|Ocean heat sources19-04-2019 06:27|
|Can't &*# Align to North and Global Warming|
It seems at least 70% of global warming is caused by a combination of underwater lava eruptions heating the oceans and the change in the output of the sun, something mankind has no control over.
Okay, but what does that have to do with aligning to the north? First, I would like to bring up the fact the magnetic north pole moves all the time, sometimes just a little and lately a whole bunch. From around 1830 to 1915 it only moved a couple of hundred kilometers. Then from 1916 to about 1975 it started a gallop headed towards Eurasia at about 10km per year; iin 1976 it jumped up from moving about 10km/yr to 17km/yr then in 1995 it jumped from 22km/yr to 44km/year in a single year and then slowly increased and leveled off at about 55km/yr – warp speed - in 2001 and now is in an excruciatingly slow downward trend.
Being an amateur astronomer and being old school (very old school) I lined up my telescope with a magnetic compass and, knowing the offset of the north magnetic pole from true north I could line up on true North. The problem was that very often it didn't align apparently because for the last 24 years it has shifted about ¼ degree each year because the north magnetic pole was moving.
Then one day, I happened to read a paper by a geologist named Viterito where he said the earth's temperature was related to lava from cracks in the ocean floor heating the oceans. Mr. Viterito's research only had information available for the years 1979 to 2015 which was only 36 years and only had 1 changing event, so this could have been a simple coincidence and of no consequence!
But, remembering the North magnetic poles warp speed movement and how my memory of it seemed to match his papers conclusions and realizing uneven cooling could make the magnetic field move, I checked and sure enough the poles motion agreed with the lava out flow quite well.
Since I already know we have reasonable information on the motion of the north magnetic pole, CO2 and the suns output back to right around 1880; where we lose accurate CO2 measurements; this allowed me to write a computer program to separate out what percentage of the heat that had been added to the earth was due to this lava out flow, how much was from the change in the suns output, and how much was from the change in CO2 for the 96 years from 1880 to 1975.
The program showed 51% of the global warming during that period was due to this lava out flow, 19% was due to the output change in the sun for a total of 70%, and 30% was due to the change in CO2.
Besides these numbers it showed an amazing match between the values calculated and the actual measured temperatures. If you consider only CO2 and the suns output you only get a 47% match, but including the lava out flow the overall match was 80%, almost twice as good!
It also had another astounding characteristic because every time the measured temperature trend rose, the calculated values trend rose and every time the measured values trend decreased the calculated values trend decreased, quite contrary to the CO2 and suns output model which had no decreasing trends but rather only increasing trends even when the actual temperature trend was down.
So, what does that mean for the average person? It means that in reality there is as much of a chance the temperature of the earth will continue to rise as there is that it will fall, regardless of what mankind does.
If the sun returns to the activity we are used to and the lava out flow continues as it is or continues to grow, then the earth will continue warming up. The apocalyptic scenario of the earth warming up is well represented to the people by the media.
If the sun stays quiet and the geological activity drops off then one of two things will happen – we could possibly have years "without summers" in north America and northern Eurasia or possibly another ice age with 1 1/4 mile thick glaciers over North America and much of Eurasia. The biggest consequence to cooling off is that the worlds food supply, and especially North America and Eurasia, will be dramatically reduced. This does not bode well for any of the 7 Billion people on planet earth. The consequences if the earth cools off and possible prevention methods can be found in the book "Cold Kills" on Kindle.
Peer reviewed pre-publication full paper is available at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2605739
None mathematical and not peer reviewed version at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2605741
|The thing is that it's not going to change overnight, or even over a few decades. People don't like their local climate, they move. Food may be an issue, but then again, people can move to follow the food, change diets. Can't find or afford your favorites, you find new ones. I don't buy the scorched earth scenario, and we made it through one ice age, with few tools, and no technology. Scorched earth will never happen, too much surface water to evaporate.|
Magnetic north... Might have been a great landmark way back when, but there are too many strong sources of man-made magnetic fields. I fly a drone, and it has an electronic compass that needs to be calibrated when I travel to different locations. I'm doubtful about it pointing toward true north, accurately, but it set a reference for the particular location, based on the strongest magnetic source.
|"but then again, people can move to follow the food". Unfortunately, if the earth cools off then between glaciers and permafrost over 85% of the worlds northern hemisphere's crop growing regions can become to cold all year and never grow food. You can't run away from that. There are 7 Billion people on earth. Our present growing acreage can feed them by a factor of about 2. If you cut the usable northern area by 85% then the world wide 2 factor food is only food for a maximum of 4 billion people. And that's an average. Droughts and floods will reduce that some years and you will never be able to sustain even 4 Billion people.|
And yes, we survived the last glaciation. But at that time the human population was counted in the tens of millions worldwide, not Billions.
|Maybe I didn't explain the North Pole's motion thing fully. I knew the North Pole was shifting. And my memory of it was that it kind of lined up with global warming (i.e. it was shifting faster as the earth warmed), but at the time I was unaware of the geothermal activity so I had no link between the moving of the North Magnetic Dip Pole until just lately.|
Would it be possible for you to hi light the points of your first post that you'd like people to consider? On the internet it's not the same as taking the time to read a book. I hope you can understand this. I read plenty of books but too many people have no such interest.
|What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?||0||28-04-2019 15:40|
|Historic ocean acidification||61||25-04-2019 18:03|
|Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?||3||25-04-2019 05:47|
|What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?||2||18-04-2019 20:57|