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/...-activity-rule
s-out-link-to-global-warming.html

What is your view of this report?

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

Interesting, but really just a correlation without any attempt at linking
it to what is known about periodicity in the ocean. It would be a much
stronger result if he had linked his 34-yr lag to an observed cycle in the
ocean. For example, it would have been trivial for him to show some
correlation of the GCR signal at the same lag to the periodicity of the SO
index. This would be additional evidence that his proposed physical
mechanism is correct.

My hunch is that based on what is known about ocean circulation and the
known interdecadal basin oscillations (e.g., the North Atlantic
Oscillation), there is not a shred of evidence for his proposed
correlation. Furthermore, I suspect that if there were (a correlation
between some basin-scale oscillation and the GCR index), Perry would have
published it rather than resort to the hand-waving speculation at the end.
For example, Perry says:

"If the velocities within the conveyor vary,
the lag time between solar input and atmospheric
response could vary. The TSI–GCR/streamflow relation
shows an increasing time lag between solar data and
Mississippi River flow at St. Louis, Missouri, since
1975, which suggests a slowing of the ocean conveyor
system."

Which is fine but could be verified using data from the Gulf Stream for
example. It is one thing to speculate that something might be possible,
but it is not acceptable in science to speculate that something might be
possible if it could be demonstrated conclusively. Speculating like Perry
does is sort of like McElligot's Pool by Dr. Suess, where the little boy
fishing in a small pond tells a farmer that the pond could be connected to
the ocean by an underground river and therefore he might catch all kinds of
exotic fish. "If such a thing could be, they certainly would be" reasons
the little boy. This lack of providing evidence for a testable hypothesis
is the hallmark of pathologic science.

The peer reviewers and editor of this paper kind of messed up, and should
have required him to investigate those correlations and provide proof for
his hypothesis. Which is likely why this work appears in a space research
journal and not in a climate journal or an oceanography journal, he was
held to a less rigorous standard in terms of the oceanographic connections.

But regardless of the problems with the paper itself, the bottom line is
that there has been no change in the cosmic ray flux over the last 50
years. So even if there is a correlation between GCRs and the flow of the
Mississippi River with a 34 year lag, cosmic rays can't explain global
warming.

--
Bill Asher

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.

Lloyd wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:


"LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame
for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the
past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on
Wednesday.


if the sun is cooling... won't plant life be less plush? And - Won't
that cause more co2 since they're responsible for absorbing co2 and
releasing oxygen?

Then the co2 makes it warmer till the sun heats up and makes plants
profuse and suck up the extra co2?


"scientists said"
HAHAhahahahh


According to the laws of Global warming?

--
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out

I ran my global warming model program... and it stuck in a loop, things
kept getting hot then cold and rain and then dry....

"William Asher" wrote
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/...-activity-rule
s-out-link-to-global-warming.html

What is your view of this report?

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

Interesting, but really just a correlation without any attempt at linking
it to what is known about periodicity in the ocean. It would be a much
stronger result if he had linked his 34-yr lag to an observed cycle in the
ocean. For example, it would have been trivial for him to show some
correlation of the GCR signal at the same lag to the periodicity of the SO
index. This would be additional evidence that his proposed physical
mechanism is correct.

My hunch is that based on what is known about ocean circulation and the
known interdecadal basin oscillations (e.g., the North Atlantic
Oscillation), there is not a shred of evidence for his proposed
correlation. Furthermore, I suspect that if there were (a correlation
between some basin-scale oscillation and the GCR index), Perry would have
published it rather than resort to the hand-waving speculation at the end.
For example, Perry says:

"If the velocities within the conveyor vary,
the lag time between solar input and atmospheric
response could vary. The TSI-GCR/streamflow relation
shows an increasing time lag between solar data and
Mississippi River flow at St. Louis, Missouri, since
1975, which suggests a slowing of the ocean conveyor
system."

Which is fine but could be verified using data from the Gulf Stream for
example. It is one thing to speculate that something might be possible,
but it is not acceptable in science to speculate that something might be
possible if it could be demonstrated conclusively. Speculating like Perry
does is sort of like McElligot's Pool by Dr. Suess, where the little boy
fishing in a small pond tells a farmer that the pond could be connected to
the ocean by an underground river and therefore he might catch all kinds of
exotic fish. "If such a thing could be, they certainly would be" reasons
the little boy. This lack of providing evidence for a testable hypothesis
is the hallmark of pathologic science.

The peer reviewers and editor of this paper kind of messed up, and should
have required him to investigate those correlations and provide proof for
his hypothesis. Which is likely why this work appears in a space research
journal and not in a climate journal or an oceanography journal, he was
held to a less rigorous standard in terms of the oceanographic connections.

But regardless of the problems with the paper itself, the bottom line is
that there has been no change in the cosmic ray flux over the last 50
years. So even if there is a correlation between GCRs and the flow of the
Mississippi River with a 34 year lag, cosmic rays can't explain global
warming.

Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data significantly
showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.

On Jul 11, 9:38 am, Talk-n-
Dog
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985

Is there a *Standard* used in measuring the Global mean temp and has it
been the same fro the past 150 years?

I don't know when the first edition was published,
but the Weather "Observer's Handbook" is a standard
at least a century old. Please see:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Observers-Hand...QQcmdZViewItem

This book was referenced in my grade and junior high
school classes as a standard for both scientific
measurement and prose.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip

Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.


I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you want to
invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between solar output
and global mean temperature (which would require a complete
reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between solar output and
global temperature), there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output. Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last 25
years has only gone up.

Are you a climate physicist? If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who wrote the
IPCC report?

--
Bill Asher

http://tinyurl.com/ywj6vb

"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

If you look at the diagram table on the right side, you see, that temperature
stopped in 2002 (diagram f)
Why that? This article is from July 2007.

Simple answer. Because since then there is a clear evidence for
global cooling and that may debunk their statement!

Here we have the global temperature until now:
(polynomic, 6th order trendline)
http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg

And here, for better visualizing of cooling, the same data set for the
southern hemisphe
http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GTSH.jpg

That's mischievous suppressing of data and disguising the truth (again!).


What else is curious?
The fact, that Lockwood didn't note ONE SINGLE WORD about the
break in about 1985 in his documentation, released in *2002*!

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

This documentation shows totally other values, as he stated here!
If there was no change of CRF, why didn't he mention it there in 2002?
He shows clearly CRF fluctuation in his paper, no stagnation!


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.

No, there is a good evidence, that either Lockwood or the Royal Society,
or both ARE LYING!

Poor AGWs... yet another debunking of AGW priests ****ty lies.
Again they shoot themselves in the foot....

"William Asher" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip

Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.


I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you want to
invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between solar output
and global mean temperature (which would require a complete
reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between solar output and
global temperature), there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output. Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last 25
years has only gone up.

No, it didn't. Just look at my actual posting in this thread about debunking.

Are you a climate physicist? If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who wrote the
IPCC report?

No, I'm no climate scientist at all, but I learnt a lot of climate science over the
years from well known real climate scientists.
It's not the climate scientists from IPCC in a whole, it's about
censoring the "bad" scientists and prefering the "good" scientists, as you can
read i.e. in the comments of peer-reviewer
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comment...tFrameset.html
That has nothing to do with science, that are political decisions in pure form!

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985

Is there a *Standard* used in measuring the Global mean temp and has it
been the same fro the past 150 years?

Well there's a resounding NO. there have been temperature
records kept that long, in specific rather sporadic locations with
poor record keeping.
The closest thing there is is the usgs/noaa grid, and that is
HIGHLY suspect due to recently discovered widespread siting issues.
Since that is what was used to calibrate all the other sources of
temperature data, and strongly influenced what data was suspect and
what data was taken as true, there really is very little data
indicating any recent term warming at all that is not suspect. On the
flip side, there's very little chance that dumping a few petatons of
co2 into the atmosphere could possibly fail to produce warming.

On Jul 11, 4:50 pm, William Asher wrote:
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip



Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.

I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you want to
invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between solar output
and global mean temperature (which would require a complete
reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between solar output and
global temperature), there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output. Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last 25
years has only gone up.

Are you a climate physicist? If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who wrote the
IPCC report?


Because the IPCC is a political tool with a specified agenda,
that of allowing the UN to gain greater economic control of the world.