Ed Miliband: 'Britain is sleepwalking to a climate crisis'

[doodab]

Some data for you.

Now go to climate.gov

Have a look at the graph of co2, at the bottom of the dashboard. Extend the timeline back to 1890, cos that's as far as it goes.

Then ask yourself why the only include Co2 data going back to 1950?

OK so where is the data on cosmic rays and magnetic field and temperature? That's what you were arguing had a cause and effect relationship. Perhaps find someone who has done a regression on it to actually prove your point, because graphs don't really prove anything, they are too noisy.

[doodab]

Which are closely coupled no?

Not in the way you seem to think. Both declination and field strength vary with time and the underlying physics are obviously interrelated but it's not the case that a shift east or west in declination correlates with an increase or decrease in field strength. If it did, your graph would show a continuous slope in one direction from 1850 onwards.

[suityou01]

OK so where is the data on cosmic rays and magnetic field and temperature? That's what you were arguing had a cause and effect relationship. Perhaps find someone who has done a regression on it to actually prove your point, because graphs don't really prove anything, they are too noisy.

Why does the Co2 data on climate.gov only go back to 1950?

[doodab]

Why does the Co2 data on climate.gov only go back to 1950?

How the **** would I know? Have you considered asking them?

There are plenty of other graphs of CO2 concentration if it bothers you, why don't you look at one of those instead?

I still don't understand why you are showing me graphs of CO2 to prove that the earth's magnetic field strength correlates with temperature. Surely a graph of magnetic field strength would be more appropriate?

[pjclarke]

New Study: Russian Astrophysicist Predicts Global Cooling | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

It is not a new study, it's two years old and was published in an open-access journal with an impact factor of 0.00 and sank without trace. There's a reason for that.

Slightly better than a blog post by a weatherman I guess.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/0...tion-by-a-nut/

[suityou01]

How the **** would I know? Have you considered asking them?

There are plenty of other graphs of CO2 concentration if it bothers you, why don't you look at one of those instead?

Not exactly answering my point are you?

And if you are so married to your AGW arguments then you won't want to consider data before 1950 as your argument quickly unravels.

Climate does change, has been changing, and is affected by more than a couple of factors such as greenhouse gases which have fluctuated with temperature between minimum and maximum for 100s of thousands of years.

We are not the only planet warming in our solar system btw. Soon enough the solar shutdown and weakening heliosphere will be used to explain this, but if all planets are warming at present, not just our own then it is pretty plain to see that GW is not AGW.

I refuse to be blamed for something that has been cyclically happening and will continue to happen.

It is you and your kind who are blaming me, so I say as you are the prosecutors in this case, you have to actually bring a case. And one that isn't so easily blown full of holes.

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

The CAGW alarmists dont have a case because every prediction they have made has failed. They did not predict the pause in temperatures and they did not predict the snow in the US or the floods in the UK.
In the USA they warned people off investing in ski slopes and in the UK they predicted drier winters.

Mother nature is their worst critic.

so what to do about the floods ?

1. the pj approach. build some wind turbines. this will change the weather back to how it was in 1950 with less floods.

2. the EO approach. dredge the rivers, reinstall the pumps, get the decision making back into local hands. Recover the power to dump the silt onto farmland back from Brussels


vote EO . you know it makes sense

[pjclarke]

Climate does change, has been changing, and is affected by more than a couple of factors such as greenhouse gases which have fluctuated with temperature between minimum and maximum for 100s of thousands of years.

Indeed, so your argument that temperatures are 'no longer tracking CO2' breaks down. Nobody has ever predicted a 100% correlation between CO2 and temperatures. It is a relatively gradual influence, compared to the ENSO and solar cycles.

In the recent years 'La Nina' years have dominated, and solar activity is at a low. In the absence of a compensating warming influence, we'd expect a cooling, in fact all that has happeed is that the rate of increase has slowed.

In fact, to remove the influence of ENSO, if you plot positive, negative and neutral ENSO years separately, there's no evidence of any pause....



Source About the Lack of Warming… - Climate Abyss

I notice from your graph that when you plot the recent increase in CO2 on ice age timescales, it breaks out of its historic range and that the gradient is vertical. Nobody disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so, logically....

[doodab]

Not exactly answering my point are you?

And if you are so married to your AGW arguments then you won't want to consider data before 1950 as your argument quickly unravels.

Climate does change, has been changing, and is affected by more than a couple of factors such as greenhouse gases which have fluctuated with temperature between minimum and maximum for 100s of thousands of years.

We are not the only planet warming in our solar system btw. Soon enough the solar shutdown and weakening heliosphere will be used to explain this, but if all planets are warming at present, not just our own then it is pretty plain to see that GW is not AGW.

I refuse to be blamed for something that has been cyclically happening and will continue to happen.

It is you and your kind who are blaming me, so I say as you are the prosecutors in this case, you have to actually bring a case. And one that isn't so easily blown full of holes.

HTH

Are you on ******* drugs or summat? I haven't made an AGW argument anywhere and I haven't blamed anyone. I'm just questioning your assertion that the earths magnetic field is responsible for climate change. Your response was to post a graph of CO ******* 2 and start prattling on about why some other graph of CO2 only starts in 1950.

That's not a point, it's a complete and utter failure to back up your original assertion.

[doodab]

The CAGW alarmists dont have a case because every prediction they have made has failed. They did not predict the pause in temperatures and they did not predict the snow in the US or the floods in the UK.
In the USA they warned people off investing in ski slopes and in the UK they predicted drier winters.

Mother nature is their worst critic.

so what to do about the floods ?

1. the pj approach. build some wind turbines. this will change the weather back to how it was in 1950 with less floods.

2. the EO approach. dredge the rivers, reinstall the pumps, get the decision making back into local hands. Recover the power to dump the silt onto farmland back from Brussels


vote EO . you know it makes sense

I'm inclined to agree. Whatever the causes and the arguments, we clearly need to mitigate the effects, and at least people will agree on that.