COSMIC RAYS come back to life
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
have no apparent effect on Global temperatures.
He should try this:
1) Take his monthly Cosmic Ray data correct it for days in month and
obtain the average CRF for each year
2) Divide his average Sunspot No for each year by 35
3)Add the figure obtained in 2 to his Global temperature for each year
4) Plot the corrected temperature from 3 against the CRF from 1 and
obtain an R^2
When he next tells everyone that Cosmic rays have no effect on
Climate he will know that he is telling porkies.
Insignificant Flyspecks
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
<Insignificant.Flyspe...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> ..
Try it. If you are clever enough (which I doubt) and you will see that
Cosmic rays have a large effect on Global temperature
There is a graph in
http://www.esnips.com/web/COSMICRAYSANDCLIMATE/
which demonstrates this.
Roger Coppock
> Cosmic rays have according to Roger Coppock been buried since they
> have no apparent effect on Global temperatures.
> He should try this:
> 2) Divide his average Sunspot No for each year by 35
> 3)Add the figure obtained in 2 to his Global temperature for each year
Cosmic rays and sunspots are correlated.
For all practical purposes they are the
same 11-year cyclic signal with a phase
difference. (Autocorrelate the two and
see for yourself, Tom.) So, doing the
two steps above injects the 11-year signal
into the global temperature. So you are
adding a signal and then you detect it
again, claiming a high R^2.
You have done a good exercise in statistics,
correlation will be useful to you.
However, you have made no significant
statement at all about cosmic rays,
sunspots, or global temperature.
Cosmic rays and global temperature
are not correlated, PERIOD. You should
also note that the 5-decade long Climax
Colorado record shows no long term growth
or decay, just an 11-year cycle. Please
see.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg
The data are in red.
The linear component is in blue.
The combined linear and cyclic component is in green.
Note that when compared to the much larger constant
and cyclic terms, the linear slope of 0.058 +- 0.4
units per year makes an insignificant contribution to
the function.
Without a growing or decaying trend of its own
the cosmic ray flux can not cause a warming trend.
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
IF YOU CORRECT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
FOR SUNSPOTS YOU CAN SEE THAT COSMIC RAYS INFLUENCE THE TEMPERATURE.
Sunspots and Cosmic rays both influence the Global Temperature when
Sunspots are reducing the earth should get warmer but at the same time
Cosmic rays increase mitigating that that warming.
Cosmic rays and Sunspots mutually interfere with each other. That is
plainly obvious from my research.
Roger, some day soon you will have to admit it.
Roger Coppock
Slowly now, step by step:
1) The natural cosmic ray flux and sunspot counts both
carry the same 11-year cyclic signal. They only differ
in phase.
2) The global mean surface temperature does not carry
an 11-year cyclic signal.
3) The result of the above two facts is that there is
no significant correlation between global mean surface
temperatures and either cosmic ray flux or sunspot counts.
4) Your so called "correction" of global temperature
with sunspot count data, produces a sum that contains
the 11-year cyclic signal that is a component of the
sunspot count data.
5) When you claim to detect a correlation between
cosmic rays and what you call "corrected" temperature
data, you are detecting the signal you added in step
4, not anything in the original temperature data.
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
thick skull that the two interfere with each other and could not
possibly show a correlation with temperature separately.
If you treat them together however you it is a different story. I have
demonstrated that relationship and your specious argument does not
stand up to analysis,it is, simply rubbish, and means of continuing
the argument that you must lose in the end.It not the first and it
won't be the last.
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Roger Coppock
> On Mar 25, 8:52 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:41 am, tom-bol...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > Slowly now, step by step:
> > 1) The natural cosmic ray flux and sunspot counts both
> > carry the same 11-year cyclic signal. They only differ
> > in phase.
>
> > 2) The global mean surface temperature does not carry
> > an 11-year cyclic signal.
>
> > 3) The result of the above two facts is that there is
> > no significant correlation between global mean surface
> > temperatures and either cosmic ray flux or sunspot counts.
>
> > 4) Your so called "correction" of global temperature
> > with sunspot count data, produces a sum that contains
> > the 11-year cyclic signal that is a component of the
> > sunspot count data.
>
> > 5) When you claim to detect a correlation between
> > cosmic rays and what you call "corrected" temperature
> > data, you are detecting the signal you added in step
> > 4, not anything in the original temperature data.
>
> I have explained the reason for that. Can you not get it into your
> thick skull that the two interfere with each other and could not
> possibly show a correlation with temperature separately.
> If you treat them together however you it is a different story.
Yep.
I have shown you multiple arguments.
There are so many things wrong here,
I may have to show even more. (Yawn!)
You learn so slowly, I have to use one
argument at a time to have any hope
of communicating, however.
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1174871586....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Global Warming explained http://tinyurl.com/2yds7h
Roger Coppock
>
> Global Warming explained
> http://tinyurl.com/2yds7h
Get over it, James. This is an old article
from the last century that is so bad it would
not pass muster in a high school science fair.
Landscheidt couldn't get this turkey published,
so it wound up on John Daly's website.
Check the archive, this thing been discussed
and debunked before.
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
You said Cosmic rays were not related to Sunspots. Your were proved
wrong
You accused me of cherrypicking you know that there is none,you were
wrong.
I suggest you look in your failed analogy file and find the one that
proves you are wrong with this as well.
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
>
> 4) Your so called "correction" of global temperature
> with sunspot count data, produces a sum that contains
> the 11-year cyclic signal that is a component of the
> sunspot count data.
>
> 5) When you claim to detect a correlation between
> cosmic rays and what you call "corrected" temperature
> data, you are detecting the signal you added in step
> 4, not anything in the original temperature data.
But it also contains the temperature signal and would not yield a line
with such a good correlation if there wasn't one between temperature
and the variable.
Remember the correlation is much better than that for CO2 over the
whole range of temperature and over.
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
James
Cite?
Toxic Meme Germs
> Cite?
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al
Gore,