Does geomagnetism explain climate anomalies better than CO2?
Disclaimer: As a not-very-scientifically minded person this post is written from a sense of minimal understanding but hopefully there aren’t any serious errors in the basics put forward.
While I’ve found myself surrounded by AGW deniers for a couple of years now whereas for more than a decade previously I was among a throng of AGW proponents (myself included), it’s only very recently that I’ve started to take a good look. Unfortunately, while what I find is not just fossil-fuel funded scientists arguing against AGW - what I used to believe - but passionate scientists unfunded by anyone it’s very difficult for me to understand the arguments because the science is incredibly complicated. Increasing the complexity is that not all anti-AGWers make the same argument. Some argue from the outset there’s no such thing as the greenhouse gas effect while others argue there is but heating stops at a certain level, eg, 300 ppm and so on.
Physicist, Denis Rancourt says in his paper, Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect (2011):
Regarding the sceptic-warmist debate, my conclusion is: The sceptics say many incorrect things but they are right whereas the warmists say many correct things but they are wrong. The skeptics appear to be motivated by skepticism whereas the warmists appear to be motivated by conformism. The skeptics’ incorrect things have been used to discredit the skeptics and the warmists’ correct things have been used to mask a lie.
If what he claims is true it makes it rather difficult for the layperson to work out the truth, doesn’t it? Whenever you look at material on the web with comments invariably the commenters will make claims that the writer has got this, that or the other wrong and as a layperson it’s often difficult to assess whether the criticism has any validity.
A few days ago, I was given a link by
to a presentation by geologist, Koen Vogel, making a case for the effect of geomagnetic activity explaining the climate anomalies much better than CO2. In his critique of the IPCC Climate Change Attribution Review, Koen makes the case that:The IPCC’s choosing of two models from nine presented undermines the CO2 case at the outset because if CO2 plays the role claimed we wouldn’t expect so many models to choose from in the first place and why go with two? Why isn’t one a standout?
The manipulation of the model chosen is against the scientific method, eg, how scaling is done.
Models cannot match the time-series trends: the 1909-1943 increase of 0.5 C in GMST, the post-WW2 decrease of 0.2 C, etc
Models do not match the geographical trends: the Arctic and North Atlantic are warming faster than other oceans, while GHG effects should be greater where radiated heat is highest, i.e. near the equator.
Koen Vogel - IPCC Climate Change Attribution Review
Paper - The Role of Geomagnetic Induction Heating in Climate Change
Causes of Climate Change: It's not CO2 - Part 1
Causes of Climate Change: It's not CO2 - Part 2
Other material on geomagnetism and climate
Geomagnetic forcing of changes in climate and in the atmospheric circulation (1998), Vaclav Bucha Snr and Vaclav Bucha Jnr
New perspectives in the study of the Earth’s magnetic field and climate connection: The use of transfer entropy (2018), S. A. Campuzano, A. De Santis, F. J. Pavón-Carrasco, M. L. Osete, E. Qamili, Editor: Haroldo V. Ribeiro
Book chapter: Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System (2022), Natalya A. Kilifarska, Volodymyr G. Bakhmutov and Galyna V. Melnykin in the book, Magnetosphere and Solar Winds, Humans and Communication
Book: The Hidden Link between Earth's Magnetic Field and Climate (2020), Natalya A. Kilifarska, Volodymyr G. Bakhmutov and Galyna V. Melnyk
I used to be very much on board with AGW, too, even believed Greta was for real, until I learned that in past climate cycles, CO2 has risen AFTER temperature increases, not before--and by hundreds of years. CO2 can't possibly be the or even a cause of warming. This has been the psyop from the beginning, a way to manipulate people into accepting reductions in their freedom of movement and other life activities, and even population culls because "we have met the enemy and he is us." We are so illiterate about physics and other science knowledge--I mean, true science knowledge--and that is due to centuries of indoctrination that "it's too complicated for us to understand." Sure, there are complicated aspects of all knowledge, and the details of climate science are probably complicated and somewhat arcane, but the basics of it don't need to be that difficult. Like the flaws that make virology pseudoscience, which an ordinary person with a high school education can grasp, the basics of climate are not beyond understanding by everyday people. There are sun cycles, that's been documented, and we appear to be in a warming phase now--nothing whatsoever to do with burning so-called fossil fuels. Geomagnetics may well also be a contributing factor. There are many very real threats to life on Earth due to pollution and activities that entirely disregard nature--"climate change" is not one of them, but aerosol spraying is. My 2 cents. Thanks for providing different perspectives.
All you need to know about “climate change” is that the predicted negative consequences are based on models. And those same models cannot be back-tested to confirm them.