Wayne Stollings wrote:
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?
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,
If you look at the graphs the ACRIM is the ONLY composite showing that increase, which makes it less supported than you claim.
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.
In a reply to me,
TSI increased SUBSTANTIALLY between the minima of SC 21 and 22 on ACRIM
Instead of resorting to deflections.
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.