EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Figure One of the Willson and Scafetta paper:

Quote:
Composite of (a) ACRIM1, (b)ACRIM2 (black dots) and the TSI proxy model (gray lines). (c) Figures 1a and
1b are expanded views during the overlapping periods. (d) ‘Mixed’ TSI composites ACRIM-KBS07 and PMOD-KBS07
formed using KBS07 (gray line) to fill the ACRIM-gap period. A TSI trend between successive minima of +0.033
(±0.004)%/decade is found for both mixed composites.


Looks like when the uncorrected ERBE data is corrected in the PMOD dataset, it looks like the ACRIM dataset.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Hmmm....

Quotations from the ACRIM website...

Quote:
The PMOD composite approach uses a different subset of the satellite TSI database, the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio and modifies published Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 results, to conform them to the predictions of TSI proxy models [Frohlich & Lean, 1998]. The sparse ERBS/ERBE data required the PMOD model to use about 90% interpolated data to compute their ACRIM gap ratio.


Quote:
There are a number of differences between the ACRIM and PMOD composites but the most important is the trend during solar cycles 21 - 23. The absence of a trend in the PMOD composite and any composite based on the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio has been shown to be an artifact of uncorrected degradation of ERBE results during the gap (See Fig. 4).


http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_ACRIM_Gap_4p.jpg

Note that the ERBE data has the opposite % Variation slope of NIMBUS 7 and GSSN during the ACRIM gap, which is what the PMOD dataset is based off of. This shows that the ERBE/ERBS dataset needs to be corrected, which the PMOD dataset did not do.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:53 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2281
Location: Central Colorado
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search. ... &x=15&y=11

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=TSI+measurements&x=15&y=11


The results that come up when you searched for that on SKS are irrelevant to the discussion of this thread.

We're talking about the differences and possible flaws with the datasets that mesaure TSI.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The expalnation went off into the ether and I do not have the time to redo it now. This is the data from which the different composites are created. Note the differences between ACRIM I and ACRIM II levels and the ACRIM I from the bulk of the overlapping measurments.


This discrepency has already been resolved in many papers that the scientists with ACRIM have gotten published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.


The discrepency was not resolved, they just SMOOTHED the data to make them connect. They used a model, which is my understanding does not track their conclusions, but only for two years worth of data.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The ONE data set shows a significant discrepency with itself, but that is ingored it seems.


Again, this has already been resolved here:

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf

This too from Dr. Scafetta:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2609002089

Quote:
The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and or . Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.


There still remains a significant discrepency between PMOD and ACRIM.


You need to learn the difference between resolving a discrepancy and smoothing the transition between the two. What exactly caused the discrepancy between the two that was illustrated in the papers.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The discrepency was not resolved, they just SMOOTHED the data to make them connect. They used a model, which is my understanding does not track their conclusions, but only for two years worth of data.


The title of the paper that I linked to tells it all.

"ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model"

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Figure One of the Willson and Scafetta paper:

Quote:
Composite of (a) ACRIM1, (b)ACRIM2 (black dots) and the TSI proxy model (gray lines). (c) Figures 1a and
1b are expanded views during the overlapping periods. (d) ‘Mixed’ TSI composites ACRIM-KBS07 and PMOD-KBS07
formed using KBS07 (gray line) to fill the ACRIM-gap period. A TSI trend between successive minima of +0.033
(±0.004)%/decade is found for both mixed composites.


Looks like when the uncorrected ERBE data is corrected in the PMOD dataset, it looks like the ACRIM dataset.


It should since the sensors are the same ....

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

After the detection of the early increase in the ACRIM-I data set and due to the fact that the ERBS radiometers are copies of ACRIM-II (manufactured by TRW for NASA Langley) and assuming that both have the same type and geometry of apertures they should behave very similarly . As the total exposure time is less than 3 days only a correction for the earliest increase has to be applied.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

What exactly caused the discrepancy between the two that was illustrated in the papers.


The discrepency between PMOD and ACRIM is largely based on which types of satellites they used to make up their data. It looks pretty clear to me that the satellite PMOD used during the ACRIM gap that created a flat TSI line over the last 30 years is not in line with other measurements.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It should since the sensors are the same ....



Look at figure 1 of the paper I provided. When this error is corrected for the PMOD dataset, there suddenly is an increase in TSI between minimums with the PMOD dataset that looks like the ACRIM dataset, if not even more pronounced.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:04 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The discrepency was not resolved, they just SMOOTHED the data to make them connect. They used a model, which is my understanding does not track their conclusions, but only for two years worth of data.


The title of the paper that I linked to tells it all.

"ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model"


So they used a model to resolve the gap in the measurements and the difference in the end of one compared to the beginning of the other. That does not resolve the discrepency between the two sets.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So they used a model to resolve the gap in the measurements and the difference in the end of one compared to the beginning of the other. That does not resolve the discrepency between the two sets.


According to the paper, it does, so do I go with your word, or do I go with the two scientists who published the paper...? :oops:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
http://acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig1.jpg

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

What exactly caused the discrepancy between the two that was illustrated in the papers.


The discrepency between PMOD and ACRIM is largely based on which types of satellites they used to make up their data. It looks pretty clear to me that the satellite PMOD used during the ACRIM gap that created a flat TSI line over the last 30 years is not in line with other measurements.


What? ACRIM I was higher that all but one other source and ACRIM II was lower than all but one other source. That leaves PMOD in the middle with the rest of the sources.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So they used a model to resolve the gap in the measurements and the difference in the end of one compared to the beginning of the other. That does not resolve the discrepency between the two sets.


According to the paper, it does, so do I go with your word, or do I go with the two scientists who published the paper...? :oops:


You might want to get someone to explain the difference in resolving the way to bridge a gap and resolving a descrepency then. Of course, that falls back to the issue of context, which is sometimes harder if you have no actual experience with such things.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group