History & Exopolitics

Earth’s magnetic field is collapsing and the poles are about to switch

  • Connie Misiolek

    Why is it that I can NEVER read EWA news! I click the link. the page shows up, but no article…EVER

  • Curtis Conway

    There is more going on that just Van Allen Belts moving on Earth. Many planets in our solar system are experiencing major environmental changes. So, obviously its the CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere causing it . . . Right? Anyone tells you that you get as far from them as you can because they are going to steal every dime in your pocket.

    • Librain

      Please provide references to this claim, Curtis. What planets are experiencing environmental changes? What kind of changes? What makes you think they are in any way linked to the proven connection between CO2 and climate change? It is perhaps Aliens? That would explain how something can be connected between planets. Or maybe it’s all just a conspiracy being sold to us by Big Solar, and only a small handful of plucky oil billionaires have the courage to stand up to the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field and fight for the truth, no matter how many billions of dollars they may make from it?

      • Curtis Conway
        • Librain

          Well, that’s better than the standard fare, but still hardly proof of anything. Let’s go through them, starting with #2.

          The IFLS link has absolutely nothing in it to back up your claims. It shows that other planets/satelites have atmospheres, mostly atmospheres that are drastically different from Earth’s, and gives a brief rundown of these atmospheres, but nothing more.

          The WP article states that Mars is seeing some warming of its climate, so yes that is at least a thing. But that warming is fairly minor, and already attributed to a known phenomenon. As it says, most experts in the field consider it coincidence. We know about the effect that is causing warming on Mars, and we know it occurs here on Earth, neither of these are in any way new revelations. I assure you, this has been taken into account in the calculations. We know exactly what that effect looks like on our climate, and what we’re seeing is not it. There is a reason why “The consensus view is that the warming trend on the planets is coincidental and that climate change on Earth can be attributed primarily to increased greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere.” (Also, the follow the link to the NASA page and it will mention that the climate on Mars changes over hundreds of thousands of years – Earth’s climate has changed significantly in the last 50 years. The difference in scale is, frankly, scary.)

          The Conscious Life News link… ugh, where to begin. There’s a bunch of random snippets that talk about other planets that appear to be undergoing some sort of warming, but with nothing to tie them together it remains just a bunch of random snippets. The Mars one refers back to the same controversial dude the previous link cited, the one whose results have been dismissed by the community as a whole. More on him next. Jupiter is undergoing climate change? Read closer, the proposal is that the vortices in Jupiter’s atmosphere are being eroded and will eventually collapse altogether, which will cause a temporary rise in temperature, which will cause the vortices to begin again. An interesting cycle, but not one that shows the planet as a whole is warming long term, and certainly not one that has anything to do with Earth’s climate at all. Utterly irrelevant. What else… Pluto is far too little studied to be making any claims about, Triton’s warming has two possible causes, neither of which are in any way linked to anything else, Saturn’s storm is unremarkable and still no sign it’s being caused by extra-planetary forces… yeah, there’s nothing here.

          Most of this is someone grabbing the headline and a few lines from the piece, but not actually fully understanding what is being said. Most of them are perfectly explained by natural phenomena on the relevant planet. Spoiler: any planet that has an atmosphere is probably going to have variations in that atmosphere that follow a set pattern. This is called “climate”. The only thing so far that even hints at any sort of system-wide connection that would link such utterly unrelated things as Jupiter’s wind patterns and the colour of Triton’s ice… is the one about Mars. So let’s get to that one now, shall we?

          The National Geographic article talks about one particular individual (Abdussamatov) who has made this extraordinary claim. That wobble’s in Earth’s axis (Milankovic cycles – natural cycles which occur on the 20,000-100,000 year timescale) have actually been mis-understood this whole time, and are responsible for almost all of the recent warming that the globe has seen. This theory relies heavily upon things like the greenhouse effect not existing, despite it being abundantly obvious that it does. This can be observed on Venus, replicated in laboratory conditions, and is essential in the history of life on Earth. Abdussamatov is being ridiculed by reputable scientists, and rightly so. His theory is not supported by even the briefest of comparisons to actual evidence.

          So, in summary Curtis, you have proved nothing. The fact that other planets have climates of one form or another proves absolutely nothing about Earth’s climate being effected by extra-planetary forces. You are simply peddling conspiracy theory garbage.

      • Curtis Conway

        I could not find the specific references I was looking for, but perhaps you have better tools with which to search. Over the last six months I had read several articles about weather changes on Saturn, Neptune and Jupiter. There was one specific mention of changes to the hexagonal storm on Saturn’s north pole. The other articles were reflecting gathered data that was significantly different than data from previous probes. I do not recall any specifics about the proposed reason for the changes, including that it may be a natural cyclic circumstance. However, there were significant changes to the environment on more than one planet in the Solar System.

        Concerning changes to the weather on Planet Earth . . . there is a tremendous volume of data that must be analyzed IN CONTEXT. From tree rings to ice core samples, and actual accurate recent weather data recorded in context that can be drawn upon to look at HiStorical data. The ‘Hockey Stick’ exist, but has been construed as being IN FRONT of the CO2 increase in the environment. THAT is a fabrication. The real scientist that do real science know different, and can prove it with data, not scare everyone into making them millionaires (like carbon credits in Europe) with their hype, or scare them to draw the ‘desired conclusions’ or their government funding will be pulled.

        • Librain

          Yeah, see you’re mixing up two completely different things. You’re seeing that other planets have weather, and thinking that this has anything to do with Earth. It doesn’t. Absolutely nothing at all. Many of the reasons Earth goes through natural climate changes are phenomena that exist on other planets as well, and cause those planets to go through similar natural changes. But there is absolutely nothing, not even the slightest thing, that can be inferred about our climate from some changes to a particular freaky storm on a gas giant – a planet so completely different from ours that it’s difficult to even comprehend how dissimilar our weather and climate patterns are.

          Furthermore, most of the examples you gave, we’ve identified the cause for the changing climate, and can say with absolute certainty that it is not the same thing as is happening on Earth. Comparing the two is on par with suggesting that a manned mission to the sun would be safe as long as you go at night.

          • Librain

            You may have read half a dozen articles, but this doesn’t make you an expert in the field. Certainly not enough of an expert to go telling a climate scientist how to do their job. And that’s exactly what you’re trying to do here. You’re saying that REAL scientists know different and can prove it with data. But they haven’t. In thirty years, no-one has been able to do so. The best you can manage is a crackpot Russian dude who’s theory relies on ignoring an effect that demonstrably exists. Why is that, I wonder? Perhaps you are not really in a position to be judging who is and is not a REAL scientist?

            If you knew anything about scientists, or mining companies, you would realise the sheer idiocy of looking at a bunch of billionaire oil executives, and a bunch of scientists who spend half their time working as university professors, and accusing only the latter group of being in it for the money.

            You will certainly find published scientists who are crazier than your average coconut. You will certainly find published scientists who are willing to sell their morals and publish whatever you want them to publish. But you will also find a MUCH larger group of scientists who are in it for the science. People who will not put their career in jeopardy – because if they are ever caught, they will never work in the field again. And given that you are required to show your working at every stage, it’s not actually that hard to get caught. It might take five years, maybe ten, but you will be stripped of position, awards, rank, and reputation, and no-one will ever hire you again. Worse has been done to those found guilty of the lesser crime of plagiarism.

            Fundamentally, you are claiming that 97% of a particular field is utterly corrupt. That is a simply mind-boggling claim. Climate scientists have been in agreement for about 3 decades now. In that time, not one person has come to the media with any kind of proof that, while every single other branch of science is perfectly fine, the one branch that deals with climate science is almost completely corrupt. The majority of scientists I know (and I know a few, since I spent the better part of a decade studying and working in the field) would sell their first born before they sold their morals. For Geology graduates (like me), coal, oil and gas are some of the least desirable areas, even though they are some of the highest paying, because scientists are just not in it for the money. They are driven to become scientists because they want to discover things, to learn things, to research new ideas, to find out how everything works. To suggest that this applies to all scientists *except* those who end up in climate science is frankly insulting. Insulting to all the actual scientists who have spend years of their life studying these things, insulting to the clean energy initiatives that have spent years making far less money than they could if they simply supported the mining companies, and frankly insulting to your intelligence.

            If you’re going to claim that the entire field of climate science is irrevocably corrupted and has been for 30 years, and expect me to simply believe it, then I’m going to call bullshit. You have nothing to support this claim other than a mining magnate’s desire that it be true. You have drunk the cool aid my friend. When it came down to a war between people who study a thing, and people who profit from it, you chose to believe those who profit from it know better, and those who study it are in it for the money. If you can’t see the cognitive dissonance there, I’m not sure what else I can say to you that you will not dismiss as the words of a paid shill. I am a broke, unemployed geology graduate who moved out of the field almost immediately. I assure you I have no financial gain here, but I do have the knowledge required to analyse the data correctly. If that sounds like a paid shill to you, then you are truly a lost cause.

          • Curtis Conway

            I tell you what . . . I will stick with the Nobel Laureate’s analysis, and let you believe what you want. Experience is a science too. Worked with the Aerographers Mates on more than one ocean, and this science is not that much Black Magic that all the Climate Change people make it out to be. The planet has been warmer before in HiSTory, and we have that recorded in various forms in the geologic, ice, and tree-ring records. Even the chemistry in the ice in the core samples that go thousands of feet down (read many years back in time) in the ice in Antarctica. They paint a pretty good picture.

          • Curtis Conway

            Are you saying that you actually believed my comment that “Obviously CO2 content in Earths atmosphere was causing the changes in climate on other planets”?!?!?! That was a comment to demonstrate the very fallacy you point out above. The only common denominator that can effect every planet in the solar system comes from the Sun, or some other source that effects all the planets at once. The majority of climate changes on this planet are driven by the Sun and water vapor in the atmosphere. These mechanisms are also affecting other planets in the solar system. If canaries in cages around the room all died, it was something in the environment that effected all of them at once. Not the poison I put in one water dish. With Orcas or Porposes it might be different because there is a relationship that involves awareness of the other in community (family). Not so with the planets.

            The few items I mentioned are not the only indicators in the solar system, and the solar system has a common denominator . . . Sol.

          • Librain

            That’s… so far from what I was saying it’s almost funny.

            Of course the CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere isn’t causing a reduction in storms on Jupiter. That’s ludicrous. That’e even more ludicrous than what you’re suggesting is actually going on, which is an impressive feat, I assure you.

            Let’s have a look at your canaries, shall we?

            First off, the canaries have not all died, you are simply cherry picking the ones that have, and ignoring the ones that haven’t. Europa has shown no signs of warming, Saturn has shown no signs of warming, Titan has shown no signs of warming… the list goes on. If the sun was affecting Earth and Mars, then why is it not affecting Europa?

            Secondly, let’s look at the dead canaries individually, rather than simply noting that they are dead and then assuming that there is nothing more to be gained from studying their corpses. We appear to have one that has died from heat exhaustion, one that has frozen, one that has a tumour on its neck the size of a golf ball, and one with an arrow in its side. You are suggesting that all four of these, including the one with an arrow through it, are caused by the same natural cause. Have you ever seen the Monty Python dead parrot skit? Yeah, that’s you. Insisting that arrows are covered by “natural causes”.

            Thirdly, the comparison to dead canaries is not appropriate, as with most of these things you have linked to the changes in the climate are in no way a sign of an unhealthy planet. The changes have been fully explained, and have nothing to do with the sun.

            Finally, how fucking basic do you think climate scientists are? Like, do you actually think they’re all sitting around staring at the sun and wondering why it is so bright? Do you genuinely think you’re the first person to suggest that maybe the sun might be warming up the planet? Trust me, you’re not that special. The sun warming theory has been suggested, and there’s a small number of scientists who support it (or at least, believe that it accounts for 40-50% of the planet’s warming, rather than only 10% as the internationally accepted model claims). But the *overwhelming majority* of people in the field looked at this claim, measured it, and found it did not match the results seen. I assure you, this is no more a genius level revelation to climate scientists than “use magnets” is to physicists explaining why perpetual motions machines can’t work. Just because you don’t know why it’s wrong, doesn’t make it any less so.

            This theory has been examined, and discarded. You are welcome to cling to a defunct relic if you like, but don’t drag the rest of humanity down with you.

          • Librain

            *sigh* I think the worst part about this is that people like you get to vote. You create vague hypotheses that you think support your position, but only show how little you understand the subject (akin to things like “Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams!”). You stick with the nobel laureate’s analysis because it supports your pre-conceived biases, nothing more. How can I tell? You cherry pick for things that support your position, and ignore anything that doesn’t.

            https://qz.com/444787/a-group-of-nobel-laureates-have-signed-a-declaration-calling-for-urgent-action-on-climate-change/

            By my count the current score is 36-1. Your move.

          • Curtis Conway

            Well, I’ve seen steel burn and it takes on a whole new perspective when you’re standing on it in the middle of the ocean at the time.

            What part of . . . ‘solar energy effects the weather on all planets in the same solar system’ . . . don’t you understand ? . . and come back with ‘all planets have their own weather systems’ seems to be ‘creat[ing] vague hypotheses that you think support your position’. Of course all planets have their own weather systems, and if you think that the compendium of understanding of what the effects on ‘more energy going into any given example of those disparate weather systems’ is well understood, is beyond me, and most of mankind.

            Nobel qualified laureates being aghast at the thought at the use of nuclear weapons is hardly germane to this discussion. Now if that same group in complete agreement signed an agreement recognizing that CO2 is driving climate change on planet Earth, were your link, it might have made a better argument. When the best these August Scientist can do is state: “The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth” then I am not impressed. I want to see data, and using the scientific method . . . I want to see something that is testable and verifiable. When THAT exist there is NO ‘likely’!

          • Librain

            Did… did you not actually read the link? That’s EXACTLY what they did. The scientists signing an agreement against the use of nuclear weapons was a completely different set of scientists, used only as a backdrop for the current agreement. Go back and read it again.

            As for wanting to see data using the scientific method, what you saw is the result of exactly that. There is ALWAYS a ‘likely’ in the scientific method. It is ‘likely’ the evolution by natural selection is the driving force behind speciation. It is ‘likely’ that gravity exists. If you want absolutes, go into maths. When a group of scientists say that the likely cause of the current global warming is CO2 emissions, they mean that they have tried to prove that it is not, and failed. Repeatedly. Over the course of three decades. Thousands of reports testing for different things in different ways have time and time again concluded that CO2 is probably causing global warming. The chances of any one report being wrong is generally in the vicinity of 1-5% (below 5% and it doesn’t get published as a positive result). The chance of any two results both being wrong is therefore generally somewhere between 0.01-0.25%. Just three takes us to a maximum of 0.0125% chance, and ten is a whopping 9.77×10^-12%.

            Now consider that there have been thousands of reports on the topic. Those are the odds you’re playing with: a percentage best described in scientific notation. You ask for science, but you don’t even know how to recognise it when you see it. Stop pretending to be an expert on this topic.

          • Librain

            As for solar energy effecting all planets in the solar system, I have already responded to this. We can observe the solar energy being emitted from Sol, we can observe the weather changes happening on various planets. We put these two together, and they do not add up. The changes we are seeing do not follow any particular pattern, and they do not match any change in the sun. Hypothesis discarded.

          • Curtis Conway

            I DID read the link. As for recogniZing real data, I can do that too.

          • Admiral Benbow

            Your finger seems to have slipped. You must have leaned on the shift key while typing the acceptable alternative spelling of “recognising”.

          • Curtis Conway

            Thanks, sincerely.

          • Admiral Benbow

            🙂

            Happy new year 😉

          • Curtis Conway

            “But there is absolutely nothing, not even the slightest thing, that can be inferred about our climate from some changes to a particular freaky storm on a gas giant – a planet so completely different from ours that it’s difficult to even comprehend how dissimilar our weather and climate patterns are.” Are you serious? If any amount of significant change in radiation coming from the sun is experienced by the solar system, there is no body of evident that would even suggest that it could not (notce I didn not say would not) effect all systems, save those that do not have an atmosphere, and there could still be an effect there due to increased heating of the crust over time. We still have to stick to the scinetific method, not bones, rattles and ‘I wish it was that way’, or ‘if its this way it supports my suposition or theory’. We don’t have Star Trek Science and the 24th Century database yet.

  • James B. Willit

    This is what happened to Mars except that the super caldera on Mars ( like our yellow stone) blew up into Olympus Mons and ejected the core. The moons of Mars are ejected matter that did not escape or fall back down , the iron of the core did however rain down onto the surface of Mars and the solar winds stripped away the remaining atmosphere,,, and Vol-ah the red planet. call me crazy.

  • Norman Alan Perry

    Great read….Vlatko Vedral’s book “Decoding Reality”.

  • http://msdiagnosed.blogspot.com Adaline

    It is well known that Venus has been much brighter in the last few years.

    Climate Change in the Solar System
    https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/climate-change-solar-system

    RUSSIAN SCIENTIST SAYS THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS MOVING INTO A NEW ENERGY “ZONE” THAT IS TRANSFORMING THE MAGNETIC FIELDS OF THE PLANETS.
    http://www.awaken.cc/awaken/pagesE/library/ePlanetChanges.html

    Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
    http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

    Supersized Storms Spotted Erupting on Uranus
    http://www.earthfrenzyradio.com/science-astronomy/2346-supersized-storms-spotted-erupting-on-uranus