Midnight Marauder
Rookie
- Feb 28, 2009
- 12,404
- 1,939
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #81
It's from 2008. It does NOT address this new study.The whole article is available and can be downloaded.
Keep trying though, it's amusing to watch!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's from 2008. It does NOT address this new study.The whole article is available and can be downloaded.
Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!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.This crapola theory has already been debunkedYou 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?which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!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.This crapola theory has already been debunkedYou 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?which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
Your crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
It's from 2008. It does NOT address this new study.The whole article is available and can be downloaded.
Keep trying though, it's amusing to watch!
New Study: Not even a week old.arXiv:0803.2298v1 [physics.ao-ph] 15 Mar 2008
Has zip to do with what this new study says. It's not even the same claim.It's from 2008. It does NOT address this new study.The whole article is available and can be downloaded.
Keep trying though, it's amusing to watch!
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/
Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!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 crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Keep flailing though!
So last Monday was January 2009.Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.Your bullshit is as sloppy as your thinking!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 crapola "study" came out January 2009 and the study I posted debunking it came out May 2009.
Try again!
Keep flailing though!
Dang, you beat me to the punch again!Wrong. The study I am referencing came out just LAST MONDAY.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!
Keep flailing though!
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
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.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
It did NOT refute it, since it wasn't even on the same topic. It's not even addressing the same thing.Look, the article you sited came from before January, 2009. I posted one published after it, that refuted it.
You're going against NASA.the rest of the scientific community dismembers the articles.
Noted, for the record, that you have no understanding of scientific articles. Also noted, that self declared winners of debates are sure losers.