EnviroLink Forum

That's correct.

I feel that it is the most accurate dataset as of now, since the Surface Station datasets are still adding new stations to the datasets, which change the temperature anomalies.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

You understand your feeling does not make it any more factual, right? A new station would change the temperature anomaly how much? The percentage increase in stations would have a very small impact on the average temperatures and thus the anomaly.

_________________
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

Actually, it is because it also moves the start and ending measurement points in order to make the merge.




The claim was the minima increased, was it not? The graph has a nice little line that shows ONLY the ACRIM minima was above the line.



I take it that you have moved past the point of the minima increase originally mentioned to another diversion?

_________________
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, that's what I meant. The minima.

The peer reviewed statistical analysis of the IRMB dataset says that your eyeballing of the PMOD chart is dead wrong, and it is understandable, considering the units are closely packed to each other on the chart.

Now you need to admit that you were wrong when you initially said,



In a reply to me,



Instead of resorting to deflections.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

So you are telling us 0.15 W/m^2 is a SUBSTANIAL increase in the 1363 - 1368 range?
You are also telling us this substantial increase in the minima you believe happened is supported by the IRMB? I am just unable to see that increase because the chart is too closely packed to see such a substantial increase?

Let me point out the situation a little more clearly using your information only:

In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m−2 (with an uncertainty of ± 0.35 W m−2).

This shows -0.20 - +0.40 is the uncertainty range.

The minima may or may not have increased at all, much less substantially according to this abstract.



Note that is referencing ACRIM and my reply was concerning IRMB, which supposedly also showed the "SUBSTANTIAL" increase, but the quote did not seem to indicate such a sustantial change.

I just did not understand your definition of "SUBTANTIALLY" could include 0.15 +0.35 compared to a cycle of 1.6 + 0.35. To me "substantially" would be over the range of uncertainty and "SUBSTANTIALLY" would be well over that range.

_________________
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

Using a ruler (set of micrometers actually) to determine the scale these are the approximate values for the graph.

ACRIM Minima 21/22 1987 = 1360.2 22/23 1996.5 = 1360.7 23/24 2009 = 1360.33



PMOD Minima 21/22 1987 = 1365.6 22/23 1996.5 = 1365.5 23/24 2009 = 1365.27






The discrepancy of an increase of ~0.5 in the 1360 range, of an increase in the 0.15 +0.35, which is <1/3 of the previous, or of a drop of ~0.1 in the 1365 range? The discrepencies of the range differences and the measurement error are more than the item you think should be resolved before anything can be stated.

_________________
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're moving the goalposts.

Your original statement was that ACRIM was the only dataset that showed the increase, and now you're saying that a 0.15 w/m^2 increase between minimas does not count as an increase in TSI somehow?

In addition, your math is off. With a error range of +/-0.35 w/m^2, it would be -0.20 w/m^2-0.50 w/m^2. Not 0.40 w/m^2. So therefore, there is a 70% chance that the TSI increased between minimas.

I'd rather go with the chances of TSI increasing than TSI not increasing between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 on the IRMB dataset.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

During the ACRIM Gap when the major discrepency between IRMB, ACRIM, and PMOD occured due to different sets of data being used by different satellites by these major organizations, the GCR count decreased between 1989.5-1991.5 (The ACRIM Gap). This further validates the methods that ACRIM used, and the data that ACRIM used, because the irradiance showed an increase during the ACRIM Gap on the satellites that ACRIM used (ERB/NIMBUS7). This is because GCRs have an inverse relationship with Solar Activity, going up as Solar Activity decreases, and going down when it increases.

You can see this in Figure 8, here:

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/S ... rbrook.pdf

PMOD has a negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap, which contradicts the GCR data which shows the GCR count decreasing during the ACRIM Gap. This negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap is what gives PMOD its flat slope in TSI over the last 30 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

No, not at all.



No, a POSSIBLE 0.15 w/m^2 increase, a possible decrease, or a change that is stastically insignificant from 0 does not count as an increase.



I did mis-type the upper range, sorry. A chance the TSI increased is not the same as saying that it significantly increased. In fact, the odds are that the results are closer to the PMOD than the ACRIM if you want to go with probabilities. The upper range ~ meets the ACRIM level your link provided but the lower range goes below that of the PMOD your link provided.



I am sure you would, but that still does not support the claim of the significant level of increase nor does it address the much greater offset of the base ranges for the two composites.

_________________
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

I did not see the mention of the GCR evidence to support the increase, although I did see much lower confidence levels than you seem to have for this data.

From the conclusions in that paper:

We have reconstructed new TSI satellite composites by using the three ACRIM
records and have shown that different composites are possible, depending on
how the ACRIM-gap problem from 1989.5 to 1992 is solved. Our three TSI
composites indicate that the TSI minimum in 1996 is 0.30 # 0.40 W/m2 higher
than the TSI minimum in 1986. On the contrary, the two TSI minima in 1986
and 1996 would be located at the same level only in the eventuality that the TSI
ERBS/ERBE satellite record is uncorrupted during the ACRIM-gap, a fact that
has been questioned by our analysis.

<snip>

None of the TSI satellite composites proposed by the ACRIM, IRMB, and
PMOD teams can be considered rigorously correct. All three teams have just
adopted alternative methodologies that yield to different TSI composites, but
these teams have also ignored the unresolved uncertainties in the data that
yields to an unresolved uncertainty in the TSI composites as well.

You will also note the claim in the paper concerning the inability to use models to determine the TSI in the gap, which is exactly what the "resolution" did and even used one of the models specifed as unsuitable.

_________________
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

Okay, Wayne.

What do you consider to be a significant increase between the minimas of a Solar Cycle?

We'll go from there.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Figure 8 is in the middle of the PDF file.

(Your quoted section from the paper)



This is what I have been saying this entire time.

This is what PMOD has done in their TSI analysis. They have used ERBE Data during the ACRIM Gap, which has been shown to disagree with the GCR Counts and the higher quality NIMBUS7 and ERB data during the ACRIM Gap. This in turn has led to PMOD producing a flat slope in their TSI analysis.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Something which is clearly an increase (i.e. above the measurement error bars) but three times the error range would be the normal minimum for a reportable point. Significant would be something in the range of >20% of the base measurement.

_________________
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

Ahhh yes, I see it this time. Had a little more time to look too.

Here is what they say:

The cosmic ray count is negative-correlated to TSI and magnetic flux, and its
minima correspond to solar activity maxima. Fig. 8 shows that the minimum
around 1991.5 was lower than the minimum around 1989.8e1990.5. This
implies that according to this record, the solar activity was likely higher around
1991.5 than around 1989.8e1990.5. This contradicts the pattern observed in
ERBS/ERBE and confirms the NIMBUS7/ERB pattern, as Fig. 5 shows.
However, other solar indexes, such as the sunspot number index, present the
opposite scenario. It is unlikely that solar proxy indexes can be used to definitely
and precisely solve this issue.




No, it is not. You have claimed the record was corrupted and this statement indicates the question of corruption, which is significantly different. They allow for the eventuality of the record to be uncorrupted as an option.



And they also say the OTHER solar proxy indexes refute that correlation and that "it is unlikely solar proxy indexes can be used to definitely and precisely solve this issue" which leaves us with ACRIM showing a 0.3 +0.4 "increase", ICRMB showing a 0.15 +0.35 "increase", and PMOD showing no increase. Statistically these all seem to be the same since no trend can be determined because the measurements are so uncertain.

_________________
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

Okay, good. I'm glad we have something to go off of now.

Let's say this increase in TSI measured in IRMB/ACRIM could play a SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the recent Climate Change observed, especially since the Climate is sensitive to increased TSI.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... t_figs.pdf

Interestingly, they use the PMOD dataset and still can come to the conclusion that the Climate is sensitive to solar variability.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.