The Global Warming Conspiracy

[Aqueous Id]

Reply: The individual that wrote the first website has no credibility.

You are referring to the university expert in earth science who I cited.

How on earth would he know what happen 200,000 years ago, my goodness? His views are based of speculation, and circumstantial evidence.

You would have to know math and science to know how scientists date geologic events. If you need help, feel free to ask.

Second website deals with the jet scream, and my blog doesn't cover that, so what that's all about?

This was to correct your reference to the jet stream in your OP:

The rotating magnetic body of the earth functions like a generator's armature it also generates electromagnetic, and magnetic energy, and is responsible for the jet stream in the upper atmosphere.

The link I gave you explains the origin of the jet stream.

The third website cover the aurora borealis. Its derived from sun flares, what's your point?

This was to correct your error:

The electromagnetic of the Aurora Borealis, and Australis Borealis is responsible for our weather such as, thunderstorms, snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wind in the lower atmosphere.

The Aurora Borealis is merely a display of light, not a source of weather.

The fourth website covers greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are not responsible for global warming.

That's incorrect, apparently stemming from your misunderstanding about solar energy absorption.

Earth orbit around the sun is destabilizing.

The Earth orbit decays at an insignificant rate. Orbital decay won't matter when the Sun expands past our present location and engulfs the Earth.

How does your greenhouse gas theory . . .

It's not my theory. It's the result of decades of climate science, thanks to folks like the ones at NOAA whose work you would need to study in order to begin to understand climate science.

explain higher, than normal temperatures in winter?

Let's begin with the fact that winter in one hemisphere is accompanied by summer in another. Does that help? Climate change involves the net increase in heat of the entire mass of air surrounding Earth, regardless of what's happening on the ground.

How does it explain the sunny, and warm temperature the southern part of America is experiencing during winter. Greenhouse gases only absorb solar IR radiation.

The increase in energy absorbed into the atmosphere raises its average temperature. Solar IR radiation is the part of the spectrum which causes the average air temperature to rise.

It can't cause the sun to shine in winter.

That's irrelevant since there is always the same average mass of air facing the sun at any moment, regardless of seasonal changes on the ground below. Climate change concerns itself with the total amount of energy in the whole air mass. It's increasing. This causes the average air temperature to rise globally.

The sunny warm winters that the southern part of the United state is experiencing is caused by the additional 26 degree shift in earth's axis.

You're referring to the incident solar angle, which varies ±23.5° on the ground - a total variation in 47° - per annum. This has no bearing on the total energy absorbed into the atmosphere, which depends on atmospheric chemistry. If the winters are sunny, it's due to lack of local clouds, also irrelevant to average global air temperature.

This additional 26 degree shift is exposing the southern part of America to the sun.

During winter in North America, it tilts away from the sun by 23.5°, exposing less land area per watt of solar energy. The Southern Hemisphere tilts toward the sun, absorbing more energy and bringing summer. But this is irrelevant.

The United state has been experience higher, than normal temperature for the last five winters.

The temperature increase is due to increased absorption of solar energy into the air mass, not the position of a particular site on Earth. That's irrelevant. And the axial tilt has not changed for eons.

Greenhouse gas is only a summer phenomena, not a winter phenomena, sir.

Greenhouse gases are produced continuously by human activity, constantly increasing the heat absorption of the atmosphere, thereby continually elevating the average temperature of the total air mass. Seasonal climate changes at a particular location are irrelevant.

 

[williemcdonald]

rpenner,

Or a compass (an invention which probably dates back before 200 AD), measurement of the radiation belts, photos of the auroras from space, or specialized sense organs not well-developed in humans.

REPLY: Okay, so what?


That's entirely a gravitational phenomena as calculated by Newton, and the stability is the happenstance that at the moment, Earth's orbit is well-separated from similar sized masses.

REPLY: There can be no gravitational field without a magnetic field. Both can generate electricity.



That's the job of the atmosphere. The earth's magnetic field helps protect the atmosphere from the solar wind.

You seem very poorly educated in physics and the geosciences and you seem very confused that you attempt to lecture on these topics.

REPLY: The atmosphere contains the air we breathe. The earth's gravitational field protects life on this planet.

You seem very poorly educated in physics and the geosciences and you seem very confused that you attempt to lecture on these topics.

 

[williemcdonald]

Aqueous,

You are referring to the university expert in earth science who I cited.
REPLY: I don't care who he is, no one can honestly tell you what happened 200,000 years ago. His view are based on speculation, Give me a break!


You would have to know math and science to know how scientists date geologic events. If you need help, feel free to ask.
REPLY: How gullible can a man get? Carbon dating is not an exact science. And is not always correct. Looking back 200,000 years without being there is impossible.

This was to correct your reference to the jet stream in your OP:
REPLY: the air in earth's atmosphere is moved by magnetic fields. The jet scream can be measured by a magnetometer, just like a thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado, etc.

The Aurora Borealis is merely a display of light, not a source of weather.
REPLY: I have personally seen supercells, and thunderstorms with a greenish tint.

The Earth orbit decays at an insignificant rate. Orbital decay won't matter when the Sun expands past our present location and engulfs the Earth.
REPLY: The sun is not expanding. The earth is slowly moving closer to it.


Let's begin with the fact that winter in one hemisphere is accompanied by summer in another. Does that help? Climate change involves the net increase in heat of the entire mass of air surrounding Earth, regardless of what's happening on the ground.
REPLY: You know you bore me, and I'm not going to repeat myself. Try to keep up.

 

[origin]

There can be no gravitational field without a magnetic field. Both can generate electricity.

The atmosphere contains the air we breathe. The earth's gravitational field protects life on this planet.

How gullible can a man get? Carbon dating is not an exact science. And is not always correct. Looking back 200,000 years without being there is impossible.

the air in earth's atmosphere is moved by magnetic fields. The jet scream can be measured by a magnetometer, just like a thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado, etc.

Get this crank out of the science section and into the cesspool or pseudo science where he belongs, this is absurd!

 

[Rhaedas]

Aqueous,

You are referring to the university expert in earth science who I cited.
REPLY: I don't care who he is, no one can honestly tell you what happened 200,000 years ago. His view are based on speculation, Give me a break!

No, it's based on science.

You would have to know math and science to know how scientists date geologic events. If you need help, feel free to ask.
REPLY: How gullible can a man get? Carbon dating is not an exact science. And is not always correct. Looking back 200,000 years without being there is impossible.

And here you show that you should have asked for help.

This was to correct your reference to the jet stream in your OP:
REPLY: the air in earth's atmosphere is moved by magnetic fields. The jet scream can be measured by a magnetometer, just like a thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado, etc.

You know nothing about atmospheric sciences either. Not a surprise.

The Aurora Borealis is merely a display of light, not a source of weather.
REPLY: I have personally seen supercells, and thunderstorms with a greenish tint.

Good for you.

The Earth orbit decays at an insignificant rate. Orbital decay won't matter when the Sun expands past our present location and engulfs the Earth.
REPLY: The sun is not expanding. The earth is slowly moving closer to it.

How slowly, and how are you measuring it? Why is it no one else can seem to measure it?

Let's begin with the fact that winter in one hemisphere is accompanied by summer in another. Does that help? Climate change involves the net increase in heat of the entire mass of air surrounding Earth, regardless of what's happening on the ground.
REPLY: You know you bore me, and I'm not going to repeat myself. Try to keep up.

We're trying to keep up, but you're a pretty fast moving target. Those goalposts must not be as heavy as they look.

 

[williemcdonald]

Aqueous,

you argue for the sake of arguing. My blog present scientist evidence to back the things I say, and you only offer your word as evidence. That won't stand in the scientific community, and it won't stand the test here on this forum.

You are worst, than a joking, you are a joke that take itself seriously.

One thing I can say about you, the hot air ever stops.

 

[rpenner]

rpenner,

People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it can't be detected by our five senses (sight, sound, taste, smell, feel, etc). It can only be detected by the knowledge that magnetic fields exist, or a magnetometer.

Or a compass (an invention which probably dates back before 200 AD), measurement of the radiation belts, photos of the auroras from space, or specialized sense organs not well-developed in humans.

REPLY: Okay, so what?

Thank you for acknowledging that other means of detecting a magnetic field other than a magnetometer exist. However, this admission demonstrates that you were wrong when you made the claim in your initial two sentences. Thus you are unreliable as an authority because you recklessly say untrue things.

Another problem with these sentences is that when you claim "people" (all of humanity) take magnetic fields for granted, you are ignoring that "some people" (a subset of human measuring at least in the millions) are fascinated by magnetism (have a jar of iron fillings at home or bought a scam item it was claimed to be "magnetic"), use magnetism explicitly in their day job (like operators of electromagnetic cranes, oil geologists, 18th century sea captains, CRT-based television repairmen, the tens of thousands of people involved in upgrading the LHC, makers of magnets, chemists with magnetic stirrers, etc.) or study magnetism professionally (like theoretical physicists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, biologists, material scientists, and geologists mapping the Atlantic seafloor). Even Insane Clown Posse, in the middle of touting their ignorance and hatred of knowledge, touted their fascination of magnets as a subject that they believed was beyond the capability of humanity to understand with the lyric "F*cking magnets! How do they work?"

Another problem with these sentences is that you conflate knowing magnetic fields exist (which was part of human knowledge since at least the thirteenth century), with detection of a magnetic field (which various devices and some creatures do) with measurement of a magnetic field (which is the proper use of a magnetometer).

The earth’s magnetic, and gravitational fields protects all life on the surface of this planet from the sun by holding the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, and holds the moon in a stable around the earth.

That's entirely a gravitational phenomena as calculated by Newton, and the stability is the happenstance that at the moment, Earth's orbit is well-separated from similar sized masses.

REPLY: There can be no gravitational field without a magnetic field. Both can generate electricity.

The Cavendish experiment (performed late eighteenth century and onwards) demonstrates that gravity exists where there is no magnetism and is strictly proportional to mass. Electromagnetic experiments are completely consistent with a simple coupling of the electromagnetic field with a quantity called electric charge, with no coupling to mass. So the two topics are experimentally and theoretically distinct. Knowing the difference between gravity and magnetism is essential if we want to accurately launch satellites and spacecraft than move as we desire to (some of which measure magnetic fields and don't use that knowledge for navigation).

Your claim that a gravitational field by itself can generate electricity is novel and contradicts your assertion that gravity is distinct from magnetism. If true, you should get this patented before March, when US Patent Law changes go into effect and make it easier for someone to steal your invention. Please don't waste any further time here, if your claims are true.

It protect life on this planet from deadly high velocity solar winds.

That's the job of the atmosphere. The earth's magnetic field helps protect the atmosphere from the solar wind.

REPLY: The atmosphere contains the air we breathe. The earth's gravitational field protects life on this planet.

You seem to have lost the thread. I am not contesting the first statement. The second statement has nothing, directly, to do with the immediate danger to life presented by solar winds -- a danger which the sheer mass of the atmosphere largely protects us from.

You seem very poorly educated in physics and the geosciences and you seem very confused that you attempt to lecture on these topics.

I guess you agree with me. You also seem very poorly skilled in supporting your statements and utilizing the functionality of this website, including the quote functionality which, when used correctly, links back to the source of the quote.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You are referring to the university expert in earth science who I cited.
REPLY: I don't care who he is, no one can honestly tell you what happened 200,000 years ago. His view are based on speculation, Give me a break!

Not caring about the accuracy of the sources of information you use is part of the cause of your errors. Another one is making assumptions, which is what scientific expertise guards against. That's why it's important to rely on experts to inform you when you lack the skills to extract the facts from raw data yourself. And yes, natural history contains evidence from 200,000 yeas ago.

You would have to know math and science to know how scientists date geologic events. If you need help, feel free to ask.
REPLY: How gullible can a man get? Carbon dating is not an exact science. And is not always correct. Looking back 200,000 years without being there is impossible.

Offering to help you understand radioactive dating is the antidote for gullibility, not the cause of it. You're saying this because I corrected your explanation of the source of the geomagnetic field. It's the geodynamo. Your complaint about geologic dating is incorrect. You would need a background in science to properly understand how it's done. If you wish we can take up radioactive dating on the side. You will not reject it once you learn how it works. The belief that radioactive dating is not an exact science is a common claim from the pseudoscience and creation science crowd, and is easily refuted by evidence.

This was to correct your reference to the jet stream in your OP:
REPLY: the air in earth's atmosphere is moved by magnetic fields. The jet scream can be measured by a magnetometer, just like a thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado, etc.

You mean jet sTreams. The correct explanation as to their cause is

The actual appearance of jet streams result from the complex interaction between many variables - such as the location of high and low pressure systems, warm and cold air, and seasonal changes.​

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm

The Aurora Borealis is merely a display of light, not a source of weather.
REPLY: I have personally seen supercells, and thunderstorms with a greenish tint.

The light is not the cause of the weather. Nor is lightning the same as the auroras.

The Earth orbit decays at an insignificant rate. Orbital decay won't matter when the Sun expands past our present location and engulfs the Earth.
REPLY: The sun is not expanding. The earth is slowly moving closer to it.

I didn't say the Sun is expanding. I was referring to its future as a Red Giant.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html

Any decay in Earth's orbit is negligible and has nothing to do with climate change.

Let's begin with the fact that winter in one hemisphere is accompanied by summer in another. Does that help? Climate change involves the net increase in heat of the entire mass of air surrounding Earth, regardless of what's happening on the ground.
REPLY: You know you bore me, and I'm not going to repeat myself. Try to keep up.

If learning bores you, you picked the wrong site. One of your central errors concerns energy absorption into the atmosphere. The mass of air which faces the sun is unaffected by axial tilt or the seasonal changes on the ground. This is the mass of air which directly faces the sun at any moment and absorbs solar energy and converts it into molecular kinetic energy, that is, it raises the average temperature of the total air mass. The evidence for global warming is one of correlation in time. You would need a background in statistics to understand this better.

 

[Aqueous Id]

you argue for the sake of arguing.

Your assumptions about me are as shallow as your posts.

My blog present scientist evidence to back the things I say, and you only offer your word as evidence.

No, I picked four of your errors and gave you links to science sites with the correct answers.

That won't stand in the scientific community, and it won't stand the test here on this forum.

So far I've stuck to the issues and posted bona fide facts from science sites. That's about as good as it gets.

You are worst, than a joking, you are a joke that take itself seriously.

Insulting me will not help you learn science.

One thing I can say about you, the hot air ever stops.

According to your beliefs, any hot air coming out of me would be due to my magnetic personality.

 

[billvon]

REPLY: How gullible can a man get? Carbon dating is not an exact science. And is not always correct. Looking back 200,000 years without being there is impossible.

Look up at the sky. You're seeing what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. (To figure this out, google "speed of light.")

REPLY: the air in earth's atmosphere is moved by magnetic fields.

No, it's moved by the heat of the Sun. Take away our magnetic field and we still have the jet stream, the winds etc.

Want proof? Venus has intense winds - and no magnetic field to speak of.

REPLY: I have personally seen supercells, and thunderstorms with a greenish tint.

I've seen beer bottles with a greenish tint. Does that mean they contain Aurora Borealis?

REPLY: The sun is not expanding. The earth is slowly moving closer to it.

Actually it's moving farther away due to two factors:

1) Mass loss from the Sun via the solar wind. Less mass = less gravity = larger orbit. (Google "gravity" if you do not understand this._
2) Tidal drag between the Sun and the Earth.

 

[Rhaedas]

Want proof? Venus has intense winds - and no magnetic field to speak of.

No magnetic field? It must be spiraling inwards as we speak!

 

[williemcdonald]

Rhaedas, billvon, Aqueous, rpenner,
Do you notice I back everything I say with scientific evidence, you all need to do the same. Me debating four little people at once is unfair. The rise of CO2, and the temperature is just happenstance, and circumstantial. Even those CO2 levels remain the same the temperature on earth will continue to rise.



(1). The earth is developing a breach in its magnetic fields. The earth's magnetic field is showing signs of collapsing. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future. click on.

REFERENCES:

Dr. Tony Phillips. "Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field Discovered." Science@ NASA. December 16, 2008.

Jennifer Rumburg. "The Sun-Earth Connection: Heliophysics Solar Storm and Space Weather - Frequently Asked Questions." NASA Headquarters

David G. Sibeck is the THEMIS Project Scientist at NASA�s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. Marit Øieroset is the lead author of one of two papers on this research, entitled "THEMIS multi-spacecraft observations of magnetosheath plasma penetration deep into the dayside low-latitude magnetosphere for northward and strong By IMF," published in May 2008 in Geophysical Research Letters and is a THEMIS researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. Jimmy Raeder is a THEMIS co-investigator at the University of New Hampshire. Wenhui Li is a THEMIS researcher at the University of New Hampshire and author of a paper on this research, entitled "Cold dense magnetopause boundary layer under northward IMF: Results from THEMIS and MHD simulations," in the Journal of Geophysical Research.




(2). The earth magnetic, and gravitational fields has weaken by 10% since the 19th century, and is continuing to weaken. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future. Copy, and paste website to search engine.

REFERENCES:


Roach, John (2004); National Geographic News; from:news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html.

Bridges, Andrew (2003); Earth's Magnetic Field Weakens 10 Percent; from: www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html.

· Geomagnetism & Paleomagnetism background material. American Geophysical Union Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Section.
· National Geomagnetism Program. United States Geological Survey, March 8, 2011.
· BGS Geomagnetism. Information on monitoring and modeling the geomagnetic field. British Geological Survey, August 2005.
· William J. Broad, Will Compasses Point South?. New York Times, July 13, 2004.
· John Roach, Why Does Earth's Magnetic Field Flip?. National Geographic, September 27, 2004.
· Magnetic Storm. PBS NOVA, 2003. (ed. about pole reversals)
· When North Goes South. Projects in Scientific Computing, 1996.




(3). The earth has shifted on its axis by an additional 26 degrees beyond normal, and the tilting of the earth axis is worsening. This anomaly has altered the chandler's wobble. The chandler's wobble has increase in dimensions, and position. And the reversal of earth's magnetic field, and the chandler's wobble coincide with the shift in earth's axis.

I live in the southern part of the northern hemisphere. That's in the southern part of America. We are now experiencing sunny warm winter, due to the additional 26 degree shift in earth axis. we have more sunny warm days, than cold weather. All of this evidence proves the earth has shifted on it axis from 23.5 to 49.5 degrees, and that a 26 degree difference. This anomaly will accelerate the melting in the north pole, and cause deadly events in the future.

REFERENCES:

Earth Planets Space, 2010, v. 62, No. 12, 943-947

Milankovitch, M. 1920. Theorie Mathematique des Phenomenes Thermiques produits par la Radiation Solaire. Gauthier-Villars Paris.


Copy, and paste to search engine

(A). www.michaelmandeville.com/.../chandler_wobble_plots.htm.

(B). http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ldeo/v1011x-1/jcm/Topic2/Topic2.html

(C). http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

(D). http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/precess/chandler.html

(E).http://divulgence.net/axis shift 2.html.

(F).http://www.divulgence.net/




(4). The earth's magnetic poles are continuing to reverse at 40 miles per year. This correlate with the 26 degree additional shift in earth's axis. Click on.

REFERENCES:

Reading: Fowler Ch 8, p373-381
Glatzmaier et al. Nature 401, 885 - 890 1999

Merrill, Ronald T.; McElhinny, Michael W.; McFadden, Phillip L. (1996). "Chapter 8". The magnetic field of the earth: paleomagnetism, the core, and the deep mantle. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-491246-5.

World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto. "Magnetic North, Geomagnetic and Magnetic Poles". Retrieved 2012-07-03. North Magnetic Pole Moving East Due to Core Flux, National Geographic, December 24, 2009


(A).http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

(B).http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html

(C).http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html





(5). The earth's rotation is continuing to slow down. Due to the earth tilting on its axis. Click on.

REFERENCES:

Jenkins GS (1996) A sensitivity study of changes in Earth’s rotation
rate with an atmospheric general circulation model. Global Planet Change 11: 141–154

Hunt BG (1979) The influence of the Earth’s rotation rate on the
general circulation of the atmosphere. J Atmos Sci 36: 1392–1408

Del Genio AD, Suozzo RJ (1987) A comparative study of rapidly, and slowly rotating dynamical regimes in a terrestrial general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 44: 973–986

(A).http://novan.com/earth.htm

(B).http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html.




(6). The earth is wobbling on its axis, and the wobbling is continuing to worsen. This is due to the earth shifting on its axis by an additional 26 degrees. Click on

REFERENCES:

Earth Planets Space, 2010, v. 62, No. 12, 943-947

Earth Planets Space, Vol. 62 (No. 12), pp. 943-947, 2010
doi:10.5047/eps.2010.11.002

copy, and paste to search engine

(A). http://www.technologyreview.com/view/415093/earths-chandler-wobble-changed-dramatically-in-2005/

(B). http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-new-earth-wobble-that-we-are

(C).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

(D). http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-earth-mantle-shown-high-pressure.html





(7). The moon is continuing to move away from the earth 3.8 cm per year. Click on website (2A) read last sentence in figure10. I don't know the total distance the moon has traveled away from the earth, at this point. Click on.

REFERENCES:

Bender, P. L., The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, UCSD

McDonald, Kim (April 26, 2010). "UC San Diego Physicists Locate Long Lost Soviet Reflector on Moon". UCSD. Retrieved 27 April 2010.

James G. Williams and Jean O. Dickey. "Lunar Geophysics, Geodesy, and Dynamics" (PDF). ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2008-05-04. 13th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, October 7–11, 2002, Washington, D. C.


(A).http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section4/new17.html.

(B).http://blogstronomy.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-moon-moving-away-from-earth.html.




(8). The sun is getting hotter, and brighter in summer. Either the sun is getting larger, or earth is moving closer to the sun, I believe its the latter. The sun to blame for global warming.This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future. click on.

REFERENCES:

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury Press, pp. 8-9.


Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union / Volume 2004 / Issue IAUS223 / June 2004, pp 605-606

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) solar irradiance monitoring 1978 to present (Satellite observations of total solar irradiance); access date 2012-02-03

Ineson S., Scaife A.A., Knight J.R., Manners J.C., Dunstone N.J., Gray L.J., Haigh J.D. (9 October 2011). "Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere". Nature Geoscience 4 (11): 753–7. Bibcode 2011NatGe...4..753I. doi:10.1038/ngeo1282

"Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming". Russian International News Agency. 15 January 2007. Retrieved 24 August 2012. "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases [...], but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and [...] growth in its intensity."

Baliunas, Sallie; Willie Soon (22 August 2002). "Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts". Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved

Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode 2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.

(A).http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm.




(9). The ice in the arctic is being melted by the sun during each polar ice caps summer season, due to addition 26 degree shift of the earth axis.. The oceans are rising. One polar ice cap melting will not flood the planet, both ice caps will. Click on.
(A).http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/arctic-ice-cap-set-for-record-breaking-summer-melt-session/

(B).http://polaricecapsmelting.com/two-effects-of-polar-ice-caps-melting/




(10). The northern hemisphere, and the southern hemisphere are experiencing rare winter tornadoes. Due to the earth's orbit destabilizing. The website (9A thru 9H) proves the temperature in winter is rising. It should be too cold for tornadic activity in winter. Rare winter tornadoes are not rare anymore. Click on.

(A).http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/southern-storms.html


(B).http://www.canadianweather.org/forums/index.php?/topic/6237-central-us-hit-by-rare-winter-tornadoes/

(C).http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ornadoes-warm-winter-missouri-science-nation/

(D).http://globalwarmingarchive.blogspot.com/2008/01/rare-winter-tornado-hits-wisconsin.html.

(E).http://www.weather.com/newscenter/topstories/010807_tornadoes.html.

(F). http://earthsky.org/earth/two-tornadoes-strike-south-africa.


(G).http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/southern-storms.html


(H). http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-tornadoes-idUSTRE80H21X20120118





(11). The progression of global warming should be gauged by the rising temperature in winter, and not by the rising CO2 levels. Why are the winters beginning to get sunny, and warm. How can GHG's cause the sun to shine, and create sunny, and warm winter days? By you environmentalists words GHG's only absorb solar IR radiation, which causes the greenhouse effect. The sun is not suppose to shine as bright, and warm in winter. Earth orbit around the sun is destabilizing, and decaying that’s why it getting sunny, and warm in winter.
In the future there will be no winters. The rule of thumb is the warmer the winters, the hotter the summers. Click on.



(A).http://web-japan.org/trends98/honbun/ntj980227.html.

(B).http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/slideshow/warm-winter-weather-15488219.

(C).http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/243398/The_greening_of_Greenland.

(D).http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_winter_getting_hotter_every_year.

(E).http://hitchwiki.org/elvistudio/2010/02/26/the-moscow-kremlin-in-sunny-winter-day/.

(F).http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322609,00.html.

(G).http://www.arcticsystem.no/en/outsideworld/climate/warmer-climate.html.

(H).http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=68.

(I). http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/4th-warmest-january-on-record/61356







If Crude oil, and natural gas (O&G) doesn't sustain the

high temperature, and pressures in the core, then what

was O&G created for? Why large quantities O&G by-

products are discharged during volcanic activity? Oil,

and gas wells are the earth’s fuel system, volcanoes are

the earth exhaust system.


The core is its engine, and the oceans are it cooling

system. That’s how earth’s systems functions. The O&G

extraction process used by the oil companies prevents

O&G form being forced in to the core to be ignited. The

O&G enter into the lower mantle as flames, heat, and

pressure, there by heating the outer core, which heats

the inner core, and the inner core generates earth

magnetic, and gravitation fields.



The lack of O&G into the core causes the core to

cool, and the pressure to drop, and weakens the earth's

magnetic field. Earth's magnetic, and gravitational fields

are weakening, causing the earth orbit around the sun to

destabilize.


The earth is a magnetic, and gravitational

field generator. The earth's magnetic, and gravitational

fields, and the orbital movement around the sun are the

mechanisms that keep the earth in a stable orbit around

the sun. Many people don't want you to know this. My

life could be in danger.

 

[williemcdonald]

As you offer no scientific evidence to support your claims, I find your statements to be null, and void.

 

[williemcdonald]

Rhaedas,


Venus has a weak magnetic field, Gzzzz!

www.egu.eu/inside-egu/divisions-and...and.../venus.html

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/V3.html

www.universetoday.com/87280/venus-magnetic-field/

 

[williemcdonald]

billvon,

(1). It better to close your month, and let people think you are stupid, than to ope it, and confirm you are stupid.

(2). The air in earth's atmosphere is moved by the same energy the moves the air in a thunderstorm, hurricane, or tornado, and that is electromagnetic energy. The electromagnetic energy in these storms can by measured by a magnetometer.

(3). The aurora, and australis borealis is the only weather phenomena with a greenish tint.

(4). Show me proof the sun has been reduced is size? and the earth gravitational field is one of the main components that holds the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, the other component is the earth's orbital velocity.

 

[williemcdonald]

Aqueous,

Childish diatribe.


My blog present scientist evidence to back the things I say, and you only offer your word as evidence.
No, I picked four of your errors and gave you links to science sites with the correct answers.

REPLY: Okay where is it? I didn't see it.

 

[Rhaedas]

Rhaedas,


Venus has a weak magnetic field, Gzzzz!

www.egu.eu/inside-egu/divisions-and...and.../venus.html

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/V3.html

www.universetoday.com/87280/venus-magnetic-field/

How weak? Can you read your links? Why bother quoting things that show you're wrong?

 

[williemcdonald]

Aquaeous,

(1). Unlike you I am an expert, and just like all expert I like mistakes. unlike you I'm a leader, and not a follower. I have an opinion just like your so called experts. I'm willing to bet you bought into the mathematics that supported cold fusion, you are sheeple.

(2). Carbon dating is not an exact science:

scienceray.com › Earth Sciences › Physical Geography.

www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html.

http://funkomatic.hubpages.com/hub/The-Controversy-in-RadioCarbon-Dating


(3). all weather phenomena have magnetic signatures that can be measured by a magnetometer, including the aurora borealis.


(4). I didn't say light was the source of weather. The aurora, and australis borealis is the only weather phenomena with a greenish tint. I seen this greenish tint in supercells, and thunderstorms.

(5). Greenhouse gas level can't explain the slowly rising temperatures in winter, nor can they explain why the desert regions of the United States has some the higher temperature on earth, but not the highest CO2 levels? CO2 levels don't explain why some of the industrial areas of the United States don't have the highest temperature in the United states.?

 

[williemcdonald]

Rhaedas,

Venus does has a weak magnetic field. Those links prove me right

 

[billvon]

1). It better to close your month, and let people think you are stupid, than to ope it, and confirm you are stupid.

True - but then you'd stop talking, and you are most excellent entertainment.

(2). The air in earth's atmosphere is moved by the same energy the moves the air in a thunderstorm, hurricane, or tornado, and that is electromagnetic energy.

Actually the source for all the energy in weather is heat - which does in fact come from electromagnetic energy, specifically sunlight! So you're unwittingly getting closer to reality here.

The electromagnetic energy in these storms can by measured by a magnetometer.

Sure can. The chemical, potential and kinetic energies can also be measured. The thermal energy can also be measured - and this dominates since heat drives weather.

The aurora, and australis borealis is the only weather phenomena with a greenish tint.

Then you've never seen a big thunderstorm or a rain squall on the ocean in the tropics.

Show me proof the sun has been reduced is size?

I didn't say size, I said mass. (Mass is what matters in calculating gravity.) Here's the proof for that:


==========================
Solar wind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

. . . .

The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.3×1036 per second. Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3)×10−14 solar masses, or about 4–6 billion tonnes per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth every 150 million years.
====================

and the earth gravitational field is one of the main components that holds the earth in a stable orbit around the sun

Yep, it is indeed one of the components. The other component is the mass of the Sun. And since the Sun masses about 300,000 times what the Earth does, it dominates.