Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
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/inde...url=/articles/epn/pdf/2010/01/epn20101p27.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? 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?
Quid pro quo. You showed me yours, and then I showed you mine. If you don't want to look, then go find another sandbox PeeWee.
So you can't or won't answer those very basic questions.
Here is an easier one. How does electrostatic painting work?
YouTube - Electrostatic Spraying Demonstration
Here is an easier one. How does electrostatic painting work?
YouTube - Electrostatic Spraying Demonstration
Beam of electrons moving in a circle, due to the presence of a magnetic field. Purple light is emitted along the electron path, due to the electrons colliding with gas molecules in the bulb.
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.
The Guide explains the science in brief, plain language without getting too technical. For those who wish to dig deeper into the science, more detailed treatments can be found at the following pages (often presented with varying levels of complexity from Basic to Advanced):
Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.
The Guide explains the science in brief, plain language without getting too technical. For those who wish to dig deeper into the science, more detailed treatments can be found at the following pages (often presented with varying levels of complexity from Basic to Advanced):
- Human CO2 emissions is tiny compared to natural emissions
- Global warming stopped in 1998
- It's cooling
- Climate sensitivity is low
- Climate has changed in the past
- CO2 lags temperature
- CO2 doesn't cause much warming
- The warming trend is due to microsite influences
- The temperature record is unreliable
- The hockey stick is broken
- Global warming is a good thing
- Climategate shows there's a conspiracy among climate scientists
- There's no scientific consensus
It's quite amazing how Big, Well Financed Popular Hysterias are almost completely immune from all evidence and observable fact.
As Europe and North America dig out from early blizzards and cold fronts.. part of a trend of a cyclically cooling climate that has been upon us for a decade, no one, in office, questions the AGW orthodoxy, even as its predictions collapse, and as it becomies increasingly apparent that it is a fraud aimed at supporting a political and economic agenda.. and supported by a pseudo scientific cult.
The AGW Emporer is really wearing no clothes.. but it's walking down mainstreet, applauded by the teaming masses.
As Europe and North America dig out from early blizzards and cold fronts.. part of a trend of a cyclically cooling climate that has been upon us for a decade, no one, in office, questions the AGW orthodoxy, even as its predictions collapse, and as it becomies increasingly apparent that it is a fraud aimed at supporting a political and economic agenda.. and supported by a pseudo scientific cult.
The AGW Emporer is really wearing no clothes.. but it's walking down mainstreet, applauded by the teaming masses.
Last edited:
Yawn....I can see you looked at all the facts.
Pardon the repost of a repost of a repost that just never sinks in.
YouTube - Stu Ostro, Skeptic no more
It’s about that time of year again, as winter snowstorms provoke the inevitable “Whatever happened to Global Warming” jokes and news stories, to be reminded of the powerfully persuasive evidence that made Stu Ostro, senior Meteorologist at the Weather Channel, belatedly wake up to the case for climate change.
I used Stu’s explanation of 2009′s deceptive warmth in one of my most popular videos, which was made to calm the brouhaha after the eastern US was slammed by several extreme snow storms last winter – snow storms that, in fact, were completely consistent with the increased moisture from a warmer climate, coupled with a negative Arctic Oscillation.
5 day composite Temp anomaly - 11/24/10 to 11/28/10Create your own plot here.
With the UK shivering again from an unusual cold wave, even as some polar areas feel unseasonal warmth, it might be in order to review what happened last year, and remember that just because winters are shorter, and warmer on the whole, we can still get hit with record chills and heavy snows.
YouTube - It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming
Eh, wot?