The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...l-warming.html

The original article published by the Royal Society,
if you're a member or want to pay for it, is he
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...4264320314105/

This puts the fossil fool's attempts at astrology to bed.

"Roger Coppock" wrote
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...l-warming.html

The original article published by the Royal Society,
if you're a member or want to pay for it, is he
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...4264320314105/

This puts the fossil fool's attempts at astrology to bed.

There is a lag in climate response, direct analysis is therefore not the right way.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

This puts the AGW priests attempts at their dogma to bed.

On Jul 11, 8:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

The original article published by the Royal Society,
if you're a member or want to pay for it, is hehttp://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...4264320314105/

This puts the fossil fool's attempts at astrology to bed.

Denying the suns impact on global climate is like denying that The
Beatles had in impact on Rock and Roll.

Like denying the impact of oxygen on fire.

Like denying the impact of Bush on Saddam Hussein.

Like denying the impact of ......well, you get the idea.

Think about it for one quick second. What other single factor affects
the temperatures on the globe more than the sun? The sun rises and
temperatures go up. The sun goes down and the temperatures go down.
The sun rides low on the horizon and we have winter. The sun rides
high above the horizon and we have summer. Even clouds can't directly
impact the temperatures anywhere near as much as the position of the
sun. And clouds accounts for hundreds of times more direct impact on
temperatures than any and all of the greenhouse gases put together.

The reality of the physics of the universe cannot be overidden by
environmental activists wants and desires or computer models. Get real.

Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...l-warming.html

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

It looks like even the cosmic ray record is
cherry picked here. Huancayo, Peru is not the
longest record, the World Data Center for
Cosmic Rays hasn't seen any data from there
since 1992. Please see:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp...ca/cardformat/
If the authors were doing science and not cherry
picking, they would use the longest data record,
Climax, Colorado. Please see the chart near the end of:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/READ.ME

"Roger Coppock" wrote
On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

As far as I can remember it was you, claiming in one article some weeks ago,
that only one data point is not valid for a global mean thingy (can't remember
what exactly that was).
Now you have 7 stations, distributed all over the world, that give us a good
clue for a also good average and an explanation of the sun's influence.
Besides this article is peer-reviewed and the author himself wants
it to be published as *evidence*.
The solar signal is there and you can't deny it.

On Jul 11, 12:03 pm, "Peter Muehlbauer"
wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote



On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

As far as I can remember it was you, claiming in one article some weeks ago,
that only one data point is not valid for a global mean thingy (can't remember
what exactly that was).
Now you have 7 stations, distributed all over the world, that give us a good
clue for a also good average and an explanation of the sun's influence.
Besides this article is peer-reviewed and the author himself wants
it to be published as *evidence*.
The solar signal is there and you can't deny it.

The author is suggesting that small sea water temperature differences
are remembered by the ocean as they are transported around the world's
oceans over tens of thousand miles and over decades! All he has done
is indicate a correlation but not shown causation nor identified a
plausible mechanism.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf


Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

It looks like even the cosmic ray record is
cherry picked here. Huancayo, Peru is not the
longest record, the World Data Center for
Cosmic Rays hasn't seen any data from there
since 1992. Please see:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp...ca/cardformat/
If the authors were doing science and not cherry
picking, they would use the longest data record,
Climax, Colorado. Please see the chart near the end of:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/READ.ME

What a complete and total mess.

How is an average citizen supposed to sort any of this out for themselves?

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:32:56 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not due
to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf


Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using global means as
a scientist would, the authors talk about: -- streamflow in the
Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri. -- elevations of Lake Victoria
in Africa, -- and a dozen other variables from as many places. (For
examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

It looks like even the cosmic ray record is cherry picked here.
Huancayo, Peru is not the longest record, the World Data Center for
Cosmic Rays hasn't seen any data from there since 1992. Please see:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp...ca/cardformat/
If the authors were doing science and not cherry picking, they would use
the longest data record, Climax, Colorado. Please see the chart near
the end of: http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/READ.ME

What a complete and total mess.

How is an average citizen supposed to sort any of this out for themselves?

I'd recommend trying to figure out who's trying to clarify, and who's
trying to obscure or avoid the issues. Common sense works quite well for
that.

Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...


What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf


Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

It looks like even the cosmic ray record is
cherry picked here. Huancayo, Peru is not the
longest record, the World Data Center for
Cosmic Rays hasn't seen any data from there
since 1992. Please see:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp...ca/cardformat/

If the authors were doing science and not cherry
picking, they would use the longest data record,
Climax, Colorado. Please see the chart near the end of:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/READ.ME

What a complete and total mess.

How is an average citizen supposed to sort any of this out for themselves?

There is also no indication of which energies are detected.

Seems to me that there are two known means for cloud formation,
one is nucleation around aerosols and the other is ionizing
events such as cosmic rays.

Now ionizing events also help bridge the gap between cloud
and ground for lightening. There is an observatory of sorts
somewhere that can detect lightening strikes anywhere in the
world (although I don't think cloud-cloud). I wonder if they
have any statistics on the number of strikes available?

We have two mechanisms for cloud formation, and aerosols are
clearly increasing, but I don't know of any relationship
between aerosols and lightening, so maybe it would be possible
to see something in that data that would disentangle the two
effects?

Cheers,

Rich