Death knell for AGW

Are you?

Perhaps you can do it without calling names.

Who asked the first question?????

I did?

Hmmmmm??????

Sorry, didn't see the edit of petros's post earlier.


Seems he ignored my graph and the video he posted.

That wasn't edited. Why ignore it? I've seen plenty of graphs. Get yourself a graph any graph on earth climate. What happens after EVERY spike in climate? It drops like a stone or peters out? Well? Is he or isn't he? You must know the answer to your own question because I obviously have no idea what you are trying to prove.

Yes it was, hence my response and quote from you unless you deny adding that later?

Do you deny that?

If you do I will put on ignore forever.

I'm not going to deal with liars.

Geomagnetics and climate are or are not linked? Pick one.

Please please please put me on ignore.

#818
Re: Death knell for AGW

55 minutes ago

So let's get this clear then. Geomagnetics and climate are or are not linked? Pick one.

Did you or did you not add that comment in after the post.

If no then I put you on ignore.

Nope. Go ahead and look to see if it says "edited". #818

Edited only happens after a certain period of time.

See.

Edited twice.

BTW...I accept Tonnington's silence as a form of admitting he erred. That's fine by me.

It will say it's edited if it has been edited but it hasn't been edited so it won't say it has been edited.

Geomagnetics and climate are or are not linked? Pick one.

What's your answer? More song and dance?

So you think someones online status means they aren't repsonding?

Funny and telling.

Did you add that in or not?

Yes or no?

#810


Song and dance?

You changed this post as well.

It's the way the site works.

did you add that in or not?

If you say "please please please" then I think the answer would be easy for you.

Yes or no?

You're ****ed in the head.

More name calling...no surprise.

Yes or no? If you say no I will put you on ignore forever.

No no no no no

Goodbye.

Woohoo!!!!

Play my way or I'm not playing no more.....

Goodbye to you as well.

Da Sleeper, do you feel the loss?

So, I noticed the graph of climate change and magnetic field strength...Suzuki noted that there have been times where abrupt changes in the field strength correlated to climate change. But if you look at the two time series, it's obvious that the correlation is very weak. There are times when the two series are moving in opposite direction, there are times when they moving together, and overall the two series move in completely different directions as both series progress. Weak correlations are even less interesting than strong correlations.

I grabbed a screen shot:



Suzuki also noted that this theory has no corroborating evidence. If abrupt changes can cause climate change, then shouldn't gradual changes also cause climate change? So, why is the correlation so poor? What's the causal mechanism? They mention clouds as a possible candidate. Does it square with observations such as winters warming faster than summers?

And then it links back to Svensmark and cosmic rays. Others have looked at Svensmark work, which has been noted by many to suffer from problems, such as no explanation of cosmic rays increasing cloud condensating nuclei in the presence of abundant cloud condensating nuclei, nor has this been quantified with a radiative feedback. Other shave looked at this, and the results are mixed. The sign of the radiative forcing is uncertain, whether it is warming or cooling, and others have found the magnitude is very, very small, too small for the cosmic rays to explain the changes in cloud properties.

It's not for a lack of looking, it just doesn't seem very convincing, especially when Svensmark's analysis rests on using a single database with known problems (ISCCP).

Here's a few other looks:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/index...pn20101p27.pdf
They conclude that cosmic rays may be responsible for a small portion of observed warming.

Powered by Google Docs
Looking at altitude and latitude, they find no response in global cloud cover to Forbush decreases.

Powered by Google Docs
And this study examined the structure of the correlations reported by Svensmark and others, and finds:

Most features of this connection viz. an altitude dependence of the absolute values of CC and CR intensity, no evidence for the correlation between the ionization of the atmosphere and cloudiness, the absence of correlations in short-term low cloud cover (LCC) and CR variations indicate that there is no direct causal connection between LCC and CR in spite of the evident long-term correlation between them.

Powered by Google Docs
This study tests the causal link, and they find:

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

That's just a taste of what is out there. Of course there are a few authors like Svensmark who continue to look at it, but it appears that they are fixated on their pet theory, despite the abundance of problems that many others have noted.

Filed under interesting.

So there is or isn't a correlation?

BTW your screen shot is on intensity not movement.

geomagnetism and climate - Google Scholar

So? That's what their hypothesis is.

So? Charged particles are or are not effected by magnetic forces? Are charged particles being distributed over the globe the same way or has there been a change? Yes or no? Since there is a colleration between geomagnetism and clouds and particles creating clouds would that or would it not mean a redistribution of clouds on a global scale? Would that effect climate? Why is the EU dumping money into researching this at the hadron if guys like yourself can disprove it? ****s and giggles?

Does the phrase "Read the phucking manual" mean anything to you? I watched your Suzuki program, which I find odd considering the way you and other climate cranks disparage his work!

So read the studies I linked and see for yourself.

Ohhhhh so now you are going to be like fagro and do some song and dance. Were my questions to hard for you?