Comments below.


--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't care where you got the data from. What I care about is how it is
> interpreted in making errroneous conclusions that are used to mollify
> subscribers to Steve Molloy's 'trash talk' and this list. First of all
> you
> reported that the total solar irradiance data commenced from 1900, but
> the
> most reliable data regarding total solar irradiance actually begins in
> 1979
> when the first satellites were equiped with pyrheliometers. Since this
> date,
> Nov. 1979, total solar irradiance has fallen [W/m^2] - with a slight
> increasing trend after the mid 80's  until about 1996. So the net
> effect,
> ceteris paribus, should be a decline in surface temperatures.

Look at my graph again John.  You are the one who is looking bad here.
Look real carefully and look at the time scale.  What do you see starting
from about 1960 onward to about the late 70's?  A decrease.  Then from
that point we would have an increasing trend.  However, since about the
late 1950's the trend is pretty much a flat line.  I don't see why you are
pitching such a big fit.  Go down load your data, the GISS temperature
data and other variables, do your analysis and present it.

Now, as for this comment of yours:

>>Nov. 1979, total solar irradiance has fallen [W/m^2] - with a slight
increasing trend after the mid 80's  until about 1996. So the net
effect, ceteris paribus, should be a decline in surface temperatures.<<

And my results support this.  Think about it.  What is the sign of the
coefficient on solar irradience from my analysis?  Positive.  So if solar
irradience is decreasing then what would we expect to see (assuming no
other change in any other variable) a decline in temps.

Look at my second graph in that thread.  What do you see during most of
the 70's?  A virtually flat regression line.  So is the actually
temperatures for that time period, they just have a much larger variance
than the predicted line (which does suggest inaddaquacies with my
statistical model).

ROFLMAO!  I just downloaded the data John is looking at and compared it to
mine.  First, John's data is everywhere above mine.  That is for any given
month his data has a higher value.  However, the two data sets track each
other in terms of trend (if one looks at my graph in the thread I
originally linked to [see link below] you will note that solar irradience
has a cyclic pattern, it starts high, goes low, then back up.  This
pattern repeats itself over several years, this is what John is seeing,
1976 was a relatively high year which declines to low sometime in 1984 and
starts back up, in other words John is getting confused by the seasonality
in the data.  LOL), John's does so just a bit more srtongly than mine  The
decline and then increae that John is talking about is also in mine.  Of
course if John had done something revolutionary like download my data and
compare it to the data he has for the relevant time periods he'd have seen
this.  In other words John, YOU don't know what you are talking about.

As for the diferences, I don't know.  One possibility is that the data is
aggregated from daily data by different methods.

As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted before,
reconstructed data from proxy sources.  It is the data that is used by
James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming.  Thus, if John's
criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it means the
predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong.  ROFLMAO!!

Thanks John, I need a good laugh.

Steve

=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/