the impression that our oceans are becoming more acidic and it’s killing among other things plankton that’s the biggest producer of Oxigen in the world. This also potentially heats up our planet (smoke locking in heat) which in turn melts Ice which deflects sun rays which in turn releases further gases locked below the ice.

I don’t know enough technical information to challange either side but this all sounds very straight forward. We are effectively an unknown quantity in this topic and it’s difficult to quantify how much of an effect we are having on the earths natural or changing cycle so taking us out of the equation at least means we are not part of the problem?! Too simplistic?

Are there any good links to educated scientists on both sides having a meaningful, respectable debate on this topic? Seems very hard to find a balanced discussion on this.

Its hard to find a balanced debate on flat earth for the same reasons it's hard to find a balanced debate on climate change. The evidence for one side is 'balanced' overwhelmingly in favour of the anti flat earth side.

Most respected scientists do not engage directly with the climate change 'skeptics' anymore because they have no credibility and they do not put forward scientifically valid arguments to support their case.

If you want to hear reasoned discussion on climate change, you need to look for respected scientists delivering talks about their research, or panel talks at conferences, not debates.

an example of such a panel is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewK7Kzf43A

You'll get a good overview of the current state of climate science broken down by topic. These are mostly well respected working academics and researchers

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Its hard to find a balanced debate on flat earth for the same reasons it's hard to find a balanced debate on climate change. The evidence for one side is 'balanced' overwhelmingly in favour of the anti flat earth side.

Most respected scientists do not engage directly with the climate change 'skeptics' anymore because they have no credibility and they do not put forward scientifically valid arguments to support their case.

If you want to hear reasoned discussion on climate change, you need to look for respected scientists delivering talks about their research, or panel talks at conferences, not debates.

The EPA in Ireland held a conference this year on climate change and their lectures are on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFesobjWT1Fg3wROOf8aYnX942ywtSMEy

You'll get a good overview of the current state of climate science broken down by topic. These are mostly well respected working academics and researchers

This sentence is the reason why there is no debate. People who write this are brainwashed into thinking that the science is settled and want no part in discussing anything that may progress the science further.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In both cases I don't understand how shifting tropospheric patterns could affect the MNP, given that the Earth's outer core is what drives the magnetic field in the first place. I doubt a shift in the average polar vortex position will have any effects way up in the ionosphere. As far as I'm aware, isostatic adjustment (if the theory about the Greenland melt has any merit) doesn't really affect the depths of the outer core.

All we know is that there is a lot that we don't know.

If the magnetic north pole can affect the atmosphere, then the atmosphere can affect the magnetic north pole. If they can interact in one way, it can also happen the other way. The ESA has measured pockets of movement in the mantle which they say are caused by changes in the magnetic field squeezing magma through cracks in the mantle. These can theoretically be influenced by subtle shifts in the overall magnetic field. https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/There_s_a_jet_stream_in_our_core

There are charged particles in the atmosphere and if they are pushed out of their usual sphere of influence, it can destabilise an existing equilibrium which can have knock on effects elsewhere.

I would really need to see some published science to back up any claims as I'm just talking off the top of my head here and I have nowhere near the required knowledge to back any of that up.