On Mar 7, 7:33*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:17*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 7, 6:24*am, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:46*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:39*pm, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:11*am, Dawlish wrote:

...
Tw+t is far worse and you are happy to throw that one out Lawrence,
because you happen to be "in a foul mood". Keep you replies within
decent bounds.You don't often lower yourself to the levels of
Crunchy's cross-posters and the occasional stalker, but you have been
known to. Stay level headed, even when under pressure! *))
...

Excuse me; call me by my right name, please.

David Christainsen

No. It's either Crunchy, or Meteorologist. Neither is a correct
description, so I'll call you Crunchy. It's a nice nickname. The other
one is just borrowed from people that are. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy.

Here you are off-topic; so, you have NOT
used good form. *So, going forward, I highly
recommend that you use good form from now on.
Comprendez-vous?

I said his work was interesting, but no more.

Acknowledged; I already knew that.

It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory.

Just a second; DO NOT get ahead of yourself. *IMHO
several non-greenhouse gas factors are currently
COUNTERVAILING the cosmic ray factor.

We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

Acknowledged.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years?

I do not know for sure. *However, both Spencer and
Latif have invoked deep oceanic circulation and/or
ENSO CYCLE, for starters. *Further, we have cloud
cover factor etc.

If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

The Svensmark effect may still kick in, as I have
already predicted on usenet, within the next 5 years...

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.

Yet, I believe certain qualifications are in order here.

I believe you are applying your statement of rising
global temperatures to the 5 datasets, which lack
sufficient coverage over the full ocean surface or
are not averaged correctly etc.

IOW, the 5 have certain limitations on their accuracy
but they are the best we've got. *Personally, I like
Spencer's the best.

So, right now, the climate is warming. *The issue
is SPECIFICALLY why.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cooling is always either in the future, or the present measures
aren't good enough for someone that refuses to see that it's actually
warm (or, as in another thread, there must be unprecedented climate
changes going on as it can't possibly be cooler in one part of the
world whilst the world overall is warm - shakes head at that one).
They are the only answers possible in the face of continued warming.
Even though we have had 4 years of low solar output and no resultant
cooling, it's still in the future. Even though we've got 5 different
global measures now, 3 surface, 2 satellite (which hardly lack
sufficient coverage!) the measuring still isn't good enough.

Crunchy. The world is presently warm; fact. It's been warming for a
long time; fact. The only issue left is what is causing it to get
warmer and in the absence of any other reasonably accepted cause -
what's that cause likely to be? Let me guess - a deep solar minimum
and cosmic rays increasing cloud cover.........it can't be CO2 of
course, can it?