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.

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 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.

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?


--
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....

On Jul 11, 9:45 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.

Also, just in the news today:

"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.

Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity,
not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures,
which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since
records began in the 1860s.

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the
Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the
first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said
it could not explain recent warming.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had
an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to
that required to explain the observed rise in global mean
temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning
fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause
of the current warming trend.

A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate
system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen
since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability,
whatever mechanism was invoked.

Britain's Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest scientific
academies, founded in 1660 -- said the new research was an important
rebuff to climate change skeptics.

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately
confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often
misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is
getting stronger every day," it said in a statement."