quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
At 93 Million miles, the sun's magnetic field is inconsequential compared to the field that the earth generates itself.

Sorry but your scientific illiteracy is on display again.

I was talking about a changing magnetic field strength, HW. I am sorry that I did not make that sufficiently clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As Hill pointed out the field strength is inconsequential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Furthermore that is a process that has been happening for the entire lifetime of the planet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
it is by the laws of thermodynamics decreasing in strength on the geometric scale so it is not a possible source for global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As Hill pointed out the field strength is inconsequential.

He was wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
"The IMF is a weak field, varying in strength near the Earth from 1 to 37 nT, with an average value of ~6 nT. (nanoTesla)"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
The earth's magnetic field is about 4 orders of magnitude (10,000X) stronger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Take a science course before pretending to know things scientific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Take a science course before pretending to know things scientific.

Actually I have forgotten most of what I learned about electricity and magnetism. I have been intending to relearn it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Take a science course before pretending to know things scientific.

Actually I have forgotten most of what I learned about electricity and magnetism. I have been intending to relearn it.

We can tell. Your posts prove it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl

Well, Hillwilliam, it;'s good to know you're so much more informed than the phyicists at the CERN Large Hadron Supercollider! At least THEY conduct experiments based on scientific theory, and forcast results (ie: if A happens my theory is validated, if B happens then I'm wrong) The researcher who conducted the Cloud experiment stated BEFORE the experiment that if the externally applied magnetic field affected the cloud cover within the simulated atmosphere within a stainless steel vessel, then the results would point to the theory advanced by two Dutch scientists in 1996 (for which the climate change con artists at East Anglia had them blacklisted for) being able to accound for 80-100% of climate change observed in all of human history. (Coincidentally, it would explain the findings of ice core bubble air samples significantly PREDATING human history, that CO2 levels FOLLOW warming trends, rather than LEADING them). You can go back to drinking your Kool Aid now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Take a science course before pretending to know things scientific.

Actually I have forgotten most of what I learned about electricity and magnetism. I have been intending to relearn it.

We can tell. Your posts prove it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As Hill pointed out the field strength is inconsequential.

He was wrong.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Furthermore that is a process that has been happening for the entire lifetime of the planet

That is a good argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
it is by the laws of thermodynamics decreasing in strength on the geometric scale so it is not a possible source for global warming.

It is cyclic in nature, so at the moment we might be in an upswing.

And I read that the luminosity of the Sun is "rising by 1% every 110 million years". I would expect the Sun's magnetic field to increase in strength as much. Therefore I distrust your thermodynamics argument: I think that it does not apply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
He was right. a 37 nano tesla field (at maximum) would not generate a noticeable current and certainly wouldn't produce enough watts to heat the earth in any significant manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Got a reference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl

Well, Hillwilliam, it;'s good to know you're so much more informed than the phyicists at the CERN Large Hadron Supercollider! At least THEY conduct experiments based on scientific theory, and forcast results (ie: if A happens my theory is validated, if B happens then I'm wrong) The researcher who conducted the Cloud experiment stated BEFORE the experiment that if the externally applied magnetic field affected the cloud cover within the simulated atmosphere within a stainless steel vessel, then the results would point to the theory advanced by two Dutch scientists in 1996 (for which the climate change con artists at East Anglia had them blacklisted for) being able to accound for 80-100% of climate change observed in all of human history. (Coincidentally, it would explain the findings of ice core bubble air samples significantly PREDATING human history, that CO2 levels FOLLOW warming trends, rather than LEADING them). You can go back to drinking your Kool Aid now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Take a science course before pretending to know things scientific.

Actually I have forgotten most of what I learned about electricity and magnetism. I have been intending to relearn it.

We can tell. Your posts prove it.

It would be nice if you actually READ a fucking exchange before commenting on it. The exchange was based on Rule's assertion that global warming was caused by fluctuations in the solar magnetic field setting up an electrical current in the earth and this heating the earth from the inside out.

Here is the quote "The Earth is a conductor, yes? The Sun's magnetic field is on a 22 year cycle, yes? An electric current generates heat, yes? Well, when a conductor moves through a changing magnetic field, a current and therefore heat is being generated."

Yaknow, 3rd or 4th grade reading comprehension might have helped ya not embarass yourself.

quote:

woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl

I confess, I didn't read the thread in it's entirety, but the Cloud Project at CERN made NO such cockamamie assertions. The Earths magnetic field IS stronger in close proximity to the Earth BUT the Suns magnetic field extends much further out, and thus fluctuations either deflect or paas more or less cosmic radiation. Said cosmic radiation in higher concentrations, seeds the atmosphere and generates a thicker cloud cover, which in turn reflects more of the Sun's energy, before it reaches the ground and warms the surface. When the Suns magnetic field strengthens, it deflects more cosmic rays reducing the cloud cover and warming the planet. The increased warming makes for longer growing seasons, wildlife populations explode, and more CO2 is generated by respiration, THAT is why CO2 levels go up DURING a warming cycle, and not BEFORE a warming cycle. I am not specifically a global warming denier, but I am most assuredly an ANTHROPOMORPHIC global warming denier! I care little about what specific premise that was being argued. If someone was reaching the correct conclusion because of an incorrect hypothysis, that has little bearing on whether the resulting truth of the end conclusion, that man made global warming is in fact the largest confidence game pulled off in the history of the world! It's being used to seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation, and woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes! Take a deep breath, get a grip, and try not to be quite so impressed with yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes!

From http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/08/consensus-by-exhaustion/ on confirmation bias.

"So how and why did this happen in the IPCC assessments? There is a combination of political spiking (which Lewin describes in detail) and scientific bias generated by the consensus building process itself. I address this latter issue in my draft paper No consensus on consensus, in the section entitled Consensus and bias. An excerpt:

Kelly (2008) provides some insight into confirmation bias, arguing that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.”

Kelly (2005) describes an additional source of confirmation bias in the consensus building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases . . . At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: CharmCityCpl

I confess, I didn't read the thread in it's entirety, but the Cloud Project at CERN made NO such cockamamie assertions. The Earths magnetic field IS stronger in close proximity to the Earth BUT the Suns magnetic field extends much further out, and thus fluctuations either deflect or paas more or less cosmic radiation. Said cosmic radiation in higher concentrations, seeds the atmosphere and generates a thicker cloud cover, which in turn reflects more of the Sun's energy, before it reaches the ground and warms the surface. When the Suns magnetic field strengthens, it deflects more cosmic rays reducing the cloud cover and warming the planet. The increased warming makes for longer growing seasons, wildlife populations explode, and more CO2 is generated by respiration, THAT is why CO2 levels go up DURING a warming cycle, and not BEFORE a warming cycle. I am not specifically a global warming denier, but I am most assuredly an ANTHROPOMORPHIC global warming denier! I care little about what specific premise that was being argued. If someone was reaching the correct conclusion because of an incorrect hypothysis, that has little bearing on whether the resulting truth of the end conclusion, that man made global warming is in fact the largest confidence game pulled off in the history of the world! It's being used to seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation, and woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes! Take a deep breath, get a grip, and try not to be quite so impressed with yourself.

quote:

So the fact that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of AGW means there is no AGW? Are you really trying to argue that?

quote:

We will be totally self sufficient energywise and those people in the mid east who have been buttfucking us over an oil barrel for the last 60 or so years can go back to eating dirt and rocks and happily slaughtering each other as they have for centuries.