AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Gibberish.
If you have the knowledge that a hotplate on a stove is hot, you logically won't put your hand on it. Logic doesn't do you any good in that case if you don't know the hotplate is hot.
Logic is just a tool to manipulate knowledge with. No knowledge renders logic useless.
Yes. Usually what makes it fail is an unseen variable.
So, basically you are parroting 3 times over what I said once a few posts ago.
Among other substances. Didja know that a quarter of a percent of a stream can make a new water channel?
BTW,
Miskolczi 's saturation hypothesis has been debunked, Sorry.
Ya think, Sherlock? That's what I said in my first post on this page.
You said: "No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers."
'Just' is not general.
I wonder how many are trounced because...their work isn't very good, because it's not consistent with reality or good methodology?
There was a paper last year, by McLean de Freitas and Carter (MFC). They claimed things in the press like:
If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation.
Which is completely nutso. Place a thermometer outside. The short term variation likely follows a pattern, due to earth's rotation. That's the diurnal signal. Does that mean that the rotation of the diurnal signal also accounts for the change from say December to August? That is a logical fail.
What they did in this paper is filter out the long term variation from temperature, and then they analyze what's left, and proclaim that the El Nino/Sothern Oscillation accounts for 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly. Then they make claims about this explaining the long-term trend in temperatures.
Well what's wrong with that? They removed the long-term trend before making an analysis of ENSO's effects on temperature.
A comment appeared in JGR, but MFC could not pull together a response to the comment. Today, there is still not a single citation for this paper by MFC.
That's not because they were black listed, or because they lost funding. It's because the paper was rubbish, and probably shouldn't have been published. Mistakes happen. That's why there is a comment, addendum, response function for journals. Sometimes peer review fails.
I stand corrected.
BTW, congratulations (sincerely). There are very few individuals that have the courage to fly in the face of political correctness and identify the absolute root of this issue (assuming that AGW is an issue) and you've nailed it dead on.
The Al Gore's, Suzukis and the eco-tards are too frightened to point out that anthropogenic CO2 is produced by... (wait for it)... Humans!
But that point is irrelevant to the far left and eco-fringe... It's easier to assess arbitrary blame on "the haves".
I've observed your treatment of contradictory evidence. Generally speaking, your rebuttal is centered on attacking the author and the remainder relies on the element of profiling that opposing opinion as that of a "denier".
So you're saying even if AGW is real, the root of it is Marxism? roflmao
Excuse me? It seems to me that's what they voice the loudest and most often.
The haves being the ones that pollute the most? Yeah, it is easiest.
I think you've missed the majority of his posts then.
Petros introduced the Marxist element, why don't you ask him... However, if you insist on deliberately misconstruing the sentiment, then we shouldn't waste any more time exchanging.
Have you even listened to what they are saying?.. The fact that they aren't identifying this component reeks of an agenda.
Really?... I suppose the 500 new coal-fired electricity generation stations being built in China are there to serve the upper class in that nation?
Wrong... My analysis is spot-on.
It's what you said between the two of you.
So instead of blaming humans, Bore and Snoozuki claim AGW is brought on by what else?
rofl The purpose isn't to give electricity away to the poor, it's to make money for the rich.
If one ignores the facts.
How is the following fit into your goofy little theory that I quoted?
What contradictory evidence?
I call you guys deniers, because that is exactly what you do...I gave Scott Free a reference that discusses the effects of collisions between molecules on the spectra, and he continues to say that the atmosphere is saturated. Based on what? He's denying established science.
So quit whining about your treatment. I'm not your mother and you're old enough that you shouldn't need coddling.
EDIT
Oh here we go. How did those scientists miss that? The computer models and instruments are programmed with Marxist code and validated with Marxist methodology to produce data and simulations that conforms to some kind of Marxist agenda...Yeah, I get it now...what a bunch of crap.
Well, plenty of us are advocating for market approaches to the what the physics is telling us, but we get lumped in with Marxists. Ahh well. Maybe if I cry about it some more it will go away.
Pretty much. All I did was google "debunk saturation myth" and got pages full of science.
The thing is, it's not even new science. But in today's world, one can just repeat something they ran across on the internet. Goes back to that blog Avro posted. A lie spreads around the world in a day, but takes much much longer to address, and some will still believe the lie after it's been shown to be a lie.
Check this paper out, it's from 1946, and discusses pressure broadening. It's just unreal...the chutzpah some people have:
Phys. Rev. 69, 616 (1946): The Pressure Broadening of Spectral Lines
.. So, why did you bring it up then?
Go back and read what I posted, then get back to me
Would those coal-fired plants get the eco-stamp of approval if "the poor" built them?
That's some great logic there.... AGW doesn't exist if it's emitted by those in or below a certain income level.
Clearly you subscribe to the same logic as your mentor.
Wow.. How come the good folks at the IPCC didn't think of that. This entire argument would be settled today had someone just googled for the solution. Thanks for setting the record clear.
It's too nice to be indoors so sometime later today or this evening I'll dig up the Pentagon study waaaaay back in the early 50's under Truman's command which outlined the climatic changes and the predicted effects of the loss of dipole. If I can squeeze in time between gardening and loitering in the lane with the neighbours I'll post a few things on the reduction of the magnetospheric intensity and protective capabilities over the past century.
The answer to our future is in the past but it's going to take all the sciences working together to paint the real picture.
The geophysical changes are undeniable and cyclical. They make far more sense than the anthro angle.
Then there is the most recent discovery that our sun has a comet like tail and that tail passes through the eliptic as the sun competes it's own year around our portion of the galaxy. That can't be happy times for the magnetosphere or the inhabitants of earth.
Ever read the minutes of the very first Earth Summit? Have a read sometime. It'll make you go hmm and rattle your beliefs a little.
Because they didn't need to think of that. Nobody in WG1 needs a lesson in introductory atmospheric physics.
I couldn't have asked for a stronger example of your myopic view...
There is no contradictory evidence (that passes your scrutiny), therefore, all who oppose are "deniers".
Say Hi to Dear Leader for me next time you go to his altar.
I didn't. Petrus brought it up, you agreed and I thought it was funny so I posted a condensed version of it. And then you whined about my joke.
You said
And I said, it seems to me they've been squawking about humans causing AGW (and CO2) since day 1.
I doubt it, but what difference does that make? They aren't being built for anyone's benefit but whoever is building them.
lol How many poor do you know go flying around the globe, building factories, running factories, taking cruise ship tours, etc.?
I can still out think you, though. And that's without resorting to insults, which is something you accused Tonington of doing. But it's ok if you insult people, though, huh, just not anyone else?
Last edited:
No, you misunderstand. What contradictory evidence has been presented here? That is my question. You brought it up. So, which evidence am I not responding to? Which evidence am I not addressing? You say my treatment is to bash the poster and then call them a denier. I bash the idea, give a link or two, or whatever is necessary, and then when you guys continue to say these things I call you ignorant and a denier.
A spade is a spade.
I've been waiting years for him to post something substancial. I think he has a fetish for fuzzy haired bananas and middle aged fembots just because they are the only names he knows.
Speaking of aging Japs with fuzzy hair....
YouTube - 2012: Leaks Found in Earth's Magnetic Field
Geological Survey of Canada
Geomagnetism
Long Term Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
Introduction
See also: In-depth
The accompanying figure shows the path of the North Magnetic Pole since its discovery in 1831 to the last observed position in 2001. During the last century the Pole has moved a remarkable 1100 km. What is more, since about 1970 the NMP has accelerated and is now moving at more than 40 km per year. If the NMP maintains its present speed and direction it will reach Siberia in about 50 years. Such an extrapolation is, however, tenuous. It is quite possible that the Pole will veer from its present course, and it is also possible that the pole will slow down sometime in the next half century.
The strength and direction of the Earth's magnetic field slowly change with time – a phenomenon referred to as secular change or secular variation. The cause of secular variation is related to the process by which the magnetic field is generated. Secular change occurs everywhere on Earth, but the magnitude of the change varies from place to place and also with time.
The magnetic field in the region of North Magnetic Pole experiences secular variation just like the magnetic field at any other location on the Earth's surface. To illustrate how this leads to the movement of the Magnetic Pole, consider Observer A , standing at the North Magnetic Pole on January 1. On that day he observes that the inclination is exactly 90°, as expected. Repeat observations made at exactly the same spot during the year show that the inclination is slowly decreasing. On January 1 of the following year he observes an inclination of 89° 57'. During the same time interval, Observer B, who is standing 40 km northwest of Observer A notices that the inclination has increased to 90°. He is now at the North Magnetic Pole. So the slow motion of the Magnetic Pole across the Arctic is due to the secular variation of the magnetic field, a process that originates in the outer core of the Earth, approximately 3000 km below the surface.
Geomagnetism
Long Term Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
In-depth
See also: Introduction
The change in velocity of the North Magnetic Pole since the early 1970s has been remarkable – 9 km/yr to 41 km/yr. This is clearly seen in the accompanying plot which shows the average rate of motion between observations as a function of time. The acceleration has also increased from 0.22 km/yr2 to 2.21 km/yr2. A change in the velocity of the North Magnetic Pole must be reflected in a corresponding change in both the inclination and the horizontal component of the magnetic field (H). Data from Resolute Bay Observatory, the nearest to the North Magnetic Pole, show that the annual change in H has increased from roughly -10 nT/yr to almost 70 nT/yr during the past half century (top panel of diagram). The increase has not been uniform, but as a series of steps that have occurred in approximately 1970, 1979 and 1990.
Changes in the magnetic field characterized by an abrupt change in the secular variation have been named "(geo)magnetic jerks" or "geomagnetic impulses". Six jerks of global extent have occurred during the past century: in 1901, 1913, 1925, 1969, 1978 and 1992. The last three jerks can be seen clearly as abrupt changes in the slope of the annual change in H at Resolute Bay. The 1969 jerk corresponds to the start of the increase in the speed of the NMP and the two subsequent jerks, especially that near 1992, appear to correlate with additional increases in the speed.
In contrast to its present-day acceleration, the Magnetic Pole showed little apparent motion between 1831 and 1904. It seems highly unlikely that the Pole actually remained stationary for 73 years, but there are no direct observations from which we can determine its motion during that time period. However, we can use spherical harmonic models produced for this time period to infer the track of the North Magnetic Pole. The accompanying plot shows North Magnetic Pole positions at 20 year intervals between 1820 and 1920 calculated from the spherical harmonic models produced by Jackson and colleagues. The model positions are slightly displaced to the north-west of the observed positions. If we adjust the track to best match the observed positions we find that the Magnetic Pole reached its southernmost latitude, 68.8°, in 1860. The year is significant since 1860 is the year of a possible magnetic jerk.
Spherical harmonic models can also be used to estimate the position of the North Magnetic Pole back to approximately 1600. Prior to that time there were too few observations from which reliable models can be produced. It appears that the North Magnetic Pole moved southeast a distance of approximately 860 km between 1760 to 1860. Prior to that is was located in a relatively confined area near 75° N, 110° W.
Geological Survey of Canada
Geomagnetism
Magnetic field reversals
The Earth's magnetic field is aligned roughly along the spin axis and has an approximate dipole shape, similar to that of a bar magnet, with north and south magnetic poles. This is the normal state of affairs, but occasionally the magnetic field switches polarity, the north and south magnetic poles reverse, and the field settles down in the opposite state. The process goes by several names – "magnetic field reversal" and "polarity transition" are the most common.
Reversals have been documented as far back as 330 million years. During that time more than 400 reversals have taken place, one roughly every 700,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is not constant, varying from less than 100,000 years, to tens of millions of years. In recent geological times reversals have been occurring on average once every 200,000 years, but the last reversal occurred 780,000 years ago. At that time the magnetic field underwent a transition from a "reversed" state to its present "normal state".
We get our information about reversals from certain types of rock in which information about the direction of the magnetic field is imprinted. When igneous rocks, which may form inside the Earth or on its surface, cool and solidify they acquire a magnetization parallel to the ambient magnetic field. If the rock cools quickly, as would a lava flow, it acquires an almost instantaneous record of the magnetic field. Slowly cooling rocks, such as those that form inside the Earth, acquire a record of the magnetic field smeared over a much longer period of time. Sedimentary rocks acquire their magnetizations as each individual grain of sediment aligns itself in the direction of the magnetic field as it is deposited.
Occasionally certain rocks can tell us more than just the polarity of the magnetic field at their time of formation. Sometimes, lava flows occur frequently enough, or sediment deposition is fast enough, that we can actually determine the change in direction and field intensity during the reversal itself. These occurrences are relatively rare, and the information sometimes ambiguous, but here is what researchers have learned.
- Although fast by geological standards, reversals are by no means quick on the human time scale. They take roughly 5,000 years, with estimates ranging from 1,000 years and 8,000 years.
- Both the total magnetic field and its dipole component decrease substantially during a reversal to values that range from 10% to 25% of the pre-reversal strength.
- A reversal does not proceed in a uniform fashion. Large and rapid changes in direction and intensity are punctuated by periods of little change. During some transitions the field starts to change but then rebounds to near normal before the reversal finally goes to completion.
- The scarcity and ambiguity of observations have led to two competing theories explaining how the magnetic field pattern changes, and how the magnetic poles behave during a reversal. According to one theory, the magnetic field remains predominantly dipolar during a reversal, and the poles migrate along preferred paths from one hemisphere to the other. According to another theory, the dipole portion of the magnetic field shrinks to zero but then regrows with opposite polarity. During the interval during which there is no dipole, the non-dipole part of the field persists, and the magnetic poles would not migrate in a systematic fashion.
Many authors have pointed out that the dipole part of the magnetic field has been weakening during historic times, and that if the present trend continues, the dipole field will go to zero in roughly 1500 years. Some people take this to mean that we are entering a reversal. Although this possibility cannot be discounted, many investigators believe that the trend will not continue and that the field will regain its strength, as it has many times in the past.
Geomagnetism
Daily Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
It is important to realize that the position of the North Magnetic Pole given for a particular year is an average position. The Magnetic Pole wanders daily around this average position and, on days when the magnetic field is disturbed, may be displaced by 80 km or more. Although the North Magnetic Pole's motion on any given day is irregular, the average path forms a well-defined oval. The diagram shows the average path on disturbed days.
The cause of the North Magnetic Pole's diurnal motion is quite different than that of its secular motion. If we measure the Earth's magnetic field continually, such as is done at a magnetic observatory, we will see that it changes during the course of a day - sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. The ultimate cause of these fluctuations is the Sun. The Sun constantly emits charged particles that, on encountering the Earth's magnetic field, cause electric currents to flow in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. These electric currents disturb the magnetic field, resulting in a temporary shift in the North Magnetic Pole's position. The size and direction of this shift varies with time, in step with the magnetic field fluctuations. Since such fluctuations occur constantly, the Magnetic Pole is seldom to be found at its "official" position, which is the position in the absence of magnetic field fluctuations.
Lets compare pole movement and global warming. What do you think we'll find?
Well. Those two graphs either scream correlation or it screams coincidence?
A fool would say coincidence.
The 1982 drop is a dead give a way.
Ohhh, it was a joke was it?
I didn't get that from your post. It appeared to be more of a simpleton's view of a subject that had no relevance, especially when you were called on it.
What difference does it make?!... Are you serious?
Don't you greenies get your panties all in a bunch the very minute that humanity emits more than the prescribed and predetermined amount of CO2 that is allotted to each person? I'd think that those societies that were building hundreds, if not thousands, of coal-fired electricity plants would get your hackles up.... Oh, I guess I forgot, it's only ghg's and CO2 produced from Western nations are evil - the rest are eco-friendly regardless of socio-economic elements.
Give 'er your best shot.
I can only assume from your past posts that the best is yet to come.
Oh?.. Does youre snide and condescending attitude count as an insult, or is that a privilege that you reserve exclusively for yourself?
As far as Tonnington is concerned; I have an opinion of that individual that I've expressed in (relatively) non-offensive terms.. He/she is who they are, but in the end, they will eat a massive dose of crow - just like yourself in terms of this issue... The only question that remains; will you (or Tonnington) be big enough to man-up and admit fault, or will you find minuscule and retarded reasons to absolve yourself(s) of responsibility.
My bet is you'll look for any and all excuses to absolve yourself of taking ownership of your statements.
Let's see... Why don't you start with explaining - in the context of anthropogenic global warming - the preponderance of past periods of glaciation (absent mankind) and consequent recession of said glaciers (again, absent mankind).
I am so looking forward to being educated in terms of "calling a spade a spade".
I await (for a long time I'd imagine) seeing any kind of response to this that is SCIENTIFIC AND REPEATABLE... After all, you are the voice of science after all.
Good luck.. (I'll understand if you're unable to really respond (other than with excuses and rhetoric Like dinosaur farts for example)).
Didn't you get your fill when I schooled you in your ridiculous belief that geothermal energy would save the planet? Do you recall?... Have you you so quickly forgotten that despite your adherence to a personal belief that you - and especially your corporate operations - are in direct conflict with the very nonsense that you expound here?
You are still the very same hypocrite that you were on the canada.com forums Iggy - for as much as things change, they are still the same.
BTW, learn to spell before you elect to take the high road with others Forrest.