EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:15 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
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:22 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:

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

Here is what they say:

[i]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.
[b]However, other solar indexes, such as the sunspot number index, present the
opposite scenario.[u]




I think Scafetta is being too good of a scientist by trying to make more uncertainties than there actually are. :razz:

I'm not sure where he gets the idea that the Sunspot Numbers contradict the increase in TSI during the ACRIM Gap that both ACRIM and IRMB have. The GSSN dataset shows a positive slope, indicating that sunspots were increasing in this period when GCRs were decreasing, matching an increased slope in TSI during this period, which PMOD does not have, hence the flat slope.

http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_ACRIM_Gap_4p.jpg

Quote:
Statistically these all seem to be the same since no trend can be determined because the measurements are so uncertain.


And using that logic, you can't say the sun is not the driver of recent climate change, since everything is so uncertain.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

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.


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.


You can say anything, but the question is whether there is any real evidence to support what is said.

Quote:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_SORCE_v1.00_text_figs.pdf

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


That would be due to the use of decadonal solar cycle in comparison, not the attempt to compare a minima differential. The change in the cycle minima to maxima is greater than the uncertainty of the measurements. Note the higher average temperatures occurred during and even after the lower portions of solar cycles.

_________________
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: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

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

Here is what they say:

[i]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.
[b]However, other solar indexes, such as the sunspot number index, present the
opposite scenario.[u]




I think Scafetta is being too good of a scientist by trying to make more uncertainties than there actually are. :razz:


Not when his measurement uncertainty is as high as it is and the differential is as low as it is. 8)


Quote:
Quote:
Statistically these all seem to be the same since no trend can be determined because the measurements are so uncertain.


And using that logic, you can't say the sun is not the driver of recent climate change, since everything is so uncertain.


Actually you can. Since the difference between the minima and maxima of the cycles is measurable above the uncertainty, that differential can be compared to the corresponding temperature differential to determine a sensitivity factor.

_________________
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: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

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

Here is what they say:

[i]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.
[b]However, other solar indexes, such as the sunspot number index, present the
opposite scenario.[u]




I think Scafetta is being too good of a scientist by trying to make more uncertainties than there actually are. :razz:


Not when his measurement uncertainty is as high as it is and the differential is as low as it is. 8)


Quote:
Quote:
Statistically these all seem to be the same since no trend can be determined because the measurements are so uncertain.


And using that logic, you can't say the sun is not the driver of recent climate change, since everything is so uncertain.


Actually you can. Since the difference between the minima and maxima of the cycles is measurable above the uncertainty, that differential can be compared to the corresponding temperature differential to determine a sensitivity factor.

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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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