On Apr 27, 9:08*pm, "ozonb" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 8:38 pm, What A. Fool wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
wrote:
The problem with claims for a solar cause of
global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
global mean surface temperature. All three of
these show no long term trend large enough to
explain the observed warming, only an 11-year
cycle. What century long trends there are are
decreases, in the wrong direction to explain
the warming of the Earth.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ch...htness_Too_Wea....

http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrati...cumentation/pr....

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...k-between.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

To cause the current warming, an increase of about
3 Watts per square meter over the last century
is needed. The Sun has not made that increase
recently, period, end of story.

To cause the current "calculated" warming, all that is
needed is to change from whole numbers to mixed number
readings.

At least 0.2 or 0.3 degrees can possibly be attributed to
the change of whole numbers to mixed numbers.

What are you raving about here, Mr Fool?
Try providing details and references
************************************************** ******************

OK

NASA Data Confirms Solar Influence On Global Climate

27 May 2004

In summary:

Idso 'summaries' have been debunked here many times.
Only the actual article from the scientific journal,
not the words of this spin doctor, can be relied on.