|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 17:14:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2010 22:13:10 GMT 1
Ever heard of Geomagnetic Field Intensity, Lazarus? Do you see that it mimics the Arctic temperature anomaly? I wonder why? I bet GMF correlates better with Arctic Temperatures than atmospheric CO2 ppm does with Arctic sea-ice extent..  |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 13, 2010 22:32:03 GMT 1
Do you see that it mimics the Arctic temperature anomaly? I wonder why? When an electrical conductor moves through a magnetic field it induces an electric current and an opposite magnetic field. So there is is an obvious explanation. Cold Arctic -> stronger convection of (electrically conducting) sea water -> stronger ocean currents -> stronger induced EM field -> weaker total field. Simples. Do the sums if you don't believe it.  |
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 14, 2010 20:45:53 GMT 1
WUWT has some interesting stuff on occasions. Here's an explanation as to why Mauna Loa is the best source of information on atmospheric carbon dioxide this past half century, it's from WUWT. It answers all Mary's questions about the (dis)use of data there . If you don't understand why most of their data is not included in their atmospheric CO2 figures then you should not be commenting on it until you've read the two links below and fully understood Watt They're talking about. One for the non-scientist from WUWT and the other for the more scientifically inclined. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.htmlI should have set this up as a new thread because these two links undermine the ideas about Mauna Loa put forward by many climate skeptics, although some are changing their minds about CO2. If you still don't understand why much of the data gathered at Mauna Loa is disregarded by climate scientists, say so and I'll explain it to you again but in BIG LETTERS. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 21:11:57 GMT 1
Ever heard of Geomagnetic Field Intensity, Lazarus? Do you see that it mimics the Arctic temperature anomaly? I wonder why? I bet GMF correlates better with Arctic Temperatures than atmospheric CO2 ppm does with Arctic sea-ice extent.. As Eamonn has pointed out science explains it and it is very interesting. Arctic Temperatures have always correlated well with atmospheric CO2; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 16, 2010 10:07:42 GMT 1
Arctic temperature and CO2, lazarus? I always thought CO2 LAGGED paleao-temperatures by hundreds of years? When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 18:28:51 GMT 1
Again Eamonn has beaten me to it. The lag is well known but it does not affect my point; Arctic Temperatures have always correlated well with atmospheric CO2.
|
|
