> > The evidence that the EM poles are ALSO GETTING
> > WEAKER as all of these other changes are taking
> > place. To me THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL...
>
> Please cite the evidence for this, and the evidence
> for how it affects the climate.

Here is just a couple of the many articles on the topic, so please do your own research!

[news.nationalgeographic.com]

[www.windows.ucar.edu]

Since more outer space radiation is introduced into the Earth when the EM poles start getting weaker and weaker and before they flip, then there is also a direct increase in the transfer of energy into Earth that will warm things up in addition to other important side effects.

Note that NORMALLY that extra energy would be diverted away from Earth by the protective Earth EM fields...

Some, of course, will just claim that it is nothing more than a great light show in the sky, like if we were all living by the North pole and were looking at the Northern lights!!!

Well, since I am already controversial enough with many of my posts, I certainly do NOT want to speculate any more on this topic than I have already done!!!

> Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
> and aerosols since the pre-industrial era.

OK

> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
> years is attributable to human activities.

So, have these models included the effects of these Earth EM polar changes?

> Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic
> signal in the climate record of the las 35 to 50 years. These studies include
> uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors
> (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of the other
> types of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes.

Well, AGAIN, have these studies taken into consideration the decrease in strength of the Earth EM poles? That is certainly NOT in the category of a "normal" natural factor!!!

> The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain
> the warming; whereas most of the studies find that, over the last 50 years, the
> estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are
> comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming.

Again, are the "the decrease in strength of the Earth EM poles" part of what they include in the category of "natural forcings"!? What model did they use to compute the effects of the Earth EM pole changes? Note that the Earth EM have been getting weaker and weaker even more rapidly recently!

> IMHO some cats are ugly. Who gives a rats behing about our opinions?
> The earthquakes that have been biggest recently have nothing
> to do with what is being discussed here. If you don't understand
> that, then I don't know what to say to you.

I am sorry, but then how do you talk about INCREASED SEISMIC ACTIVITY without talking about the various earthquakes themselves!? Is this also why some choose to ignore the potential effects of the EM pole shifts on their global warming models because "they might have nothing to do with what is being discussed here"!?

> And I really wouldn't bother if I wasn't concerned about the
> lurkers in here, who might be confused with the 'opinions' you pass here.

..and, exactly, in what way is it just my opinion that EM changes are ALSO taking place, SIMULTANEOUSLY with the other observed Earth changes such as global warming, increased seismic activity, etc!?

Should we just disregard, dismiss, deny or ignore those!?

> Please provide some evidence for your claims, or retract them.
> For the sake of the lurkers.

Well, besides the FACT that the Earth EM poles are getting weaker and that there is also additional evidence of solar changes on top of all of this, what additional evidence would you like me to provide you!?

This particular paper shows some of the complexities involved in studying the Earth EM fields...

[mb-soft.com]