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.