The following sequence develops, step by step, the pioneering theory:
Climate Moderation through Magnetic Interaction of the Sun and Earth

 

This topic is introduced by video: http://creationtheoryblog.wordpress.com/climate-and-the-future/

Atmospheric carbon gases and the magnetic field are changing at rates never before experienced by humans. Implications?

A quick overview of this new model:

1. We propose a quantum age terrestrial magnetic field, resulting not so much from a conventional dynamo, but from feedback sensitive electronics generated in novel states of matter (superconductivity-type phenomena).

2. A small proportion of our magnetic field is generated in our oceans and atmosphere, and is therefore governed in some measure by the climate. This climatically-influenced component of our total field feeds back climatic information into the total field.

3. The climatically-modified total field governs the heat received and retained from the sun. Confirmation (2013) that Alfven waves are almost certainly a major instrument in heating the solar corona may provide insight into the mechanisms involved. The earth-sun-moon system is designed with an inbuilt thermostat. (Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night showeth knowledge -- Bible -- implying information technology).

 

Follow the following logical steps for a logical outcome -- a summary of conclusions is found near the end of the paper.

An Introductory Note on Geology, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Various gases can be shown in the laboratory to have a potential to produce a so-called greenhouse effect. They absorb and re-emit certain types of light (=heat) radiation. Theoretically, these gases, if present in the atmosphere, can influence global temperatures.

'Test tube' observations relating to climate change can go little farther than this. The earth's atmosphere is a vast and extremely complex system, defying reduction to simple formulae.

Climate theory therefore relies heavily upon deductions from history and observation of other planets. It is currently hobbled by deficiencies in our understanding of, amongst other things:

  • the chemistry of the myriad and mysterious processes in our atmosphere and biosphere;
  • the physics of rain, hail and snow;
  • the physics of cloud formation;
  • the part played by cosmic radiation (subatomic particles from Space);
  • the part played by the sun's far-reaching electro-magnetic radiation, including its possible effects on cosmic rays and on the outer zones of the earth's atmosphere;
  • the cause and total effects of the earth's magnetic field ; and
  • the part played by the oceans -- which absorb atmospheric gases in varying concentrations.

One example of the complexity and obscurity with which climate research is hobbled, is cloud formation. The major natural greenhouse gases, in order of the theoretical effect they currently have on our atmosphere, is: water (as water vapour); carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); ozone; nitrous oxide. Water vapour is the major component of our atmospheric greenhouse gases; it is present everywhere above the earth; it can form into cloud; cloud during the day cools the earth, but cloud at night warms the earth; changes in the amount of cloud over the earth can change global temperature; the precise subatomic (or quantum) processes of cloud formation are as yet only dimly perceived. Will an increase in water vapour -- the main greenhouse gas -- warm the earth, or generate more day-time cloud and not warm the earth? Do cosmic rays, or other atmospheric gases, play any part in the as yet mysterious processes of cloud and rain formation?

As an aside on the topic of clouds -- Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. (Mars, like Venus, has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere, but does not suffer runaway greenhouse heating, presumably because its atmosphere is thin.) Theoretically, it is only by a quirk of nature that Venus is not an ice-box rather than an oven. If that planet's CO2 had frozen into silvery dry-ice clouds, rather than remaining gaseous, the sun's heat would mostly be reflected. The planet would have suffered runaway freezing.

The geologic record of climate change is no better than the physics and chemistry. Once the dateable ice cores run out -- their record is insignificant in geologic terms -- there is no known reliable record of past atmospheric composition. Ice and snow are poor candidates for the fossil record. The atmosphere itself, incorporated into rocks that form in contact with it, is a better candidate: but when one considers the ease with which components of the atmosphere such as water, or ozone or nitrous oxide can react with or bond into the minerals that make up rocks -- how accurate a record of a past atmospheric composition can we expect to obtain from rocks? True, we have a dozen or so meteorites believed to have been thrown here from Mars, mostly on the basis of similarity between incorporated gases and Mars' atmosphere: but this similarity has more to do with isotopic tracers than overall bulk composition. Is it possible for accurate samples of our past atmosphere to be extracted from rocks? Prospects do not appear hopeful.. One ray of hope - as in the case of the Mars meteorites - lies in the fact that some aspects of atmospheric chemistry - such as isotope ratios- theoretically can be preserved in atmospheric gases incorporated in rock, and isotope ratios in, say, atmospheric oxygen, do vary according to temperature, latitude, altitude, and such-like variables. They are influenced by atmospheric temperature. Other rays of hope lie in observations of changes in the physical characteristics of some plants and animals in response to environmental factors such as carbon dioxide concentration, and temperature. The fossil remains of such environmentally sensitive organisms provide clues regarding past atmospheric carbon, and atmospheric temperature. Indicators such as these enable fleeting, fragmentary glimpses of past climates and past atmospheres. They cannot at this stage be used to prove that carbon dioxide governs
temperature.

This leaves, as a last resort, semi-inane speculation. Some strata of the earth, such as wind-blown sands and red coloured sediments, may or may not have been deposited under dry conditions. Red beds do at least suggest a level of oxidation attributable to a dryish, desert- like climate, or at least an alternating, wet and dry climate. Large quantities of such sediments appearing in the geologic record, especially if in association with a fauna and flora normally associated with warmth, could indicate global warming. They could equally suggest a change in the configuration of the drifting continents, which happened to be conducive to a warm climate in an area where sediments were being preserved. They could be merely an outcome of what happened to be preserved. The same might be said of strata containing evidence of glacial activity and frost. Changes in the position and altitude of landmasses theoretically could lead to temperate climate at a pole and frost at the equator. Was that a time of worldwide drought brought on by global warming? Was it a time of worldwide frost brought on by global cooling? Was it an accident of the configuration of the land and sea? Some strata are rich in coal, some in oil, some in carbonate (such as limestone) reefs. Are these buried carbonates and hydrocarbons products of times when there was a lot of CO2 in the air, or perhaps methane (CH4), furthering organic processes such as vegetable and coral growth? If so, was the world heated at that time by these gases? Is there any link, in the geologic record, between the occurrence of deposits indicative of a dry climate, or hot climate, and those rich in carbon? If there is, it is obscure.

The reader will do well if he can find someone able to convincingly link these fragments together into a coherent picture of past climates.

There are established facts, the principle fact being that we are mere bathers at the edge of the ocean of knowledge. As a pertinent illustration: in August 2010 ScienceDaily published information suggesting a link between vegetable growth in the oceans, ocean temperature, ocean currents and hurricane frequency.

As you progress through this climate moderation paper, you will be provided with evidence that complex, climatically-related processes such as these are also linked into the earth's magnetic field, which in turn plays a pivotal role in the moderation of world climate!

The depth of the self-corrective ability implied by the earth's past and present climate, is, in a phrase, 'mind-blowing'.

 

 

  • For the last 500 million years the climate cannot have changed significantly, as evidenced by the survival of complex life.
  • In that time the earth 'handled' stupendous quantities of greenhouse gases.
  • Climate cycles in time, at least partly in relationship to changes in the sun.
  • Global temperatures have been known to fall at the same time as greenhouse gas concentrations have been increasing.
  • Sudden changes such as the onset of ice-ages and the rapid desertification of the Sahara, besides a myriad of lesser but even more sudden events, cannot realistically be blamed on gradual fluctuations in atmospheric gas concentrations?
  • Geologic history in combination with measurement of CO2 shows that, since the advent of CO2 - reliant organisms such as plants, the earth's atmosphere can seldom have been lower in its atmospheric reserves of this compound, than it was 100 years ago. Barring input from other sources, some replenishment of the atmosphere with CO2 was necessary, to avert a possible global catastrophe.
  • There is a suggestion of a mysterious link between the earth's magnetism, and climate. Two prolonged periods of subdued magnetic field reversal activity seem to have been accompanied by heightened deposition of red sediment beds, suggestive of climate change during those times. (Dramatic species extinctions followed these periods of relative magnetic quiescence.) The climate change equally might have been triggered by landmass movement, there being evidence of rapid seafloor spreading during at least one of the periods of magnetic reversal quiescence.
  • Oxygen can be attracted by a magnet - and is exceptional amongst the common gases for having this property..
  • The Bible permits Man to utilize the earth's minerals Deut.8:9: "Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass". It suggests a link between magnetism and climate. Job 38:24: "By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?"

The recent concerns regarding the future of our planet may be bound up in the following fomulae?

Dust + time + chance + collisions ———> planets

Chemicals + time + lightning ———> life

Species + time + chance ———> new species

It seems natural to progress to the formula, greenhouse gases + time + chance (with or without lightning) ———> global warming. In all cases the catalyst which enables the reaction to happen is jargon.

We might observe, as an addend, that collective-breast-beating over the environment may well be therapeutic; that environmental awareness, worldwide, could be a good thing; and the inefficencies, the needless greenhouse gases, produced by the bureaucracy established to control greenhouse gases, could dwarf the geologic record itself.

 

Further to the introductory note:

An indication of the confusion of climate change experts: 'Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions may be Wrong'. :: Fossil Sirenians, Related to Today's Manatees, Give Scientists New Look at Ancient Climate: "The assumption [that oxygen isotopes constrain temperature estimates for the past] may be flawed, which could mean that previous estimates of water temperature are incorrect".

UCLA Professor Lyons (2009, Surprise in Earth's Upper Atmosphere), "This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down." [Online] Accessed 26 November 2009 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910091337.htm.

Gibson, S et al, (2009, If the Sun is so Quiet why is the Earth Ringing?) "Earth was bombarded last year with high levels of solar energy at a time when the sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared." [Online] J. Geophysical Research V.114 Accessed 26 November 2009 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090917131556.htm)

Technical University of Denmark (2009, 'Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds') "A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale...key role for cosmic rays in climate change." [Online] Geophysical Research Letters, Accessed 26 November 2009, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm

Lassen (n.d.) provides up-to-date confirmation that the sun is regulating earth's temperature: "70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas THE SOLAR INFLUENCE IS OBVIOUS in the data, from the last 4 centuries, SIGNATURES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ARE NOT.........." (emphasis added) (www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html).

The Zeeman Effect of splitting spectral lines may or may not be the parted of Job 38:24, but light is an electromagnetic phenomenon and the parting of light implicates magnetism.

East (Job 38:24) is defined by Smith's Bible Dictionary: "The Hebrew term kedem properly means that which is before, or in front of, a person, and was applied to the east from the custom of turning in that direction when describing the points of the compass, before, behind, the right and the left representing respectively east, west, south and north. See Job 23:8-9."

Therefore Job 38:24 conceivably might mean, "Tell me how a magnetic effect of the sun/stars, an adjunct/associate of light radiation, breaks up the 'up front' wind circulation that would normally be expected on a planet such as Earth?" (Powerful, destroying, persistent winds are a feature of many explored planets with atmospheres.) Or, taking a leap; "How does the sun, via magnetic effects associated with light radiation, influence our weather?" Such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the technically sophisticated book of Job. (We have just been advized, earlier in this chapter, that the early earth was initially shrouded entirely by water or something such, and by thick, persistent, cloud-like haze; that it early began to spin in the manner of a cylindrical seal imprinter turning on clay; and so on). Going farther afield: The Light of the World, the Universal Constant who "changes not" (Mal.3:6), the Son of Man, in a figure, the sun, which, as a strong man, "rejoices to run a race"(Ps.19:5), the "Sun [upper case S] of Righteousness" (Mal.4:2) - "What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" (Mark 4:41). The Light of the World, the Sun of Righteousness, being by a chance of the English Language the Son of Righteousness, upholding all things by the word of his power: "And he arose, and rebuked the wind.... and there was a great calm" (Mark 4:39) ......... . Can we take a hint, as to what ultimately might be the best place to look, for the natural engine behind our weather?

A short note on carbon 14 dating and climate change is found in the Educator's Section of this site.

Research involving the analysis of ice-cores reveals a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon levels and temperature. The following graphs show this remarkable proposed correlation.


Source: http://wwwdas.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

It may be of interest to the reader to ponder awhile the remarkably tidy correlations illustrated by these oft-shown graphs. Well has it been said that statistics prove anything. Here, depending on the interpreter, they conspire to shout at us that atmospheric carbon dioxide and atmospheric methane govern world temperature.

Perusal of sources such as those cited above reveals that technicians have tried to eliminate possible bias in the results. Entrapment of gas in compacting snow, in the real world, is not the same as entrapment in a lead-shielded, sterile test-tube. There are many and varied possible causes of bias inherent in the natural events involved in ice-core preservation. We trust that the technical chemistry is accurate.

Looking at these graphs, we see obvious correlations. They cannot be denied. But an investigator tries to think of all the possibilities. The temperature is being controlled by the gas levels - isn't it? Even though the major theoretical greenhouse gas - water - has not been factored in? The dust is being stirred in cooler times when the earth experienced bitter cold and perhaps fallen sea-levels - is it? Does global dust obey temperature so slavishly? Or is it that these two (lesser) greenhouse gases are in fact doing a synchronized dance-step in time with some overriding factor, which simultaneously influences dust? Could the dust be influencing the greenhouse gases? Could an overriding control be influencing these carbon greenhouse gases, dust levels, and temperature?

Global temperature as graphed is calculated from the proportion of heavier to lighter water molecules in the ice. The weight difference is caused by difference in isotope content of the molecules. Heavier molecules of water vapor tend to condense in a proportion that increases, as temperature decreases. This has been observed. But as those who cook food at an high altitude come to know, pressure also plays a part in the evaporation and condensation of fluids. The same isotope ratio outcome as produced by a temperature change, theoretically could be produced by a pressure change. In theory, the graph could be an indicator of changes in barometric pressure, not temperature. Temperature and pressure vary depending upon position within the atmosphere. The cloud that provided the ice sample, condensed from water vapor under conditions of temperature and pressure that conspired to give an isotope ratio.Clouds need not always form under stereotyped meteorologic conditions, under the exact same circumstances of temperature and pressure? Can the isotope ratio be assumed to solely indicate temperature? Or could it point to a combined outcome of interacting temperature and pressure, which was a reflection of meteorologic conditions at the time? could the graph be an indicator of a weather cycle, over and above a pure temperature cycle? More provocatively, could such a cycle in atmospheric/climatic conditions affect the production and removal of atmospheric carbon - CO2 and CH4? Are we looking at graphs that suggest that atmospheric conditions influence carbon content of the atmosphere - not the reverse? If so, what controls the fluctuations in the atmospheric conditions? Not the sun, perchance?

Let us now bring something to mind. Krauskopf, p.618, writes:"It makes no difference that some of the carbon expelled by volcanoes has the form of CH4(methane) and CO(carbon monoxide) rather than CO2, because these gases would be quickly oxidized by atmospheric oxygen and so would contribute to the supply of CO2." We take it on good authority, then, that methane tends to be oxidized and converted to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So if you see a peak of methane, shouldn't it be followed with a time lag by a rise in carbon dioxide, as the one contributes to supplies of the other? But an inspection of the graphs suggests they rise and fall semi-simultaneously, as though being simultaneously controlled. At the least, this illustrates the remarkable ameliorating effect of processes in nature, and the complex interaction of as yet unknown processes. Something stops runaway atmospheric change, and science does not yet know the mechanism. Therefore it cannot claim to understand these graphs.

This collection of graphs can only be unlocked when we deduce the prime mover. Carbon dioxide and methane can be influenced by many factors, including climate, as well as theoretically influencing climate. As Geerts & Linacre [http://www.das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html] succinctly phrase it: "it is not clear what drives what". There are more horses in this race than carbon dioxide and methane.

Krauskopf, p.617f, touches on the carbon topic, as of safety and certainty. Let the record speak. "The carbon of sedimentary rocks was nearly all derived from CO2 that once existed in the atmosphere: the carbon of organic materials was fixed in organic compounds by photosynthesis and the carbon of precipitated carbonates represents atmospheric CO2 added to seawater either
directly by solution or indirectly by the respiration and decay of organisms. If we estimate the total amount of carbon buried in sedimentary rocks, therefore, we should get a figure indicating how much CO2 has existed in the air at one time or another. Rubey's calculations (Rubey, 1951, GEOL.SOC.AMERICA BULL.,vol.62, pp.1111-1147) indicate that the amount of buried carbon exceeds that in the present atmosphere, oceans, and organisms by a factor of about 600 times (see Rubey, p.1124). Even if some of the analyses and estimates of volumes on which the calculations rest are greatly in error, the figure would still be startlingly large. Beyond any reasonable doubt. the amount of carbon now in the air is only a tiny fraction of the amount that has existed at some time in the geologic past. This result can be interpreted in several ways. One extreme possibility is that the atmosphere at some early period was very dense, consisting chiefly of CO2 at a partial pressure of about 12 atmospheres, and that the activity of plants plus the deposition of carbonate sediments has gradually reduced the amount to its present low value, 0.0003 atmospheres [more accurate measurements now place this figure at 0.00038]. This is an unlikely hypothesis, for it would mean that we are living at the very end of the history of life on our planet. Some CO2 is returned to the air by respiration, rock weathering, and organic decay, but the amount is too small to make up for the carbon that is being steadily removed as precipitated carbonates and organic matter buried with sediments. A rough calculation of the carbon balance indicates that CO2 in air will fall to a level too low to support plant life within a few centuries, unless some other source of the gas is available. Since the geologic record gives indisputable evidence for the continuous existence of multicellular organisms for at least 600 million years, and of unicellular life for at least 2 billion years [since extended to 4], the CO2 content of air cannot have dropped far below its present figure for a long time. And it is scarcely believable that the present 0.0003 atmospheres [more precisely, 0.00038] has been reached only now after 2 billion years of steady depletion. An obvious additional source of carbon dioxide is volcanic activity. .... ."

 

What does the Bible say about environmentalism? The answer to this question could take up a significant portion of cyberspace. The God who made the heaven and the earth does not deal in trivia, but he deals with what some may see as trivial matters, to an infinite depth. He goes direct to the core of a matter, healing the sufferer's sickness rather than his symptoms - the symptoms are relieved as a consequence. Man was given oversight of the environment, so the problem with the environment is the problem with Man. When Man comes into a proper relationship with the Creator, he comes into a potentially dazzling new relationship with the creation. The horse comes before the cart. If it doesn't, look for confused nonsense. Getting back to Eden is not a possibility. Many of us try it, but the way is barred. Utopia no longer dwells on this planet, at a physical location. This doesn't mean we should trash the remnants of Eden.

As one minor instance of biblical teaching on environmentalism, we might consider the question of the greatest and the least commandments.

The lawyers of the pharisaical sect deliberated and pontificated on which were the most important vs least important laws. Christ settled for all time the question of the most important law. That law has the profoundest possible meaning for every human being. It has to do with attitude. It can solve the world's problems. It is not recorded that the Lord addressed the question of the least important law. Perhaps this is because there is no least important law. But some Pharisees thought so. Tradition has it that the least important law is, Deuteronomy 22:6-7: "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young. But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." The reader could be of the mind that if this is a least important law, and it has to do with life and prosperity, then what would be an important law? Those pharisees haven't left us yet, unfortunately, and are pointing the self-righteous finger with as much legal backing as they can muster, to lade men with burdens which they themselves decline to move a finger to lift, even in areas such as birds, trees, cats, dogs, sheep, the entire created order, and legitimate actions of their fellow-men. Ah, but happy is the man who can truthfully say he has no pharisee in him. This author doesn't make that claim. The Bible does give Man permission to cut down trees and engage in agriculture. Jesus Christ was a carpenter. It warns against cutting down just any tree, e.g., Deuteronomy 20:19, 20. We can't be expected to check every tree for bird nests. So how can we obey what some pharisees regarded as the least momentous commandment?

As with all such commandments, they are properly interpreted in the light of the greatest commandment. Man needs the environment. It's good to be able to see a tree, here and there. Birds and the other beneficial species were placed here for Man. Are we here as personal partners with the Creator, to rely on him alone, even for the very food that comes from the ground: or are we servants of the treadmill, the need to make money, the way of the world? Who is trashing the environment, anyway? Not its Creator. But let's not think that primary producers etc are the only people who destroy bird nests. The most elementary study of economics shows that primary producers are no more, and probably less, culpable (except in cases of deliberate irresponsible destruction) than is the man who wields no axe. We are all economically interdependent.

What does the Bible tell us about the environment? It's all going to go, today in geologic time: but in the interim, the deliberate destruction of scenery and the obliteration of native species habitats is not part of the divine plan. When we read commandments such as that quoted above in relation to harvesting birds, we have food for thought. Our activities are either in partnership with God, through faith; or they are sin. And there is a right and a wrong way to approach even the environment.

The Bible suggests that if we are going to have detrimental climate change, it will be caused by attitude, not chemistry.

The Scriptures do not rule out climate change, and they do not say that human activity will not affect the climate. But whether man has a hand in it or not, climate and climate change are ultimately destined by a purpose which is beyond man. If the reader is concerned about climate change it is suggested he might find the following passages helpful -- Genesis 8:20-22; Jeremiah 5:22-14; Jeremiah 14:22; Job 38; Psalm 104.

 

A letter from P.B. Heywood to members of the Australian Parliament (November 2008) -- Update Climate Change.

Dear Member,

Update Climate Change Theory

The hypothesis that world climate is closely controlled by the concentration of gases such as CO2 and methane faces two insurmountable obstacles. The first is that the existence of vast quantities of carbonate reefs, coal, oil, and so on, implies input of tremendous quantities of carbon into our atmosphere at various times throughout geologic history. To do this in a random, unguided manner, without destroying life on earth, would be impossible, because of the quantities involved - if carbon dioxide is indeed the heating agent it is supposed to be. In short: to control world climate via atmospheric carbon would require constant carbon dioxide volume regulation, if the geologic record is to be taken seriously. Put it another way: believers in carbon dioxide climate change implicitly believe in something far more remarkable and mysterious than carbon dioxide driven climate change.

We might consider an example from the recent literature which illustrates the difficulty of a theory which relies on carbon to explain current global warming. ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2008) quoting work by geologists of the Geologic Survey of Norway:

"…the architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water…pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore, piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character ... the beach ridges which we have dated to about 6000-7000 years ago where shaped by wave activity. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in north Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Artic Ocean… Such beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time. This stands in sharp contrast to the present day situation."

This work by the Norwegians provides telling evidence that the Artic Ocean was all but ice free a mere six to seven thousand years ago. It then froze over. This is evidence of global warming 6 - 7 thousand years ago.

The reader will now be wondering why it is that the burning of fossil fuels is now being blamed for the recent retreat of Artic sea ice when the geologic evidence all but proves that the Artic sea ice was severely impoverished six to seven thousand years ago at a time when all the coal and oil was still under the ground.

The second obstacle to greenhouse gas control of our climate lies in the undeniable fact that there is some relationship between solar activity and our climate. This fact is being reinforced by new discoveries. The actual mechanism involved in the sun's control of our climate remains obscure at this time. One reason that people have concluded that greenhouse gases control our climate, is the measurement of a recent increase in world temperatures, whilst there was no commensurate increase in raw heat output of the sun. Conclusion? - increased carbon dioxide coming from fossil fuels is causing the heating.

This conclusion is so blinkered that it is laughable. Stars such as our sun are known to fluctuate in raw heat output. Such fluctuations, if not governed through some process of mitigation, theoretically would have long since destroyed all life on earth. As an extreme but telling example of this need for mitigation consider the faint early sun conundrum: our sun, by the laws and observations of physics, was two thirds-three quarters strength in its early life. Yet the early earth was not a frozen planet.

Fluctuations that must have happened in the sun's past do not appear to have produced the dire consequences one would expect.

Any reasonable theory of climate change has to account for climate change on the one hand, without introducing aliens to regulate greenhouse gas levels, and on the other hand needs to account for climate constancy, without introducing aliens to regulate the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun.

Shall we scratch the aliens from this race?

Let us postulate the obvious. The earth-sun system was designed to self- regulate. Conditions on Earth govern the amount of energy the Earth accepts from the sun.

As mentioned previously, the evidence of solar influence of our weather is undeniable, although the mechanism is obscure. The sun-earth relationship is now being investigated through the use of spacecraft and the technicians are getting some surprises. ScienceDaily (Nov. 2, 2008) quoting scientists at the Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama:

"During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tonnes of high energy particles may flow through this opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page…. Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist… Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere is filled with particles from the sun. These particles follow magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun…. The connections are often brief, bursty and very dynamic…. On the day side of earth - the side closest to the sun - Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge, forming a portal through which particles can flow. Four spacecraft and five probes have flown through and surrounded these cylinders….The cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and then roll over Earth's winter pole….They are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere….There are many unanswered questions. Why do the portals form every eight minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? We are doing some very heavy thinking about this…. Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting your planet to the sun."


 

The implications are obvious. Even at this early stage of knowing almost nothing we may safely conclude that the earth-sun system has been designed with an energy connection. Assume this connection is governed by information feedback from Earth itself - perhaps by the composition, configuration, and concentration of various atmospheric gases, and/or by the influence of the Earth's magnetic field. The Earth's atmosphere does not generate the magnetic field, although, as a planet, the Earth's atmosphere potentially has unique magnetic properties - because it contains that exceptional and magnetically active element, oxygen. Does the temperature of gaseous substances in our atmosphere have any influence at all on the fine detail of our magnetic field, and thereby govern our energy absorption from the sun? In theory it is possible, although the mechanism is currently totally conjectural.

If the reader wishes to be startled about this planet and its environs and atmosphere, consider the following. ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2008) quoting a report in the September 26th issue of the journal Science:


"Earth's north magnetic pole is shifting and weakening. Ancient lava flows are guiding a better understanding of what generates and controls the Earth's magnetic field - and what may drive it to occasionally reverse direction…. A new study of volcanic rocks [through study of magnetic crystals combined with precise dating of the flows] shows that a second magnetic field source may help determine how and whether the main field reverses direction. This second field, which may originate in the shallow core just below the rocky mantle layer of the Earth, becomes important when the main north-south field weakens, as it does prior to reversing…. The scientists believe the shallow core field may play a role in determining whether the main field polarity flips while weakened or whether it recovers its strength without reversing…. Current evidence suggests we are now approaching one of these transitional states because the main magnetic field is relatively weak and rapidly decreasing…while the last polarity reversal occurred several hundred thousand years ago, the next might come within only a few thousand years. Right now, historic records show that the strength of the magnetic field is declining very rapidly. From a quick back-of-the-envelope prediction, in 1500 years the field will be as weak as it's ever been and we could go into a state of polarity reversal."

The geologic record is ambivalent regarding a link between climate change and magnetic field reversal/reversal attempt. But remember, for climate change to evidence in the geologic record it needs to be severe - much more severe than the relatively slight warming we have experienced in the last few decades. This aspect of Geology is currently obscure. But it is no more obscure than the greenhouse gas idea.

We have heard much of greenhouse gases and climate change in recent times. We have heard very little of the other possibilities. If there is a link between terrestrial magnetism and climate, there is as much evidence for it as there is for a link between greenhouse gases and climate. And whereas greenhouse gas regulation of climate is roughly analogous to employing a bulldozer for manicuring, magnetic interaction as a governing mechanism could be highly sophisticated and sensitive.

In theory we have a plausible cause of climate change and climate constancy. Magnetic fields have information capacity. The earth's atmosphere, comprising, as it does, a broad spectrum of particles, ranging from everday gases in its lower regions through to entirely dismembered atomic particles in its uppermost regions, has the capability of modifying the information of magnetic force lines wihin it. Substances such as carbon dioxide, if they play a part, are a mere 'side-kick.'

The technicalities therefore declare that no existing evidence would be sufficient to bring a verdict of guilty against so-called greenhouse gases in a court of law. There is currently no reliable evidence, other than public opinion, to convict the burning of coal, shale oil, and so on, of the crime of ruining our climate. Should the reader know of any reliable evidence along these lines, kindly send it to me by return mail, and I will utilise it. (See www.CreationTheory.com).

Yours etc.

P.B. Heywood

 

A letter to Australian Parliamentarians August 2009

Climate Moderation Through Magnetic Interaction Between Sun and Earth

The mystery of climate moderation- until now unsolved - is presented to us 'in a nutshell' by Krauskopf 1967 (pp. 617-618) Quote: ".....the amount of buried carbon exceeds that in the present atmosphere, oceans, and organisms by a factor of about 600 times [a conservative estimate]. This .... can be interpreted in several ways. One extreme ... is that the atmosphere at some early period was very dense, consisting chiefly of CO2 at a partial pressure of about 12 atmospheres, and that the activity of plants plus the deposition of carbonate sediments has gradually reduced the amount to its present low value, 0.00038 atmospheres. This is an unlikely hypothesis .... it would mean that we are living at the very end of the history of life on our planet. A rough calculation of the carbon balance indicates that CO2 in air will fall to a level too low to support life within a few centuries ........ ."

In the few decades since this standard reference text was written, the potential catastrophe to which it refers has been avoided - but the mystery of climate regulation has remained.

Leaving all other considerations aside -- and there are many, such as the cold surface of Mars lying beneath an atmosphere of CO2 - there is no logical alternative to the conclusion that our climate is moderated by processes far more sophisticated than changes in atmospheric gas concentrations. Even if global industrialization doubles the CO2 in our atmosphere - which it may well do --- the CO2 level remains exceptionally low in historic terms.

It is not the purpose of this paper to advocate further carbon-heavy industrialization. The purpose is to show that a theory of climate change moderation, albeit in skeletal form, now exists. In proposing this alternative it is encumbent to show that there is a need for it.
There is no technical or logical view compatible with the notion that global climate is closely governed by atmospheric carbon gases. It is self-evident that the planet has been supplied in some way with atmospheric carbon in the past, and that those supplies recently became dangerously scarce. The testimony of fossil plants, animals and rock strata is that a workable atmospheric/climatic balance existed right back into the past. Let us put this in everyday language. Sizeable quantities of carbon to our knowledge can only have been injected into our atmosphere by volcanoes or from Space. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, we were due for an injection. Were it not for that industrialization, we today would be looking for a carbon source to save the planet. The CO2 - rich volcano and the CO2 rich comet didn't arrive. What if they had arrived? And if, besides re-charging the atmosphere with carbon gases, they had charged the atmosphere with other substances such as heat-reflectant dust, what might our temperature and our climate be today?

Man has not been given to play God and he need not concern himself over matters that are outside his finite jurisdiction. He is entitled to utilize planetary resources of all kinds. For religious people and non-religious people alike, this is ideally done to the glory of God, or the benefit of Mankind. We do not glorify God by assuming he can't look after the planet. And we don't heap honours upon ourselves by ignoring the science that was given to us for our mutual benefit. If a rise from 0.0003atm. CO2 to 0.0006atm. CO2 when our CO2 levels were already alarmingly depleted is going to be too much to handle, then this is not a rational universe. The geologic record makes no sense. Our personal individual histories make no sense. The industrial revolution of the previous millennium was a ghastly mistake. Nothing Computes!

'Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can be fairly presented to it'-Lord Kelvin. We are about to answer in broad conceptual terms and in terms of almost untested technology the question of how the Earth's climate is modulated. We shall begin with a brief overview of the ancient history of the planet.

The question of temperature moderation on the surface of the primeval Earth is largely separate from the question of moderation of today's Earth. In a formative solar system there were factors at play which have limited bearing on the modern scenario. There is no proof that the planets formed under the direct influence of an 'ignited' star such as our sun. When our sun did 'ignite', physics informs us that it almost certainly didn't give full heat for some time. This is the Faint Early Sun Conundrum. Add to this the likelihood of thick remnant gas and dust in the early solar system. Yet the record of the rocks is anything but that of a frozen early planet. If anything, our planet doesn't seem to have suffered anything approaching global freezing on its surface until well into its existence - well down the track, more than half way through its 'life'.

The early heating has obvious possible sources; chiefly, the heat given off by chemical processes within a newly formed body in which the components have yet to come to equilibrium with each other; and the heat/radiation given off by other newly formed bodies, due to similar internal processes. In our case, our proximity to a formative gas giant such as Jupiter could theoretically have kept us warm and partly lit until the sun came fully in to play. Some suggest greenhouse gases as the major warming factor in far-off times. Although that is a legitimate hypothesis, there is no need for it.

Gradually the warmth from within and from nearby neighbours tapered off. The geologic record is strongly suggestive of the gradual onset of superficial frigidity. We need to clarify this matter of frigidity. There is a division of opinion over whether an ice age implies a colder and/or drier global climate than does the retreat of ice. Ice implies snowfall to generate the ice. Excess snowfall in some places to build ice sheets does not prove that the global climate was colder. It could mean it was merely wetter. Ice ages are not understood. But there may well have been the father of all ice ages, well after the planet had been here for much of its existence. If so, this freezing may have been terminated by a remarkable event or series of events. These events ushered in a new era, the era of complex life, the era of the bulk of the fossil record as we know it, the era of relatively steady climate permitting the survival of complex life. This life consumed vast quantities of carbon, and its burial gave us fossil fuels and limestones. This is the era with which we are now concerned - the geologically 'modern' era, the era of obvious, unremitting climate modulation.

This was also the era of a relatively consistent magnetic field. Magnetism was probably a feature of the planet since its inception, and in particular we do have semi-reliable records of a strong field during this era of 'modern', complex life.

In the words of Prof. S.R. Taylor 1998 (p.163), principal rock science investigator for Apollo: "Magnetism [meaning, planetary magnetism] is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when W. Gilbert wrote his classic text in 1600". That date is, indeed, 1600, the turn of the 17th Century!

The conventional thinking regarding the Earth's magnetic field source has been of a conventional dynamo driven by slow convection of extremely pressurized iron or iron compounds or at least some sort of conducting material. Pressures involved range up to 3 million atmospheres. Needless to say, such a machine strikes us as ponderous and insensitive, difficult to start and difficult to stop. Nevertheless, the dynamo theory has a scientific basis and need not be dismissed in toto.

To overcome the problem of an inflexible, ponderous magnetic generator, and to bring planetary magnetism into the modern age, I hypothesized early this decade novel states of matter under extremes of pressure. Extremely high pressure is in some ways equivalent to extremely low temperature. Extremely low temperature is achievable in a laboratory for sustained periods of time. Extreme pressure is not so easily achieved. The prediction was good in that it was soon discovered that various substances, iron included, do more readily take on novel characteristics such as superconduction if they are subject to extremes of pressure as well as temperature. This of itself proves little but it is suggestive. Pressure testing in laboratories is proceeding but it has serious and obvious hurdles to overcome. Meanwhile, should the Earth's magnetic field display characteristics pointing to something akin to superconduction or an analogous effect operating under our feet, this would support the idea that novel states of matter come into play in the generation of planetary magnetic fields.

Assume for the purpose of this discussion that preferred zones within the Earth do take on novel electromagnetic characteristics under specified and perhaps very sensitively balanced regimes of temperature, pressure, composition, and magnetic environment. All these factors come into play with superconduction and they can be balanced and 'fine tuned' to give desired outcomes. Here then we have a theoretical sensitivity that to my mind is not inherent in the conventional dynamo model. A superconductor, for instance, can be 'quenched' back to conventional conductor by altering the magnetic field in which it is operating. There are precise cut-off levels. This is quantum age technology.

If a conducting object is moved within the field of any electromagnet, the magnet itself is affected. The effect may be miniscule, as when we drive a car under a power line and sap a fraction of the electrical flow as the magnetic field interferes with the car radio. Conversely, a magnet that is utilized for sake of argument in lifting heavy items will use appreciable quantities of electricity. All magnets - the Earth included - require power sources of some sort. Even a piece of 'lodestone' - a naturally occurring magnetic mineral - will over vast time periods become weakened as the magnetic effect built into it through its unique internal composition fades away.

I hypothesize that the gravitational flexing of the moon and sun is keeping our field well powered; but I hypothesize also that our field is far more sensitive to feedback than previously imagined. This may explain its constant variations and fluctuations reminiscent in a vague way of a stock market. It may help explain the migration of the poles. It may show why it reverses from time to time.
We may regard a strong yet sensitive magnetic field as the major piece about which other pieces fit to make up the puzzle of climate moderation.

We then add to this central hypothesis, another, which becomes the second major piece of the puzzle: the climate feeds a readable form of 'information' into this magnetic field. The atmosphere and especially the oceans, being conductors in constant motion, generate some sort of magnetic field. Assume that this secondary field modifies the main rock/metal generated field. This modification is a form of 'information feedback'. Conductivity of fluids and sea-water in particular is altered by temperature, pressure, and dissolved substances. Conductivity along with motion of the conducting fluid produces a magnetic field. The magnetic field is therefore altered by temperature, pressure, and the dissolved salt content. The modifying field constantly inserts climatic 'information' into the total field -temperature 'information' in particular.

Thus the second main piece of the temperature moderation puzzle is an atmospheric and especially oceanic generated 'overprint' of the main field. This 'overprint' 'tells' the main field something about climate, especially temperature.

This leads us ultimately to the third main piece of the climate moderation puzzle . We have a magnetic field. We have a mechanism for feeding information into the field - especially, ocean temperature information. It follows by a progression of logic that our magnetic field constantly adjusts the quantity of heat admitted to and/or retained by the earth's atmosphere, oceans, and environs. The mechanism by which it does so is 'cutting edge' technology. This is the third main piece of the jigsaw puzzle -- magnetic field adjustment of global temperature. The technology which it implies theoretically exists and in time will be 'pinned down'. All the necessary ingredients are available to build a magnetically operated 'gate valve' to regulate our energy receival.

(Biblically minded persons might note: when it speaks of the moon turning to blood and the sun not giving its light, we aren't being advised of a future grass fire. That's almost certainly an atmospheric filtering effect on light - perhaps even ulta-violet vs infra-red? - or some sort of electromagnetic atmospheric phenomenon.)

By a progression of logic and through deferring to compelling facts of nature, we have the three intermeshing pieces of the self-harmonious model of Climate Change Moderation. 1) A magnetic field capable of receiving climatic 'information'. 2) A capacity in Nature for feeding climatic 'information' to that field. 3) A theoretical mechanism by which that 'information- modified' field might regulate global temperature/climate.

Hitherto, this model has been largely intuitive, supported only by vague but compelling 'snippets' from Nature. Quantum theory, after all, scarcely pre-dates the new millennium. As of June '09, this changed, and we might surmise it will go on changing. Below is a graphed set of data by a Uni. of Illinois geophysicist. The data concur with the geophysicist's mathematical modelling. Secular variation is change of field strength per unit of time.

Figure 1. Does ocean flow cause the geomagnetic jerks? Comparison of oceanographic and geomagnetic data shows that the trend in secular variation is closely correlated with the trend in the ocean-flow intensity. Points--the oceanic transport index, a measure of intensity of the North Atlantic gyre circulation (Curry and McCartney 2001; data absent in some years, especially between 1979 and 1984). Lines--secular variation of the geomagnetic field (differences between successive annual means, east component) at three observatories in Western Europe: solid line--Eskdalemuir, dotted line--Niemegk, dashed line--Chambon la Foret (World Data Centre for Geomagnetism 2007). It is seen that the hitherto unexplained geomagnetic jerks of 1969, 1978, 1991 and 1998 (De Michelis and Tozzi 2005) are correlated with sharp changes in the trend of the ocean-flow intensity.

Figure 2. World chart of geomagnetic secular variation at 1980 reproduced from figure 42 of Langel (1987). Units are nT/yr; Mercator projection. Three local maxima (by absolute value) stand out as the key features of the chart; they are located east of Florida, east of North Brazil and south of the Philippines. Each of these maxima is associated with a major western boundary current: the Florida Current, the North Brazil Current and the Kuroshio, respectively. Not only the spatial correlation is strong, but also agreement is good between the local rates of secular variation and the order-of-magnitude estimates based on the currents' total transports.

Ryskin, G. (2009). Secular variation of the Earth's magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow? New Journal of Physics, 11 (6) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/063015

The statistics above are by no means compelling. Were it not that they fit a self-harmonious model, they would be meaningless. We can begin to evaluate this self-harmonious model. There is at least one way from the geologic perspective to evaluate a theory of oceanic modification of magnetic fields. That is to look into the record and see if there is any real evidence of a link between factors such as the following: a) Magnetic field activity, not ignoring reversal frequency. b) Past oceanic electrical conductivity, which increases as the amount of disolved substances (such as salt) increases. c) Past configuration of ocean basins -- which will have influenced oceanic circulation. d) Past climate change. Such evidence exists and demands attention. Like so many threads which the detective endeavours to spin together to make a case, they are not conclusive until more evidence is uncovered.

From the imperfect data available, there were two exceptionally prolonged periods of subdued magnetic field reversal activity. Both these periods stand out in the geologic record for the volume of red beds and other deposits suggestive of some sort of climate change/trauma. The older one may have been at a time of continental re-arrangement which influenced oceanic circulation, and also resulted in exceptional evaporate deposition which affected ocean salinity and therefore conductivity. The younger was a time of rapid sea-floor spreading (as evidenced by remnant basaltic sea-floor from that era), implying oceanic change as with the first. The older, of course, is associated with and was followed by the great Permo-Triassic mass extinction, which saw, amongst other things, the ultimate demise of the trilobites. The dinosaurs expanded dramatically in times following this remarkable event, but most (but not quite all?) met their demise with the second - near the end of the Cretaceous.

Please note: the extinctions mentioned above tended to occur after the periods of relative magnetic reversal quiescence. We are not currently in such a period. The climate change suggested by rock strata from those periods was generally much more severe than the climate change we have been experiencing. There are no solid grounds for equating those events with the modern scenario. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of those events was the infrequency of magnetic reversals. Jacobs (1984) is a classic reference in relation to these topics.

Magnetic fluctuation and magnetic reversal, discomforting as they may seem to our mind, could well be features of an ongoing, equable climate!

Climate change of some sort has always been going on on this planet. Continuance of the discomforting climatic trends of the past few decades cannot be ruled out. Climate change is related to our magnetic field but it is not driven by our magnetic field. If anything, our magnetic field is modified by climate change and ultimately reacts as part of the mechanism that moderates the climate! We cannot rule out further, prolonged global warming. We simply cannot predict long-term weather by human methods. What we can do is dismiss the alarmist fiction that greenhouse gases are rapidly and irreversibly driving temperatures and sea levels to disastrous heights, or are ever going to do so during Man's tenure. And what we may also be able to do - believe it or not - is, gain some insight into the likely future behaviour of our magnetic field, through study of the climatic and geomagnetic record!

The climate modifies our magnetic field. The modified magnetic field ultimately has a hand in re-adjusting the climate. If there are specific climatic conditions leading up to specific magnetic field reactions, then there may be, 'on the record', a precedent to our existing scenario. It is not impossible that that scenario could be a lead-up to some sort of signal magnetic event, which acts as a 'safety valve' to return the climate to 'even keel'. This is conjecture.

Bible students might consider those three unique chapters in three Gospels, in which future events on this planet are spelled out. For details, consult the Planetary Magnetism Paper on this site. If the overlap that is inherent in such a telescopic overview of future events is filtered out, three facts focus into view. 1) Late in history, as the bell before the final bell, there will be a time of global difficulty followed by historically unique atmospheric phenomena. 2) This worldwide difficulty presumably could be partly a consequence of climate change. 3) The startling atmospheric phenomena will be a product of planetary magnetic events.

Other interacting, or perhaps, triggering, events, such as, for sake of argument, the near approach of a comet or asteroid, are not specified, but are not ruled out. Note, the period of difficulty seems to precede the atmospheric display. This is an interpretation that could be challenged from the platform of a better understanding of these matters.

In contrast, the reader may confidently take the Magnetic Climate Moderation Theory as unchallengeable, although not as yet 'fleshed out'. Biblically aligned persons will know why. The sun is a type of Christ, and of the Father. The Earth is a type of Man - Adam, that 'red earth'. As a father walks along a road holding his son's hand, and as a son walks beside him, holding his father's hand, and as the father with wisdom senses what is best for the son, and as the son trusts his father no matter what he does or no matter what circumstance intervenes: as the two interrelate through the strength of one mitigating itself because of the needs of the other, in a tangible, touching relationship - so it is. As for the communication capacity built into the sun-earth-moon system: "Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language , where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race ........ ." If the word goes out, it does not return void, but accomplishes that for which it was sent. A message is emanating, 'day unto day, night unto night', that message being climate moderation that will enable Mankind to be here for the final bell. The standard of moderation may not be to our tastes. The road could have rough parts. The only reason that the ultimate, final bell, is not being rung here and now, is because there are yet straight men of faith and integrity out there. The author for one and he suspects the reader for another would like to fit into that category. Perhaps that's why this is written into our future? Human frailty? The day of second chances? Deliverance from that man, myself? (Augustine).

The publication of Ryskin's paper, June 2009, marks the termination of the climate change debate. Continuation therein amounts to chicanery and politico-religious humbug. Logically, the climate change research focus could profitably shift to the climate-magnetism link.

Yours etc.

P.B. Heywood

Sidenote

THE QUANTUM SUN

Nuclear fission, whether uncontrolled (nuclear explosives) or controlled (nuclear power) is a process which can be closely observed. It produces heat and assorted elementary particles. It is a process leading only to increased disorder, the beneficial side effect being heat.

Nuclear fusion, the fusing together of lighter elements to form heavier, can be achieved in a laboratory under extremes of temperature, but it is not a full replication of the process powering the sun and stars. Nuclear fusion as achieved to date is not self- sustaining and requires more energy to trigger the fusion, than is produced by the fusion. Therefore it cannot be a true, full replication of the process which gives the stars their light and which enables the sun to constantly generate vast quantities of heat and other radiation with little expense to the solar mass.

Therefore, the process at work in the sun and stars has not been closely observed.

We are currently at one of those watershed times when such processes are beginning to be observed - through space probes and improved observation techniques!

Nuclear fusion is a different category of chemistry to nuclear fission. Fusion is almost a creative process, presumably triggered by unknown changes to matter at pressures almost beyond imagination -- the pressure inside a body which comprises 99% of the total mass of our solar system, of which remaining 1% the Earth is an insignificant part!

Nuclear fusion therefore has to do with novel states of matter at extremes of pressure, temperature and other variables (magnetism for instance can play a part) and is therefore properly termed a quantum process. At such extremes we are not dealing with everyday matter as such but with the surprising, exotic behaviour of the subatomic components of matter, this exotic behaviour being triggered by the extreme conditions to which it is subjected.

If this were not enough, there are other discoveries being made not relating to matter under extreme conditions but relating to the fundamentals of living organisms under everyday conditions - indicating receptiveness to quantum information! One of the best hopes of building a superior or quantum computer may well be to utilize DNA, RNA, and other cellular components - and activate/signal them with light. Half way through 2011, researchers have been surprised to find that DNA can distinguish between two 'quantum states'. The surprises keep rolling in. (The author is no wiser than the reader in this matter of quantum terminology. These are mathematical concepts which do not easily transcribe into words. Yet they are simple concepts, intuitively grasped by anyone.)

And, now, half way through this same year, they are beginning to catch a glimpse of what really might be happening at the sun.

A quantum (specific quantity of vibrancy) is something akin to a three in one but one in three. It is an energy waveform. It is a particle. It is information. Nuclear fusion proper (in stars) therefore has to do with energy - obviously - matter - obviously - and information - in a sense, and not obviously.

The behaviour of the sun theoretically could be modified by feeding back 'information' through its magnetic field!

Alfven waves, hitherto of almost academic interest, are now being postulated as a big player in the day to day operation of the sun.

A father and son, walking down the road, holding hands. Climate moderation through magnetic field interaction of the sun and earth. Our climate modifies our field, which modifies the sun's activity through totally undreamed - of mechanism(s).

It's early days yet but as an incidental addend, let's go back to the ability of DNA to function in terms of quantum signalling.

It is a statistical fact that people with disorders of the mind are slightly more unstable at the full moon. That's nonsense! Isn't it?

The tear-shaped magnetosphere of the earth has a 'tail'. At times of full moon, the moon is invariably in the tail, and is swept by charged particles, giving the moon's surface electric voltage. The electrically charged moon has its own temporary magnetic field. That induced magnetic field, although miniscule, interacts with the field here on earth--- infinitesimally. Well, quantum signalling can be extremely sensitive, but is it so sensitive that the human brain could sense something?

Let's quickly draw attention to something larger, and conclude. The moon rocks strongly suggest that our satellite at one time was a magnet, like Earth. Assume it possessed a field when it first arrived here, when animal-grade life mysteriously exploded into existence. ("The moving creature that hath life".) That's not merely a dead planet regularly traversing our magnetotail: that 's magnet weaving with magnet - all quantum class outcomes, with the sun ultimately supplying everything including the ultimate quantum information carrier - light. DNA and the sun and the moon. The sun a type of the father, the moon a type of the mother. That is the capacity of quantum signalling - which, being intricately interwoven with light, is the closest physical matter to the divine.


Conclusions and Further Deductions - Climate Moderation Through Magnetic Interaction Theory

We now have a model for climate control, albeit in skeletal form. It has long been known that there is a link between our climate and magnetic events of the sun, as evidenced by sunspot frequency. Likewise, it has been known for some time that periods of infrequent magnetic field reversal on earth coincided with times of climatic change and/or difficulty. It only remained to link the two. Ryskin's paper (referenced below), taken in conjunction with a 'quantum-age' terrestrial magnetic field proposal, begins to bring the link into focus. Circulation of the earth's atmosphere and oceans provides part of our magnetic field. Our climate therefore influences our magnetic field. A glance at the history of the geomagnetic field, combined with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of life on earth, shows that times of subdued reversal activity were associated with challenging environmental conditions. Times of high frequency magnetic reversal tended to be times of equable climate, when life on earth prospered. Since our climate is primarily driven by the sun it follows that magnetic activity of the earth and especially magnetic reversal activity has a regulating influence on the solar heat that the earth receives/retains.

This opens up a new field of research, especially in the area of statistical analysis. As an introduction to this analysis, from an amateur point of view, let us revisit an icecore graph that was shown above.


As noted previously, and as noted by Geerts and Linacre, the meaning of icecore information is unclear. Quote,

"Carbon dioxide and methane (main greenhouse gases) occur in higher concentrations during warm periods; the two variables, temperature and greenhouse gas concentration, are clearly consistent, yet it is not clear what drives what. The correlation coefficient is 0.81 between CO2 content and apparent temperature, on the whole. During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect." Geerts & Linacre

Further to this expert opinion we have noted that the 'temperature' could in fact be an indicator of barometric pressure - the pressure at which the water vapour condensed to form the snow cloud - and so these remarkably symmetrical fluctuations could be indicators of a periodic, machine precision climatic influence, perhaps the sun, or some other component(s) of the solar system. This level of symmetry is rare in Nature unless it is caused by a machine.

The reader is now invited to compare the icecore temperature, carbon dioxide, and dust analyses from the last 450,000 years - ice records become blurred beyond this date - with a magnetic field indicator over the same period. VADM is a measure of magnetic field intensity. If the viewer can find any consistency between 'temperature', carbon dioxide and VADM, please advise the provider of this site by return mail. There is however, in this author's opinion, a possible correlation between dust - and dust readings in icecores will be accurate - and VADM. If the viewer applies a straightedge to the graphs he will discern that the VADM overall decreases towards the present while the dust increases. Fluctuations in dust and magnetic field also tend to increase toward the present. If dust levels are a reflection of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, these statistics are not contrary to the idea that climate has a significant input to our magnetic field. They are consistent with the notion that a weakening, increasingly fluctuating magnetic field could be at least partly the result of an increasingly fluctuating climate, and that magnetic reversal could ultimately return the climate to a more equable state. A surprise 'snap' reversal (not specifically identified in the VADM graph above) has now been shown to have been associated with strong climate fluctuations only 40,000 years ago.

There is a link between terrestrial magnetism, solar magnetism and our climate.

 

 

 

Attempt to Draw the Outline, Climate Moderation

Life has existed on Earth 4 thousand million years. Carbon dioxide content of the air must never have been substantially less than 0.0003 atmospheres, to sustain life. (Currently, 0.0004 atm..) Carbon gases may have been added to the atmosphere from space (dry ice and methane comets) and via volcanoes. Carbon is constantly being removed from the air by going into solution in the seas, to be buried in calcareous sediments, and by being buried as coal. (Total burial over 4 thousand million years was roughly equivalent to 12 atm. pure carbon dioxide.) Assume carbon gases do warm the planet. Assume they kept it from becoming too cold. Either full scale runaway global freezing or heating would have exterminated many species currently on Earth. What stopped the carbon gases from making it too hot? They must have been metered in extremely precisely, to sustain a liveable temperature, whilst not falling below the level required for plant life. Their concentration cannot have fallen below the minimum required for life during the existence of the planet. It is impossible to conceive of such precise metering by volcanoes and comets. A separate temperature correctional mechanism must have been built in. Assume the minimum carbon required for life also serves (through greenhouse effect) to stop total global freezing. Therefore there is no need to build in a low temperature stop – only a high temperature stop. Assume such a stop (whatever its fine details may be) is built into the system, and involves our magnetic field. Our magnetic field is in some sense climate driven. Assume a certain category of magnetic field activity, perhaps in some instances culminating in full reversal, invariably initiates a cooling effect. This effect for sake of argument could have to do with cloud formation or perhaps amelioration of some of the sun’s input. It need not be total or abrupt in its effect and might taper off over time. Alfven Waves, instruments of heat transfer sensitive to magnetic field change, need not be ignored when considering the possibilities.* The strength and duration of the effect could be influenced by the forcefulness of the reversal or attempted reversal event? -- A simple process, perhaps varied in some measure as regards to its strength and duration, but always tending towards cooling. It is triggered at least in part through global warming altering atmospheric and oceanic circulation, which in turn trigger magnetic field changes, sometimes leading to reversal. Data are sketchy at best but we need not visualize reversal as a rigid, inflexible process. There are reasons to suspect that no two reversal events are precisely the same – just as no two weather fronts are precisely the same. A cause-effect link between climate, carbon and the geomagnetic field is inescapable. The two best documented periods of muted reversal (one appears in the column opposite) were associated with obvious climate change and carbon. The older was during the Carboniferous-Permian, the younger during the Cretaceous (latin, chalk). Massive coal seams are associated with the first; limestones with the second.

 

*Conceptually, Alfven waves possess similarities to sound, which propagates through substances such as air; and radio, which propagates through the seeming void of Space. They are slower than radio/light but under rare circumstances may approach the speed of light. They exist wherever a magnetic field permeates a 'plasma' of atomic fragments. The sun therefore features Alfven waves. In fact, much of the heat we receive from the sun is transmitted via magnetic action. The 'plasma' of the corona is closer to us than the sun, yet parts of it are much hotter than the surface of the sun. The Earth, on the receiving end of the sun's output, also produces a magnetic field which passes through magnetically active substances (of our atmosphere). The sun's and Earth's fields continuously interact. The properties of our atmosphere are related in some ways to its temperature and composition. Therefore, carbon gases of our atmosphere potentially influence the magnetic interplay between sun and Earth. Oxygen itself possesses magnetic properties. These properties change according to the compound into which oxygen may be bonded.

Our (circulating) oceans are also influenced by temperature and dissolved substances - including carbon dioxide. They actively contribute to our overall magnetic field - what proportion, is unknown. In times past, their circulation may have been strongly modified through earth movements. This could explain the periods of subdued reversal activity?

If information feedback via atmospheric change is insufficient to the purpose, do the oceans act as a back-up to trigger magnetic field re-action to trip the thermostat? Could the effect be to reduce the solar radiation headed our way via magnetic transmission? The potential suitability of Alfven waves to this purpose lies in their propagation according to the characteristics of the magnetic field via which they are travelling.

Thus, magnetic field excursion/reversal here on Earth does not expose us to ruinous solar activity - on the contrary, it is part of a mechanism which ameliorates certain forms of solar activity in relation to the Earth. Events leading up to excursion/reversal need not be entirely pleasant(?) but, from the geologic record and the Scriptures, there is no reason to propose entirely ruinous global destruction as an adjunct of such events.

 

 


References:

Geerts, B. & Linacre, E. 2002, 'Ice Cores, CO2 Concentration & Climate' [Online]. Accessed 23 June 2007 from URL: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html.

Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (2012, October 16). Ice age polarity reversal was global event: Extremely brief reversal of geomagnetic field, climate variability, and super volcano. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016084936.htm.

A confirmed geomagnetic field reversal, only 40,000 years past, lasting only a few hundred years, associated with major climatic events.

Jacobs J.A., 1984, Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field, Adam Hilger Ltd., Bristol.

Krauskopf, K.B. 1967, Introduction to Geochemistry, McGraw-Hill/Kogakusha, Tokyo.

Lassen, K. n.d., 'Long Term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on Earth's Climate' [Online]. Accessed 19 June 2007 from URL: www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html.

Ryskin, G. 2009, 'Secular variation of the Earth's magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?' [Online]. New Journal of Physics, 11 (6). Accessed 7 August 2009 from URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/063015. Quote:

The results presented suggest that the observed secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field owes its origin to the ocean flow. A numerical simulation using the induction equation of magnetohydrodynamics and the ocean flow field yields secular variation in rough agreement with observations. Data analysis exhibits striking temporal correlation between the intensity of the North Atlantic oceanic circulation and secular variation in Western Europe; this explains, in particular, the geomagnetic jerks, and the recently discovered correlation between secular variation and climate. Spatial correlation between ocean currents and secular variation is also strong...... .......................... The current consensus is that the main field is generated by the hydromagnetic dynamo in the Earth’s fluid outer core. Secular variation has been taken as evidence of motion in the core since the time of Halley (1692). Halley thought that secular variation, the westward drift in particular, was caused by differential rotation of a magnetized solid core, separated from the ‘external parts of the Globe’ (also magnetized) by a ‘fluid medium’. Contemporary theoretical studies use the westward drift to estimate the characteristic large-scale velocity in the outer core, and to conclude that dynamo action is possible. If secular variation is caused by the ocean flow, the entire concept of the dynamo operating in the Earth’s core is called into question: there exists no other evidence of hydrodynamic flow in the core.

Taylor, S.R. 1998, Destiny or Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K..

 

FURTHER READING

Columbia University (2013, October 15). Astronomers find clues to decades-long coronal heating mystery. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131015191614.htm

QUOTE: New observations help to answer a 70-year-old solar physics conundrum about the unexplained extreme temperature of the Sun's corona -- known as the coronal heating problem......... found evidence that magnetic waves in a polar coronal hole contain enough energy to heat the corona and moreover that they also deposit most of their energy at sufficiently low heights for the heat to spread throughout the corona. The observations help to answer a 70-year-old solar physics conundrum about the unexplained extreme temperature of the Sun's corona -- known as the coronal heating problem. ............ Hahn and Savin's recent observations show that magnetic waves are the answer. The advance opens up a realm of further questions; chief among them is what causes the waves to damp. ....................

COMMENT: If 'magnetic', or, Alfven waves, do indeed transfer heat as suggested, what possibilities could follow? Alfven waves propagate courtesy of magnetic field lines and magnetic field lines are susceptible to various influences. Those influences could conceivably begin right here on earth.

Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) (2012, December 19). When the ice melts, the Earth spews fire. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133551.htm

QUOTE: Particular patterns started to appear. "There were periods when we found significantly more large eruptions than in others" says Kutterolf, the lead author of the Geology article. After comparing these patterns with the climate history, there was an amazing match. The periods of high volcanic activity followed fast, global temperature increases and associated rapid ice melting.

University of Utah (2012, September 23). Stratosphere targets deep sea to shape climate: North Atlantic 'Achilles heel' lets upper atmosphere affect the abyss. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120923141212.htm

COMMENT: Does the stratosphere target the deep sea or does the deep sea target the stratosphere? Or do both combine to target climate moderation through magnetic field interaction? The oceans and the North Atlantic especially generate their own magnetic fields, because salt water is a conductor and sea currents are therefore conductors in motion, generating a magnetic field. The stratosphere is also constantly in motion. It is host to the ozone (O3) layer and oxygen has magnetic properties. Both the earth's and sun's magnetic fields interact in some way with the stratosphere. The mechanism by which earth's climate is moderated is becoming less obscure.