EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:42 pm

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: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Hey guys, TES is back up, and running. :mrgreen:


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:58 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:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Image


Notice the slope of IRMB is greater overall than the other two with a minimal drop at the gap.

The slope of the PMOD is ~flat prior to the gap and ~matches the ACRIM after with no drop at the gap.

The slope of ACRIM ~matches PMOD but with a significant drop at the gap.


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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:03 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:

I would question his calculations on the warming attribute to TSI since his is the highest of the three composites.


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."

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:05 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 calibrate the old records to match the PMOD .... :mrgreen: The question then becomes which is the more accurate and how much calibration to do to each.


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...

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:05 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:
Snowy123 wrote:
Hey guys, TES is back up, and running. :mrgreen:


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


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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:39 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Image


Notice the slope of IRMB is greater overall than the other two with a minimal drop at the gap.

The slope of the PMOD is ~flat prior to the gap and ~matches the ACRIM after with no drop at the gap.

The slope of ACRIM ~matches PMOD but with a significant drop at the gap.


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.


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?

Quote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I would question his calculations on the warming attribute to TSI since his is the highest of the three composites.


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."



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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So calibrate the old records to match the PMOD .... :mrgreen: The question then becomes which is the more accurate and how much calibration to do to each.


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...


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:39 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
Hey guys, TES is back up, and running. :mrgreen:


This is the message I got when I logged onto TES

Quote:
Warning: Something's Not Right Here!
www.theenvironmentsite.org contains content from image2you.in, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.
Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.
We have already notified image2you.in that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on image2you.in, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Hey guys, TES is back up, and running. :mrgreen:


This is the message I got when I logged onto TES

Quote:
Warning: Something's Not Right Here!
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org contains content from image2you.in, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.
Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.
We have already notified image2you.in that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on image2you.in, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:13 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:

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?



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."

Quote:
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".


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:15 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:


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


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

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?



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."


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.

Quote:
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".


Quote:
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.


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

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: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:39 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


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


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.


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. :-k

_________________
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: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:03 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:

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


That's not manipulation...

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


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/

Quote:
Abstract
A possible long-term trend of the total solar irradiance could be a natural cause for climate variations on Earth. Measurement of the total solar irradiance with space radiometers started in 1978. We present a new total solar irradiance composite, with an uncertainty of ± 0.35 W m−2. From the minimum in 1995 to the maximum in 2002 the total solar irradiance increased by 1.6 W m−2. In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m−2.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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: No registered users 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group