Time to Ask WHAT TEMPERATURE IS PERFECT for the average on Earth?

a reply to: Zelun

Nitrogen is paramagnetic. Water is diamagnetic.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Zelun
1) I accept your correction.

2) I must refer to the claim of the OP in another thread, which is where this point arose. I agree that gas molecules can be diamagnetic or paramagnetic. I do not agree that the atmosphere is "held" because of magnetic attraction in lieu of gravitational attraction.

You agree that nitrogen is diamagnetic. If diamagnetic repulsion is stronger than gravitation, how is it that nitrogen is the predominant gas in Earth's atmosphere? How is it that oxygen, which is paramagnetic (and of greater molecular weight than nitrogen) is not dominant?

3) See #2.

originally posted by: Phage
...
So, when CO2 causes temperatures to rise a bit, it means that water vapor content increases, which causes more warming. It's one of the feedback effects of CO2 warming, like albedo reduction in the Arctic.

Except for the FACT that temperatures always raise first and then CO2 levels increase just like it happened in the early 1600s... That's about 150 before the start of the industrial revolution and about 260 years before the height of the industrial revolution. So despite your attempts at claiming it has been CO2 raising temperatures, temperatures were increasing a century and a half BEFORE CO2 levels began to rise... Then there is the fact that 95% of the global circulation models are wrong and have been wrong, while the other 5% could be a fluke/chance.

a reply to: Phage

Okay yeah, no. I was conflating things. The only reason you brought up the ionized gas thing was to point out that we have an atmosphere because of gravity, not because of electromagnetism. Sorry.

HOWEVER, comma, I think you underestimate the effect of CMEs on our weather. When the solar wind pushes on our geomagnetic field it changes the local electromagnetic flux from the top of the magnetosphere to the bottom of the troposphere, and that would have crazy effects on gasses in our atmosphere, ionized or not. It's why radio is clear some days, and other days not. When big masses of gaseous molecules are all given marching orders by a singular cause, the sun, you get significant results.

That was my only point. I think the Earth's magnetic field effects the orientation of gas molecules(and probably water molecules) that causes strange electrochemical effects that we don't currently understand. Things like low-voltage, high amperage currents in the oceans and the atmosphere, that simply haven't been detected yet, and contribute to the "chaos" that we describe as weather and climate.

peace

a reply to: Zelun

CMEs increase ion levels in the ionosphere, that is why "skip" increases during geomagnetic events. It has nothing to do with weather, which occurs in the troposphere.

a reply to: Zelun

I think the Earth's magnetic field effects the orientation of gas molecules(and probably water molecules) that causes strange electrochemical effects that we don't currently understand.

Certainly not the first time I have heard of this, and it is an interesting thought. It becomes even more interesting when one considers that the magnetic field of the planet tends to concentrate charged solar particles along the poles, and the Arctic has been the source of a great deal of the warming trend we are told is taking place. Magnetic fields tend to have major effects on ions, even weak magnetic fields. That's why the Aurora Borealis is close to the North Pole.

As a matter of fact, I need to muse on this idea of yours a while... quite interesting!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

CMEs do work, in a physics sense, on our planet. Consider if the normal solar output is the baseline, that gives our geomagnetic field a static, baseline shape. CME changes the shape of our geomagnetic field, that's work, or energy over time. Our entire atmosphere is composed of little magnets called gas molecules.

The magnetosphere doesn't end at the top of the troposphere. Otherwise compasses wouldn't work.

What's the ratio of the mass of a molecule of water vapor to the mass of a compass needle.

a reply to: Phage

I thought we were discussing climate. When did we change to weather?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As far as warming goes, it's not so much "the poles" as "the Arctic." Loss of sea ice and the resultant reduction in albedo is why the models predict greater warming there. But you know how those models are.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ask the guy I replied to.

a reply to: Phage

Is the Arctic not at the North Pole?

I really hate it when people move magnetic poles around and don't tell anyone...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is the Arctic not at the North Pole?

More correctly, the North Pole is in the Arctic.
www.worldatlas.com...

But you mused about why the Arctic is experiencing a greater rate of warming than the rest of the planet. I provided an explanation. Perhaps you will reject it in favor of a more electric one.

a reply to: Zelun

An interesting though came to me:

It would not have to be CMEs. A coronal mass ejection is a single event. The sun constantly releases a stream of particles and waves called the solar wind. Since this solar wind is separate from solar radiation (in that it is blocked/channeled to the poles), it is not unthinkable that there may have been a shift in this solar wind, in terms of either intensity or quantity of particles. That would make for a better explanation of a sustained warming trend.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is a database which includes the magnetic orientation of the solar wind. Go for it.
www.srl.caltech.edu...

a reply to: Phage

More correctly, the North Pole is in the Arctic.

But the Arctic does not surround the north pole... you're trying to confuse me, Phage.

But you mused about why the Arctic is experiencing a greater rate of warming than the rest of the planet. I provided an explanation. Perhaps you will reject it in favor of a more electric one.

Technically, your explanation of why the Arctic is warming is based in part on electrical phenomena... or should I say electron-based phenomena. The absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, like the absorption spectrum of any material, is a result of the electron bonds within it which are electrostatic by nature.

Electricity is real, Phage. I didn't make it up. I promise.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Electricity is real, Phage. I didn't make it up. I promise.

Yes it is.
But it is not the same thing as electromagnetic radiation. You know, like infrared.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I tend to think of a CME as an extreme and use it as a "worst" case, but it can easily said that we're talking about a continuum. There's no such thing as a static environment in nature. I think ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that to assert that space weather has no effect on terrestrial weather is foolish. A previous poster tried to split hairs by saying a CME only increased ion concentration in the ionosphere, but that is a fools errand. It would necessarily cause changes in the entirety of the geosphere, right down to the dynamo in the planet's core, because otherwise what is the event doing work upon? If the planet's core is generating a magnetic field, then an external force pushing back on it would cause it to expend energy in a measurable way. Or maybe it's more complex than that. Maybe these periodic pushes are what keep injecting energy into the dynamo, causing it to speed up and sustain itself. Or perhaps any innumerable combinations thereof.

Always remember, magnetism is a relativistic effect of the electrostatic force. They're two sides of the same coin. If the arbiter of light is the vacuum, then matter can only hope to delay it.

a reply to: Zelun

A previous poster tried to split hairs by saying a CME only increased ion concentration in the ionosphere, but that is a fools errand.

You are misstating what that previous poster said.

a reply to: Phage

Ooh, nice link!

It will take years to sort through all of that data, but I tried a couple of inquiries to the database, one from 1997 and the other from 2018 for the value of the magnetic component of the solar wind in nT. The results were intriguing:

This is from 1997:

This is from 2018:

I am seeing much greater variability over time with the 2018 plot. Induced electric velocity is based on the derivative of the magnetic field, not the absolute value. Based on that and increasing variability of the magnetic component of the solar wind, I find it quite possible that the solar wind would be responsible for introducing an electro-magnetic component to the global climate. Based again on observations of the most affected areas, it may well be that Zelun's hypothesis has merit. It certainly makes more sense in a physical sense than carbon dioxide fluctuations.

You may have just disproved Global Warming Theory, Phage! Congratulations!

TheRedneck


TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am seeing much greater variability over time with the 2018 plot

Based on 2 random 16 day time spans? You are assigning statistical significance to this?

You may have just disproved Global Warming Theory, Phage! Congratulations!

Don't blame your nonsense on me.