EnviroLink Forum

I hope they cleaned the virus base out, or there will be more problems and maybe with computers connecting to the site.

_________________
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

That's because ACRIM doesn't use the ERBE/ERBS data... hence the fluctuations. PMOD uses it during the ACRIM Gap, and they didn't correct the fact that the TSI slope during this timeframe doesn't match up with the higher resolution and better quality measurements like NIMBUS7 and ERB. That's the reason for the flat line, since the ordinate is a measurement of the difference of the original ERBE data and the corrected composite. PMOD did not correct for the fact that the ERBE/ERBS measurements significantly deviated from all of the other measurements. The ERBE/ERBS satellite was clearly going through degredation with the slope not matching up with any of the other measurements, giving PMOD its flat line in TSI over the last 30 years.

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

Well I think he gave a fair assesment on the relative solar attributation if you use all three datasets.

That's why this discrepency needs to be fully resolved, so that attributation can become easier. 70% and 15% for the Solar Contribution to the late-20th Century warming, using the ACRIM and PMOD datasets respectively is a very big difference. A difference that needs to get resolved before anyone can say the "science is settled."

Well PMOD has faulty ERBE/ERBS data in it during the ACRIM Gap, so I wouldn't be so sure I would want to calibrate the records to PMOD...

It looks shabby right now, but I'm sure Fabian will clean it up.

The previous measurements do not match up with the "higher resolution and better quality measurements" either, thus the drop.

If the data is so much "higher resolution and better qualtiy measurements" why is the slope so similar and yet have a drop that has to have a manipulation in order to overcome?



You mean the same flat line as the ACRIM? You do know what a slope indicates right? Compare the two slopes and you see very similar "flat lines".

_________________
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

Not really if you look at the warmest years, which have mostly been after 2000 when there is supposed to be less energy input.

_________________
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

That is his claim, but not one that seems to be made by everyone. Since the data is being manipulated to make it look like a fit, why not make it fit a little better?

_________________
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

This is the message I got when I logged onto TES

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

That does not sound good at all. If the malware was the reason for the crash and it is still there, the next crash will not be far off. Not to mention the possible infected computers logging on.

_________________
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

The measurements by ERBE/ERBS do not agree with the better measurements by NIMBUS7 and ERB during the ACRIM gap, hence the difference in the ACRIM, IRMB and PMOD datasets during the ACRIM Gap, because PMOD uses ERBE data and ACRIM uses NIMBUS 7/ERB data.

There is no "manipulation."



TSI increased SUBSTANTIALLY between the minima of SC 21 and 22 on ACRIM, which could explain most of the warming over the last 30 years if ACRIM is right. Then TSI decreased and we stopped warming, so comparing the differences between SC 21 and 22 is better for Solar Attributation than SC 21-23, because the temperatures did not rise during the timeframe beyond SC 21-22.

The satellite based temperatures, which are the most accurate measurements say that 1998 was the warmest year. After that, no year has been warmer.

The surface temperature datasets disagree.

There IS a manipulation in the ACRIM dataset, which is based around a model to merge the ACRIM I and II.

The gap is NOT the issue, but the abnrmally higher ACRIM I before the gap and abnormally lower ACRIM II data after the gap.





If you look at the graphs the ACRIM is the ONLY composite showing that increase, which makes it less supported than you claim.

_________________
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

You need to read better, I did not say the warmest year, I said the warmest yearS, which have mostly been after 2000.

The satellite data is calibrated in the attempt to give an accurate measurement, but there is no guarantee that it is actually the most accurate since it is measuring through the atmosphere.

_________________
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

That's not manipulation...



Eyeballing a graph is not a very scientific way of determining whether TSI as a whole increased from SC 21 to 22 on the datasets.

The peer reviewed literature for the IRMB composite says otherwise:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j801527210384164/



So IRMB between SC 21 and 22 is -0.20 w/m^2-0.50 w/m^2 with a median range of 0.15 w/m^2. That is not "not increasing."

In addition, the power during SC 21 was lower for a significantly longer period of time than the power during SC 22, so that would also have implications on the increase between the minimas not mentioned in the abstract.