AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,217
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
No, the moving planetary axis explains why the ice is found where it is, and why carbon dioxide changed as it did.

So the true N was in the middle of James/Hudson Bay during the Wisconsonian Glaciation or was the magnetic pole in the middle of James/Hudson Bay during the Wisconsonian Glaciation?

Please explain how that happened if that is were true N was.

Look again:



How is CO2 affecting magnetic pole shift and the moving ice caps?

A better view.



Did lack of CO2 do that?

I bet you've never seen the suns reach and how cosmic rays deflect interstellar winds?



The interstellar wind is made of CO2?

Did CO2 end the last ice age?

Nutation.... what can these cycles do to climate or what can climate do to nutations?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Surely you know that the Wisconsin Glaciation was marked by glacial retreat and advancement. Changing orbital parameters does not mean that the North Pole changed it's orientation to the surface of our planet...it means that the entire planet would experience changes in the insolation that any location receives.

You've not posted any kind of evidence that links the magnetic pole migration to glacial episodes...It's not even clear to me what the mechanism is.

Just exactly what is H changement?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
No really, what is H changement? Is it the flux of electrons? What are the units?

How can you project the future with geomagnetic changes? How do you explain a warming lower atmosphere, and cooling mid-atmosphere?

I mean really you now have to say why the known mechanism of radiative cooling is false, or explain why it's true but somehow the radiative warming is not.

See, in the absence of a coherent model, I'll go with the best fit. Have you actually read the comment to that paper yet?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,217
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
How can you project the future with geomagnetic changes? How do you explain a warming lower atmosphere, and cooling mid-atmosphere?
CERN Document Server: Record#1180849: On CLOUD nine
Do you own a microwave or a magnetic fridge?

The magnetocaloric effect
The magnetocaloric effect (MCE, from magnet and calorie) is a magneto-thermodynamic phenomenon in which a reversible change in temperature of a suitable material is caused by exposing the material to a changing magnetic field. This is also known by low temperature physicists as adiabatic demagnetization, due to the application of the process specifically to create a temperature drop. In that part of the overall refrigeration process, a decrease in the strength of an externally applied magnetic field allows the magnetic domains of a chosen (magnetocaloric) material to become disoriented from the magnetic field by the agitating action of the thermal energy (phonons) present in the material. If the material is isolated so that no energy is allowed to (re)migrate into the material during this time, i.e., an adiabatic process, the temperature drops as the domains absorb the thermal energy to perform their reorientation. The randomization of the domains occurs in a similar fashion to the randomization at the curie temperature, except that magnetic dipoles overcome a decreasing external magnetic field while energy remains constant, instead of magnetic domains being disrupted from internal ferromagnetism as energy is added.
One of the most notable examples of the magnetocaloric effect is in the chemical element gadolinium and some of its alloys. Gadolinium's temperature is observed to increase when it enters certain magnetic fields. When it leaves the magnetic field, the temperature drops. The effect is considerably stronger for the gadolinium alloy Gd5(Si2Ge2).[2] Praseodymium alloyed with nickel (PrNi5) has such a strong magnetocaloric effect that it has allowed scientists to approach within one thousandth of a degree of absolute zero.[3]

... the temperature drops as the domains absorb the thermal energy to perform their reorientation. The randomization of the domains occurs in a similar fashion to the randomization at the curie temperature, except that magnetic dipoles overcome a decreasing external magnetic field while energy remains constant, instead of magnetic domains being disrupted from internal ferromagnetism as energy is added.
Do you know of a giant dipole with a ferrous core that is easily disprupted by a far far bigger energy emitter? Does that sound like the relationship our planet has with the sun? Yes or no?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Cosmic rays have been investigated, and again, they come up short. There's no positive trend in galactic cosmic rays. That's a problem for an explanation of how GCR induced cloud cover can be controlling climate. How can you get more energy trapped without a positive trend in the low-level clouds? You certainly can't get a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,217
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
Cosmic rays have been investigated, and again, they come up short. There's no positive trend in galactic cosmic rays. That's a problem for an explanation of how GCR induced cloud cover can be controlling climate. How can you get more energy trapped without a positive trend in the low-level clouds? You certainly can't get a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.
Stick to fish. Speaking of fish. How come if I microwave a fishstick I can burn my lips and get brain freeze at the same time?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here: Cosmic rays and climate (04 June 2009)

Which is easier to tax? A cosmic ray increase through geomagnetic reduction and redistribution or CO2?

I have questions too.

What can cosmic rays do to the chemical composition of the atmosphere?

Which isotopes can cosmic rays create within our atmoshpere?

Which istopes increase and which decrease with higher doses or cosmic rays?

Which istopes increase and which decrease with lower doses or cosmic rays?

What is the affect of a 10% decrease in geomagentism and redistribution of geomagnetism on these istopes at upper and lower latitudes and various levels within the atmosphere?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
If there's no secular trend in cosmic rays, it can't possibly force a secular trend in temperature...
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The British government has a dubious record when it comes to the global warming issue. It wasn't very long ago that Tony Blair and his government commissioned a study on the issue and when the conclusions didn't jibe with the results they wanted, they threw out the document and got Stern to come up with the results they sought.... Stern's report took a small (very small) fraction of the time that it took all others.

According to the article, this is the third investigation into Climategate... I'm guessing that this is an exercise in generating "expected results" just like Blair did in the past.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63


Why no ice on Siberia and Mongolia? Because the magentic north pole was in the southern part of Hudson Bay at the time and it had nothing to do with CO2. Go ****ing figure!
So last winter the north pole must have been somewhere in Russia because we sure had a warm one. And the winter before it must have been here because it was chilly.

Anyway, please explain how the diminishing magnetic field wandering around causes global warming, again?
What happened to the heat in the 70 year gap between the polar position shift and the start of the rapid climb in Earth's mean ave. temps? (Petros' graphs).
Why accept Petros' graphical evidence of polar position in comparison to global temperature and not the evidence of CO2 graphs in comparison to global temperature? They are closer than the polar position/global temperature ones.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The British government has a dubious record when it comes to the global warming issue. It wasn't very long ago that Tony Blair and his government commissioned a study on the issue and when the conclusions didn't jibe with the results they wanted, they threw out the document and got Stern to come up with the results they sought.... Stern's report took a small (very small) fraction of the time that it took all others.


How do you know about this phantom report? Is there a link to it by chance?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I would check it out, but I don't have a title, year of publication, author, or anything that could identify it at all. Kind of like that secret report that proves the governments are using the military and their alien friends to destroy you and I by poisoning the air with their chem trails.

That's what I expected... :D
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The mystery is why you have an issue providing references.

I mean you ask me for an explanation of glacial cycles that includes the anthropogenic context, you ask for a falsifiable example, and I give it to you, with a paper that predicted the very "gotcha" feedback in our climate before there was even data to corroborate, and that deniers now use as if it's a clever point that the climatologists aren't considering...
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The mystery is why you have an issue providing references.

I mean you ask me for an explanation of glacial cycles that includes the anthropogenic context, you ask for a falsifiable example, and I give it to you, with a paper that predicted the very "gotcha" feedback in our climate before there was even data to corroborate, and that deniers now use as if it's a clever point that the climatologists aren't considering...

I assume that the "mystery" has to do with my not providing you with references. There's no mystery here, it's part of your M.O. in attacking the reference(s) rather than dealing with the actual issue.

As far as your analysis of testing AGW on a repeatable basis, this goes back to a comment that I made earlier regarding the connectivity of your input. I won't repeat the comment, but it goes directly towards identifying/analyzing 1 or 2 components within a system that has hundreds of thousands of variables and drivers (if not more). The science that you maintain states that this is possible; the core of my scientific beliefs suggests that this is essentially impossible.