Another inconvenient factor in climate change that is bigger than man

[VinnyVeritas]

…Earth’s center pauses and reverses direction on a periodic cycle lasting about 60 to 70 years, a discovery that might solve longstanding mysteries about climate and geological phenomena that occur on a similar timeframe, and that affect life on our planet.


Earth’s inner core is a solid metal ball that is 75 percent the size of the Moon. It can spin at different speeds and directions compared to our planet because it is nestled within a liquid outer core, but scientists are not sure exactly how fast it spins or whether its speed varies over time.

Located some 3,000 miles beneath our feet, the core experiences such intense pressures that it is likely as hot as the surface of the Sun. Because it is so remote and difficult to study, the inner core remains one of the least understood environments on our planet, though it’s clear that it plays a role in many processes that make our world habitable to life, such as the generation of Earth’s protective magnetic field, which blocks harmful radiation from reaching the surface.

…

As it turned out, the temporal changes reached a minimum around 2009, suggesting that the inner core had paused rotation around this time, creating seismic observations that seem more static. The team was even more astonished when they identified a similar turning point in the early 1970s, hinting that the core stops and reverses rotation on a periodic cycle.



https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgy...ped-and-may-be-reversing-direction-study-says

 

[ll74]

Pole reversals are known to happen. It has not been shown to impact climate variation and certainly does not contribute or subtract from anthropogenic warming.

 

[Chobham]

Pole reversals are known to happen. It has not been shown to impact climate variation and certainly does not contribute or subtract from anthropogenic warming.

The paper is NOT about pole reversals, that's a whole different issue. But as long as you bring it up, scientists are very concerned about that as the Magnetic North Pole is wandering off at an alarming rate while the Earths magnetic field is weakening. And that WILL impact climate in a severe way.

 

[ll74]

The paper is NOT about pole reversals, that's a whole different issue. But as long as you bring it up, scientists are very concerned about that as the Magnetic North Pole is wandering off at an alarming rate while the Earths magnetic field is weakening. And that WILL impact climate in a severe way.

The article is about the core changes which are tied to magnetic changes. And the article mentions that it happens every 60-70 years.

And it is not a factor in anthropogenic warming.

If the two forces are not balanced out, the inner core will accelerate or decelerate,” they added. “Both the magnetic field and the Earth’s rotation have a strong periodicity of 60-70 years. We believe that the proposed 70-year oscillation of the inner core is driven by the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.”

 

[Chobham]

The article is about the core changes which are tied to magnetic changes. And the article mentions that it happens every 60-70 years.

And it is not a factor in anthropogenic warming.

The paper speaks to a reversal in the core rotation, NOT pole reversal. Two completely different issues.

 

[ll74]

The paper speaks to a reversal in the core rotation, NOT pole reversal. Two completely different issues.

As I quoted, magnetic poles go hand in hand with core rotation. If you believe they are two different things and not tied together, it's because you're ignoring the source material.

And neither is an "inconvenient factor" to climate change.

 

[Chobham]

Really? If the paper is correct the rotation reverses on a 70 year cycle. The last pole reversal was 41,000 years ago. For the life of me I just can't quite get those two timelines to correlate. Perhaps you have an equation in mind that will clear that up for us.

 

[ll74]

Really? If the paper is correct the rotation reverses on a 70 year cycle. The last pole reversal was 41,000 years ago. For the life of me I just can't quite get those two timelines to correlate. Perhaps you have an equation in mind that will clear that up for us.

I quoted the article regarding the associations. Sorry you have an issue with my original statement.

It's really important to the OP discussion as well.

 

[oggbashan]

Another lying OP by a climate denier.

 

[Chobham]

You can deal with the OP on your own. I was merely addressing your incorrect correlation between core reversal and pole reversal.

 

[ll74]

You can deal with the OP on your own. I was merely addressing your incorrect correlation between core reversal and pole reversal.

Got it.

.

 

[jaF0]

Older articles:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-c...ic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ic-field-flip-for-climate-change-extinctions/

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html


Seems like conflicting information based on guessing.


As far as I can see, all current articles link back the same study

Earth's Inner Core May Have Stopped Spinning… And Could Be Reversing ...​

https://sputniknews.com › 20230124 › earths-inner-core-may-have-stopped-spinning-and-could-be-reversing-its-rotation-1106631991.html
Today Seismologists have published a study in the journal Nature Geoscience revealing what they believe to be the reversal of the Earth's inner core, which could potentially affect the Earth's own rotation.In the study, researchers Xi Yang and Xiaodong Song of Peking University, believe the inner core has actually paused its rotation process after looking at data that measured changes in both ...



.

 

[jaF0]

There seems to be a difference between core reversal (several decades) and pole reversal (thousands of years), so both points of pissiness above may be correct to an extent:

Seismic observations reveal that the Earth’s inner core oscillates with a period of approximately seven decades. The multidecadal periodicity coincides with that of several other geophysical observations, particularly the variations in the length of day and the Earth’s magnetic field, suggesting dynamic interactions between the major layers of the Earth.

Paywall, so only limited access:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01113-y

 

[ll74]

There seems to be a difference between core reversal (several decades) and pole reversal (thousands of years), so both points of pissiness above may be correct to an extent:

Seismic observations reveal that the Earth’s inner core oscillates with a period of approximately seven decades. The multidecadal periodicity coincides with that of several other geophysical observations, particularly the variations in the length of day and the Earth’s magnetic field, suggesting dynamic interactions between the major layers of the Earth.

Paywall, so only limited access:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01113-y

The gist continues to be the incorrect argument that natural cycles are to blame for climate change rather than human activity.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

The gist continues to be the incorrect argument that natural cycles are to blame for climate change rather than human activity.

So, then the correct argument is that only man causes climate change?

Natural cycles are simply irrelevant?

 

[Chobham]

The gist continues to be the incorrect argument that natural cycles are to blame for climate change rather than human activity.

Oh but they are. The contribution of the Milankovitch Cycles are well known. As is the correlation between Sun spots and climate. And there are many other scientific facts that call into question the degree of the role CO2 plays.

The climate is an 'N' dimensional polynomial and we don't even know what all the contributing variables are yet.

 

[jaF0]

Core rotation.
Pole reversal.
Climate change
Human Parasite


I'm not convinced a solid link has been established or refuted between any of them.



I personally believe Earth and Nature are far too complex for the human parasite to muck up.


I go back to George's infamous rant:


“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… asshole.”

― George Carlin


To me, it says far more than any 'study'.

 

[jaF0]

What we do may or may not be affecting the now, but won't have any lasting effect.

When Mom gets tired of us, she'll flick us out the window ... like a McCrap wrapper.

 

[jaF0]

Whether or not 'WE' are having any real effect will not be known for certain until thousands of years after 'WE' are gone.

And by then, 'WE' won't care.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Oh but they are. The contribution of the Milankovitch Cycles are well known. As is the correlation between Sun spots and climate. And there are many other scientific facts that call into question the degree of the role CO2 plays.

The climate is an 'N' dimensional polynomial and we don't even know what all the contributing variables are yet.

Could it be said that it is a so-called "Chaotic System" in which man is not the "Strange Attractor?"

 

[Chobham]

Could it be said that it is a so-called "Chaotic System" in which man is not the "Strange Attractor?"

Yup. That doesn't eliminate man as a variable but the climate was doing far weirder shit long before man ever came along.

 

[ll74]

So, then the correct argument is that only man causes climate change?

Natural cycles are simply irrelevant?

That's not an argument I'm making.

 

[ll74]

Oh but they are. The contribution of the Milankovitch Cycles are well known. As is the correlation between Sun spots and climate. And there are many other scientific facts that call into question the degree of the role CO2 plays.

The climate is an 'N' dimensional polynomial and we don't even know what all the contributing variables are yet.

Natural cycles contribute, obviously. Man has contributed far more than any other factor in much less time, which has led to man being the main driver in climate variation.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh but they are. The contribution of the Milankovitch Cycles are well known. As is the correlation between Sun spots and climate. And there are many other scientific facts that call into question the degree of the role CO2 plays.

The climate is an 'N' dimensional polynomial and we don't even know what all the contributing variables are yet.

 

[Chobham]

Natural cycles contribute, obviously. Man has contributed far more than any other factor in much less time, which has led to man being the main driver in climate variation.

According to what immutable, undebatable, source?