Your comment about Wild's commentary report in the JGR is short but
not sweet. The reference to the ERBE data is to an article in the AGU
newspaper, EOS, which is not archived on the AGU site before 2003.
Thus, one can not go back and read the article without treking into
some musty university library that might still have real books on the
shelf.
That said, I happen to have spent time looking at the ERBE scanner
data from the late 1980's. The wide field scanner suffers a basic flaw
in that it can not intercept radiation with an entrance angle outside
it's field of view. This is a particularly important problem over the
polar regions, where the reflection of SW from sunlight is strongly
dependent on the angle of incidence and thus a significant fraction of
the energy wasn't measured. I wrote a paper at the time in which I
pointed out this problem.
Your reference also notes that there is some disagreement regarding
the accuracy of the ISCCP data, noting:
"For example, the substantial decadal changes in the extended
cloud cover records from ISCCP, used as input in all above mentioned
satellite-derived SSR products, are controversial and may be spurious,
presumably owing to changes in the satellite viewing angles"
If you expect to be believed, you better go back and dig much deeper
into the data...
E. S.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert I Ellison wrote:
> Is this a new approach? People have been saying for many years that
> the climate record is characterised by change - indeed by abrupt
> change - rather than stability. What record warming? 2010 is in
> striking distance of 1998 and rapidly cooling - it seems doubtful that
> there will be any statistically significant difference. The monthly
> peak is clearly and emphatically still in early 1998 -ENSO related
> warming.
>
> Until natural variability is understood - particularly the connection
> of ENSO and clouds in decadal timescales (see for instance
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19136615) there is little
> prospect of understanding anthropogenic climate risk.
>
> Mere evidence by scientists? This is one I have just read on decadal
> surface solar variability - http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf.
> And if you have a look at both the ISCCP-FD and ERBE SW(up) datasets -
> there is clearly a decrease in reflected SW (less cloud) from the
> 1980's to the 1990's.
>
> You are holding fast to ideas that are 100 years old. It seems very
> much like new information doesn't challenge these ideas at all - it
> seems very much like cognitive dissonance.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
