My good friend Jim Goodridge, former state climatologist for California, came to visit yesterday to offer some help on my upcoming trip, as well as to talk shop a bit about the state of affairs on climate change.
He had previously authored a paper that I had hoped to present on his behalf at ICCC, but unfortunately it got excluded from the schedule by an omission. Yesterday he decided to rework that paper to bring out it’s strongest point.
One of the best and simplest ways of seeing the solar connection is to look at accumulated departure. Here is Jim’s essay on the subject:
Solar – Global Warming Connection
Jim Goodridge
State Climatologist (Retired)
jdgoodridge – (at) – sbcglobal dot net
March 22, 2008
Solar irradiance has been monitored from satellites for three sunspot cycles. The sunspot numbers and solar irradiance were shown to be highly correlated. Since sunspot numbers have been increasing since 1935 the irradiance must also be increasing.
The sun was once considered to be constant in its output, hence the term “Solar Constant”. Recent observations suggest that the sun is a variable star. Observations of solar irradiance have been made with great precision from orbiting satellites since about 1978. These observations are from Wikipeda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
They clearly indicate that the solar irradiance varies with the historic sunspot numbers:
Click for a larger graph
Click for a larger graph:
Using this relationship, 307 years of solar irradiance is easily inferred.
Sunspot numbers since 1700 were plotted as accumulated departure from average in order to compare them with weather variables. The sunspot number index indicates a declining trend for the 1700 to 1935 period and an increase from 1935 to 2008. The eleven-year cycle is clearly visible.
An increase in sunspot activity, and by inference, irradiance since 1935 is plainly indicated.
Moderators note: And I want to also call attention to these graphs, which shows the change in solar irradiance since 1611 and Geomagnetic activity over the last 150 years:
Clearly, solar geomagnetic activity has been on the rise. There will be more interesting posts on sunpots coming in the next week or two, stay tuned -Anthony
The graph showing sunspot numbers doesn’t seem to show any correlation to Earth’s surface temp. Example, numbers were very low in the 1930s when we know it was very warm, and high up until the last year or so when it was warmer. The numbers are also relatively high during the period of the LIA…
Already there are scientists who say we are entering a cooling phase.
The late Theodor Landscheidt predicted a LIA by 2030, meaning cooling should be starting by now. Dr Landscheidt had been correct with many of his predictions. Much of the climate is driven by solar activity, which often occurs in cycles. Cycles allow things to be predicted.
Just looking at the 3 cycles shown above, all the plotted indices track very closely until the most recent period. For this one, the trends are there, but the coupling is looser, especially for the Solar Flare Index, which is significantly lower. Based on more cycles, is this a significant variation?
AGWscoffer: I am less interested in what some “weather prophet” might have said in the past than I am in seeing the the current reality is accurately measured and presented to interested parties.
We seem to have a basic disconnect at the moment over the simple basic question if it is currently warming or cooling. Some will point to surface records and claim that 2006 was the hottest year since the founding of hell. Others will point to the satellite record and say that it has been cooling since 1998.
The problem is that no matter what anyone’s personal agenda, you can find data to validate the position. The data are all over the place.
Jeff
Never mind the obvious weather noise, just look at those 100 year warming trends. Recognize the argument?
Svalgaard refers to that as “dogma”.
Actually according to the sunspot data the earths temperature should have been in a plateau since 1950 rather than 1998. Something must have caused a cooling dip in that period and masked the warming. I’ve got it: sulphate aerosols. Thank God for the clean air act, we could have been in a new ice age. Speculation is such fun! All I need is to wrap it up in trendy Bayesian statistics to disguise the guesswork and stick a catastrophe on the end. Now let me see….. aha the Chinese emissions. If these cheeky 3rd world nations keep insisting on trying to becoming affluent like us, their aerosol emissions are going to plunge us into a new ice age. Get me Revkin on the phone.
Sunspot records in the past likely under counted because there a many small and/or shortlived spots that may have been missed by observers in the past.
If one is expecting a correlation between temperature and the cumulative solar radiation, than one should also found the solar cycle signal in the derivative of the temperature. I looked for it, and there is a (low amplitude) frequency in the signal of the derivative of the temperature that is equal to the frequency of the solar cycle.
Fascinating times, Anthony!
While it is too early to state exactly what is happening, IT IS TOO EARLY TO STATE EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING!!! ( Just a subtle, redundant message to James Hansen and the usual suspects in the IPCC bureau.)
This would be a good time for scientists to start being scientists again, and for politicians to step back and let the science work itself out. We need more and better data. We need better hypotheses and models–ones that are preferably falsifiable, this time.
I cannot understand that Sunspot “accumulated departure from average” graph, it shows lower values of the entire timeseries during the ’30, while sun activity increased in that period (and global temperature too), furthermore that values are lower than during the LIA, so what’s the utility of compute that?
I like the accumulated departure chart but it seems to me there has to be a time limit to it. It should only be the last 20 years or some other limited period rather than the entire period. The period chosen should also be based on a real physical explanation rather than chosen at random – the ocean stores the sun’s accumulated energy over a period of 20 years only etc. I don’t know what that period would be.
The second and third graphs show no real trend in irradiance since 1950, whereas temperatures have increased (according to e.g. GISS). This seems surprising if irradiance is the cause of the warming.
If accumulated sun-spot numbers is relevant, what is the explanation for an accumulative effect on the climate rather than an instantaneous one? In other words why is figure 3 more relevant than figure 2?
sorry, should have been second and fourth
John F. I think the “accumulated departure from average” records the difference in the observed number of sunspots since 1700 and the expected number of sunspots since 1700 (assuming 49.9 per year). The graph going up just means that there has been a period where there are more sunspots than average, but it DOES NOT mean that the number of sunspots (and therefore the TSI) has been increasing over that period.
It is certain that there is a correlation between climate and the sun, whether it is through radiation at light/heat wavelengths, ionising radiation, or even magnetic fields. Shouldn’t we be asking: What is the driving force? How do we quantify it? Can we use it to predict future climate?
Could it be that magnetism is the key? Take a look at the following link, maybe there is a mechanism relating Earth’s magnetic field to climate?
Coincidence?
Of course it could be that Earth’s magnetic field is being affected by climate change 😉
Anthony,
The 4th graph “Solar Irradiance 1611 – 2001” is by Judith Lean and she has since retracted that graph.
REPLY: I have not seen a retraction, can you point me to t?
The rationale to plot the accumulated departure from average of the solar spots is the following:
– the number of solar spots is (postulated to be) proportional to solar irradiance
solar irradiance=k1*n_spots
– heat content of the planet surface is (postulated to be) proportional to temperature
Heat=k2*T
– a simple model of the Earth system could be that the variation of the heat content of Earth is proportional to the solar irradiance
d(Heat)/dt=k3*solar irradiance
this gives:
dT/dt=k*solar spots
By integration one gets:
T=k*(acumulated solar spots)
or by other words, the heat content of Earth expressed by its temperature is proportional to the acumulated solar irradiance expressed by the acumulated number of solar spots.
Of course, this model is an aproximation. An obvious problem is that negative feedback effects should avoid a constant increase of temperature in reponse to solar irradiance.
REPLY: Thanks, I was waiting for Jim Goodridge to respond, but this worrks just as well.
As a backyard biologist, I have been watching few dozen of this years acorns growing up from this season’s “mast event”. Any thoughts of linking the wisdom of the trees to the lack of sunspots?
REPLY: yes I made a post on it last fall
see this: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/helio-la-nina-and-bad-winters-now-nuts/
Of course, people thought I was “nuts” for saying anythign about it. 😉
Kristen Byrnes: The IPCC used the Lean graph in their Figure 2.17. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2afh6hg&s=3
The lower end of the gray range is the graph shown above.
If I understand Joe D’Aleo correctly it’s not just the change in sunspots but how the oceans deal with the heat. The strawman argument used by the Alarmists is that there is no immediate effect on temps correlating with changes in sunspot activity. Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t the oceans take up to decades to redistribute the heat from the changes in albedo? And aren’t the stronger ocean cycles like the PDO and AMO the most likely arbiters of the planet’s temps
Somebody help a civilian out here! 🙂
I am not a scientist but I notice that at the spring equinox the temperature is much cooler than it was at the fall equinox. That said it would seem that the temperature lags the amount of solar radiance striking the earth at any particular time. Seasonal change may not be revelant but is an example of how the solar activity might effect the climate but that the climate might lag the solar activity by some time. Possibly by years. As the oceans warm or cool and how they store the heat or release it due to currents and phases. I wonder how long it takes the ocean to cool enough to effect land temperatures after the solar activity reduces. Also how long it takes for the oceans to warm enough to effect land temperatures after the activity increases.
I think this is an area that needs more study. I am not sure that we are being told the whole story about what is known about the effects of the sun.
I hope this makes sense as I am partially venting.
Anthony you may snip as desired
thanks
Bill
I guess there is a coronal hole causing some flux in the geomagnetic field, off and on. Nothing big being predicted for the next month.
27-day Space Weather Outlook Table
# Issued 2008 Mar 18
#
# UTC Radio Flux Planetary Largest
# Date 10.7 cm A Index Kp Index
2008 Mar 19 70 5 2
2008 Mar 20 70 5 2
2008 Mar 21 70 5 2
2008 Mar 22 70 5 2
2008 Mar 23 70 5 2
2008 Mar 24 70 5 2
2008 Mar 25 70 10 3
2008 Mar 26 70 20 5
2008 Mar 27 70 25 5
2008 Mar 28 70 20 5
2008 Mar 29 70 8 3
2008 Mar 30 70 5 2
2008 Mar 31 70 5 2
2008 Apr 01 70 5 2
2008 Apr 02 70 5 2
2008 Apr 03 70 5 2
2008 Apr 04 70 15 4
2008 Apr 05 70 25 5
2008 Apr 06 70 15 4
2008 Apr 07 70 10 3
2008 Apr 08 70 15 4
2008 Apr 09 70 15 4
2008 Apr 10 70 12 3
2008 Apr 11 70 10 3
2008 Apr 12 70 5 2
2008 Apr 13 70 5 2
2008 Apr 14 70 5 2
Al Gore’s Powerpoint presentation shows a strong correlation between temperature and CO2. But the problem is that the cause and effect relationship is backward; the temperature change preceeds the CO2 change. So CO2 can’t be causing the warming.
The problem with the sunspot data is that it doesn’t seem to correlate with the temperature data. In these graphs temperature is not even shown for comparison. When I plot sunspot numbers and temperature for the last 100 years there just doesn’t seem to be a relationship. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but I just don’t see the connection. So for the time being I remain a skeptic on both theories.
“Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable …”
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.” ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html