Here is a question for all the AGW believers

[Kosh]

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

 

[Kosh]

Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.

 

[Abraham3]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Earliest Subzero Temps Since ?95; More Bitter Cold And Snow Coming « CBS Chicago

 

[Kosh]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
Earth Magnetic Field

 

[Abraham3]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
Earth Magnetic Field

Lots of different stuff on that page.. Like walking into AstroPhysics 450 2 months late for class. It mixes the EARTHS mag field with references to the SUNs mag field.

I do believe that cosmic radiation plays a role in cloud formation.. It is energy that must be absorbed by the oceans as well. In the case of clouds --- it's sufficient to believe it can influence the cloud cover. In the case of ocean cycles --- its woefully short of power to influence those (IMHO)....

<<Anyone thats seen an old fashion "cloud chamber detector" for studying atomic particles has no problem with that >>

So of course, the Earth mag field would have some kind of influence on cosmic induced cloud formation..

As for the SOLAR mag field cycles.. There is no mechanism directly associated between flipping mag fields on the sun and things like ocean cycles. Just a set of CURIOUS relationships. Which is OK --- since science STARTS with observations. Only star-struck scientists start leaping to conclusion when they FIND a curious relationship.

A couple of those studies might be worth reading just to figure out what those scientists are seeing that is convincing to them..

 

[Kosh]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.

So in other words you have no real answer.

The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.

Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.

 

[Kosh]

Just a set of CURIOUS relationships.

Well at least those relationships exist in science and not in environmentalists propaganda passed off as science.

 

[Politico]

They'd respond by saying there is climate change. The reasons why is where they go wrong.

 

[Abraham3]

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.

So in other words you have no real answer.

The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.

Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.

Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.

probably not

one thing is certain though

the more and longer cold records are set

the more rabid the believers get

--LOL

 

[Abraham3]

Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.

probably not

one thing is certain though

the more and longer cold records are set

the more rabid the believers get

--LOL

I can see you're trying to provide a more realistic comment, but you've just agreed that it's "probably" true that no "AGW believer" has an answer to Kosh's question. Doesn't help. And you know what I've noticed? No AGW denier had an answer either. Conclusion: no one cares about this point. It'll neither save nor doom the world.

 

[Kosh]

P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.

So in other words you have no real answer.

The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.

Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.

Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.

One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.

Just goes to show that you have nothing.

This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

^ Translation: My faith in AGW is unshakable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult approved response: Clearly the increased CO2 is messing up the magnetic fields, just as predicted in our models

 

[jon_berzerk]

Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.

probably not

one thing is certain though

the more and longer cold records are set

the more rabid the believers get

--LOL

I can see you're trying to provide a more realistic comment, but you've just agreed that it's "probably" true that no "AGW believer" has an answer to Kosh's question. Doesn't help. And you know what I've noticed? No AGW denier had an answer either. Conclusion: no one cares about this point. It'll neither save nor doom the world.

why does no buddy care about it

the poles are shifting at about one degree a year

 

[Abraham3]

So in other words you have no real answer.

The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.

Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.

Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.

One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.

Just goes to show that you have nothing.

This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My position - and the argument I have consistently made here - is that global warming is taking place, even now, and that the primary cause of that warming is a greenhouse effect using greenhouse gases emitted by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. THAT is the mainstream view. It is a view held by the VAST majority of climates scientists and scientists in general. YOUR view is held by something in the neighborhood of ONE in ONE-HUNDRED climate scientists (if that). Thousands of peer reviewed research studies support that view. Virtually NONE support your view. The majority of known names and pundits on your side of this argument are unqualified to speak to the topic. I use virtually NOTHING but PhDs because I have my pick of thousands of them.

If you have something of interest concerning the Earth's magnetic field and our climate, just put it out there and talk. Stop trying to use items like this to suggest that you or anyone you know is smarter than the world's scientists.

That effort fails long before you begin.

 

[Kosh]

Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.

One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.

Just goes to show that you have nothing.

This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My position - and the argument I have consistently made here - is that global warming is taking place, even now, and that the primary cause of that warming is a greenhouse effect using greenhouse gases emitted by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. THAT is the mainstream view. It is a view held by the VAST majority of climates scientists and scientists in general. YOUR view is held by something in the neighborhood of ONE in ONE-HUNDRED climate scientists (if that). Thousands of peer reviewed research studies support that view. Virtually NONE support your view. The majority of known names and pundits on your side of this argument are unqualified to speak to the topic. I use virtually NOTHING but PhDs because I have my pick of thousands of them.

If you have something of interest concerning the Earth's magnetic field and our climate, just put it out there and talk. Stop trying to use items like this to suggest that you or anyone you know is smarter than the world's scientists.

That effort fails long before you begin.

Exactly you believe in and promote the AGW propaganda.

CO2 does NOT drive climate. Never has.

And there is a link posted in this thread.


Here is someone with a Phd and is a climate scientist:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
•CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
•The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
•"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
•Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
•96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
•Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
•Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
•Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
•The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
•Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
•Climate models have no predictive value
•Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded]Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

Since he has a PhD (in climate science of all things) you should believe him right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.