Is the ocean broken?

[ImaginaryNumber]

When north goes south: Is Earth's magnetic field flipping? https://astronomy.com/news/2021/09/when-north-goes-south-is-earths-magnetic-field-flipping

New Evidence of 200 Million-Year Cycle for Earth’s Magnetic Field https://www.google.com/amp/s/scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-of-200-million-year-cycle-for-earths-magnetic-field/amp/

The implications are that a weakening Van Allen Belt will let more solar energy warm the Earth. We may be seeing a warming trend that hasn't been seen on Earth for 200 million years.

-Will

Would you clarify what you mean by "solar energy?"

The light and heat we receive from the sun is electromagnetic energy (photons), and I'm not aware that it is attenuated by Earth's magnetic field.

On the other hand, the solar wind is composed of charged particles, and thus can be deflected by Earth's magnetic field. However, I've not heard that the solar wind represents a large source of energy?

I'm not aware of any geological evidence suggesting that Earth warmed significantly during past magnetic reversals. Do you have any evidence supporting that idea?

 

[Yobarnacle]

Having lived through several pole reversals, .......

 

[Will Gilmore]

Would you clarify what you mean by "solar energy?

The energy in ionized particles spewing across the gulf of space at significant fractions of light speed have an enormous amount of energy. The effects on ionized air, Earth's salt water shell and molten iron core is likely to induce an increase in activity at an atomic level, resulting in heat added to the Earth system, if that energy isn't deflected by a strong Van Allen Belt.

If you say it has no such effect, I believe you. It's just that there are very few electro-magnetic induction systems that don't include heat.

-Will

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

The energy in ionized particles spewing across the gulf of space at significant fractions of light speed have an enormous amount of energy. The effects on ionized air, Earth's salt water shell and molten iron core is likely to induce an increase in activity at an atomic level, resulting in heat added to the Earth system, if that energy isn't deflected by a strong Van Allen Belt.

If you say it has no such effect, I believe you. It's just that there are very few electro-magnetic induction systems that don't include heat.

-Will

Will,
I know very little about the solar wind, so I hoped you might directed me towards more information. But I thought that whatever might happen if there is another magnetic reversal in the future probably also happened during previous reversals.

 

[Will Gilmore]

As it travels through space, the solar wind reaches speeds of over one million miles per hour. In fact, its speed is so great that "bow shocks" form whenever it is forced to flow around the planets in the solar system. Such bow shocks also form around airplanes, rockets, or the Space Shuttle when these vehicles travel faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere.

Space Technology 5 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/solarwind.html

While Earth's magnetosphere deflects most solar activity carried by the solar wind, some charged particles seep through. These energetic particles cause magnetic disturbances, classified as either geomagnetic storms or substorms. These storms can be beautiful and benign, as when displayed in auroral light shows. However, they can also be devasting——causing damaging space weather.

Space Technology 5 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/storms.html

As sunspot (dark areas caused by magnetic disturbances) groups grow rapidly, rotating like a hurricane, enormous explosive releases of energy create solar flares. And, even 93 million miles away many of the Earth's systems beat to the solar rhythm.

Sunspots stir oceans - Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.869

The stream of energetic particles warms the thermosphere. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, coolants in the thermosphere, absorb the energy and then re-radiate heat back into space. A small fraction of the extra heat from the solar flare radiates to layers of the atmosphere below the thermosphere, but it is miniscule compared to the normal amount of heating the lower layers of the atmosphere already experience from incoming visible and ultraviolet sunlight.

Do solar storms cause heat waves on Earth? | NOAA Climate.gov https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/do-solar-storms-cause-heat-waves-earth

With an unprecedented weakening of the Magnetosphere due to the flipping of the poles, the energy from these charged particles will reach lower in the atmosphere and what has been a miniscule effect on the temperature of Earth's atmosphere, may be growing to become a more significant driver of our weather.

-Will

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Space Technology 5 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/solarwind.html

Space Technology 5 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/storms.html

Sunspots stir oceans - Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.869

Do solar storms cause heat waves on Earth? | NOAA Climate.gov https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/do-solar-storms-cause-heat-waves-earth

With an unprecedented weakening of the Magnetosphere due to the flipping of the poles, the energy from these charged particles will reach lower in the atmosphere and what has been a miniscule effect on the temperature of Earth's atmosphere, may be growing to become a more significant driver of our weather.

-Will

Interesting information, Will. Thanks for digging it up. It certainly seems plausible that significantly more energy will reach Earth's surface if/when Earth's magnetic field diminishes during a reversal. From your links it doesn't appear that most scientists think that the weakening of Earth's magnetic field can account for the current spike in temperatures.

Geomagnetic reversal

Reversal occurrences are statistically random.....sources estimate that the time that it takes for a reversal to complete is on average around 7,000 years for the four most recent reversals. Clement (2004) suggests that this duration is dependent on latitude, with shorter durations at low latitudes, and longer durations at mid and high latitudes.[2] Although variable, the duration of a full reversal is typically between 2,000 and 12,000 years.[3]

[During reversals Earth doesn't completely loose it magnetic field, but it become very mixed up, with numerous "north" and "south" poles]

Effects on biosphere
Shortly after the first geomagnetic polarity time scales were produced, scientists began exploring the possibility that reversals could be linked to extinctions. Most such proposals rest on the assumption that the Earth's magnetic field would be much weaker during reversals. Possibly the first such hypothesis was that high-energy particles trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt could be liberated and bombard the Earth.[44][45] Detailed calculations confirm that if the Earth's dipole field disappeared entirely (leaving the quadrupole and higher components), most of the atmosphere would become accessible to high-energy particles, but would act as a barrier to them, and cosmic ray collisions would produce secondary radiation of beryllium-10 or chlorine-36. A 2012 German study of Greenland ice cores showed a peak of beryllium-10 during a brief complete reversal 41,000 years ago, which led to the magnetic field strength dropping to an estimated 5% of normal during the reversal.[46] There is evidence that this occurs both during secular variation[47][48] and during reversals.[49][50]

Another hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field disappears entirely during reversals.[51] They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, paleointensity measurements show that the magnetic field has not disappeared during reversals. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years,[52] the magnetopause is still estimated to have been at about three Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.[44] Even if the internal magnetic field did disappear, the solar wind can induce a magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere sufficient to shield the surface from energetic particles.[53]

Hypotheses have also advanced toward linking reversals to mass extinctions.[54] Many such arguments were based on an apparent periodicity in the rate of reversals, but more careful analyses show that the reversal record is not periodic.[19] It may be, however, that the ends of superchrons have caused vigorous convection leading to widespread volcanism, and that the subsequent airborne ash caused extinctions.[55]

Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons. Larger animals are too scarce in the fossil record for good statistics, so paleontologists have analyzed microfossil extinctions. Even microfossil data can be unreliable if there are hiatuses in the fossil record. It can appear that the extinction occurs at the end of a polarity interval when the rest of that polarity interval was simply eroded away.[25] Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.[56][44]


​

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Not a single G20 country is in line with the Paris Agreement on climate

None of the world's major economies -- including the entire G20 -- have a climate plan that meets their obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement, according to an analysis published Wednesday, despite scientists' warning that deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are needed now.

The watchdog Climate Action Tracker (CAT) analyzed the policies of 36 countries, as well as the 27-nation European Union, and found that all major economies were off track to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The countries together make up 80% of the world's emissions.​

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Climate target updates slow as science demands action

 

[hoytedow]

That's because they know the 2015 Paris Accords are a pile of crap and they aren't idjuts.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Climate change is erasing 'flammability barrier' that protects high-elevation forests

• A study has found that the amount of scorched land increased across all elevations, but that the biggest increase was at elevations above 8,200 feet
• At high elevations, snow typically lingers through the summer, leaving little time for vegetation in these mountainous forests to dry out before rain and snow fall anew in the autumn and winter
• Now, global warming is melting mountain snowpack earlier in the year and disrupting that natural cycle
• "If you look at two 2020 fires in Colorado, the Cameron Peak Fire and East Troublesome Fire, those were two of the biggest fires in the modern history of that state," he said. "Both of them basically burned all the way to the upper tree line."

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

[hoytedow]

Forestry mismanagement is largely responsible. Arson is partly responsible. Failure to cut overgrowth near powerlines is partly responsible. I actually witnessed this as high voltage lit branch too close to power line.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

The Most Important Number You’ve Never Heard Of

• Fighting climate change forces society to spend real money today to reap benefits that will occur over hundreds or even thousands of years.
  
• Humans are not set up to be that farsighted, either financially or mentally
• The social cost of carbon is hugely affected by the choice of discount rate
• If the discount rate is high, you might rather have one cookie today than wait for two next week; if your discount rate is low, you’ll wait to get the two
• Recent analysis suggests that the social cost of carbon is $56 a ton on average at a 3 percent discount rate, and $171 a ton on average at a 2 percent discount rate.
  
• The 2 percent figure is more in line with the relevant current interest rates
• The higher figure implies that even very costly measures to reduce emissions should be implemented immediately

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Social Cost of Carbon: Advances in Long-Term Probabilistic Projections of Population, GDP, Emissions, and Discount Rates

Abstract

The social cost of carbon is a vitally important metric for informing the climate policy of numerous entities, including most notably its role in guiding climate regulations issued by the US federal government (USG). Characterization of uncertainty and transparency of assumptions are critical for supporting such an influential metric used in policy analysis. Challenges inherent to SCC estimation push the boundaries of typical analytical techniques and require augmented approaches to assess uncertainty, which in turn also raises important considerations for discounting. This paper addresses challenges related to projecting very long-term economic growth, population, and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as calibration of key discounting parameters for consistency with those projections. Our work improves upon alternative approaches that have been used by the USG, such as the use of non-probabilistic scenarios and constant discounting. The most prominent set of scenarios commonly used for this purpose do not fully characterize the uncertainty distribution of fully probabilistic model input data or corresponding SCC estimate outputs. Incorporating the full range of economic uncertainty in the SCC further underscores the importance of adopting a stochastic discounting approach to account for such uncertainty in an integrated manner.​

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Climate change could force Arctic seals to feed on 'marine junk food,' new B.C. study suggests

• Research found distribution of some fish species will change by the end of the century, likely impacting Arctic predators like ringed seals
  
• Large, fatty Arctic cod may decline dramatically in terms of biomass and distribution, while smaller fish, like capelin and sand lance, may become much more prevalent
• The study also suggested many varieties of fish could also shrink in size

The study was published in Ecology Letters

 

[hoytedow]

The Most Important Number You’ve Never Heard Of

​

So I should blame you for this? >>>>>>
UK's meat industry warns CO2 shortage could hit food supplies https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-meat-industry-warns-co2-shortage-could-hit-food-supplies-2021-09-17/

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Do We Need to Shrink the Economy to Stop Climate Change?

• The dominant paradigm for solving climate change is called green growth, which claims that the global economy can both continue growing and defuse the threat of a warming planet through rapid, market-led environmental action and technological innovation
• A rival paradigm, known as degrowth, thinks that humanity simply does not have the capacity to phase out fossil fuels and meet the ever-growing demand of rich economies; consumption itself has to be curtailed
• The argument for degrowth rests on two key premises:
• 1) Human economies cannot grow infinitely on a planet with finite resources.
• 2) G.D.P. can be decoupled from greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, but that decoupling isn’t happening fast enough
• The requisite solution also has two parts:
• 1) Since climate change is being driven primarily by the cumulative historical consumption of the Global North, it is incumbent on rich countries to shrink their economies
• 2) That retrenchment, in turn, would create space in the global carbon budget for poorer countries to continue growing, which they still need to do to lift their populations out of poverty
• Arguments against degrowth include:
• 1) Standards of living can be increased without exhausting the planet’s resources by finding more efficient ways to use the stuff we have.
• 2) Decoupling G.D.P. from greenhouse gas emissions is not just possible, but has already happened -- including by the United States -- though not nearly fast enough
• Proponents of both paradigms agree that "selling" degrowth to the general populace is much harder than "selling" green growth
• Doughnut economics suggests that economies should abandon growth for growth’s sake and make it their goal to reach the sweet spot — or the doughnut — between the “social foundation,” where everyone has what they need to live a good life, and the “environmental ceiling"

 

[hoytedow]

Do We Need to Shrink the Economy to Stop Climate Change?

• The dominant paradigm for solving climate change is called green growth, which claims that the global economy can both continue growing and defuse the threat of a warming planet through rapid, market-led environmental action and technological innovation
• A rival paradigm, known as degrowth, thinks that humanity simply does not have the capacity to phase out fossil fuels and meet the ever-growing demand of rich economies; consumption itself has to be curtailed
• The argument for degrowth rests on two key premises:
• 1) Human economies cannot grow infinitely on a planet with finite resources.
• 2) G.D.P. can be decoupled from greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, but that decoupling isn’t happening fast enough
• The requisite solution also has two parts:
• 1) Since climate change is being driven primarily by the cumulative historical consumption of the Global North, it is incumbent on rich countries to shrink their economies
• 2) That retrenchment, in turn, would create space in the global carbon budget for poorer countries to continue growing, which they still need to do to lift their populations out of poverty
• Arguments against degrowth include:
• 1) Standards of living can be increased without exhausting the planet’s resources by finding more efficient ways to use the stuff we have.
• 2) Decoupling G.D.P. from greenhouse gas emissions is not just possible, but has already happened -- including by the United States -- though not nearly fast enough
• Proponents of both paradigms agree that "selling" degrowth to the general populace is much harder than "selling" green growth
• Doughnut economics suggests that economies should abandon growth for growth’s sake and make it their goal to reach the sweet spot — or the doughnut — between the “social foundation,” where everyone has what they need to live a good life, and the “environmental ceiling"

Quick answer: No.
Slow answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.