Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Roger Coppock · Guest

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.

1880-2007
Lag in years Vs. R squared.
Lag: 0 R^2: 0.0579
Lag: 1 R^2: 0.0743
Lag: 2 R^2: 0.0816
Lag: 3 R^2: 0.079
Lag: 4 R^2: 0.0783
Lag: 5 R^2: 0.0799
Lag: 6 R^2: 0.0722
Lag: 7 R^2: 0.0575
Lag: 8 R^2: 0.0453
Lag: 9 R^2: 0.0518
Lag: 10 R^2: 0.0602
Lag: 11 R^2: 0.0708
Lag: 12 R^2: 0.0794

-.-. --.- Roger Coppock

(Those who are new to statistical correlation and
"R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html

Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed
relationships.)

- - - -
In the data table below:
Year AnnMean YearlySunSpots
1880 13.75 32.242
1881 13.8 54.308
1882 13.78 59.608
1883 13.76 63.633
1884 13.7 63.508
1885 13.69 51.958
1886 13.75 25.425
1887 13.65 13.05
1888 13.73 6.75
1889 13.85 6.2167
1890 13.63 7.05
1891 13.72 35.625
1892 13.68 72.942
1893 13.68 85.083
1894 13.67 78.008
1895 13.73 63.967
1896 13.83 41.808
1897 13.88 26.242
1898 13.75 26.717
1899 13.83 12.108
1900 13.9 9.4583
1901 13.84 2.7417
1902 13.73 5.05
1903 13.69 24.383
1904 13.66 41.95
1905 13.75 63.467
1906 13.8 53.858
1907 13.61 62.033
1908 13.66 48.542
1909 13.65 43.883
1910 13.67 18.583
1911 13.66 5.7
1912 13.66 3.5917
1913 13.69 1.4417
1914 13.85 9.5917
1915 13.91 47.367
1916 13.7 57.067
1917 13.61 103.89
1918 13.68 80.575
1919 13.8 63.608
1920 13.81 37.642
1921 13.87 26.133
1922 13.76 14.242
1923 13.79 5.775
1924 13.79 16.717
1925 13.84 44.308
1926 13.99 63.883
1927 13.87 69.042
1928 13.89 77.8
1929 13.75 64.858
1930 13.93 35.725
1931 13.99 21.225
1932 13.94 11.142
1933 13.83 5.6583
1934 13.95 8.7167
1935 13.9 36.033
1936 13.97 79.733
1937 14.08 114.4
1938 14.11 109.55
1939 14.03 88.75
1940 14.05 67.783
1941 14.11 47.483
1942 14.04 30.6
1943 14.1 16.325
1944 14.21 9.5917
1945 14.07 33.092
1946 13.96 92.508
1947 14.01 151.51
1948 13.97 136.2
1949 13.94 135.12
1950 13.85 83.925
1951 13.96 69.425
1952 14.03 31.408
1953 14.11 13.85
1954 13.9 4.4083
1955 13.9 37.95
1956 13.83 141.71
1957 14.08 189.85
1958 14.08 184.59
1959 14.06 158.75
1960 13.99 112.28
1961 14.08 53.883
1962 14.04 37.6
1963 14.08 27.892
1964 13.79 10.2
1965 13.89 15.058
1966 13.97 46.875
1967 14. 93.667
1968 13.96 105.89
1969 14.08 105.56
1970 14.03 104.69
1971 13.9 66.65
1972 14. 68.933
1973 14.14 38.15
1974 13.92 34.408
1975 13.95 15.458
1976 13.84 12.55
1977 14.13 27.483
1978 14.02 92.658
1979 14.09 155.28
1980 14.18 154.65
1981 14.27 140.45
1982 14.05 116.29
1983 14.26 66.633
1984 14.09 45.85
1985 14.06 17.942
1986 14.13 13.4
1987 14.27 29.225
1988 14.31 100.
1989 14.19 157.79
1990 14.38 142.29
1991 14.35 145.78
1992 14.13 94.483
1993 14.14 54.733
1994 14.24 29.867
1995 14.38 17.5
1996 14.3 8.625
1997 14.4 21.483
1998 14.57 64.208
1999 14.33 93.175
2000 14.33 119.53
2001 14.48 110.93
2002 14.56 104.09
2003 14.55 63.567
2004 14.49 40.442
2005 14.62 29.783
2006 14.54 15.183
2007 14.57 7.5

"AnnMean" is the J-D yearly mean of the NASA GISS
"GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" file,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

"YearlySunSpots" is the mean of the monthly means
in the NOAA NGDC "MONTHLY" file. Available at
the FTP site accessed through this web page:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

Green Turtle · Guest

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation between the
sun and temperature changes on the earth.

Here is such one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85epBo_EVOI

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS),
Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and
several more I failed to list).

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks. In other words the above
information is already being put to good practical use. This study is not
the first nor the last in a long line studies that shows correlation between
temperature changes and changes in the suns output.

So changes in the suns output is very important.

The issue of the sun>s output changing temperatures on the earth should be
considered separate from that of changes in sunspot activity.

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it.

Super Turtle

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:
[quote]
Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.
[/quote]
Yes, what with your comments..

[quote]There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.
[/quote]
And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

[quote](funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences
[/quote]
Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

[quote]The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.
[/quote]
That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

[quote]So changes in the suns output is very important.
[/quote]
Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

[quote]If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots
[/quote]
Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

hanson · Guest

"Kunt Ass-Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48E78725.7438D0AA@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
[quote]
Roger Coppock wrote, originally:
The Sunspot Scapegoat

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..
Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts...

....that Global Cooling is present and accelerating![/quote]

Green Turtle · Guest

"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message

[quote]
(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..
[/quote]
Wow, so the university and the Canadian government is now part of the
denier crowd?

These people were not doing a study on global warming you fool, but in fact
were doing a study on fish stocks, and found a connection between that and
temperature. I can rather bet if they did go to the government and ask for
money to say that we want to show that the sun (and not co2) is driving
temperature, they would not Received a one nickel for their study.

I find your attitude of trying to pin this (or anything that don>t agree
with you faith and view on AGW) on the energy industry, or some other
organization is just disgusting on your part. These people worked hard and
made a good study.

[quote]
Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

[/quote]
And what peered review you talking about that proves scientifically that
man>s co2 is driving the temperature right now? It certainly cannot be the
documents from the IPCC, because just like the rest of the U.N. they are
reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty. In fact the
political reviewers of the IPCC removed statements by scientists that
there>s no proof of man>s co2 driving temperature. In other words it was
not the scientist that had say in the IPCC report, but in fact it was the
political leaders that have final say. When only five reviewers commented on
all chapters, that>s hardly a peer review process.

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists that agreed and
are behind the conclusions that were made by the IPCC, since it was a
political decision as to what was going to be final in these documents.

[quote]If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be
it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..
[/quote]
As shown in the video, it>s not the changes in the suns output, but rather
the feedback mechanisms in the formation of clouds that>s driving the
temperature. So the actual amount of change of the sun>s output and sun
spots in of itself is not a large enough to drive the observed temperature
changes, but formation of clouds most certainly is.

[quote]
--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..
[/quote]
Actually even just last week it looks like NASA>s starting to acknowledge
this issue of the solar winds. Since there>s such a momentum on this issue
going around in the scientific community, it>s not going to be that long
before more people verify and realize this issue that the sun is capable of
driving our temperature in a much larger way than previously realized.

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny
thing is they actually might have been right. We don>t have a warming
problem anyway, but a cooling problem is going to be MUCH harder to deal
with...

Super Turtle

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"gangrene, tit-hole" deleted and bleated impotently because:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...
[/quote]
How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

[quote]These people were not doing a study on global warming
[/quote]
Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

[quote]I find your attitude of trying to pin this
[/quote]
I find your opinion of something you could barely know for a fact
to be nothing more than the flimsy rationalizations of a 'straw
man' pseudo-argument after having your credentials/cites questioned
as being utterly without scientific merit..

[quote]The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about
[/quote]
It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

[quote]It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,
[/quote]
Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

[quote]reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.
[/quote]
You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

[quote]It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists
[/quote]
Nope, you>re simply lying now..

[quote]If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,
[/quote]
I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

[quote]--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

Actually even just last week it looks like
[/quote]
Looks like, seems to be, glittering generalities both..

--And both equally false..

Catoni · Guest

Kurt Lochner wrote:
"And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a
peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked.. :

Reply:
Yeah, TouTube is all trash. That>s why I ignore all the
Global Warming Alarmist videos on there. Bunch of left-wing Global
Warming Alarmist idiot propaganda.

Catoni · Guest

Kurt Lochner wrote:

"I do not accept Youtube videos as
'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either.. "

Reply:
Yep! All those countless AGW Alarmist videos on
YouTube trying to scare the crap out of people about Global Warming.
What a crock of left-wing shit. You>re absolutely right.

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny
[/quote]
Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 4, 7:27 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[quote]This is just becoming stupider everyday.

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation between the
sun and temperature changes on the earth.

Here is such one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85epBo_EVOI
[/quote]
Canada is not the globe. Our planet is large
enough that one could cherry pick a small area
that would match almost any series of data.
This is a GLOBAL warming newsgroup. Find
a recent long-term (>30 years) relationship
between global mean near surface temperature
and the solar activity. I>m not aware of one.

Catoni · Guest

On Oct 5, 6:32 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 7:27 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation between the
sun and temperature changes on the earth.

Here is such one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85epBo_EVOI

Canada is not the globe. Our planet is large
enough that one could cherry pick a small area
that would match almost any series of data.
This is a GLOBAL warming newsgroup. Find
a recent long-term (>30 years) relationship
between global mean near surface temperature
and the solar activity. I>m not aware of one.
[/quote]
Right: That why if there is a record warm temperature in Germany or
California the Global Warming Alarmists on here yell it loud and
clear. "Wild fires in California result of Global Warming" "Record
high temperatures in ....." (fill in the blank)
The Alarmists don>t mind using small areas of the globe at all.
But the "Denialists/Sceptics" get criticised for doing the same.

Catoni · Guest

On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.
[/quote]
Not a myth.
Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age. If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Let>s look at some quotes from this one:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm
relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National
Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they
will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future
chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not
know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...
leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.

p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely
significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large
ice caps, whereas during most of the earth>s history the poles have
been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This
is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Want more??? There is actually a lot. I>ll certainly try to find
the time to get them all for you Roger if you wish. No it is no myth
that there were serious fears of Global Cooling and a return of an Ice
Age.

And we all know about the famous Newsweek article don>t we???
And there are many many more. The Newsweek one is only the best know.
There are better ones though.

There were enough concerned scientists that it attracted the
attention of most of the media of the day. I remember our Geography
teacher believing that another Ice Age was going to hit because of
Global Cooling. There were pictures of huge ice sheets moving across
the landscape flattening cities like giant bulldozers scraping the
Earth clean.

"Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth." Really Roger??? Are you
sure?

Green Turtle · Guest

"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48E8238E.AC691F94@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
[quote]
Wow, so the university and the Canadian government is now part of the
denier crowd?[/quote]

[quote]
How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

[/quote]
Hum, not really, I metioned the particpaonts in the study:

They are

Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS),
Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and
several more I failed to list.

[quote]Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

[/quote]
Why are you now attacking the medium being used here? If you don>t have a
intellectually intelligent response, then I guess all you can do is resort
to throwing mud and criticize the medium. Are you telling me that Usenet is
more valuable Youtube? Based in your reason and logic why should anyone
listen to anything we find on the Internet then? If you go to criticize
youtube as a medium, then you might as well criticize Usenet, and then you
might as well criticize yourself for even being on the internet! What Silly
and bankrupt response here!

[quote]
These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

[/quote]
Wow! Folks now we have an admission of an inability to think on your part.
The reason why this is important is becuase the study found a link between
the sun>s energy output and that the temperature changes on earth (golly,
now was that too intellectually difficult for you to grasp and understand?).

So, the fact that the study was NOT looking for this link about the sun does
not "all of a sudden" invalidate what they found! (man, are you silly or
what!!). In fact in many ways the study is better becase they did NOT have
a preconceived notion about the whole global warming issue.

Are you going to tell me that the organizations like the IPCC will hire
scientists with a different view of their preconceived notion in the first
place? In fact this is why that video and that studies all the more
worthwhile because the scientists did not put on a set of political filters
that the IPCC is famous for.

[quote]The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..
[/quote]
Bull crap! The more we study This, the more we have scientists breaking
ranks on this issue.

Why is it that the more scientists study AGW the worse the case gets?

Here is a **recent** recantation by a major Australian scientist who was
responsible for setting the carbon policy for the Australia government for 5
years!!.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=756766

The above is telling because you see a scientist after scientists are
changing their mind right now ***after*** they studied the issue.

Here>s another one and again the sciences started out as believing in global
warming and as he began to think about this on a deeper level, again he
converted and realized this is a crock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE

[quote]
Actually even just last week it looks like NASA>s starting to acknowledge
this issue of the solar winds. Since there>s such a momentum on this issue[/quote]
going around in the scientific community

[quote]
Looks like, seems to be, glittering generalities both..
[/quote]
Hold up a mirror buddy. All that doublespeak is what people like Al Gore and
the idiots on your side are. Why do you think Al Gore is respected like
trailer trash right now? It is because this exact kind of doublespeak and
used car salesman attitude. You don>t find it a conflict of interest that
Al Gore happens to be on a board of a company that trades carbon credits? If
these crooks could trade water on the mercantile>s exchange they would!

The only thing stopping these money pirates is if we enough intelligence to
not let them fleece more money out of the pockets of the working people with
this tax on industrial output.

However since your did question this issue about NASA, here is the link from
NASA on the solar wind issue

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

You can see in the above article they grudgingly mention that there is some
issues of the solar wind and the connection between that and climate on
earth. Eventually NASA will have to come around on this issue, because too
many other scientific organizations are seeing this connection.

If NASA don>t come around then they>re going to suffer a bigger loss of
credibility than when some blogger up in Canada was able to correct their
mistakes in tempature data as to the warmest years in the us. Funny, but how
comes some little silly blocker up in Canada was able to correct all that
supposed peer reviewed scientific information? What>s even worse when the
correction was made it was also made without any peer review that you so
talk about...

This AGW issue is in a tailspin. Organization>s credibility are at stake
here...and NASA will have come around on this issue...

Super Turtle

Whata Fool · Guest

Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote:

[quote]On Oct 4, 1:37Â pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.
[/quote]

Don>t worry Roger, you live in beautiful sunny California, no
need to buy extra heavy winter clothing like the rest of us.

And maybe it would be a good idea to learn to write global
cooling instead of warming, practice and get used to it, then maybe
the emotional trauma of having wasted years on worthless statistical
calculations will be lessened.

Did you read the solar astronomy reference I posted about a
0.7 degree variation in effective solar flux due to changes in the
angular diameter of the sun caused by both changes in distance over
400 year periods and by solar prominences or flares (sunspots)?

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"catatonic" <canuck_winger@dsl.bell.ca> sniveled pointlessly:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner restored the original text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

Yeah, TouTube is all trash.
[/quote]
Yet, you deliberately ignored the established science journalism
practices to cry 'foul' on anything that disputes your lack of
a proper science education..

--How>s that failed political ideology doing for you?


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3