Coaxial wrote: 

yeah the wind is not his friend (if i'm reading the map correctly)

 Manbird wrote:
 

 miamizsun wrote:
 

It's tough with all the animals. I can't figure out how to transport all the birds let alone hawks (including a bunch of falconry gear, perches, frozen quail, etc) and a few cats. Plus an extremely autistic roommate. I don't know what hell is going on. Fortunately the weather is favoring us and they haven't cut our power. Tomorrow I have to go out of town. I hope they let me back in. It's a bleedin'  nightmare... but it will be OK. 

 miamizsun wrote: 

yo manbird make sure you've got your bug out gear ready

essential stuff

seriously

 kurtster wrote:
 
And another thing

I didn't say anything about being 100% sure that CO2 is the only factor responsible for climate change. I did say that for any of your claims to be worth considering, you need to come up with a physical mechanism that would link the earth's magnetic field motion to climate effects before it is worth considering as a possible factor. Otherwise it is just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something sticks. Aside from a mechanism, it would also have to correlate with the temporal trends and be backed up by measurements or models.

And yes, there are other factors such as methane and sulfur hexafluoride, but they are not as important. Methane is particularly troubling though, because the release from melting permafrost is going to have a large effect on atmospheric concentrations. 

 kurtster wrote:
 

You're really good at sarcasm. 

Degree:

1. 
   
2. An individual step, or stage, in any process or scale of values.

 islander wrote:
 

Your unsolicited interjections into ongoing conversations always raise the level of discourse.  By the way, degrees do not measure linear distance.  Just saying ...

 haresfur wrote:
 

Cut him at the knuckle, it's a fair compromise.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Just pointing out that you aren't the only one coming up with random bizarre concepts that have no bearing on reality. You say the earth's magnetic field has been changing but there is no scientific mechanism which relates the changes to climate. The timescale isn't even the same with the magnetic pole motion only increasing rapidly in the past few years. My point, as I said below, which you apparently didn't read - you need to come up with a mechanism where greenhouse gases are not responsible given the scientific understanding of how and why they act to warm the planet. 

The thought that stopping adding to the CO2 released to the atmosphere will spin us into an ice age is pretty hilarious. Maybe you should read up on global geochemical cycles and residence times. Tell you what, leave the hydrocarbons in the ground and if, in a few hundred years, the world, starts heading into an ice age, feel free to start burning them again.

On the other hand your ice age idea does seem to indicate that you admit that greenhouse gases are causing significant global climate change. So I suppose that's a start.

 islander wrote: 
You need better drugs.
.

 kurtster wrote:
 

So Haresfur is going to fly into a rage (We can speculate why, but it's really impossible to tell) and search you out. He's going to lash you to a chair and then proceed to use his amazing ambidextrous skills and two sets of  garden sheers to cut off the end of your fingernail  one one hand, and your whole finger on the other hand.  We are all outside the door and ready to burst in and stop him. But since he has such skill we can probably only grab one of his arms. Would you prefer we stop the fingernail side, or the finger side?  They are pretty much the same, just different by a matter of degrees right?  Maybe we should just debate it for a while, since something is probably going to happen anyway. 

 haresfur wrote:
 


You are obviously not reading what I have been posting. I have only been talking about the earth's magnetic field, not the sun's.

No worries though. There is no point to move forward with as you are 100% sure that CO² is the only factor responsible for both Global Warming and Climate Change and is 100% settled science.

Your mind is made up and totally closed to any possibility of other factors that could have an influence.

So if we do lower the amount of CO² in the earth's atmosphere we must watch out for the danger of triggering an ice age, which would be much more devastating than warming.

Barnaby Joyce says sun's magnetic fields cause bushfires. Science says...

"We can measure the energy we get from the sun, and it does have a natural variability. But it’s very small, and it has not shown any long-term trend over the past century, when we have seen this dramatic warming.

"It is clearly not one of the factors that has caused this warming."

 kurtster wrote:
 
The point is that the changes in radiation and magnetism have insignificant effect on climate change. But, as usual, you continue to avoid coming up with any mechanism where anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases would not be causing climate change.

 haresfur wrote:
 

The atmosphere is composed of much more than just gases. It is also charged particles and their circulation within the atmosphere is most definitely affected by changes in radiation and magnetism, i.e. the jet stream. That is a physical system / mechanism, the movement of charged particles independent of the composition of gases present.

If not then what is responsible for the winds aloft ? Bovine flatulence ?

 kurtster wrote:
 

the thing is, there is no physical mechanism by which the changes in the earth's magnetic field could have a significant effect on the climate. by bringing it up, you are simply trying to deflect from the demonstrated mechanism. bottom line, you continue to deny the human impact on climate

sorry about the broken shift key

 Isabeau wrote: 
And to what extent the changes of the earth's magnetic field have exacerbated the changes we are observing.

And that is what is wrong with the whole debate.  No one is allowed to say that there may be other natural occurring affects contributing to Climate Change and Global Warming.  It is only CO² that is allowed to be discussed.  Climate Change and Global Warming are two separate issues, imo.  One does not necessarily explain the other.

I have never argued that the global climate is not changing just what may be the causes; causes other than CO².  Instead of acknowledging that there may be some natural causes involved, I promptly get canceled as a denier.  So who is denying science here ?

Anyway, thanks for having the courage to bring this up.

 haresfur wrote:
 

Agreed on all points. However, shifting poles DO affect the jet stream, wind patternsand the El Nino conditions. That is NOT to say that has anything to do with CO2 buildup, which is definitely facilitated by humankind. I'm merely suggesting that a polar shift, in addition to climate change, has exacerbated the issue.