Are all "climate change" bets off, now that the earth has shifted on its axis?

This crapola theory has already been debunked
It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.
which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!

Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
 
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.2298v1.pdf

arXiv:0803.2298v1 [physics.ao-ph] 15 Mar 2008
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and
cloud cover
T. Sloan 1, A.W.Wolfendale2
1Physics Department, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK
2Physics Department, Durham University, Durham, UK
email [email protected]
Abstract
A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP
infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed
by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due
to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the
presently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence
to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the
absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence
level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar
cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic
rays.
 
This crapola theory has already been debunked
It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.
which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!

Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.

Keep flailing though!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
The whole article is available and can be downloaded.
It's from 2008. It does NOT address this new study.

Keep trying though, it's amusing to watch!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are trying to play dumb?

ACP - Abstract - Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1885-1898, 2010
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/2010/
Has zip to do with what this new study says. It's not even the same claim.
 
It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!

Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.

Keep flailing though!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You are one fucking dummy, Midnight.

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

COPENHAGEN, Jan 12 (AFP) Jan 12, 2009
The earth's climate has been significantly affected 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
 
It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!

Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.

Keep flailing though!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
So last Monday was January 2009. :cuckoo:

Is there a link between Earth's magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation? -- Knudsen and Riisager 37 (1): 71 -- Geology

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Geology; January 2009; v. 37; no. 1; p. 71-74; DOI: 10.1130/G25238A.1
© 2009 Geological Society of America[/SIZE][/FONT]

Is there a link between Earth's magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?

Mads Faurschou Knudsen1,2,3 and Peter Riisager4
 
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!

Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.

Keep flailing though!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You are one fucking dummy, Midnight.

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

COPENHAGEN, Jan 12 (AFP) Jan 12, 2009
The earth's climate has been significantly affected 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
Dang, you beat me to the punch again! :lol:
I must be getting old! :eusa_shhh:
 
This post, which you warmercoolerers have ignored, is worth a repeat:
Yep, all them thar pointy headed librul scientists in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academys of Science, and all the major Universities in the world just dumb. And you just posted this on a computer hooked to the internet, and the irony did not occur to you.



Bobbing and weaving to avoid being hit by the vitriol and the insults....

It is interesting that the Magnetic North Pole has been tracked to have moved a pretty good distance since 1831 when its position was first pegged.

Since that date, it has moved more than twenty degrees of latitude north. Each degree of latitude is about 70 miles.

Coincidentally, the start of the big warming that is attributed to CO2 started in, wait for it....

Wait....

You guessed it!

1850!

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Jarring Chord}}}}}}}}}}}}

As the MNP moves north, it takes the Northern Lights with it. It changes the orientation, or rather is changed by the orientation, of the magnetic field of the planet. That same magnetic field that deflects enough of the Sun's radiation, the Solar Wind, to avoid having the atmosphere stripped away from our planet as it was from Mars.

Interesting that two things should happen so concurrently and one, CO2, is responsible for the warming of the planet and the other, which obviously has so many other strong and dramatic effects on the planet and the impact on the planet of Solar Radiation, has nothing at all to do with Global Climate.

It seems like maybe it should be considered as a part of group of possibilites

Interesting...


Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field - NASA Science
NASA and a new, peer-reviewed and published Danish climatologists' study aren't good enough for you warmercoolerers, because they don't support your pet theory.

And that's all we're seeing here. At least you're consistent!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Look, the article you sited came from before January, 2009. I posted one published after it, that refuted it. There were many articles prior to that article that refuted it. Because there seems to be a repeat of this idea yearly. And, yearly, the rest of the scientific community dismembers the articles.

And the articles that refute it are also from peer reviewed journals. Or did you fail to notice that?
 
Look, the article you sited came from before January, 2009. I posted one published after it, that refuted it.
It did NOT refute it, since it wasn't even on the same topic. It's not even addressing the same thing.

BUT: I am guilty of one thing. I set so many traps in this thread and in a PM or two, I forgot what all they were! But it's amusing now, to see how long it took you scholarly duncecap wearers, to notice the first one, that the study was "new."

Ya'll are like, gullible and stupid and stuff. Explains why you're still desperately defending a dead religion.
 
Last edited:
Noted, for the record, that you have no understanding of scientific articles. Also noted, that self declared winners of debates are sure losers.
 
Noted, for the record, that you have no understanding of scientific articles. Also noted, that self declared winners of debates are sure losers.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones, (the worlds foremost expert on ManMade Global Warming): Yes..."

The interview took place Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
 
A shift in the magnetic piles does not mean that the earth has shifted on it axis.

If the earth does dramatically shifts on its axis, then ALL bets are off on EVERYTHING.
 
Arguing with Old Rocks about "science" is like arguing with a squirrel about sports.

Neither of them will give you an intelligent response and both aren't aware of anything other than their own existence.
 

Forum List

Back
Top