On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:30:25 +0100, Graham P Davis wrote:

What A. Fool wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Jul 14, 9:37 am, chemist wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:04 am, crunch wrote:

Accuweatherhttp://global-
warming.accuweather.com/2009/07/sunspot_activity_update...

"-Is the new set of sunspots, named 1024,
signaling the sun 'waking' up from its period
of inactivity?"

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere
and reduce its CO2 content.

Ocean cooling? where did that one come from?

Maybe the fact that the Southern Hemisphere had
a minus 0.003 anomaly in June.

And what was it last year?


One point. We are at what could be, a record solar minimum (OK, over a
reasonable period of time and notwithstading the whole of history
where there has been bound to be lower lows than this one....

And maybe this one will be the precursor to an ice age,
no solar spot data was available before Newton.

Newton lived before 800BC?

Where do you read *proxy* data?


gawd the
tautology of it all when arguing with a sceptic to leave as little
wriggle-room as possible).

Maybe you can explain why it is so important to argue
against skeptics, is it because there is irrefutable evidence
that temperatures are now at all time highs, or do you just
want to be one of the super hero planet savers?


Why is it that global temperatures are so
high?

Maybe they aren't, if the June anomaly is -0.001,
and there is any plus error at all in the GISS methods,
data, or station selection, then June could be below
the 1980-2008 baseline?

The baseline is 1951-80.

Says who?

If the sun's influence is so important, shouldn't global
temperatures have reduced as a result? (all 5 months in 2009 have been
in the top 10 warmest since 1880 - NASA -for those months globally and
the oceans have actually shown a geater positive anomaly than the land
surface over that time!)

Isn't there a reason to mention the sixth month?

The data isn't available yet.

It is, and it is, like assumed, an absolute ridiculous much of a joke.
More than 0.4 °C error deviation, pubished without any hint on this.
This is pure fraud to the public in my eyes.

Why haven't 2009 global temperatures reflected this low solar minimum?

It isn't over till its over, maybe you will get snow again
next winter.

Could it be that the sun's influence is not quite as important as you
may think - in fact, there actually is only about a 10% chance of the
sun being found to have been the major factor in controlling climate
since the 1960s - again exactly what the IPCC said in its last report?

The IPCC reports have been backtracking and reducing
predictions with every succeeding report, maybe the next one
will predict cooling, why would you think the IPCC only predicts
warming?

You standing on your head whilst typing this drivel? Why are you saying the
exact opposite of what's been coming out of the IPCC.

**** comes out, so he said it well.

(and about a 90% chance of CO2 being found to be the main driver?).

If that were true, we should be about 1.5 C warmer than
June, so please remind mother nature to do as the computer
models predict.

Huh?

GLOBAL CLIMATE COMPUTER MODELS: Pac-Man extensions for overpaid scientific
liars, dropping pills and mushrooms for pick up to power their genius brain
outlets. - see IPCC ARs for more of this brain content.