EnviroLink Forum

I was looking through some of Dr. Nicola Scafetta's work while I was browsing through his Widget, and I saw that he was part of the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor, which monitors TSI from the ACRIM satellite.

I googled it, and I found that this particular satellite showed an increase in the power of the TSI during the minimums associated with the 11 year cycles from Cycle 21 to 22. While the maximum power remained about the same, an increase in the power during the minimum could have TSI directly explain some of the warming that took place in the late-20th Century.

TSI then decreased, which is where ACRIM is in agreement with PMOD, probably contributing to the standstill in temperatures over the last 11 years.

http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg

However, PMOD shows no such increase in the minimums of Cycle 21 and 22.

http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg

These discrepencies need to be resolved, before anyone can go saying that Man is responsible for most of the warming that took place over the late-20th Century, since we aren't even certain what the brightness variations in the sun were doing during this timeframe.

Comments appreciated!

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

This figure from Scafetta 2009 demonstrates the uncertainty surrounding what Solar Irradiance has done over the last 30 years.



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

If the ACRIM reconstruction were to be correct, then most of the warming could be explained by solar irradiance alone over the last 30 years.

The rest of the warming could be due to many things, including Cloud Cover changes, Volcanism, contribution from the PDO/AMO, and contributation from CO2.

However, if the PMOD reconstruction is to be used, there would be little to no contributation by TSI over the last 30 years.

Cloud Cover would then probably have more of an impact, and be the driving force of Climate Change over the last 30 years, with CO2 being a minor contributor. This is because many papers have documented a significant increase in ISR over the last 30 or so years reaching Earth's Surface, so a natural component is necessary to explain the warming in the late-20th Century. Whether it's Solar Irradiance or Cloud Cover Changes (or both) is yet to be determined, but many papers have found that the increased ISR correlated strongly to the Cloud Radiative Forcing, meaning Cloud Cover is at least partially responsible for the increased ISR reaching Earth's Surface. If both Cloud Cover decreased and TSI increased, then nearly all of the warming can be attributed to natural factors.

Dr. Willson and Dr. Scaffeta have a paper on this discrepency, and concluded that PMOD may be suffering from errors within the data, explaining why there is no trend in the power of the minimums of SC 21 and 22.

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

From the conclusions:



Dr. Willson and Dr. Mordinov discuss possible problems with PMOD in their 2003 paper:

http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/ ... 23%20(2003).pdf



Scientists associated with ACRIM:

http://www.acrim.com/staff.htm

This uncertainty needs to be resolved before the "consensus" on Climate Change can become legitimate.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

You have a series of satellites with a problem in correlation between the beginning and current that may indicate something different from the other system if this system is correct.

Where exactly is the skeptic view on lack of data, lack of quality data, temperature reconstuction, models based on temperature reconstruction, and the various other aspects of the science of climate change? The data from the newest sensor only shows a decrease from the last minimum ... at the point where most of the record warm global averages occurred. The entire process has a 30 year calibration range at most and the last 10 are significantly different.

_________________
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 too small of a group to cause any change in the consensus view unless they have data that causes a significant number of the rest of the expert community to question it, which they clearly have not.

_________________
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

OMG!!!! "Mike's Nature Trick" was not even referenced!!!! That should be grounds for throwing all of this information away .... right? The whole selective skepticism aspect gets a bit worn after a while.

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

The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma
for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the
satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2
results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy
model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar
magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI
composites are constructed with their composites’ original
values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled
TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results.

_________________
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

Yes, they are a small group.

I feel like as if I am gazing at something so obvious. I don't want to seem arrogant, but it just seems so obvious! How can someone rule out TSI as not being the cause of the warming over the last 30 years, when we don't even know what TSI did in this timeframe? Why does Skeptical Science cherry pick PMOD to try and show a disconnect between the sun and Global Temperature, but they completely leave out ACRIM showing an increase in TSI during this timeframe. If ACRIM were to be right, 65-70% of the warming observed over the last 30 years could be explained by just TSI alone.

If PMOD were right, probably much less.

I'm not going to select which one yet, because ACRIM says PMOD has some issues with its data. I haven't heard PMOD say that ACRIM's data is wrong, but they probably have.

This uncertainty NEEDS to be resolved, because we simply don't know what it did during this timeframe.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

Heh?

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

The two sets of data do not align correctly so they use a smoothing technique to do it jist like Hansen did to combine the proxy and measured temperature data .... and was supposedly proof of some illegal or immoral actions. The reference was to an email where Mike's Nature trick was mentioned as part of the key points in the "climategate" attack.

Attacked on one hand and defended on the other .... sadly that seems to be par for the course with the "skeptic" position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... ontroversy

Many commentators quoted one email referring to "Mike's Nature trick" which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem "to hide the decline" that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[33] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[34] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or concealing them.[37]

_________________
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

ClimateGate really did not show any manipulation by scientists at all.

Not sure what the problem is.

The two TSI datasets are still in a significant discrepency from each other over the last 30 years.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

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.

_________________
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 was not the claim then nor has that claim disappeared. I still see it referenced.



Double standard.



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

_________________
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

_________________
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 seem to be supporting PMOD, when it is clear it has its own errors.

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

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

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

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate

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



There still remains a significant discrepency between PMOD and ACRIM.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate