EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:52 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:08 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
This figure from Scafetta 2009 demonstrates the uncertainty surrounding what Solar Irradiance has done over the last 30 years.

Image

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:

Quote:
This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.


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

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

Quote:
The absence of a minima-to-minima trend in the
PMOD composite is an artifact of uncorrected ERBS
degradation. ERBS degradation during the gap equals the
trend difference and the PMOD offsets
(within computational
uncertainty).


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:04 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:09 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:

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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:21 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

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.


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.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:22 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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


Heh?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


Heh?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


Heh?


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.



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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
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.

Image

_________________
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 11:27 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


Heh?


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.



Snowy123 wrote:
ClimateGate really did not show any manipulation by scientists at all.


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

Quote:
Not sure what the problem is.


Double standard.

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Image

_________________
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 12:20 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:
Image


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

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

Quote:
The finding supports the contention
of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed
by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap
and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment
Fro¨hlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:23 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 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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:27 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 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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 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