Earth weather and the magnetic field. Watch

rubarbman12
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hello there,

I'm only a year 11 student, but I thought a postgraduate with a degree in geography or environmental sciences would be best to answer this question. I asked my geography teacher but she told me to email a specialist. I wanted to ask here before I asked someone else.

The weather on Earth and clouds change constantly. The strength of the Earths magnetic field is different places on Earth. Is there a correlation between the temperatures or the weather in an area and the strength of the magnetic field in the same area? Has am experiment or observation ever been carried out via satellite to determine if this is true? If you could answer this it would help a whole lot!

Thanks for you're time :awesome:
0
reply
TSR Jessica
  •  Official Rep
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Sorry you've not had any responses about this. Are you sure you’ve posted in the right place? Posting in the specific Study Help forum should help get more responses. Hopefully someone will be able to get back to you
0
reply
Lee17
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by rubarbman12)
Hello there,

I'm only a year 11 student, but I thought a postgraduate with a degree in geography or environmental sciences would be best to answer this question. I asked my geography teacher but she told me to email a specialist. I wanted to ask here before I asked someone else.

The weather on Earth and clouds change constantly. The strength of the Earths magnetic field is different places on Earth. Is there a correlation between the temperatures or the weather in an area and the strength of the magnetic field in the same area? Has am experiment or observation ever been carried out via satellite to determine if this is true? If you could answer this it would help a whole lot!

Thanks for you're time :awesome:
I am only an undergraduate doing Physical Geography, but really the question you are asking is of course something a postgraduate and/or a PhD student might know about, but it would be a very specialised area, needing to combine Weather and Physics possibly to understand.

I have heard about something that there is more precipitation in the tropics because of the cosmic rays which causes the water to be attracted to ions, clumping together and of course causing more rain bearing clouds causing precipitation, but then this is one factor to why is rains more, ie, gets more sun light causing hotter climate, this cause more energy for the climate to hold more water.
This contrasted to the pole, the magnetic field is weakest in the poles because it's closer to the earth, meaning more cosmic rays may be able to more easily get through, but then again it is colder meaning less energy to hold water, meaning little to no rain can occur.

I may be wrong, or have many things wrong, but if it was true that it effects the weather, it will be one small factor together with other more significant factors.
0
reply
rubarbman12
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Lee17)
I am only an undergraduate doing Physical Geography, but really the question you are asking is of course something a postgraduate and/or a PhD student might know about, but it would be a very specialised area, needing to combine Weather and Physics possibly to understand.

I have heard about something that there is more precipitation in the tropics because of the cosmic rays which causes the water to be attracted to ions, clumping together and of course causing more rain bearing clouds causing precipitation, but then this is one factor to why is rains more, ie, gets more sun light causing hotter climate, this cause more energy for the climate to hold more water.
This contrasted to the pole, the magnetic field is weakest in the poles because it's closer to the earth, meaning more cosmic rays may be able to more easily get through, but then again it is colder meaning less energy to hold water, meaning little to no rain can occur.

I may be wrong, or have many things wrong, but if it was true that it effects the weather, it will be one small factor together with other more significant factors.
May I ask, where you heard this?
0
reply
uthred50
Badges: 16
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
This is an excellent question, and particularly so coming from someone who isn't even doing A Level Geography yet.

A brief introduction - I'm a Study Helper on this forum and my degree is in geography, and I've done my fair share of climatology!

The short answer to your question is that the Earth's magnetic field is indeed believed to have some influence on weather and climate, but climatology is a complicated business and studies on this topic only began relatively recently (we are really talking within the last decade), so the details are subject to conjecture.

As Lee mentioned above, the mechanism is linked to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are facinating things in their own right (I'll leave you to scout wikipedia on that topic before I derail too far into astrophysics!) His explanation of that is correct: Cosmic rays give rise to more ions (charged particles) in the atmosphere, which attract water molecules and the clumps that form condense into water droplets, which in turn, given enough volume, become clouds. In terms of the day-to-day effect on weather, the consequences of this are probably quite small. However, from a climatic point of view (i.e. longer-term trends) it could have significant impact (although I cannot emphasise enough how divisive this is - experts in the field disagree hugely with one another).

The thing with a mouthful of a name that we call Galactic Cosmic Ray Climate Theory is a controversial challenger to the mainstream view that carbon dioxide is the principal factor in global warming. The basic premise is that more cloud cover means more reflection of inbound solar radiation which means a cooler Earth, so conversely, fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds, which therefore contributes to warming.

This is where the magnetism comes in. A higher geomagnetic dipole moment causes a lower cosmic ray flux. Without going into too much physics, the geomagnetic moment is a property of a planet that is directly proportional to the strength of the planetary magnetic field (so in short, stronger field=fewer rays=less precipitation and more warming).

Where's the evidence?

Henrik Svensmark is the man behind GCR climate theory, and he's written a book called 'The Chilling Stars' to explain himself. Svensmark was mainly concerned, I believe, with magnetic changes around the sun (as opposed to the Earth's bipole moment), but nonetheless he suggested the link between cosmic rays and global warming.

Fleitmann et al. published a paper in the journal Science in the early 2000s that recorded some data from stalagmites in Oman, and Wang et al. published another one not long after based on some in China, and both of them combined provide quite a good proxy for low-lattitude precipitation over the past 5000 years or so (second half-ish of the Holocene). So towards the end of the last decade, a couple of guys called Knudsen and Riisager took that data and compared it to geomagnetic dipole movement and found a correlation between changes in the moment and precipitation variability - variability that cannot be explained by CO2 variation over the same time period.

Uth
reply
rubarbman12
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by uthred50)
This is an excellent question, and particularly so coming from someone who isn't even doing A Level Geography yet.

A brief introduction - I'm a Study Helper on this forum and my degree is in geography, and I've done my fair share of climatology!

The short answer to your question is that the Earth's magnetic field is indeed believed to have some influence on weather and climate, but climatology is a complicated business and studies on this topic only began relatively recently (we are really talking within the last decade), so the details are subject to conjecture.

As Lee mentioned above, the mechanism is linked to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are facinating things in their own right (I'll leave you to scout wikipedia on that topic before I derail too far into astrophysics!) His explanation of that is correct: Cosmic rays give rise to more ions (charged particles) in the atmosphere, which attract water molecules and the clumps that form condense into water droplets, which in turn, given enough volume, become clouds. In terms of the day-to-day effect on weather, the consequences of this are probably quite small. However, from a climatic point of view (i.e. longer-term trends) it could have significant impact (although I cannot emphasise enough how divisive this is - experts in the field disagree hugely with one another).

The thing with a mouthful of a name that we call Galactic Cosmic Ray Climate Theory is a controversial challenger to the mainstream view that carbon dioxide is the principal factor in global warming. The basic premise is that more cloud cover means more reflection of inbound solar radiation which means a cooler Earth, so conversely, fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds, which therefore contributes to warming.

This is where the magnetism comes in. A higher geomagnetic dipole moment causes a lower cosmic ray flux. Without going into too much physics, the geomagnetic moment is a property of a planet that is directly proportional to the strength of the planetary magnetic field (so in short, stronger field=fewer rays=less precipitation and more warming).

Where's the evidence?

Henrik Svensmark is the man behind GCR climate theory, and he's written a book called 'The Chilling Stars' to explain himself. Svensmark was mainly concerned, I believe, with magnetic changes around the sun (as opposed to the Earth's bipole moment), but nonetheless he suggested the link between cosmic rays and global warming.

Fleitmann et al. published a paper in the journal Science in the early 2000s that recorded some data from stalagmites in Oman, and Wang et al. published another one not long after based on some in China, and both of them combined provide quite a good proxy for low-lattitude precipitation over the past 5000 years or so (second half-ish of the Holocene). So towards the end of the last decade, a couple of guys called Knudsen and Riisager took that data and compared it to geomagnetic dipole movement and found a correlation between changes in the moment and precipitation variability - variability that cannot be explained by CO2 variation over the same time period.

Uth
Thanks Uth, this is very helpful. I have heard of Henrik Svensmark, I was reading part of his paper on his theory. The reason I asked this particular question was because I'm taking part in a competition for young minds. The competition is to use or produce a viable experiment that could be carried out via the International Space Station. After a little research I wondered if the magnetic field did indeed have an affect on Earths climate and weather.

Myself and a friend plan to use an infra-red camera and a normal 10 megapixel camera facing the Earth from the cupola module, aboard the ISS. A magnetometer implanted on a small computer will also be used. Throughout the day as the ISS passes over different parts of the worlds, photos will be taken by the infra-red and normal camera, at the same time readings will be taken via the magnetometer. The magnetometer of course the measure the strength of Earths magnetic field as that specific point. Once the data is then transferred back to Earth, the photos will be pared with the data taken from the magnetometer.

As Lee said, the magnetic field does affect the number of cosmic rays hitting bodies of water.

I will look for specific cloud formations, temperatures and specific weather, in an attempt to determine whether the magnetic field does in fact have any major affect on weather and climate.

I understand this is an 'out there' idea, but it has to compete with ideas such as just taking readings of the radiation within the space station. The judges want to see unique ideas, outside the box ideas, a practical idea( could it actually be used on the space station) and the usefulness of the idea, as in could it help people on Earth, would it help us understand something about the environment, and could viable data be gathered.

I simply want your opinion on whether this idea is stupid or useless, and is there any other studies that have been carried out, bounding my observation useless?

Also the sensors that we can use are:
gyroscope
accelerometer
magnetometer
temperature sensor
barometric pressure sensor
humidity sensors

Could any of these other sensors help in acquiring more accurate results?
0
reply
uthred50
Badges: 16
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
It's great that you want to be involved in this competition. Good on you.

In terms of the experiment I wonder if you will have enough precision with your equipment. You would obviously have to match up the assessment area for the different instruments, accounting for differing precision and relative position changes. The infra-red camera is a good choice for monitoring cloud activity with respect to radiation (temperature determines the wavelength of emitted radiation). The biggest problem I see with your experiment is that there is no metric for measuring atmospheric CO2, so even if you were able to correlate magnetic flux and cloud cover, you have no way of disproving a CO2-based causation. Also, of course, unless the experiment were conducted over a long time period, there would likely be many factors influencing weather systems that could prevent you collecting any coherent results at all.

uth
reply
rubarbman12
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
I knew there would be some problems with the idea, it's quite a broad experiment to carryout without millions of pounds worth of equipment.

I don't suppose you have any other, more simple ideas that we could carryout with the sensors and equipment I listed earlier. I want to carryout an investigation or observation of Earth rather than to just stick to observing the ISS. I've been doing some research this past afternoon trying to find something I am capable of doing, but yet is worth carrying out. Nothing has come up. I don't suppose you have any ideas?

Thanks again, Uth for your help!
0
reply
rubarbman12
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by uthred50)
It's great that you want to be involved in this competition. Good on you.

In terms of the experiment I wonder if you will have enough precision with your equipment. You would obviously have to match up the assessment area for the different instruments, accounting for differing precision and relative position changes. The infra-red camera is a good choice for monitoring cloud activity with respect to radiation (temperature determines the wavelength of emitted radiation). The biggest problem I see with your experiment is that there is no metric for measuring atmospheric CO2, so even if you were able to correlate magnetic flux and cloud cover, you have no way of disproving a CO2-based causation. Also, of course, unless the experiment were conducted over a long time period, there would likely be many factors influencing weather systems that could prevent you collecting any coherent results at all.

uth
I knew there would be some problems with the idea, it's quite a broad experiment to carryout without millions of pounds worth of equipment.

I don't suppose you have any other, more simple ideas that we could carryout with the sensors and equipment I listed earlier. I want to carryout an investigation or observation of Earth rather than to just stick to observing the ISS. I've been doing some research this past afternoon trying to find something I am capable of doing, but yet is worth carrying out. Nothing has come up. I don't suppose you have any ideas?

Thanks again, Uth for your help!
0
reply
uthred50
Badges: 16
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by rubarbman12)
I knew there would be some problems with the idea, it's quite a broad experiment to carryout without millions of pounds worth of equipment.

I don't suppose you have any other, more simple ideas that we could carryout with the sensors and equipment I listed earlier. I want to carryout an investigation or observation of Earth rather than to just stick to observing the ISS. I've been doing some research this past afternoon trying to find something I am capable of doing, but yet is worth carrying out. Nothing has come up. I don't suppose you have any ideas?

Thanks again, Uth for your help!
The thing is that most of the sensors you listed are local in their range; i.e. would only be useful for taking readings within the space station itself (short of attachment to a weather baloon or other vehicle, but that wouldn't seem to be within the remit of the competition). I'm afraid I don't have any great and novel ideas about experiments to set up, then!
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Roehampton
    Department of Life Sciences; Department of Psychology Undergraduate
    Thu, 21 Feb '19
  • Edge Hill University
    Undergraduate and Postgraduate - Campus Tour Undergraduate
    Thu, 21 Feb '19
  • St George's, University of London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 21 Feb '19

Is the plastic tax enough to protect the environment?

Yes (4)
4%
No (96)
96%

Watched Threads

View All