Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.
That means absolutely nothing when someone is trying to determine the validity of a dataset.
But you were not trying to determine anything of the sort when you stated:
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.
That is not supported by the facts and I pointed that out.
PMOD has uncorrected ERBE data in it during the ACRIM Gap, which gives the dataset its flat line over the last 30 years. I've already shown proof of this here:
No, you have not. The ACRIM gap also included the high ACRIM I results and the low ACRIM II results relative to the other datasets. http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_ACRIM_Gap_4p.jpg
Note the ERBE/ERBS slope during the ACRIM gap is significantly different than the other measurements, because of its declining accuracy due to the effects from High Solar Magnetic Activity. This needs to be corrected. PMOD did not correct it, giving it its flat line over the last 30 years.
And the ACRIM diifferences were nothing? You take somethings as gospel and disbelieve everything else regardless of the logic or lack thereof.
From the ACRIM website:
Their published results should always be used unless there are compelling reasons for changing the data and/or results by updating the algorithm and reprocessing. ACRIM uses the Nimbus7/ERB 'gap' ratio to relate ACRIM1 & 2 results because the quality and quantity of ERB data is far superior to the ERBE data.
Then the rest of the dataset used should match the ACRIM II and not PMOD correct?