On Mar 4, 9:36*pm, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock wrote:
...

Oh, I'm the only one? *Do check an archive of this forum.
Do check the fossil fool websites and blogs. *No, 'the Sun
has warmed,' is a standard fossil fool fib.

A few people are interested as you probably can see from your website traffic.

Using my simple slap-dash methods I can confirm a statistically
sig decline in solar irradiance from the data (has a .dat extension
rather than .txt as specified in prev post).

My methods were rather different so may be of interest.

Since the period only includes 3 solar cycles and 8 leap years
I did a simple seasonal adjustment for each day of the solar cycle
(where "day" ignored leap-years and the diff between diff years --
mysql doesn't have the correct functions built-in and I am
damned I will write them at this point
and then a TS regression on the anomalies.

That method finds a decline of 0.0180 w/m2 pa with a 90% interval
.0154 to .0205, 99% confidence, r2 = .25. The non-parametric
Spearman rank test also finds 99% the irradiance is declining over
the period although the residual plot shows the data is Gaussian
enough not to need the 2nd check.

Various other even rougher methods also show declines.

E.g. avg monthly irradiance declines by *0.0390
* * * * *annual * * * * * * * * * * * * *0.0290
* * * * *monthly with 356-day seas adj * 0.0257
Median of all (non Roger methods * * *0.0274


So, we both agree that these data show that solar irradiance has
declined over the period, and that the decline is small.

On 3/5/2011 2:20 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:40 pm, Peter wrote:
On 3/4/2011 4:42 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:





This post is an update. It reports 1 more year
of irradiance data than the last edition. These
newer data did not change any major conclusions
in this analysis.

-.-. --.- Roger
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
By Roger Coppock 03/11

ABSTRACT:
An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
measurements from 1976 to 2011 shows a small but statistically
significant decrease of -0.0177 +- 0.0004 Watts per square
meter per year, or about -0.0013% of mean solar irradiance
per year, over the 33-year period.

PLEASE SEE:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

Have you done an inverse analysis to determine if there is a correlation
between decreasing irradiance and increasing warming?

The same analysis would notice both things.
Remember it's the square of the correlation coefficient R SQUARED.
Square a negative number, get a positive number.

Over the last half century, there is no significant relationship
between solar irradiance and global mean surface temperature. The
principle frequency in solar irradiation, the 11-year solar cycle,

Yes, but that 11-year cycle is precisely what we are NOT talking about.

So, my question remains, have you correlated the increase in warming
with the decrease in irradiance?

On Mar 5, 1:42*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:13*pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J." wrote:
"Global warming 'skeptics' often claim that increases in Solar
radiation reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere"

No Roger, they do not. The only person babbling about
this..................is you.

Oh, I'm the only one? *Do check an archive of this forum.
Do check the fossil fool websites and blogs. *No, 'the Sun
has warmed,' is a standard fossil fool fib.

It's also context Roger.

Once one adds this to a strong and mature La Nina, the PDO being in a
negative phase, the sun also only just beginning to come out of the
longest solar minimum for over a century and the earth being on the
cooling leg of a milankovitch cycle, how on earth is it so warm, if
there is not a major warm forcing countering this "perfect storm" of
negative forcings. The only thing missing, for global cooling on a
significant scale, right now, is a major volcanic eruption.

Unfortunately for climate deniers, global temperatures are average
(UAH Feb). There is no way that should happen, if there was no
positive forcing. Comntext shows me that is becoming more and more
obvious that CO2 is the positive forcing. Why climate deniers cannot
see tghe same context is beyond me.

If it's not CO2 that is balancing all those negative forcings - the
comination of which has not been seen for over a century - is beyond
me. Really. Look at the context and ask yourself; "what else could it
be? How can we possibly be so warm?"

On Mar 6, 6:36*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:36 pm, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock wrote:
...

Oh, I'm the only one? Do check an archive of this forum.
Do check the fossil fool websites and blogs. No, 'the Sun
has warmed,' is a standard fossil fool fib.

A few people are interested as you probably can see from your website traffic.

Using my simple slap-dash methods I can confirm a statistically
sig decline in solar irradiance from the data (has a .dat extension
rather than .txt as specified in prev post).

My methods were rather different so may be of interest.

Since the period only includes 3 solar cycles and 8 leap years
I did a simple seasonal adjustment for each day of the solar cycle
(where "day" ignored leap-years and the diff between diff years --
mysql doesn't have the correct functions built-in and I am
damned I will write them at this point
and then a TS regression on the anomalies.

That method finds a decline of 0.0180 w/m2 pa with a 90% interval
.0154 to .0205, 99% confidence, r2 = .25. The non-parametric
Spearman rank test also finds 99% the irradiance is declining over
the period although the residual plot shows the data is Gaussian
enough not to need the 2nd check.

Various other even rougher methods also show declines.

E.g. avg monthly irradiance declines by 0.0390
annual 0.0290
monthly with 356-day seas adj 0.0257
Median of all (non Roger methods 0.0274

So, we both agree that these data show that solar irradiance has
declined over the period, and that the decline is small.

And? Where's your point? A small decline?

TSI never changed more than ~ +/- 3W/m2, but it's obvious that at the lower
end temperatures on Earth were low and at the upper end, temperatures were
high.

This clearly can be seen in Solanki et al.http://www.umweltluege.de/images/sun...images/TMF.jpg

And, oh wonder, that is the same temperature pattern on Earth!

http://www.umweltluege.de/images/TMF_1.jpg

Ask yourself, how the sun has done that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It can't, but in partnership with all the other negative forcings, it
should. But it isn't.

PS Science questions awaiting your attention on other discussions.

In article 80ff1c63-6398-46ca-aec7-
, Dawlish wrote...
[..]
If it's not CO2 that is balancing all those negative forcings - the
comination of which has not been seen for over a century - is beyond
me. Really. Look at the context and ask yourself; "what else could it
be? How can we possibly be so warm?"

James is right. Anyone who argues, insults and bullies like you do on
the basis of a statement of scientific ignorance like that, doesn't
deserve to be listened to, let alone argued with.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

In article , Falcon
wrote...

In article 80ff1c63-6398-46ca-aec7-
, Dawlish wrote...
[..]
If it's not CO2 that is balancing all those negative forcings - the
comination of which has not been seen for over a century - is beyond
me. Really. Look at the context and ask yourself; "what else could it
be? How can we possibly be so warm?"

James is right. Anyone who argues, insults and bullies like you do on
the basis of a statement of scientific ignorance like that, doesn't
deserve to be listened to, let alone argued with.

Sorry. I meant John is right.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Mar 6, 10:20*am, Falcon wrote:
In article , Falcon
wrote...



In article 80ff1c63-6398-46ca-aec7-
, Dawlish wrote...
[..]
If it's not CO2 that is balancing all those negative forcings - the
comination of which has not been seen for over a century - is beyond
me. Really. Look at the context and ask yourself; "what else could it
be? How can we possibly be so warm?"

James is right. Anyone who argues, insults and bullies like you do on
the basis of a statement of scientific ignorance like that, doesn't
deserve to be listened to, let alone argued with.

Sorry. I meant John is right.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

It is excellent that you are annoyed.

As a denier, you should be denied the opportunity for debate, by the
choice of your would be debator. You should be told the facts and then
ridiculed for continuing to behave and believe as you do. That's
what's hapening and you hate it. You think you should have a voice,
but when all you do is simply spin the science to the deniers' cause,
why should you? Talk like a sceptic. Support some of the obvious
science, like the fact that there is no option but to accept radiative
transmission theory and its outcomes for warming by CO2 and denounce
the real crazies and foul mouthed racists and creationists who you
side with, then someone may take you seriously. Until then
spinner...................

There is no way it should be so warm at present. The scientific
ignorance lies completely with people like you, as you have no answer
to the present warmth, in the face of so many negative forcings,
without considering CO2........have you spinner?