|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2012 14:17:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 18, 2012 14:58:40 GMT 1
Alec Rawls says My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis. Rawls suggests that failure (deliberate or accidental) to recognise the true extent of solar input into climate has left the field open to over-emphasis on CO2. See his submission to the IPCC AR5 first draft here wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 6, 2012 18:12:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 14, 2012 1:44:19 GMT 1
a new paper that finds a large increase in sunshine over the last 26 years. “According to the authors, “the average increase of [surface solar radiation] from 1982 to 2008 is estimated to be 0.87 W m−2 per decade,” which equates to 2.26 W m-2 over the 26 year period. By way of comparison, this forcing was 12.5 times greater than the surface forcing alleged by the IPCC from increased CO2 over the same period. The abstract is here. The paper is here. www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.htmlAtmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiationK. C. Wang1, R. E. Dickinson2, M. Wild3, and S. Liang4 1State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, Beijing, China 2Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA 3Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 4Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Abstract. The Earth's climate is driven by surface incident solar radiation (Rs). Direct measurements have shown that Rs has undergone significant decadal variations. However, a large fraction of the global land surface is not covered by these observations. Satellite-derived Rs has a good global coverage but is of low accuracy in its depiction of decadal variability. This paper shows that daily to decadal variations of Rs, from both aerosols and cloud properties, can be accurately estimated using globally available measurements of Sunshine Duration (SunDu). In particular, SunDu shows that since the late 1980's Rs has brightened over Europe due to decreases in aerosols but dimmed over China due to their increases. We found that variation of cloud cover determines Rs at a monthly scale but that aerosols determine the variability of Rs at a decadal time scale, in particular, over Europe and China. Because of its global availability and long-term history, SunDu can provide an accurate and continuous proxy record of Rs, filling in values for the blank areas that are not covered by direct measurements. Compared to its direct measurement, Rs from SunDu appears to be less sensitive to instrument replacement and calibration, and shows that the widely reported sharp increase in Rs during the early 1990s in China was a result of instrument replacement. By merging direct measurements collected by Global Energy Budget Archive with those derived from SunDu, we obtained a good coverage of Rs over the Northern Hemisphere. From this data, the average increase of Rs from 1982 to 2008 is estimated to be 0.87 W m−2 per decade.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 14, 2012 9:02:15 GMT 1
Well bugger me! Clouds get in the way of sunshine! Who'd have thought it? Next thing you know, climatologists will start looking out of the window instead of trying to fit politically convenient models to dodgy data.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jan 12, 2013 17:11:15 GMT 1
Nah Alan, You've got it all wrong ... Oh, wait a minute ... "There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet. " Well, who'd have thought it? Bless my soul and I'll go to the foot of our stairs .... "Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. " cor, it must be right if NASA says so, time was that You could believe them .... " For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface. " "Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own. " Oops, exit stage left a certain group of climate scientists? Doubt it, just believe in reincarnation ... Full NASA article, and from which the 71 page book an be downloaded ... science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/It is now official, it's the Sun wot dun it, stoopid ...
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 13, 2013 1:30:09 GMT 1
"Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. " At last, a possible glimmer of common sense in the "ozone hole" business. I've never subscribed to the CFC catalysis idea, because catalysts cannot alter the equilibrium of a reaction. It's clear that the ratio of ozone to oxygen in the upper atmosphere can only be determined by the incident power of solar ultraviolet, which drives the forward reaction O 2 -> O 3. If this varies over a significant range over a period of years then the polar "holes" in the ozone layer will grow and shrink accordingly. And so they do!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 13, 2013 4:24:23 GMT 1
Welcome back Stu! And a Happy new Year!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jan 13, 2013 9:13:21 GMT 1
Thanks MM! ---------- Alan, people seem to be subscribing to 'science' rather than some politically correct dogma. ---------- I find it's a good idea to get some idea of scale with these events, this can be demonstrated by viewing this short video of Sunspot AR1654 and consider this ... " As of Jan 12th, the behemoth stretches more than 180,000 km (14 Earth diameters) from end to end" spaceweather.com/images2013/12jan13/crackling.mp4"Flares are illuminating the sunspot's magnetic canopy like flash bulbs at a rock concert; the phenomenon is evident in this 37-hour extreme ultraviolet movie from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory:" ... the only conclusion is that the Sun does have an effect on Earth and in no small way.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 14, 2013 12:30:57 GMT 1
Well, they're inching there, slowly, dragging their heels, still refusing to acknowledge research that falls outside their specialised fields - and hence completely missing the revolution in understanding that's now accelerated with such a mounting deluge of findings that they now resemble the Vatican of the Renaissance, insisting that the Earth doesn't move. There's not a single mention here of Nicola Scafetta's work, for example; which is rather like organising a conference on Black Holes without inviting and banning any talk of Hawking and Penrose. No mention of Ian Wilson, Siderenkov, Ogurtsov, the Gulyaevs, Mazzarella, Holle, Vaughan, Steinhilber, Carl Smith, etcetera. It's crazy. Thus this conference can still have the bare-faced nerve to assert: "Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the past 50 years."It's inconceivable that these scientists can be unaware of Scafetta's findings, with show unequivocably that 80% of the global warming since 1800 and at least 60% since the mid-70s is down to cyclic changes in solar activity (driven by harmonic resonances between the planets orbiting around the barycentre.) Simply inconceivable: just as it's inconceivable that any one of them can be unaware that Scafetta's model's predictions are outperforming by an enormous margin - backwards and forwards - every one of the leading computer models relied on by the IPCC. Clearly, judging by this report, they're self-justifying this quasi-religious non-scientific closed-mindedness by pretending that the link between solar variability and our climate is all about TSI - thus they can put their fingers in their ears and chant "it's not enough". But it's starkly obvious from the data sets that the link is primarily through the heliospheric magnetic field (which doubled in strength over the period of recent global warming): it's a plasma interaction, not irradiance, and as far as I know none of the extraterrestial cyclic variability theorisers have said anything different for at least twenty years. This is NASA, assembling the so-called experts in the field, advising the IPCC. It's quite extraordinary, really - surely the greatest scandal in the history of science.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 14, 2013 13:50:20 GMT 1
"surely the greatest scandal in the history of science"
Hear, hear! Seconded, Mr Sonde.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 15, 2013 10:59:15 GMT 1
;D Unless they really did fake the whole moon landings thing, that is. Sure, they faked a load of photographs, and at least one jaunt about on the Moon was filmed in the studio - which come to think of it is outrageous enough - but I used to think the thesis they faked the whole thing was too incredible and flaky even for me. Now I'm seriously beginning to wonder.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 12, 2013 14:23:17 GMT 1
Thanks to Bob Tisdale and Tallbloke for bringing this research to light. Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?R. T. Pinker Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland B. Zhang Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center E. G. Dutton National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA/CMDL), Code R/CMDL1, 325 Broadway, Boulder ABSTRACT
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990.
Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe. more here tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/pinker-et-al-do-satellites-detect-trends-in-surface-solar-radiation/and here wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/12/the-sun-was-in-my-eyes-was-it-more-likely-over-the-past-3-plus-decades/The implication is that if solar radiation has increased overall since c.1980 the estimated portion of warming due to increasing GHG in this period is necessarily less.
|
|