My goodness, Muzzy, I see I hit a sore spot. You’ve shifted from stridently claiming the “truth” to stridently attacking me. Alas, the personal attacks don’t help your argument any.
Now, quoting from your cite:
Radiometrically it is based on the ACRIM-I and II records; before the
start of the ACRIM-I measurements in 1980, during the spin mode of SMM, and during the gap between ACRIM-I and II,
corrected HF data are inserted by shifting the level to fit the corresponding ACRIM data
In early 1996 the VIRGO data take over, again shifted to agree with ACRIMII.
Finally the composite record is adjusted via ACRIM-II to SARR (Space Absolute Radiometer Reference)
Read on, and you see where they note changing the base information as the various probes degraded, usually faster than expected, or filling in when the instruments were off for various lengths of time. I would also note that since these are satellite devices and not recoverable (with the exception of the one on the Space Station, but even that has not been recalibrated), this degradation correction factor is inherently inaccurate, since they did not have the instrument back to check against the calibration standard how bad it had slipped.
So, you have bugger factors applied to account for the fact that each instrument read differently, their decay in the solar wind and then changing these derived values to a new standard. By this time, any information is thoroughly buggered up.
I would also note that the Telegraph would be considered a center-left paper here, and that attacking the paper’s political stance does not invalidate the article. Do you have a cite that can stand up to the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research? No, otherwise you would have already trotted it out.
Again: Dr. Solanki vs. Doctored Data.]]>