| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Sunspot Scapegoat
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Roger Coppock |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:02 am |
|
|
|
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 observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 2:08 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Quote: Roger Coppock wrote:
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 observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
...
Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a
cause of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No?
Do you dispute that ice cream is the cause of
polo ponies?
Yes or No? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 4:11 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote
Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a cause
of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No?
Impossible to say since it is a singular event.
Nope, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject:
"In total there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in
the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun currently
spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Quote:
Other than the correlation what causitive evidence do you have?
Not much that is verifiable. As I said at the top
of this thread, "They produce cherry picked proxy
series and collections of anecdotes to try to support
this." It's debatable whether the LIA was even
a planetary event. That is why I posted an analysis
of directly observed data, to anchor the debate in
known facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 5:09 pm, Al Bedo <c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote:
Quote: Roger Coppock wrote:
Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years,
Roger, you say yourself it takes thirty years
(although that is just tradition) to establish
a climate trend.
I suggest that thirty years would be a reasonable time
period for your solar trends.
You just have your numbers confused, Al.
12 years covers one solar cycle.
Climate trends have nothing to do
with it. BUT, to humor the fool,
here are your numbers.
[1] "Lag: 0 R^2: 0.0579"
[1] "Lag: 1 R^2: 0.0743"
[1] "Lag: 2 R^2: 0.0816"
[1] "Lag: 3 R^2: 0.079"
[1] "Lag: 4 R^2: 0.0783"
[1] "Lag: 5 R^2: 0.0799"
[1] "Lag: 6 R^2: 0.0722"
[1] "Lag: 7 R^2: 0.0575"
[1] "Lag: 8 R^2: 0.0453"
[1] "Lag: 9 R^2: 0.0518"
[1] "Lag: 10 R^2: 0.0602"
[1] "Lag: 11 R^2: 0.0708"
[1] "Lag: 12 R^2: 0.0794"
[1] "Lag: 13 R^2: 0.0882"
[1] "Lag: 14 R^2: 0.0945"
[1] "Lag: 15 R^2: 0.0907"
[1] "Lag: 16 R^2: 0.0868"
[1] "Lag: 17 R^2: 0.0575"
[1] "Lag: 18 R^2: 0.042"
[1] "Lag: 19 R^2: 0.0428"
[1] "Lag: 20 R^2: 0.0594"
[1] "Lag: 21 R^2: 0.0957"
[1] "Lag: 22 R^2: 0.114"
[1] "Lag: 23 R^2: 0.125"
[1] "Lag: 24 R^2: 0.104"
[1] "Lag: 25 R^2: 0.0749"
[1] "Lag: 26 R^2: 0.0541"
[1] "Lag: 27 R^2: 0.0345"
[1] "Lag: 28 R^2: 0.0233"
[1] "Lag: 29 R^2: 0.0188"
(Note: Each year of lag removes on year worth of sample,
so items in the above table have widely different Ns.)
Let's watch the fossil fools cherry pick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Roger is tired of his old numbers. They must not hold up anymore. How
typical of his handlers to tell him to move on and do new stuff.
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 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 observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
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
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James wrote:
Quote: Roger is tired of his old numbers. They must not hold up anymore. How
typical of his handlers to tell him to move on and do new stuff.
As usual, James the denialist has nothing. lol
Quote:
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
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 observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| justup |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 477
|
Roger Coppock wrote:
Quote: 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 observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
...
Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a
cause of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No? |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"James" <kingkongg@iglou.com> wrote
Quote: Roger is tired of his old numbers.
The historical record of global surface temperatures = Old Numbers to
Mindless KKKonservatives. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote
Quote: Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a cause
of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No?
Impossible to say since it is a singular event.
Other than the correlation what causitive evidence do you have? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 7:49 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote in message
news:4817ca84$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s.
Ahahahahaha.. This is the same article you used 2 years ago to claim that
the sun was brightening.
Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
Actually, satellite radiometers have the sun dimming
very very slightly.
-=-=-=-=-
New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
By Roger Coppock 03/08
ABSTRACT:
An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
measurements from 1976 to 2008 shows a small but statistically
significant decrease of -0.0070 +- 0.0005 Watts per square
meter per year over the 32-year period.
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 twice the correct magnitude, or
-0.0123 +- 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, (B3>0.0 and 2*Pi>B4>=0.0), the results of the
10787-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 1.380e+03 9.439e-01 1461.903 <2e-16
beta2 -7.007e-03 4.736e-04 -14.795 <2e-16
beta3 4.981e-01 5.900e-03 84.422 <2e-16
beta4 2.705e+00 2.707e+00 0.999 0.318
beta5 1.017e+01 2.235e-02 454.870 <2e-16
Residual standard error: 0.4321 on 10782 degrees of freedom
Please note the large standard error on beta4, the phase
of the SIN 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 Power PC OSX, Version 2.2.1.
The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
PMODWRC. They cover the period from 1/12/1976 to 03/05/2008.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/ext_composite_d41_61_0803.dat
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
3 W/m^2 over the last two centuries are 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/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Al Bedo |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Roger Coppock wrote:
Quote: Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years,
Roger, you say yourself it takes thirty years
(although that is just tradition) to establish
a climate trend.
I suggest that thirty years would be a reasonable time
period for your solar trends. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
Oh really???????
Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Authors: Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
Proceedings of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2003,SH,p.4131
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0312244
The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in
England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence
of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of
possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions,
caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price
fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.
We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price
bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the
intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We
show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both
for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the
distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar
activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity
data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10
time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were
higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar
activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We
consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection
between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.
SLAC-SPIRES HEP (refers to, cited by, arXiv reformatted);
NASA ADS;
CiteBase (autonomous citation navigation and analysis)
6. Discussion and Conclusion
The results of our study show:
a) The coincidence between the statistical properties of the
distributions of
intervals between wheat price bursts in medieval England (1259-1702) and
intervals
between minimums of solar cycles (1700-2000);
b) The existence of 100% sign correlation between high wheat prices and
states
of minimal solar activity established on the basis of 10Be data for
Greenland ice
measurements for the period 1600-1700.
These results imply a causal connection between solar activity and wheat
prices in medieval England. This conclusion is consistent with our
conceptual model
of the causal chain, consisting of "solar activity - cosmic ray
intensity - terrestrial
weather - wheat production - wheat price" that presented in this work.
The sign of
the causal connection (maximum prices for minimum sunspot activity and
maximum
cosmic ray flux) is the same sign that can be expected for
agriculture/weather
conditions in medieval England. We reiterate that England, at that time,
was a
region of "high risk" agriculture resulting from the "cold" side of the
weather axis,
when ".the cultivation of wheat was not carried on successfully beyond
the north
bank of the Humber" (Rogers, 1887, V.1, p. 29).
Regarding possible manifestations of solar activity in the dynamics of
prices of
agricultural production in modern times, we believe that the causality
shown in the
above causal chain "solar activity - . - wheat price" should remain
valid. More
generally, one can think of cereal production and prices in this chain.
Clearly,
however, the globalization of international food markets by
transcontinental
shipping leads to diminished local effects on variations of these
prices. Another
stabilizing factor results from successful development and
implementation of
genetic, selective and agrochemical technologies, which can widen
feasible
conditions for cereals production (zones "b", "c", "d" in Fig. 3).
However, the last 50 years of global warming could lead to shifts in
climatic conditions for different regions, especially near desert areas,
to "boundary" conditions, making them more ensitive to hot summers and
droughts, with catastrophic drops in agricultural
production. As the result of the climatic changes and other negative
factors of socioeconomic nature, the danger of famine in developing
countries placed in the high risk agriculture zones is still very real.
In these countries, the influence of variations
in solar activity could be essential for agricultural production.
On the other hand, large-scale international activities are devoted to
help these
countries. The aid of the international community comes in the form of
support in
agricultural research and reforms in these countries, and in the form of
direct food
supplies in extreme periods. Discovery of the manifestation of the solar
activity in
cereal production and prices could supply important information for
planning the
expected need for direct food supplies, and for the agro-economic
evaluation of
different crops in zones of high-risk agriculture.
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. L.Dorman, Prof. G.Beer and Prof. L. Alperovich for
helpful
discussions.
References
Carter, T. R., Porter J., and Parry M.,, 1992, J. Exp. Bot., 43, No.
253, 1159-1167.
Beer, G., Tobias S., and Weiss N., 1998,Solar Phys., 181, 237.
Brian M. Fagan, 2000, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History
1300-1850, Basic Books.
Fastrup, B., Pedersen E., Lillestol E. et al. (CLOUD Collaboration),
2000, A study of the link between
cosmic rays and clouds with a cloud chamber at the CERN PS, Preprint
CERN/SPSC 2000-021,
SPSC/P317;
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf
Friis-Christensen, E., and Lassen K., 1991, Science, 254, 698.
Frochlich, C., and Lean J., 1997, Proc. IAU Symposium 185, Kyoto.
Herschel, W., 1801, Philosophical Transactions, 91, 265.
Jevons, W.S., 1875,Nature.
Jevons, W.S., 1878, Nature.
Proctor, R.A., 1880, Scribners Monthly, 20, 2, 170-178.
Rogers, J.E. Thorold, 1887, Agriculture and Prices in England, Volume
I-VIII, Oxford, Clarendon
Press,; Reprinted by Kraus Reprint Ltd, 1963, Vaduz.
Rossow, W.B. and Shiffer R.A., 1991,Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 72, 2.
Smith A., 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, London, W. Strahan
& T. Cadell.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen E., 1997, J. Atmos. and Solar
Terres. Phys. 59, 1225.
Usoskin, I., Mursula K., and Kovaltsov G., 2001, J. Geophys. Res.,106,
No. A8, 16039.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
Oh Really?????
Prediction By Sunspots Beats US Weather Service!
The Farmers Almanac uses sunspots to predict weather but "scientific"
government weather predictors know deep within their hearts that the
sun has no effect on weather or climate.
US farmers at odds with government over weather
08-27-2007, 19h18
WASHINGTON (AFP)
A man crosses a street as snow falls in March 2007, in Harvard Square
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. An annual US publication with a track
record for accurately predicting the weather found itself at odds with
the government weather service over what winter is going to be like in
the United States.
(AFP/File)
An annual US publication with a track record for accurately predicting
the weather found itself at odds Monday with the government weather
service over what winter is going to be like in the United States.
The 191st edition of the US Farmers' Almanac, which goes on sale on
Tuesday, predicts a colder than usual winter from Maine to normally
warm Florida, in the eastern half of the United States, with excellent
skiing conditions in the northeast.
The western half of the United States will enjoy mild conditions with
near- to below-normal precipitation, the Almanac says.
"Overall, Mother Nature is showing no mercy to the east and being a
little more forgiving in the west," the book, which calls itself a
compendium of facts, predicts.
The National Weather Service's (NWS) forecast, meanwhile, had heart-
warming words for Americans grappling with high fuel prices.
Much of the United States, including the east, will enjoy higher than
normal temperatures this winter, with only the northwest left out of
the above-normal trend, NWS meteorologist Edward O'Lenic told AFP.
Farmers' Almanac editor Sandi Duncan hinted that the Almanac's
forecast was the one to pay attention to.
"Our track record speaks for itself," Duncan said. Readers of the book
say it gets the weather right 85 percent of the time.
"We go out on a limb and stand by our predictions; they don't."
O'Lenic said the NWS only professes to "tell you how the dice are
loaded for the season, based on trends and probability."
The Farmers' Almanac, which in its 2005 edition predicted two strong
hurricanes -- Katrina and Rita -- would rip through the same part of
the Gulf of Mexico coastal region in the southern United States, is
forecasting an unusually active tornado season in the midwestern
states next year and an active hurricane season starting in July.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at
Earth's Surface
Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 847 - 850
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103215
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s.
This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric
transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the
hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems."
Martin Wild,1* Hans Gilgen,1 Andreas Roesch,1 Atsumu Ohmura,1 Charles N.
Long,2 Ellsworth G. Dutton,3 Bruce Forgan,4 Ain Kallis,5 Viivi Russak,6
Anatoly Tsvetkov7
Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly
affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar
radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational
records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly
available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from
the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the
1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the
late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and
atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate,
the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.
1 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH), Winter-thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich,
Switzerland.
2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Post Office Box 999, Richland,
WA 99352, USA.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Monitoring and
Diagnostics Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
4 Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.
5 Estonian Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 61602 Toravere,
Estonia.
6 Tartu Observatory, 61602 Toravere, Estonia.
7 World Radiation Data Centre, A. I. Voeikov Main Geophysical
Observatory, 194021 Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
Seasons Of The Sun
David Whitehouse
5 December 2007
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-the-sun-save-us-from-global-warming-762878.html
Modern Solar Minimum (2000 - ?)
Modern Climatic Optimum (1890 - 2000) the world is getting warmer.
Concentrations of greenhouse gas increase. Solar activity increases.
Dalton Solar Minimum (1790 - 1820) global temperatures are lower than
average.
Maunder Solar Minimum (1645 - 1715) coincident with the 'Little Ice
Age'.
Sprer Solar Minimum (1420 - 1530) discovered by the analysis of
radioactive carbon in tree rings that correlate with solar activity
colder weather. Greenland settlements abandoned.
Wolf Solar Minimum (1280 - 1340) climate deterioration begins. Life gets
harder in Greenland.
Medieval Solar Maximum (1075 - 1240) coincides with Medieval Warm
Period. Vikings from Norway and Iceland found settlements in Greenland
and North America.
Oort Solar Minimum (1010 -1050) temperature on Earth is colder than
average.
There seem to have been 18 sunspot minima periods in the last 8,000
years; studies indicate that the Sun currently spends up to a quarter of
its time in these minima.
http://www.solarcycle24. com/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon May 12, 2008 6:32 am
|
|
