Interesting solar radiation data

[polarbear]

The European solar radiation sensor net monitored and compared data from 1989 to 2012 with data from 1965 to 1988:

Mitteleuropa: Das Geheimnis des roten Sonnenflecks - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
One climate "scientist" Blanka Bartók (as if there were such a science) explains the +3.21 W/m^2 hot spot over Austria must be due to less air pollution with micro particles.
The blue areas show a decrease of 3.79 W/m^2
I haven`t bothered looking for temperature data for the regions on this map, but there better be a significant +T anomaly for Austria and a -T for the blue zones else the CO2 "back radiation" effect which is less W/m^2 is in the toilet.

 

[SSDD]

Recently saw something interesting RE: Austria...

As stated in the Austrian Assessment Report 2014 (Volume 1, Chapter 3, Auer I., Foelsche U.) , the regional temperature time serie of Austria shows a higher short term variability than the global time series. This is due to the different climate anomalies and climate trends that reduce each other when averaged. The negative anomaly during 1870-1900 and the strong postive anomaly during the last three decades lead to a stronger temperature increase for Austria than on the global scale.

How does that mesh with what you are thinking?

 

[polarbear]

Thanks for digging that up. Obviously these aerosols are as not evenly distributed as previously believed. But where they are they more than cancel out the CO2 W/m^2 we are accused of...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The shear fact that we can show a 8W/m^2 natural variation in down-welling radiation lays anything that could be slowed by CO2 total waste. Simple changes in aerosols in the atmosphere can blunt everything.. But some of us knew that all along. Simple cloud variations can change DWR by 30-50 W/m^2..

Just more proof through empirical evidence that CO2 is not a major player in earths warming and cooling cycles.

 

[Crick]

And what is the time average of all those noise factors globally? Zero.

And you claim to be an atmospheric physicist.

Do you have a REASON that Austria might have such a hot spot? I strongly suspect you do not. That leaves a good scientist to start questioning his data.

 

[SSDD]

And what is the time average of all those noise factors globally? Zero.

And you claim to be an atmospheric physicist.

Do you have a REASON that Austria might have such a hot spot? I strongly suspect you do not. That leaves a good scientist to start questioning his data.

Do you have any evidence that zeros are going into the models?...or that zeros are going into the "adjustments"...or are you just talking out of your ass again?

 

[Crick]

Since there are locations that are getting warmer and locations that are getting cooler, obviously there are locations with no changes going into the averages.

Fool.

 

[IanC]

Since there are locations that are getting warmer and locations that are getting cooler, obviously there are locations with no changes going into the averages.

Fool.

Could you please point out a few of these cooling stations in the BEST dataset? I have looked around quite a bit and haven't found any.

 

[SSDD]

Since there are locations that are getting warmer and locations that are getting cooler, obviously there are locations with no changes going into the averages.

Fool.

Could you please point out a few of these cooling stations in the BEST dataset? I have looked around quite a bit and haven't found any.

Beat me to it...according to those wackos, everything is warming.

 

[IanC]

Since there are locations that are getting warmer and locations that are getting cooler, obviously there are locations with no changes going into the averages.

Fool.

Could you please point out a few of these cooling stations in the BEST dataset? I have looked around quite a bit and haven't found any.

Beat me to it...according to those wackos, everything is warming.

Indeed. The BEST method gives extra weighting to warming stations and continuously adjusts cooling station until they come into line with 'expected result's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, when Muller stated that he was going to investigate the climate claims of other scientists, you were so convinced that he would find them exaggerated that you said that you would accept whatever he found. He found the claims to be accurate. Now you claim he committed scientific fraud. Bad cess on you.

 

[IanC]

Ian, when Muller stated that he was going to investigate the climate claims of other scientists, you were so convinced that he would find them exaggerated that you said that you would accept whatever he found. He found the claims to be accurate. Now you claim he committed scientific fraud. Bad cess on you.

We have been through this many times in the past. Muller brought up many of the faults and shortcomings of the existing temperature datasets when he was looking to fund his new Berkeley Earth dataset. Once he got the funding he passed off the work of developing the methodology to others that reneged on the promises that he made. Classic bait and switch. Judith Curry was so disappointed with the results that she asked for her name to be removed from the papers.

I trusted Muller and was let down. So were many others. I changed my mind on him and gave you the reasons why.

For those of you who didn't follow the creation of BEST, one of the papers, on Urban Heat Island Effect, actually came to the conclusion that recent temps should be adjusted UP for UHI!!! Unbelievable

(Edit- no wonder it took years for the papers to be peer reviewed and accepted, in the first volume first issue of a new Indian pay-to-publish journal)

 

[SSDD]

Ian, when Muller stated that he was going to investigate the climate claims of other scientists, you were so convinced that he would find them exaggerated that you said that you would accept whatever he found. He found the claims to be accurate. Now you claim he committed scientific fraud. Bad cess on you.

We have been through this many times in the past. Muller brought up many of the faults and shortcomings of the existing temperature datasets when he was looking to fund his new Berkeley Earth dataset. Once he got the funding he passed off the work of developing the methodology to others that reneged on the promises that he made. Classic bait and switch. Judith Curry was so disappointed with the results that she asked for her name to be removed from the papers.

I trusted Muller and was let down. So were many others. I changed my mind on him and gave you the reasons why.

For those of you who didn't follow the creation of BEST, one of the papers, on Urban Heat Island Effect, actually came to the conclusion that recent temps should be adjusted UP for UHI!!! Unbelievable

(Edit- no wonder it took years for the papers to be peer reviewed and accepted, in the first volume first issue of a new Indian pay-to-publish journal)

Rocks is fully aware of all of that.....you have told him enough times...but he is willing to lie, cheat, or steal if it means that he might fool someone else into his cult with him. Such is the nature of warmers....all of them.

 

[Crick]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is availabe.

From Wikipedia's BEST article

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

 

[SSDD]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is availabe.

Here is a place to start:

BEST only reruns its averaging calculations to determine its uncertainty. It does not rerun its breakpoint calculations. As you may know, BEST breaks data from temperature stations into segments when it finds what it believes to be a “breakpoint.” The primary way it looks for these breakpoints is by comparing stations to other stations located nearby. If a station seems too different from its neighbors, it will be broken into segments which can then be realigned. This is a form of homogenization, a process whereby stations in the dataset are made to be more similar to one another.

This process is not repeated when BEST does its uncertainty calculations. The full data set is homogenized, and subsets of that homogenized data set are compared to determine how much variance there is. This is inappropriate. The amount of variance BEST finds within a homogenized data set does not tell us how much variance there is in BEST’s data. It only tells us how much variance there is once BEST is finished homogenizing the data.

Second, to determine how much variance there is in its (homogenized) data set, BEST reruns its calculations with 1/8th the data removed, eight times. This produces eight different series. When comparing these different series, BEST realigns them so they all share the same baseline. The baseline period BEST uses for its alignment is 1960-2010.

This is a problem. By aligning the eight series on the 1960-2010 period, BEST artificially deflates the variance between those series in the 1960-2010 period (and artificially inflates the variance elsewhere). That makes it appear there is more certainty in the recent portion of the BEST record than there actually is. The result is there is an artificial step change in BEST uncertainty levels at ~1960. This is the same problem demonstrated for the Marcott et al temperature record (see here).

All told, BEST’s uncertainty levels are a complete mess. They are impossible to interpret in any meaningful way, and they certainly cannot be used to try to determine which years may or may not have been the hottest.

 

[IanC]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is availabe.

From Wikipedia's BEST article

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Crick and Old Rocks post up long C&Ps with imbedded links because they know few people will read them or follow the links. Hell, they don't read it themselves!

I said Muller changed the priorities of BEST from his first proposal, crick posts up that his funding was unrestricted, to be used any way he thought fit.

I said BEST couldn't pass peer review and get published in a reputable journal, crick's link called the publisher 'predatory open access'.

I said their calculation for UHI was ridiculous, crick's link is to a paper that shows it is real and large.



I could go on, but it is fruitless. It is a common theme in climate science to state conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided. Appeal to authority. Few laymen analyze the papers and the scientists who should be ripping them apart are too fearful of their careers and funding to actually do it. I cannot really blame them but the damage being done overall to science is large.

 

[SSDD]

I could go on, but it is fruitless. It is a common theme in climate science to state conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided. Appeal to authority. Few laymen analyze the papers and the scientists who should be ripping them apart are too fearful of their careers and funding to actually do it. I cannot really blame them but the damage being done overall to science is large.

Warmers like to claim that scientists who go against the consensus don't fear from their jobs but here is an email from Phil Jones to John Christy....the last two sentences put the lie to that claim...If Phil Jones, one of the high priests of AGW is worried about damage to his career if he even mentioned cooling , what must it be like for those who aren't rock stars within the cult?

From: Phil Jones

To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

Also this load of rubbish !

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

 

[mamooth]

Most deniers are now only interesting as examples of various personality disorders.

Narcissism -- "I am incapable of error, so if the world disagrees with me, the world is wrong."

Paranoia -- "It's all a plot!"

Histrionic -- "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

Schizotypal -- "I define the laws of the universe!"

Sociopathic -- "Yes, I'm lying to your face, and I don't care if everyone knows it. After all, the ends always justify the means for my own side."

Antisocial -- "I HATE YOU GODDAMNED LIBERALS!"

 

[SSDD]

Projecting your traits onto others won't help you with your issues hairball...

 

[Crick]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is availabe.

From Wikipedia's BEST article

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Crick and Old Rocks post up long C&Ps with imbedded links because they know few people will read them or follow the links. Hell, they don't read it themselves!

Wrong. I posted a challenge for you to demonstrate where and how they had fucked with their data.

I said Muller changed the priorities of BEST from his first proposal, crick posts up that his funding was unrestricted, to be used any way he thought fit.

Then you should have no problem showing how this change in priorities fucked their results.

I said BEST couldn't pass peer review and get published in a reputable journal, crick's link called the publisher 'predatory open access'.

Then you should have no problem showing why it shouldn't have passed peer review and been published.

I said their calculation for UHI was ridiculous, crick's link is to a paper that shows it is real and large.

Then you should have no problem showing the real value and magnitude of UHI and what its effect on global temperatures has been.

I could go on, but it is fruitless. It is a common theme in climate science to state conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided. Appeal to authority. Few laymen analyze the papers and the scientists who should be ripping them apart are too fearful of their careers and funding to actually do it. I cannot really blame them but the damage being done overall to science is large.

Really? The evidence supporting my position and that of virtually every climate scientist on the planet may be found in the world's published, peer reviewed climate science and in the handy assessment of that science available at www.ipcc.ch. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOURS IAN?