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

PROCEDURE AND RESULTS:
The location of the data's end points within the Solar cycle
biases a simple linear regression and produces an incorrect
result. (Roughly 1 and 1/2 times the correct magnitude, or
-0.0227 +- 0.0006 W/m^2 per year.) Therefore, the analysis
required a non-linear curve fit to a 'line plus sine'
expression:

B1 + B2*Year + B3*SIN(B4+(Year*2Pi)/B5)

where the determined coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5
are known as the intercept, slope, amplitude, phase, and
period respectively.

After correcting for the appropriate cycle of the SIN()
function, (B30.0 and 2*PiB4=0.0), and removing 122
outlier observations 3.5 sigma outside the model, the
results of the 10965-point curve fit are as follows:

Irad ~ beta1 + beta2 * Year +
beta3 * sin(beta4 + (Year * 2*Pi)/beta5)

Parameters:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
beta1 1.401e+03 8.282e-01 1692.08 2e-16
beta2 -1.775e-02 4.150e-04 -42.77 2e-16
beta3 -4.651e-01 5.286e-03 -87.98 2e-16
beta4 -3.500e-01 2.506e+00 -0.14 0.889
beta5 1.095e+01 2.396e-02 457.07 2e-16

Residual standard error: 0.386 on 10960 degrees of freedom


Please note the large standard error on beta4, the phase
of the sine function. Only three cycles of high variance
data produce this. As an exercise, try to locate the
peeks and valleys of these data in this graph. Please see:

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

The data are black. The linear component, both intercept
and slope, is green. The total 'line plus sine' function
is red.

The curve fit was performed by the "R" statistical package
for Intel Mac OSX, Version 2.10.0.

The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
PMODWRC. They cover the period from 11/16/1978 to 02/02/2011.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradi...41_62_1102.txt

A preprocessing program converted month and day information
into fractional years and removed data marked by PMODWRC as
invalid.


DISCUSSION:
Global warming 'skeptics' often claim that increases in Solar
radiation reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere, not rising CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere, are responsible for the observed
climb of the global mean near surface temperatures in the last
thirty years. This argument was not supported by the facts.
Now it is even less so. When the solar cycle was statistically
removed, prior data showed no significant long term change in
Solar irradiance large enough to explain the warming, (about an
3 W/m^2 increase over the last two centuries is needed.) Present
data actually show a very small but statistically significant
decrease in solar output over the last three solar cycles. It is
very hard to support any claim of a solar cause for global warming
when measurements clearly show decreasing solar output.

For more information, please see:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ch...rming_999.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/...l-warming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm



A LIST OF 122 OUTLIER POINTS REMOVED
The number in the data set (after the data marked by PMODWRC as
invalid was removed), the year with fraction, and irradiance values in
Watts per meter squared are shown.
Num Date Irradiance
18 1978.9408602 1364.5789
19 1978.9435483 1364.5274
20 1978.9462365 1364.4769
21 1978.9516129 1364.3885
68 1979.1398809 1365.0255
199 1979.6370967 1364.9302
200 1979.6424731 1364.7779
203 1979.6532258 1364.9411
209 1979.675 1364.9483
210 1979.6777777 1364.9416
211 1979.6805555 1364.945
258 1979.8527777 1364.7734
259 1979.8555555 1364.9754"
377 1980.2666666 1364.729"
378 1980.2694444 1364.3964"
379 1980.2722222 1364.5932"
380 1980.275 1364.9021"
521 1980.6722222 1364.807"
522 1980.675 1364.8196"
587 1980.8527777 1364.8475"
588 1980.8555555 1364.9238"
780 1981.5591397 1364.0619"
781 1981.5618279 1363.9227"
782 1981.5645161 1363.7736"
783 1981.5698924 1364.0631"
784 1981.5725806 1364.5415"
843 1981.7876344 1364.3429"
844 1981.7903225 1364.2634"
845 1981.7930107 1364.2437"
924 1982.0806451 1364.436"
925 1982.0833333 1364.5357"
931 1982.1071428 1364.636"
932 1982.110119 1364.427"
958 1982.2096774 1364.5086"
959 1982.2123655 1364.4589"
1026 1982.4583333 1364.3492
1027 1982.4611111 1364.2694
1028 1982.4638888 1364.4188
1029 1982.4694444 1364.2992
1047 1982.5349462 1364.4475
1048 1982.5376344 1364.4574
1049 1982.5403225 1364.6067
1500 1984.0672043 1364.1658
1501 1984.0698924 1363.4285
1502 1984.0725806 1363.1992
1503 1984.0752688 1363.0893
1504 1984.0779569 1363.4477
1505 1984.0806451 1364.0151
1588 1984.3194444 1363.4623
1589 1984.3222222 1363.2828
1590 1984.325 1363.2427
1591 1984.3305555 1363.7501
3026 1988.4944444 1364.445"
3027 1988.4972222 1363.8896
3028 1988.5 1363.7648"
3029 1988.5053763 1363.8917
3307 1989.2777777 1367.8666
3308 1989.2805555 1367.9654
3309 1989.2833333 1367.8665
3338 1989.3629032 1368.2434
3370 1989.4527777 1364.5115
3371 1989.4555555 1364.1499
3372 1989.4583333 1364.1129
3744 1990.5026881 1364.7912
3745 1990.5053763 1364.751"
3795 1990.6397849 1364.8247
3796 1990.6424731 1364.7447
3797 1990.6451612 1364.7842
3882 1990.8777777 1364.8368
3883 1990.8805555 1364.6075
3884 1990.8833333 1364.1294
3885 1990.8861111 1364.0097
3886 1990.8888888 1364.2981
3887 1990.8916666 1364.8551
3913 1990.9623655 1364.8767
3941 1991.0376344 1364.8081
3942 1991.0403225 1364.778"
3954 1991.0725806 1364.7841
3955 1991.0752688 1364.4553
3956 1991.0779569 1364.1564
3957 1991.0806451 1364.1162
3958 1991.0833333 1364.5837
4009 1991.2284946 1364.8463
4086 1991.4388888 1364.6926
4087 1991.4416666 1364.752"
4200 1991.75 1364.4676
4201 1991.7526881 1364.4376
4202 1991.7553763 1364.5467
4225 1991.8172043 1364.2708
4226 1991.8198924 1363.8723
4227 1991.8225806 1364.0014
4228 1991.8252688 1364.1703
4229 1991.8279569 1364.4586
4285 1991.9865591 1364.5202
4286 1991.9892473 1364.3009
4287 1991.9919354 1364.6091
7319 2000.7222222 1364.3577
7320 2000.725 1363.9662
7321 2000.7277777 1364.1"
7506 2001.2365591 1364.4803
7507 2001.2392473 1364.079"
7508 2001.2419354 1364.2874
7509 2001.2446236 1364.6573
8010 2002.6236559 1364.4628
8011 2002.626344 1364.0514
8012 2002.6290322 1364.1705
8440 2003.8064516 1364.1717
8441 2003.8091397 1363.9474
8442 2003.8118279 1363.746"
8443 2003.8145161 1363.5187
8444 2003.8172043 1363.4123
8445 2003.8198924 1363.011"
8446 2003.8225806 1362.2442
8447 2003.8252688 1361.8726
8448 2003.8279569 1362.1225
8449 2003.8306451 1363.0755
8450 2003.8333333 1364.2352
8707 2004.5564516 1364.0563
8708 2004.5591397 1364.1124
8882 2005.0349462 1363.9001
8883 2005.0376344 1363.5927
8884 2005.0403225 1363.6945

"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.

Chow

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.

On Mar 4, 8:42*pm, 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.

The hysterical thing about you Rog, is that you seem to believe that
what is written here, at this forum, as you call it, is
real.................But then for someone who reads an article, about
small nuclear wars, then can't wait to foreward the article, as though
there can ever be such a thing as a small nuclear war, you are about
of average lack of intelligence.

PS. Is a small nuclear war, anything like a small case of bone cancer?

Chow

On Mar 4, 5:58*pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-
N.J." wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:42*pm, 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.

The hysterical thing about you Rog, is that you seem to believe that
what is written here, at this forum, as you call it, is
real.................But then for someone who reads an article, about
small nuclear wars, then can't wait to foreward the article, as though
there can ever be such a thing as a small nuclear war, you are about
of average lack of intelligence.

PS. Is a small nuclear war, anything like a small case of bone cancer?

Chow

HAVING LOST THE DEBATE, MR. TOTAL-FITNESS CHANGES THE TOPIC.

On Mar 4, 9:00*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:58*pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-





N.J." wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:42*pm, 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.

The hysterical thing about you Rog, is that you seem to believe that
what is written here, at this forum, as you call it, is
real.................But then for someone who reads an article, about
small nuclear wars, then can't wait to foreward the article, as though
there can ever be such a thing as a small nuclear war, you are about
of average lack of intelligence.

PS. Is a small nuclear war, anything like a small case of bone cancer?

Chow

HAVING LOST THE DEBATE, MR. TOTAL-FITNESS CHANGES THE TOPIC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, you read everything I write, and re-post it, because
you are not capable of independent thought. The simple fact, is that
all you can do is copy and paste, or plagiarize.................

PS. Bye the way, you had no topic, just bibble babble...........

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

--
What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose sight of the
basic results of multivariate decision theory?

On Mar 4, 9:00*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:58*pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-



N.J." wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:42*pm, 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.

The hysterical thing about you Rog, is that you seem to believe that
what is written here, at this forum, as you call it, is
real.................But then for someone who reads an article, about
small nuclear wars, then can't wait to foreward the article, as though
there can ever be such a thing as a small nuclear war, you are about
of average lack of intelligence.

PS. Is a small nuclear war, anything like a small case of bone cancer?

Chow

HAVING LOST THE DEBATE, MR. TOTAL-FITNESS CHANGES THE TOPIC.

ø So you say, Roger the Dodger but you are the liar
and have added nothing credible to the debate

—*—
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all

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?

On Mar 5, 12:40*pm, Peter Franks 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,
isn't a significant feature of the global mean surface temperature.
However, if you want a statistically significant relationship, please
see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg