#What debate? A recent draft of an international consensus report offers stronger-than-ever evidence that global warming is driven by human activity. The report also adjusts its expectations for important climate change effects such as how much sea levels will rise while admitting the difficulty in estimating what will happen to individual cities in the age of climate change. Reuters recently got a hold of a draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's next report the first stage of which is due in September. The panel which includes hundreds of experts and is open to members of the United nations and the World meteorological organization periodically summarizes the worldwide scientific consensus on climate change. It's more than 2000 pages long. The panel's estimates for future warming are important to policymakers. They drive decisions about what do to prepare towns and nations for rising sea levels more extreme weather and other effects from climate change. Governments around the world have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the panel's findings The New york times reports. The Times got a look at a draft after Reuters did. In previous years the panel's reports established that global warming is unequivocally happening. The latest draft indicates that the panel is surer than ever that humans are the primary cause. A large majority of scientists have believed long that global warming is caused human. In recent years though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has nudged its certainty level upward from 90 percent in 2007 to 95 percent in the latest draft Reuters reports. While climate change deniers often challenge the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change most scientists consider the panel conservative. The panel has made a high-profile mistake in the past. In its 2007 report it said the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Later the panel found that claim was speculative and wasn't backed by peer-reviewed science. Here are other highlights as Reuters and The New york times report them: Cycles of the Sun effects global weather the sun NOW is in a current stage of polar shift. Suspiciously looking at the magnetic field of the Earth for the past 300 years has been decreasing in magnetic flux and the poles are on a steady course of shift change. Finally noting as a history of magnetic polar shift for the Earth we are highly over do as well. Oh yea yes of course humanity in its ever presence of dominating and exploiting the recourse of the Earth grows in population and consumption of Earths recourse while putting constantly into the environment pollution and yes environmental polluting gases which cause global warming and reduction of the ozone. The rich will continue to exploit the masses and doom will come with billions humanity and all other life dieing in the process. Add all things together with an unstoppable humanity for future growth and consumption of Earths recourse the Earth and all its life will be change in a catastrophic negative manner in 100 years of less per my humble little oh opinion. It s not big oil that feeds climate change deniers it s the scientists themselves who refuse to say a crisis will happen only might happen so science can end this costly debate today and save their own children as well just by saying their 28 year old deadly crisis is inevitable not just âÂ#Âoelikelyã¢Â# and âÂ#Âoepossibleã¢Â# andã¢Â# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# âÂ# The scientific consensus of maybe is a consensus of nothing. One day AGH will go down as one of the greatest hoaxes in human history-second place only to religion. If my local community suggested addressing concerns about a 1-3 foot sea level rise between now and the year 2100 I'd say sure why not seems reasonable no matter whether the atmosphere is warming or cooling or staying the same and no matter whether any of these suggested changes were caused by humans sunspots or planetary alignments or black magic. But to suggest that we have to panic because the sea level is going to rise 23 meters destroy Manhattan and Florida and cause the near-extinction of humanity by this time next Friday that's hype hysteria and purposeful misrepresentation of what the IPCC has suggested for purposes that can not seem at all honorable. Those who take the official IPCC stance should denounce the hype and hysteria crowd--not doing so makes their members look like complete fools at best and criminals at worst. Then with the panic out of the way we can start discussing how to take advantage of slightly longer growing seasons slightly deeper ports and slightly closer seashores. I am prepared to offer one dollar (US$1) per acre for any small seaside town that will shortly be submerged underwater due to manmade global warming. This will help you transition to places that are higher and drier. No don't thank me. It's what I do best! Science isn't about consensus it's about proof. You can get a cabal of scientists that all believe the same fallacy reviewing each other's papers and you'll get a flawed peer-reviewed paper. Yes our climate is warming. It has been for thousands of years. The extraordinary claim that CO2 going from 0. 02%of our atmosphere to being 0. 04%of our atmosphere can cause dramatic changes in our climate requires extraordinary proof. There are also some pretty convincing signs that the'excess'carbon is SURFACE carbon not from fossil fuels. Nuclear testing messed with the data going forward but if you look at carbon 14 in the atmosphere prior to extensive nuclear test you'd expect the percentage to drop as fossil carbon (without 14c) is introduced into the atmosphere but that wasn't what happened. People and livestock (pigs chickens cows) are the most likely source of the majority of the carbon increase. You won't see this pointed out by most outlets because it doesn't fit the agenda it is carbon neutral (only affects the'flow'of carbon so it will stabilize) and attacking our source of meat in the US will produce some impressive rancor towards the movement. The climate of the planet is changing and due to man made influences but it is chemtrails the program of doping the earth's atmosphere with weather control chemicals from high flying jets not fossil fuels that caused it. Chemtrailing began around 1950 when jets started to be used widely worldwide. At that time the number of tornadoes in the U s. ceased being a constant 180 or so per year and started increasing so they are seven times that many or more every year now. Around 1950 is when the first new cloud species at that time was observed the cirrus intortus. Many if not most who oppose chemtrails believe they began around 1997 because that's when they started to be seen in the sky in great numbers long non dissipating vapor trails stretching from horizon to horizon and lasting for up to an hour of more. In fact they didn't begin then that's when the air became so saturated with chemical that any new contributions simply precipitated out. Since 1997 most manifestations associated with climate change have been recorded. Including the warmest year on record; the largest year to year drop in Arctic sea ice; the rapid melting of glaciers; the National Weather Service having to recalculate wind chill to accommodate the air having more heat than it used to; tornadoes occurring where they were once unknown like Brooklyn; the worst hurricane season on record; the Northwest Passage being open for the first time in history; the disappearance of bees; the arrival of unprecedented hundred mile per hour straight line wind storms called âÂ#Âoesuper derechosã¢Â#Â; the development of the first new cloud species to be recognized since the 1950's the undulatus asperatus. But many promoting the idea of climate change are as craven as those opposing it. They won't admit that chemtrails are altering the climate. Because they have a vested interest in seeing technology based on the idea of getting rid of fossil fuels flourish such as windmills and solar farms even though they can do at least as much damage to the environment as fossil fuels. Windmills for example take the energy from moving air. But when energy is taken from moving air there is less moving and less swiftly. And this is crucial. Wind helps distribute dust and disperse seeds and it's essential to the dissipating of temperature. Solar farms with their huge reflecting surfaces will heat dust in the air unnaturally can destroy cloud cover and can produce an abnormal temperature variation between air and ground. Consensus only implies that those who say what does and does not get published have agreed is their agenda to push. Shocker. Here's the deal about the IPCC. It's a political organization created by the UN not a scientific community or research group. It is staffed overwhelmingly with those who believe based on the slimmest of evidence and despite abundant evidence to the contrary that global warming is caused primarily human and that it is catastrophic. http://wattsupwiththat. com/2013/08/17/ipccs-pachauri-channels-al-gore /So we shouldn't expect unbiased statements from them. It is obvious from past IPCC assessments that they exclude studies that show no significant warming no significant sea level rise no significant negative impact of climate change and so forth. Their preordained conclusion is that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming and sea level rise. Their goal is to compel countries around the world to curtail CO2 emissions by limiting energy use and production. Their reports are designed to support that conclusion and that goal. The IPCC bases its predictions on computer-generated global climate models not on extrapolating real world measures of things like sea level rise or global temperature trends. Those climate models include forcings and feedbacks that attempt to increase the amount of warming and sea level rise based on arbitrary guesstimates of how much say CO2 aerosols water vapor etc. affects global climate. How well have predicted those computer models global temperature rise? All of them have overstated significantly it. See here: http://www. drroyspencer. com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-MT-5-yr-means1. pngit is almost certain that there is a much weaker correlation between CO2 and warming than the global climate models imply. For your information: 1. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1998 despite the fact that CO2 saturation of the atmosphere continues to increase. Temperature measured by satellite: http://www. drroyspencer. com/wp-content/uploads/UAH LT 1979 THRU APR 2013 V5. 5. pngtemperature measured by thermometers: http://www. ncdc. noaa. gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112. pngco2 measured at Mauna loa compared to temperatures: http://www. climate4you. com/images/Allcompared%20globalmonthlytempsince1958%20andco2. gif2. Current global sea level rise appears to be slowing slightly from the 60-year trend of 1. 7 Ã0. 3 mm per year. NOAA says the 7 year trend from 2005-2012 is more like one of these: 1. 1 Ã0. 8 mm/yr 1. 3 Ã0. 99 mm/yr 1. 2 Ã0. 9 mm/yr 1. 6 Ã0. 8 mm/yr. By the way 1. 7 mm a year works out to 6. 7 inches of sea level rise every 100 years. http://ibis . grdl. noaa. gov/SAT/Sealevelrise/documents/NOAA NESDIS SEA LEVEL RISE BUDGET REPORT 2012. pdfanyone worried? The IPCC is and so are a certain group of climate scientists but most other people aren't like geoscientists engineers and meteorologists; people who don't have a vested interest in furthering the global warming alarmists agenda. http://wattsupwiththat. com/2013/08/13/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-only-36-of-geoscientists -and-engineers-believe in-agw/3. All the data about heat waves in the U s. show no correlation to CO2 or global warming but a strong correlation to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niã  o and La Niã  a). Meteorologists know that all heat waves are regional not global events caused by stationary high pressure systems which have nothing to do with CO2 or global warming. http://wattsupwiththat. com/2013/07/01/heat-waves-validate-the-skeptics/P. S . If you want to learn about weather and climate ask a meteorologist not a climate scientist. 4. Satellite pictures show that the increasing CO2 saturation of the atmosphere has caused the earth to green. Plants thrive on CO2. A note about the power plant in the picture. It's the Intermountain Power plant in Delta Utah one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the United states run by the Los angeles Department of Water and Power. What you see coming out of the smokestack and cooling towers is steam. In other words water vapor. All emissions in modern coal-fired power plants are scrubbed of pollutants to significantly reduce emissions. Any power plant operator will tell you that they control burning to be as efficient as possible to produce maximum power and minimum emissions. Though burning coal produces CO2 just like oxygen and water vapor (H20) it's not a pollutant. aurenra7 If for a moment we decide to set aside industrial revolution human contribution to global warming and just focus on a reduction of Earth s Magnetic field we would have more solar radiation NOT being blocked by the magnetic fields but instead reaching more of the Earth s atmosphere causing it to warm up. Coincidently the reduction in the Earth s magnetic field has been observed scientifically happening for the past 300 years. Now this is consider a tiny time frame in Earth s history and so they really do not know yet if we are going to have a polar magnetic flip but the fact remains for the past 300 years Earth s magnetic field solar shield has been reducing. But if we say humans are causing the global warming it does open up the opportunity for political influence opportunities verse if this is just a natural cycle of the Earth may give less influence to the Politian s. It is known a fact that Earth s magnetic field has been reducing for the past 300 years and I am really surprise the science community has spoken not more of its effect on the atmosphere. I find it impossible to believe it has no effect and so deserves no comment. If a Earth polar shift were to occur during that time period we may actual have a time period of little to no magnetic field and at times multiple north and south poles all over the Earth. Factually as trends go for polar shifts Earth is greatly over do for a polar shift. By polar shift I am refering the a magnetic polar shift were the magnetic north pole ends up on the bottom of the Earth and the south pole ends up on the top magnetically field speaking. I'd believe that desertification by destruction of plants would be a larger cause than burning fossil fuels. jefro there's an undeniable cause of climate change! Overgrazing which leads to topsoil loss which leads to desertification. I'm all in favor of reclaiming the world's deserts and reversion the man-caused destruction of those environments even if it means less land for the rattlesnakes. Starz Your concern seems to be with the way the magnetic field in space affects that of the core and whether it can trigger reversals. Actually the effect is very small and thus probably not significant. As I type this (4 november 2003) a big magnetic storm is in progress and after dinner my wife and I will drive out of town to see if aurora is visible. According to the web data from Kyoto on http://www. antarctica. ac. uk/Satelliterisks/lastweek. html the average magnetic intensity at the equator has dropped by some 350 nt (nano-Tesla) in a region where the total field is about 30000 nt. This seems to be the largest storm of the year so far and the change is a little over 1%or 0. 01. That ratio also turns out to be of the order of the ratio between the energy of the disturbance and the magnetic energy of the core outside the surface of Earth (theorem of Dessler Parker and Sckopke. Thus the internal energy is still much larger even in a large disturbance. You write what would happen if say a pressure wave moved the so called'bow shock'boundary say half the distance towards the earth. It does happen in magnetic storms--may even have happened today. When this happens the result is in the opposite direction from that of trapped ions and electrons added by the magnetic storm. The 1%cited here is the net sum and the sign (direction of the added field today southward) suggests the added ions and electrons have a dominating effect. And that is just at the surface of the Earth. Because of conductivity of the core any disturbance is attenuated very severely inside it. A highly conducting material shields out external magnetic disturbances. One thing about reversals. They seem to happen rapidly but theory suggests (at least considering just the resistive nature of the fluid) that the magnetic energy of the core can only change very slowly. What it might be doing instead is redistribute itself--less in the main dipole part and more in the complex components (higher harmonics) which diminish steeply with distance and therefore contribute less to the field observed on the surface. In recent years I have read (work of Ned Benton) that the dipole field has weakened steadily but the complex part has grown stronger and the sum-total of their energy is roughly constant. So during a reversal complex magnetic fields are expected to persist and contain most of the energy. Since these fields are much more intense than anything created by electric currents in space (certainly in the core but even on the surface) I do not expect external sources to significantly affect the production of the new dynamo field. Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth-there is no spoon.@@the rest of youthe conclusion that the global warming in the latter part of the 20th century is a result of anthropogenic CO2 is computerized based on climate models (Global Circulation Models-GCMS) in which the models are only able to reproduce current global temperature trends only by increasing the CO2 levels. However there are problems with the models including the lack of sensitivity to solar irradiance. Many scientists do not agree that the certainty exists in the models ability to forecast the future climate and many scientists present evidence that the models do not account for solar forcings that match reality. The IPCC (AR4) report (The Physical Basis of Climate Change 2007 http://ipcc-wg1. ucar. edu/wg1/wg1-report. html) states that: âÂ#Âoethe direct RF radiative forcing due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the TAR Third Assessment Report. The best estimate is+0. 12 Watts per square metre âÂ#Â. The problem is that it is understood not currently how this small amount of change in solar irradiance during the solar cycle can influence the earth s climate. In addition the 4ar states: âÂ#Âoethere is more uncertainty regarding the influence of solar forcing. In addition to substantial uncertainty in the timing and amplitude of solar variations on time scales of several decades to centuries which has increased since the TAR although the estimate of solar forcing has been revised downwardsã¢Â#Â. In the Technical Summary the IPCC states: âÂ#Âoeuncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scalesã¢Â# In Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 they state: âÂ#Âoea number of independent analyses have identified tropospheric changes that appear to be associated with the solar cycle (van Loon and Shea 2000; Gleisner and Thejll 2003; Haigh 2003; White et al. 2003; Coughlin and Tung 2004; Labitzke 2004; Crooks and Gray 2005) suggesting an overall warmer and moister troposphere during solar maximum. The peak-to-trough amplitude of the response to the solar cycle globally is estimated to be approximately 0. 1ã near the surface. Such variations over the 11-year solar cycle make it is necessary to use several decades of data in detection and attribution studies. The solar cycle also affects atmospheric ozone concentrations with possible impacts on temperatures and winds in the stratosphere and has been hypothesised to influence clouds through cosmic rays (Section 2. 7. 1. 3). Note that there is substantial uncertainty in the identification of climate response to solar cycle variations because the satellite period is short relative to the solar cycle length and because the response is difficult to separate from internal climate variations and the response to volcanic eruptionsã¢Â# Thus due to the fact that the satellite record was (at the time the AR4 was written) less than 30 years and because the solar response is difficult to separate it is excluded from the models. A study published in 2003 (âÂ#Âoedo Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? âÂ# by Peter Stott Gareth Jones and John Mitchell Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Met Office United kingdom Journal of Climate December 2003 ) http://climate. envsci. rutgers. edu/pdf/Stottetal. pdf States: âÂ#Âoeit is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models. âÂ# The National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) produced a study called âÂ#Âoeclimate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questionsã¢Â# http://books. nap. edu//html/climatechange/which states: âÂ#Âoesolar irradiance the amount of solar energy striking Earth has been monitored accurately only since the late 1970s. However indirect measures of solar activity suggest that there has been a positive trend of solar irradiance over the industrial eraã¢Â# It is not implausible that solar irradiance has been a significant driver of climate during part of the industrial era as suggested by several modeling studies. âÂ# The sun provides the energy that warms the earth. And yet according to the NOAA National Climatic Data center http://www. ncdc. noaa. gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html âÂ#Âoeour understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimalã¢Â#Â. The importance of fluctuations and trends in solar inputs in affecting the climate is modeled inadequately. Although the sun exhibits varies types of energy related events (sunspots solar flares coronal mass ejections) sunspots have been observed and counted for the longest amount of time. Sunspots vary on an approximately 11-year cycle. The climate models assume that the solar irradiance varies by a negligible amount throughout the cycle. There is starting to be more disagreement as to this assumption. For example (Scafetta N. and B. J. West 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters doi: 1029/2005gl025539) state: âÂ#Âoethe models might be inadequate:(a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling;(b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field UV radiation solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations;(c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are included not in the modelsã¢Â# A study done by an Assistant professor of Earth sciences at Dartmouth University http://www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2002/06/020607073439. htm looked at the cycles of the sun s magnetic fluctuations and found: âÂ#Âoethe sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100000-year cycles a much longer time span than previously thought and this solar activity in turn may likely cause the 100000-year climate cycles on earthã¢Â# Sharma's calculations suggest that when the sun is magnetically more active the earth experiences a warmer climate and vice versa when the sun is magnetically less active there is a glacial period. Right now the earth is in an interglacial period (in between ice ages) that began about 11000 years ago and as expected this is also a time when the estimated solar activity appears to be highã¢Â# http://www. appinsys. com/Globalwarming/GW PART6 SOLAREVIDENCE. htmdo not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth-there is no spoon. If it weren't for people like laurenra7 and D49 I'd think I was crazy. I'm glad I don't have my computer otherwise everyone would be blessed with yet another essay full of sources and evidence opposing the views of this article. Polar Shift News http://www. earthchangesaffirmations. com/polar-shift-news. html...Magnetic reversal âÂ#Âoeimminentã¢Â# says National geographic Posted Feb 19 2012 Jan 23 2012-Scientists agree that Earth has long been subjected to thousands of traumatic magnetic reversals of the poles and that we re due for another âÂ#Âbut when? This video from the National geographic first posted on 24 feb 09 says the next magnetic reversal is âÂ#Âoeimminent. âÂ#Â...British Geological Survey Confirms Polar Shift Picture Posted January 25 2012 Weakening SAA may be early evidence of a forthcoming Polar Reversal The Earth s magnetic field generated deep within the planet is a shield against particle radiation from space. In the South Atlantic this shield is much weaker than elsewhere across the globe and radiation from space therefore penetrates deeper into the atmosphere. This region is known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) and the radiation in the SAA is known a hazard to satellites spacecraft and high-altitude aircraft. The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is known to be growing in extent and spreading westwards from South africa as the Earth s internal magnetic field rapidly weakens in this region. This may be early evidence of a forthcoming reversal in the direction of the Earth s internal magnetic field. We do not know in detail precisely what occurs during such reversals including the changes observed in the magnetic field and the time a reversal takes to complete. However these factors are important in knowing where the radiation risk may be increased and how the atmosphere might respond...Alarming NOAA data Rapid Pole Shift Posted Jan 11 2012january 15 2011 at 1: 53 pm (PT)- The NOAA National Geophysical Data center maintains a data set of annual magnetic north pole coordinates going back to the year 1590 derived from early measurements from ships logs to modern day techniques...The present rate of magnetic north pole shift is about 55 kilometers per year. According to the data set during the year 2000 the magnetic north pole actually shifted more than 70 kilometers. The issue now is since the pole shift has been at 400 year record high rates during the past 10 to 20 years the cumulative effect is now beginning to cause real-world issuesit is known not if the shift will speed up or slow down in the years ahead. Some say that a pole reversal is overdue and this phenomenon may be indicators of the beginnings of that process...The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study...COPENHAGEN (AFP)--The earth's climate has been affected significantly 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. Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark told the Videnskab journal...Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed according to controversial new research. Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought. In a book to be published this week they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet...http://www. viewzone. com/magnetic. weather. htmlearth's Magnetic field http://sedonanomalies. weebly. com/earths-magnetic-field. htmlglobal Warming Science-www. appinsys. com /Globalwarmingearth s Magnetic field and Climate Variability last update: 2010/05/28 http://www. appinsys. com/Globalwarming/Earthmagneticfield. htm...Lost in migration: Earth's magnetic field overdue a flip http://www. reuters. com/article/2012/10/03/us-science-earth-magneticfield-idusbre8920x620121003 (Reuters)- The discovery by NASA rover Curiosity of evidence that water once flowed on Mars-the most Earthlike planet in the solar system-should intensify interest in what the future could hold for mankind. The only thing stopping Earth having a lifeless environment like Mars is the magnetic field that shields us from deadly solar radiation and helps some animals migrate and it may be a lot more fragile and febrile than one might think. Scientists say earth's magnetic field is weakening and could all but disappear in as little as 500 years as a precursor to flipping upside down. It has happened before-the geological record suggests the magnetic field has reversed every 250000 years meaning that with the last event 800000 years ago another would seem to be overdue. Magnetic north has migrated more than 1500 kilometres over the past century said Conall Mac Niocaill an earth scientist at Oxford university. In the past 150 years the strength of the magnetic field has lessened by 10 percent which could indicate a reversal is on the cards. While the effects are hard to predict the consequences may be enormous. The loss of the magnetic field on Mars billions of years ago put paid to life on the planet if there ever was any scientists say. Mac Niocaill said Mars probably lost its magnetic field 3. 5-4 0 billion years ago based on observations that rocks in the planet's southern hemisphere have magnetisation. The northern half of Mars looks younger because it has fewer impact craters and has no magnetic structure to speak of so the field must have shut down before the rocks there were formed which would have been about 3. 8 billion years ago. With the field dying away the solar wind was then able to strip the atmosphere away and you would also have an increase in the cosmic radiation making it to the surface he said. Both of these things would be bad news for any life that might have formed on the surface-either wiping it out or forcing it to migrate into the interior of the planet. RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOWEARTH's magnetic field has restored always itself but as it continues to shift and weaken it will present challenges-satellites could be exposed more to solar wind and the oil industry uses readings from the field to guide drills. In nature animals which use the field could be confused mightily-birds bees and some fish all use the field for navigation. So do sea turtles whose long lives which can easily exceed a hundred years means a single generation could feel the effects. Birds may be able to cope because studies have shown they have backup systems that rely on stars and landmarks including roads and power lines to find their way around. The European space agency is taking the issue seriously. In November it plans to launch three satellites to improve our fairly blurry understanding of the magnetosphere. The project-Swarm-will send two satellites into a 450 kilometre high polar orbit to measure changes in the magnetic field while a third satellite 530 kilometres high will look at the influence of the sun. DESCENT INTO CHAOSSCIENTISTS who have known for some time the magnetic field has a tendency to flip have made advances in recent years in understanding why and how it happens. The field is generated by convection currents that churn in the molten iron of the planet's outer core. Other factors such as ocean currents and magnetic rocks in the earth's crust also contribute. The Swarm mission will pull all these elements together to improve computer models used to predict how the magnetic field will move and how fast it could weaken. Ciaran Beggan a geomagnetic specialist at The british Geological Survey in Edinburgh said studies have refined also our understanding of how the field reverses. They have f r

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011