The truth of Global Warming

[Gill]

I see no link to these "studies", but my guess is they are not peer reviewed studies.

Your guess would be wrong:

ABSTRACT
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

Paper: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

 

[BmanMcfly]

How many energy inputs of significant value are there, other than the sun?

Stellar radiation is an example... but the moon and other stellar influences ALSO would have an impact on our climate, since

No, there isn't "super-clean" coal. There's reprocessed coal that burns somewhat cleaner. Reprocessing, incidentally, done at high temperatures and therefore high energy cost. Cold fusion is science fiction. Regular fusion is a reality, we can do it already, but presently it takes more energy to maintain the reaction than you can extract from the reaction. (as fusion can only occur at extremely high densities and temperatures)

Ok, so you say I'm wrong and then make my point anyway... whatever.

You were rightfully laughed at. Your understanding of basic physics is laughably poor.

Is magnetism NOT a force? Can you use magnetic force to push another magnet? Could you arrange this force in a specific way as to maximize the attraction while minimizing the repulsion effects of the magnets? Is the attractive force of a magnet the same as the repulsive force of a magnet?


Genesis EV-X7: Hybrid Electric Bike That Can Hit 150 Km/Hr - Ecofriend

So, ya... I must point out that your prejudice of the concept is out-dated.

 

[Catawba]

Your guess would be wrong

I downloaded the full text of the paper you linked and could not find any reference to peer review. This is a paper by one author in Brazil. I can find no reference to those that may have reviewed it.

 

[Deuce]

The thing is that to say the sun have no real effect on climate is asinine, and to say that it's CO2 forcing and the solar activity is negligible.... well, that's a word that I won't use for risk of banishment.

Nobody ever said this.

Which begs the question of demonstration : How much CO2 would it require to COMPLETELY 100% offset the sun's energy??? I mean, how much CO2 would be required in the atmosphere so that we could snuff out the sun without concern??

It really doesn't because that's a ridiculous question that once again demonstrates terrible understanding of the debate.

Yes, sulfuric pollution is worse then CO2...

Which is why we put a lot of effort into reducing that.

Ya. and CO2 increases as a RESULT of a warmer climate because when the summers are longer that means more food for animals, meaning more animal babies survive, meaning more life producing more CO2... when the climate cools, there's LESS food, so less surviving babies, and eventually less animals producing CO2...

If they REALLY WERE looking at the past, they would see the up to 700 year lag-time where the CO2 levels FOLLOW the climate temperatures...

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of a feedback. CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing.

Is magnetism NOT a force? Can you use magnetic force to push another magnet? Could you arrange this force in a specific way as to maximize the attraction while minimizing the repulsion effects of the magnets? Is the attractive force of a magnet the same as the repulsive force of a magnet?

I just want to clarify your opinion just in case I might have it wrong:
You think perpetual motion is possible via magnets?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Nobody ever said this.

Ya, it's taking what was said and expanding it to demonstrate the absurdity.

It really doesn't because that's a ridiculous question that once again demonstrates terrible understanding of the debate.

No, it's actually articulating just how absurd the debate is to start. Co2 CANNOT, HAS NOT, nor will it EVER FORCE the climate.

Which is why we put a lot of effort into reducing that.

This is true there are efforts to limit this type of pollution... but polluted air is only one facet of the debate over pollution...

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of a feedback. CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing.

Only in the minds of the AGW alarmists... Which, if the models ACTUALLY came close to representing reality, you could take the models and apply it to any point in history and get accurate results... this cannot be done because the models themselves are deeply flawed.

I just want to clarify your opinion just in case I might have it wrong:
You think perpetual motion is possible via magnets?

Not entirely... I'm suggesting that magnetism is an untapped energy source that needs to be studied... I've had the discussion with my roommate whose job it is to build, repair, and maintain all sorts of industrial motors, etc... and he came at it with the same response : It's impossible... then he saw the examples of what precisely was the concept at play, and his opinion changed to 'well, it's a long way to go from getting a disk to spin into converting that spinning disk into the type of energy required to run any sort of power out of a machine.' (which I agreed with him, that this was something that should be studied).

I'll take that response to mean that you didn't have the answers to the questions.... which is fine, I'm hardly an expert on magnetism as well.

 

[Deuce]

Ya, it's taking what was said and expanding it to demonstrate the absurdity.

It's not "expanding," it's changing. Nobody ever said the sun does not influence climate, and in fact scientists say (and I've said) the exact opposite. You are literally reversing what is said. The sun most absolutely is a driver of climate. However, given direct measurements of the sun over the last 50 years (note: 50 years. not eternity) you can conclude that the sun cannot account for all of the warming we've seen in that period.

No, it's actually articulating just how absurd the debate is to start. Co2 CANNOT, HAS NOT, nor will it EVER FORCE the climate.

Maybe you just don't understand what the word forcing means...

Only in the minds of the AGW alarmists... Which, if the models ACTUALLY came close to representing reality, you could take the models and apply it to any point in history and get accurate results... this cannot be done because the models themselves are deeply flawed.

This is inaccurate because for the model to match history perfect you'd also need perfect information about history. (as well as the model being perfect)
Nobody ever claimed to have 100% information about the past or the future, and nobody ever claimed the models were 100% accurate.

Not entirely... I'm suggesting that magnetism is an untapped energy source that needs to be studied... I've had the discussion with my roommate whose job it is to build, repair, and maintain all sorts of industrial motors, etc... and he came at it with the same response : It's impossible... then he saw the examples of what precisely was the concept at play, and his opinion changed to 'well, it's a long way to go from getting a disk to spin into converting that spinning disk into the type of energy required to run any sort of power out of a machine.' (which I agreed with him, that this was something that should be studied).

I'll take that response to mean that you didn't have the answers to the questions.... which is fine, I'm hardly an expert on magnetism as well.

Magnets aren't free energy to be tapped. It doesn't work that way.
I mean, that link you posted about the bike-thingy? It uses an electromagnet. It has a battery. The magnetism used to run that bike isn't an energy source, it's a result of energy consumption.
Magnetism as a source of energy is more like a battery than a generator. It's a way to store and transfer energy, not generate it. (although technically speaking, even fossil fuels work this way)

edit:
Here's a question: Do you accept the concept of the greenhouse effect? I.E. CO2 and other gasses absorbing longwave infrared radiation? If yes, would that not have an influence on temperature? (let's ignore magnitude. the effect could be tiny or huge, doesn't matter. just the concept)

 

[Catawba]

Co2 CANNOT, HAS NOT, nor will it EVER FORCE the climate

.

The NOAA put together a summary of the many lines of evidence of a human fingerprint on climate change.


"1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).

7. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

8. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).

9. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratophere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratophere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

10. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning."

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

 

[Nevergolfpar]

.

The NOAA put together a summary of the many lines of evidence of a human fingerprint on climate change.


"1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).

7. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

8. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).

9. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratophere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratophere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

10. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning."

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Yawn. You cannot prove mankind is responsible for global warming, global cooling, or global staying the same any more than I can prove you wrong. Every scientist your side pays to make this claim, our side can similarly pay a scientist of our own. In the meantime, misinformation on both side gets bantered about, everyone gets confused and gets on some political debate site and starts creating top 10 lists.

 

[Deuce]

Yawn. You cannot prove mankind is responsible for global warming, global cooling, or global staying the same any more than I can prove you wrong. Every scientist your side pays to make this claim, our side can similarly pay a scientist of our own. In the meantime, misinformation on both side gets bantered about, everyone gets confused and gets on some political debate site and starts creating top 10 lists.

Welp. That settles it. All science is fundamentally flawed and unprovable, because scientists get paid.

 

[Nevergolfpar]

Welp. That settles it. All science is fundamentally flawed and unprovable, because scientists get paid.

Nope only junk science.

 

[Deuce]

Nope only junk science.

Thank god we have Nevergolfpar around to arbitrarily declare what is and is not junk science. I would hate to have to actually evaluate the science itself, and the rebuttals to it, and make a decision based on that. Waving it all off based on my own personal opinion is just so much easier!

 

[iangb]

Yawn. You cannot prove mankind is responsible for global warming, global cooling, or global staying the same any more than I can prove you wrong. Every scientist your side pays to make this claim, our side can similarly pay a scientist of our own. In the meantime, misinformation on both side gets bantered about, everyone gets confused and gets on some political debate site and starts creating top 10 lists.

A though just hit me. Seeing as it's a common claim by the anti-AGW crowd that scientists will (even subconciously) bias their results in order to get the conclusions they were 'paid to get' (ie that confirmed the hypothesis' (plural) on which they were funded), how come other big science experiments such as the LCH have not yet provided data that confirms the reason why they were started up in the first place?

In short, why haven't they pretended that we've found the Higgs boson yet? They'd have guaranteed extra funding to build something bigger and shinier for further study, but instead all along there has been an undercurrent of 'this might be wrong after all, in which case it's back to the drawing board for theoreticians everywhere and we experimentalists will be put on hold'.

 

[Nevergolfpar]

There's an easy answer to a very good question you just asked. The reason why bias does not exist in such funded experiments is because there is no governmental agencies waiting to tax us and infringe on our liberty should the data result to their agenda. After all, should they ever find the Higgs boson, I don't think we have to fear a massive Higgs boson tax being levied our way. Should the government find a way to tax it, I'm sure they would cart out a plethora of scientist to explaining its existence and scare the American public into higgs boson frenzy. After all, if American's don't reduce their Higg's Boson intake,it will be the leading cause of death in the year 2037.

 

[iangb]

There's an easy answer to a very good question you just asked. The reason why bias does not exist in such funded experiments is because there is no governmental agencies waiting to tax us and infringe on our liberty should the data result to their agenda. After all, should they ever find the Higgs boson, I don't think we have to fear a massive Higgs boson tax being levied our way. Should the government find a way to tax it, I'm sure they would cart out a plethora of scientist to explaining its existence and scare the American public into higgs boson frenzy. After all, if American's don't reduce their Higg's Boson intake,it will be the leading cause of death in the year 2037.

...so the climate scientists are biased, not because they're being paid (like the Higgs researchers are), but because they all want the government to tax us and infringe on our liberty?

Golly.

(lol at our 'higgs intake', though. Shame I didn't talk about the Ice Cube neutrino detector...)

 

[Nevergolfpar]

There's an easy answer to a very good question you just asked. The reason why bias does not exist in such funded experiments is because there is no governmental agencies waiting to tax us and infringe on our liberty should the data result to their agenda. After all, should they ever find the Higgs boson, I don't think we have to fear a massive Higgs boson tax being levied our way. Should the government find a way to tax it, I'm sure they would cart out a plethora of scientist to explaining its existence and scare the American public into higgs boson frenzy. After all, if American's don't reduce their Higg's Boson intake,it will be the leading cause of death in the year 2037.

Stop the presses! I just changed my view on global climate staying the same. I just found the Higgs boson. If found one next to the damn sock that keeps disappearing in the dryer. It appears the Higgs boson is attracted to the missing sock phenomenon that has been plaguing American's for years. Furthermore, it appears the lint from the sock is electrically charged by the Higgs Boson creating a rapid escape of ionized partials into the upper atmosphere, contributing to our global climate actually getting cold in the winter, but warm in the summer! Someone call Al Gore and Obama, the lint in our socks can now be taxed!

 

[BmanMcfly]

It's not "expanding," it's changing. Nobody ever said the sun does not influence climate, and in fact scientists say (and I've said) the exact opposite. You are literally reversing what is said. The sun most absolutely is a driver of climate. However, given direct measurements of the sun over the last 50 years (note: 50 years. not eternity) you can conclude that the sun cannot account for all of the warming we've seen in that period.

Maybe you just don't understand what the word forcing means...

No, it is the MAIN forcing of the climate... there are other factors at play, including the ghg effect... BUT, to say that the sun has no discernable effect on climate change is asinine.

This is inaccurate because for the model to match history perfect you'd also need perfect information about history. (as well as the model being perfect)
Nobody ever claimed to have 100% information about the past or the future, and nobody ever claimed the models were 100% accurate.

Then why do they claim to know for certain that the climate is going to increase in temperature into the next century??? Don't you see??

Magnets aren't free energy to be tapped. It doesn't work that way.

Obviously not, especially not in this simplistic sense you've phrased it as..

I mean, that link you posted about the bike-thingy? It uses an electromagnet. It has a battery. The magnetism used to run that bike isn't an energy source, it's a result of energy consumption.
Magnetism as a source of energy is more like a battery than a generator. It's a way to store and transfer energy, not generate it. (although technically speaking, even fossil fuels work this way)

Re-read that... it is an ELECTRO-magnet + an array of rare earth magnets that serves to use that magnetic influence to help propel the bike and vastly increase the bikes efficiency... that's what I am talking about, it's not 'perpetual motion' BUT it's a DRASTIC improvement on efficiency which would remain for as long as the magnets maintain their magnetism (rare earth magnets last about 20 years).

See, the concept was viewed as an 'impossibility' for so long, because of the way that such a system seems to defy the laws of physics, until you consider that through the manipulation of magnets + manual propulsion to start that the system could propel itself until it's generated MUCH more energy then what was put in... It would require further study... that's all I'm saying.

edit:
Here's a question: Do you accept the concept of the greenhouse effect? I.E. CO2 and other gasses absorbing longwave infrared radiation? If yes, would that not have an influence on temperature? (let's ignore magnitude. the effect could be tiny or huge, doesn't matter. just the concept)

OF COURSE the 'concept' is correct... BUT, look at both Mars and Venus... both have 'runaway' GHG's... Venus is exceptionally hot, Mars remains exceptionally cold...

BUT, the model is NOT as simple as "co2 = climate temperature"... as Piers Corbyn points out (that's the astrophysicist guy looking at the moon) it's not ONLY a matter of the sun, but how the suns energy gets diverted by the magnetic fields of the moon, and that while the sun DOES have an 11 year cycle, it also has longer cycles at play as well, then there's the level of cloud cover that would completely block a large portion of that energy from reaching the surface... and so on.

The models are NOT designed to predict the future climate, they are designed to instill fear and to allow a syphon of tax money to be installed on the world, and for the control that such a tax represents.

 

[Nevergolfpar]

Thank god you did not break out the Ice Cube neutrino detector because I would have had to look that up on the internet as well;-)

 

[Catawba]

Yawn. You cannot prove mankind is responsible for global warming, global cooling, or global staying the same any more than I can prove you wrong. Every scientist your side pays to make this claim, our side can similarly pay a scientist of our own. In the meantime, misinformation on both side gets bantered about, everyone gets confused and gets on some political debate site and starts creating top 10 lists.

Thanks for your opinion. The scientific consensus is more reasonable to me.

 

[Whovian]

(rare earth magnets last about 20 years).

Thus you prove once again you're completely clueless... :rofl:

Not according to the rip off artists at MagnaDrive...
MagnaDrive - Frequently Asked Questions

The half-life of the magnets is 2,000 years.

For more information on rare earth magnets...
Frequently Asked Questions

Will magnets lose their power over time?

Modern magnet materials do lose a very small fraction of their magnetism over time. For Samarium Cobalt (rare earth category) materials, for example, this has been shown to be less that 1% over a period of ten years.

 

[Deuce]

No, it is the MAIN forcing of the climate... there are other factors at play, including the ghg effect... BUT, to say that the sun has no discernable effect on climate change is asinine.

Here you go again.

Did you happen to notice that I said exactly the opposite of that? And how every scientist says the opposite of that?

Once again, I'm done with you until you stop lying about the arguments being made.

Then why do they claim to know for certain that the climate is going to increase in temperature into the next century??? Don't you see??

They don't make such a claim. You're lying again.
What they do say is that, given a specific scenario, they expect that temperatures will increase approximately by ____.

Maybe we double the CO2 emissions that they expect. Maybe we drop to zero thanks to a miracle power source discovery. Maybe a massive supervolcano erupts and plunges us into an ice age. Maybe the sun, via some mechanism we've never observed before, suddenly drops drastically in output or increases drastically in output. Nobody is psychic, so nobody claims to know anything for certain. That is a fabrication entirely on part of your brain.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Here you go again.

Did you happen to notice that I said exactly the opposite of that? And how every scientist says the opposite of that?

Once again, I'm done with you until you stop lying about the arguments being made.

Look, you don't even realize how you are trying to play both sides of the coin... I mean, to say that the sun's effect does not account for the current warming. Then use that as proof that CO2 is the driver... Well, I'm sorry, but CO2 changes would offer only a small change... all things being equal. The problem is that the system has so much that is NOT understood fully, That's why there are NO models of the environment that can accurately predict the weather on a global scale with any real accuracy. Now, I agree that the solar activity is one part of the correlation... and CO2 plays a part as well, that any 'human change' is dwarfed by natural occurrence of CO2 anyway.

They don't make such a claim. You're lying again.
What they do say is that, given a specific scenario, they expect that temperatures will increase approximately by ____.

I was going on the assumption that the attack on Monkton was using ACTUAL projections??

Maybe we double the CO2 emissions that they expect. Maybe we drop to zero thanks to a miracle power source discovery. Maybe a massive supervolcano erupts and plunges us into an ice age. Maybe the sun, via some mechanism we've never observed before, suddenly drops drastically in output or increases drastically in output. Nobody is psychic, so nobody claims to know anything for certain. That is a fabrication entirely on part of your brain.

Well, so far, the only 'early projections' I've seen using CO2 climate models showed the warming to actually be what was accounted as a 'best case scenario'...when the reality was much closer to the worst case scenario.

The problem is that CO2's impact is WAY OVER-EMPHASIZED by the 'scientists'.

Unless I'm shown different.

Thus you prove once again you're completely clueless... :rofl:

Not according to the rip off artists at MagnaDrive...
MagnaDrive - Frequently Asked Questions

Well, that may be true if you left it sitting there... but if you abuse magnets they'll lose their magnetism quicker.

And I'm not talking about scamming people...

For more information on rare earth magnets...
Frequently Asked Questions

Even if using magnetism in this fashion could increase the efficiency of current motors by say 30-50%, well, add that to the energy by converting the vehicle into a hybrid, of better yet, full electric vehicle, well, it's something. I know the problem would be to generate enough torque, and to be able to have direct control over the torque...

The one thing that would make the whole difference is if there was a difference in the force of attraction or if it's the repulsion that is stronger.... if they are the same, it would lose to friction over time, and at best could be a minor assistance... IF there's a difference in the two then that could mean a 'flow' where the tendency of a system would be to move, say clockwise for example. But, if there's a difference that can surpass friction, then it's merely a matter of scaling it up and getting an 'optimum' magnetic field, that can be manipulated and have a useful amount of work...

I can't say definitively that it can be practical, BUT I can say that there's potential that deserve proper analysis...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Paper: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

ABSTRACT
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.
Reference
[1] IPCC, “Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assess- ment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
[2] J. R. Petit, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N. I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte and V. M. Kotlyakov, “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core,” Antarctica Nature, Vol. 399, 1999, pp. 429-436.
[3] J. Veizer, D. Ala, K. Azmy, P. Bruckschen, D. Buhl, F. Bruhn, G. A. F. Carden, A. Diener, S. Ebneth, Y. Goddéris, T. Jasper, C. Korte, F. Pawellek, O. G. Podlaha and H. Strauss, “87Sr/86Sr, δ13C and δ18O Evolution of Phanerozoic Seawater,” Chemical Geology, Vol. 161, 1999, pp. 59-88.
[4] R. A. Berner and Z. Kothavala, “GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, 2001, pp. 182-204, Doi: 10.2475/ajs.301.2.182.
[5] J. T. Kiehl and R. E. Dickinson, “A Study of the Radiative Effects of Enhanced Atmospheric CO2 and CH4 on Early Earth Surface,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 92, 1987, pp. 2991-2998.
[6] M. E. Mann, E. Gille, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, J. Overpeck, F. T. Keimig and W. Gross, “Global Temperature Patterns in Past Centuries: An Interactive Presentation,” Earth Interaction, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 1-29.
[7] D. J. Thompson, “Dependence of Global Temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and Solar Irradiance,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 94, 1995, pp. 8370-8377.
[8] P. J. Mayhew, G. B. Jenkins and T. G. Benton, “A Long-Term Association between Global Temperature and Biodiversity, Origination and Extinction in the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Doi: 10.1098/ rspb, 2007.
[9] T. R. Karl and P. D. Jones, “Urban Bias in Area- averaged Surface Air Temperature Trends,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 70, No. 3, 1989, pp. 265-270.
[10] L. M. Zhou, R. E. Dickinson, Y. H. Tian, J. Y. Fang, Q. X. Li, R. K. Kaufmann, C. J. Tucker and R. B. Myneni, “Evidence for a Significant Urbanization Effect on Climate in China,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Vol. 101, No. 26, June 2004. www.pnas. org cgi, doi:10.1073.0400357101
[11] C. Rodenbeck, S. Houweling, M. Gloor and M. Heimann, “CO2 Flux History 1982-2001 Inferred from Atmospheric Data Using a Global Inversion of Atmospheric Transport,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Vol. 3, 2003, pp. 1919-1964.
[12] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp00 1r7/
[13] M. F. Rasera et al., “Estimating the Surface Area of Small Rivers in the Southwestern Amazon and Their Role in CO2 Outgassing,” Earth Interactions, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1-16.
[14] J. E. Richey et al. “Outgassing from Amazonian Rivers and Wetlands as a Large Tropical Source of Atmospheric CO2,” Nature, Vol. 416, 2002, pp. 617-620.
[15] NOAA, 2008. ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/ msu/monthly_time_
[16] J. Hansen and M. Sato, “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis,” Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, 2007. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/(acesso em 27/08/ 2007)
[17] J. Hansen and M. Sato, “Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Vol. 101, No. 46, November 2004, pp. 16109-16114.
[18] NASA, 2008, Annual Mean Land-Ocean Temperature, Index in 0,01 C selected zonal means sources: GHCN 1880-12/2006 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST112/1981- 12/2006 Reynolds v2 using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment.
[19] D. Peixoto, P. Jose and H. O. Abraham, “Physics of Climate,” Springer, 1992.
[20] Tyndall Centre 2009. www.tyndall.ac.uk and http://www. cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/ see T. D. Mitchell, et al., 2003.
[21] T. D. Mitchell et al., 2003. “A Comprehensive Set of Climate Scenarios for Europe,” Tyndal Center. http:// www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/at Tyndall Centre (www. tyndall.ac.uk).

 

[Deuce]

Look, you don't even realize how you are trying to play both sides of the coin... I mean, to say that the sun's effect does not account for the current warming. Then use that as proof that CO2 is the driver... Well, I'm sorry, but CO2 changes would offer only a small change... all things being equal. The problem is that the system has so much that is NOT understood fully, That's why there are NO models of the environment that can accurately predict the weather on a global scale with any real accuracy. Now, I agree that the solar activity is one part of the correlation... and CO2 plays a part as well, that any 'human change' is dwarfed by natural occurrence of CO2 anyway.

So you admit that you lied about, misrepresented, or misunderstood my stance?

 

[BmanMcfly]

So you admit that you lied about, misrepresented, or misunderstood my stance?

If pointing out that it's a shade of gray shy of being absurd on its own merit is a lie, then yes.

 

[Deuce]

If pointing out that it's a shade of gray shy of being absurd on its own merit is a lie, then yes.

Your claim is that my stance was the "sun has no influence on climate."

That is not a shade of grey. That's an absolute statement that I never, ever made. It's also not the first time you've made that claim.

Again, if you aren't willing to debate honestly there's no point in discussing this.