The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

NASA image of the planet Earth.The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Global sunscreen won't save corals

Jun 16, 2009 | 4.4 / 5 (13) | 1

Avoiding the hothouse and the icehouse

Feb 11, 2009 | 2.7 / 5 (14) | 10

Amazon carbon sink threatened by drought

Mar 05, 2009 | 3.4 / 5 (5) | 2

Pelosi appeals for China's help on climate change

May 28, 2009 | 1.6 / 5 (7) | 3

Emissions irrelevant to future climate change?

Apr 28, 2008 | 4.2 / 5 (24) | 7

   

• rank
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

4.5/5 after 22 votes

• BigTone - Jan 12, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
  • rate
  Bravo! I just hope their study is accurate enough to be included in climate models. Objectivity is not about CO2 vs not CO2, but including as many variables as we believe influence climate change with our best approximations as to their effect.
  
  It should be a wake up call to all of us, when a previous article mentioned in passing that their is limit to how far ice cores can go back in time - because all the ice melted the last time the poles reversed. It did not suggest cause and effect or rule out other effects, but geez you would think everyone would be racing to figure out if there is an effect based on our dynamic magnetic field and what the implications might be on their climate models.
  
  Engineers/Scientists of other disciplines readily change their models in the face of new even conflicting data - do climatologists all have a political censor looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't deviate even the slightest against the party line??
  • flag
• Mercury_01 - Jan 12, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  • rate
  Do you guys think that if the sun and earths magnetic low gets to a certain point, that the earth would be prone to magnetic polar shift?
  
  Or at the very least be more susceptible to solar storms?
  • flag
• MikeB - Jan 12, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
  • rate
  "...do climatologists all have a political censor looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't deviate even the slightest against the party line??"
  
  In a word, yes.
  • flag
• aufever - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.9 / 5 (8)
  • rate
  Recent studies of Earth's magnetic fields shows some shifts in the Pacific Area. The Global Warmers keep putting all their eggs in one basket and don't even talk about the possibility of other external forcers on the Climate. What is Earth's Normal Climate? Funny I seemed to have missed that Definition somewhere.
  • flag
• seanpu - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
  • rate
  until it is generally established in people's minds that the sun provides electrical energy as well as raw heat and radiative energy, climate models will never be able to come close to predicting earth's climate.
  
  Climatologists are living in a box in which they claim to predict future temperatures, without seeing that the heat energy they receive from radiators is from an external power source. their model, trained and built on past data cannot project forward because they miss the driving force behind everything; birkeland currents delivering power to the sun from our galaxy, threading their way through the planets supplying electrical power.
  
  but we can't blame climatologists for their blindness, astronomers can't see plasma for the gassy haze before their eyes. astronomers haven't given them the tools to see where true power comes from.
  • flag
• gmurphy - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  • rate
  it's interesting to note that precipitation in the tropics has always been an unreliable aspect of climate simulation.
  • flag
• Latrosicarius - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
  • rate
  while i'm sure global climate change is indeed multifaceted, in terms of just looking at greenhouse gases, i think far too much emphasis is given to C02 while other molecules like methane are ignored.
  • flag
• Supermono - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
  • rate
  Whilst this sounds at least as plausible as any other explanation for what we're (not) seeing, the big question is: How much tax do we need to pay to change Earth's magnetic field?
  • flag
• GrayMouser - Jan 13, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  • rate

  while i'm sure global climate change is indeed multifaceted, in terms of just looking at greenhouse gases, i think far too much emphasis is given to C02 while other molecules like methane are ignored.

  
  
  I agree, there's all that nitrogen and oxygen also messing up the IR transmissivity of our atmosphere. I say we should just blow it all away...
  • flag
• barakn - Jan 14, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  • rate

  it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmetic rays

  
  Thank god for that. I'd prefer to use my own cosmetics, thank you very much.
  • flag
• Choice - Jan 15, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  Please see here for the debunking of the cosmic ray theory: http://politicale...y-finds/
  
  The evidence shows no reduction in cosmic ray activity in the last decades while there has been evidence of hotter temperatures, so it seems unlikely that these two phenomena are connected.
  
  Thanks.
  • flag