From the FECYT – Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology via Eurekalert comes this interesting note about solar forcing. It seems there’s a 2.3% per decade increase in solar radiation observed in Spain. Surely this is more than enough to account for the warming there? Cloud cover is said to be the issue, as Dr. Roy Spencer has previously pointed out, it only takes a small amount of cloud cover change to make a warming trend. – Anthony
Spain receives ever more solar radiation
Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3% every decade since the 1980s, according to a study by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds, which has increased the amount of direct radiation reaching us from the Sun.
“The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of + 3.9 W m-2 [2.3% more] per decade.” This is the main conclusion of a study published in the magazine ‘Global and Planetary Change‘ by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH, Switzerland).
The season-by-season data show the same “significant” increase in solar radiation impacting the nation: + 6.5 W/m2 per decade during the summer, + 4.1 W/m2 in autumn, + 3.2 W/m2 in spring and + 1.7 W/m2 in winter.
“These data relate to global solar radiation, in other words the increase in direct radiation reaching us from the Sun plus diffuse radiation which is scattered previously by clouds, atmospheric gases and aerosols,” explains one of the authors, Arturo Sánchez-Lorenzo, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Girona.
What is intriguing is that the scientists found a decrease in the diffuse component, because of which direct radiation has increased to a proportionately higher degree. Only in 1991 and 1992 did diffuse radiation rise, and this was due to the ashes from Mount Pinatubo. In general, however, we can observe a downward trend of – 2.1 W/m2 per decade between 1985 and 2010.
VIDEO: Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s.Click here for more information.
“The explanation lies in the fact that in Spain the amount of cloud has decreased markedly since the 1980s – as we have ascertained through other studies – and the tropospheric aerosol load may also have decreased,” states Sánchez Lorenzo. “It seems to be very simple: fewer clouds result in higher solar radiation on the surface,” he continues.
According to the scientists, this increase may also go hand in hand with more ultraviolet rays, an excess of which presents a health risk, potentially leading to skin cancer.
More global brightening
The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”. The fall in the diffuse component has also been observed in Central European and Eastern countries.
The team behind the study has not yet analysed the solar radiation data for 2011-2013 provided by the Spanish State Meteorological Agency, but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.
“Studies such as these may be of interest to the solar energy industry, especially in countries like Spain, where not only do we already have a lot of direct solar radiation but now we are getting even more,” affirms one of the other authors, Josep Calbó, who is a professor at the University of Girona.
References:
A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild. “Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends”. Global and Planetary Change 100: 343–352, 2013.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cleaner Air.
“Cleaner air brings better views, more sunshine and warmer summer days in the Netherlands”
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~delde102/CleanerAirBetterViewsMoreSunshine.pdf
Having solar panels everywhere is going to make solar changes too obvious to hide. This should be amusing.
This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…
Frack Nation on SunTV tonight…it’s the premiere
The increasing sunshine must be the reason that folks are still skiing in the Pyranees. This is more fantasy from the Chicken Little group.
Frack Nation on SunTV…
The premiere
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm
This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…
========================================
Why are you comparing regional surface solar radiation changes to Global effects from the sun?
There’s some evidence that Global albedo decreased during the late 20th Century, in line with increasing solar activity, and increased slightly during the early-21st Century, in line with decreasing Solar Activity: lsvalgaard says:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/S9NdJYv-UjI/AAAAAAAABLI/jkMTUSYQ6pc/s1600/weatherAlbedo2007.jpg
Global warming is based on a positive feedback from a reduction in cloud optical thickness letting more solar radiation in. The feedback assumption is about 0.75 W/m2 per 1.0C increase in temperatures.
The cloud feedback is less than the water vapor feedback but it is still a make or break factor in the theory. Lower feedback values significantly reduce the eventual climate sensitivity. At 50% of the assumption, the CO2 sensitivity falls by about 0.6C. At a negative feedback value of the same amount (and we don’t really know if clouds will be a positive or negative feedback), the climate sensitivity falls by 1.5C.
This study might indicate it is, indeed, a strong positive feedback. Or maybe it is actually the aerosol reduction that caused the changes in solar radiation rather than temperatures affecting clouds.
Just eyeballing the data – what’s the trend since 2005?
Snowlover123 says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Why are you comparing regional surface solar radiation changes to Global effects from the sun?
The article says:
“The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”. The fall in the diffuse component has also been observed in Central European and Eastern countries.”
So …. the pain in Spain comes mainly from the gain ….
a scandal brewing:
6 June: News Ltd. Australia: AAP: Program sparks broader legionnaires’ fears
CONCERNS have been raised about the safety of thousands of hot water systems, amid a deadly outbreak of legionnaires’ disease at a Brisbane hospital…
One patient has died and another is in intensive care after being infected at the hospital.
The legionella bacteria has been found in taps at the hospital and an electrical engineer has linked the outbreak to a state government energy efficiency program.
The electrician, who worked on the government’s defunct Climate Smart program, says the hot water system at the Wesley was turned down to 50 degrees to save power.
He said the government ignored warnings that the move could encourage the growth of harmful bacteria in hot water systems…
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-early-end-to-qld-legionnaires-outbreak/story-e6frfku9-1226659037176#ixzz2VTZNB9HB
6 June: ABC Australia: Legionnaires’ disease outbreak: Wesley Hospital took more than a week to notify Queensland Health
But a Brisbane electrician who worked for the State Government’s now defunct Climate Smart Program says anyone who used that service would have had their hot water system temperatures reduced to 50C to save energy…
“Anybody that had the Climate Smart service had the temperature of their hot water system reduced [from] 65 to 70 degrees down to 50.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-07/electrician-says-efficiency-program-put-homes-businesses-at-risk/4739254
I’m not a climatologist, so I ‘d welcome any correction or explanation. My understanding is that cloud cover will reflect a certain amount of the sun’s rays back into space and will also reflect heat rising from the earth back toward earth. The former effect promotes cooling, while the latter effect promotes warming. Which is greater? Does the impact of greater cloud cover in the net produce more warming or more coolilng?
Well remember that “an increase in clouds” (or a decrease) means for some climate significant time scale; not just last night’s weather.
More clouds reflects, and blocks more sunlight, which therefore will never reach the deep ocean storage bin.
If those clouds get warmed by LWIR from the surface, they will simply radiate to space even faster.
According to Frank Wentz et al, a 1 deg. C increase in global surface Temperature gives a 7% increase, in global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and global precipitation. Perish the thought that such increases might be accompanied by about a 7% increase in cloudiness (in total area, total density, and total persistence time, in some combination).
I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. They can’t transport “heat energy” back to the surface; they can only lose it to space.
I have the same question as David in Cal.
Cloud cover means it is cooler during daytime but warmer at nightime
Dr Spencer also alluded to this in one of his recent posts. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/surface-radiation-budget-wheres-the-proof/
The Wild, et al presentation of an analysis of over 40 BSRN sites revealed an increase of 3 w/m per decade of shortwave radiation from 1992 to 2012 and an increase of 2 w/m per decade of long wave down welling radiation. The global brightening and dimming cycle appears to also be a sixty year cycle and look a lot like the PDO/AMO combination cycle that Joe always points to. It looks to me that the brightening peaked about the same time (2005) that the North Atlantic heat content did.
Lukewarmers cognitive dissonance. The conviction that CO2 has a moderate effect on warming (of say 0.7-1.5 K per doubling of CO2) is increasingly difficult to maintain. A few days ago WUWT presented a study involving CFC’s and cosmic rays that claimed there’s essentially no signal from CO2. Others show that weather patterns (such as PDO) or solar activity patterns essentially account for all the warming since 1900. Of course, all this can be linked and I have not tried to separate cause and effect. Still, where is the CO2 signal. I know Roy Spencer is al but mocking the guys who are “slaying the sky dragon” and he does that with more than just thought experiments. However, there is something really strange going on even for us lukewarmers. Where is the CO2 signal? We cannot possibly maintain that there is a climate sensitivity of about 1K and at the same time find that the warming during the 20th century was caused by everything else but CO2. Can we?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…”
Leif, I understand what you are implying, that a weaker sun seems to be correlated with FEWER clouds, not more, the opposite of the hypothesis that a weaker sun will let in more cosmic rays, create more cloud condensation nuclei, and therefore more clouds.
But there are three things to keep aware of:
1. The sun has only been weaker for less than a decade, while the increase in sunlight, and the decrease in cloud cover, in Spain has occurred in every decade since the 1980s.
2. Spain isn’t the world, it is one data point.
3. The decrease in pollution has been worldwide since the late 1980s, and the solar brightening started around 1990; thus the increase in sunlight correlates better with the decrease in sulfate and other human emissions that block sunlight and help clouds form.
Summary: one place doesn’t really tell us anything, but IF it did, it would be more likely to say that reducing sulfate warmed the planet, as opposed to a weakening sun failed to increase cloud cover.
But in reality….this study doesn’t really tell us much at all about worldwide cause and effect for temperatures, it just is an interesting data point.
John says:
June 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm
2. Spain isn’t the world, it is one data point.
The article says:
“The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”.
Don’t you read the articles?
John says:
June 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm
2. Spain isn’t the world, it is one data point.
More on this:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
I guess it’s about the position of the polar front. Spain did have huge problems a few years ago with little rain and rivers drying up. Means less low pressures(rain) and more high pressures(dry)?
stuart L says:June 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm
I have the same question as David in Cal.
Cloud cover means it is cooler during daytime but warmer at nightime
If you don’t get the heat during the day, there is less heat to retain at night, resulting in overall cooling.
We see this phenomenon in the Arctic sea ice data. The rate of change between peaks (spring and fall slope) doesn’t change so much year over year, but the duration of the melt season has grown over time. The date for X m2 is earlier on decline and later on recovery for all values of X. The obvious conclusion is the air is cleaner and there is more insolation at the high latitudes. Surely there are other conclusions. But if the Earth were warming year over year one would expect a change in slope.
The rise in atmospheric pressure observed in temperate regions of both hemispheres since the climatic shift of the 1970s has been well documented (Leroux). It is the result of renewed higher pressure anticyclones moving deeper toward the equator that feed stronger anticyclonic agglutinations, typical of a rapid mode of circulation observed during cooling periods. Thus one can expect wider areas with fewer clouds and increased insolation even if the solar output is weakening, as this paper presents. As seen in South America for a few years now, winter weather tends to be clearer sky with plummeting temperatures. Russia, China and Western Europe have also experienced strong cold snaps (Moscow had its coldest winter in a century about two years ago). Meanwhile in summer we have seen heat waves in both hemispheres (USA, Russia, and Australia). These regional extreme temperatures are a consequence of these high pressure agglutinations.
That all this happens during a weakening of solar output is in fact very logical. But since we have been repeatedly told by eminent solar scientists that the TSI variations cannot alone account for climatic shifts, this suggests that more research could focus on mechanisms that could amplify small variations in order to directly influence the nature and speed of atmospheric circulation beyond the known astronomical longer term changes.
BTW there is an interesting debate on Jo Nova’s blog about lunar influence on climatic cyclical variations such as ENSO. Obviously the science is not settled.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/can-the-moon-change-our-climate-can-tides-in-the-atmosphere-solve-the-mystery-of-enso/#comment-1282843
For amateurs who like to play climate science the essential requirement is to understand N. Atlantic; it is assumed that professionals do.
Spanish weather is governed by the atmospheric pressure in the nearby Atlantic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-AI.htm
Data from Azores show that the winter pressure is driven by Icelandic Low (Reykjavik pressure is inverted) while in the summer since 1980s, there is a total disconnect between two.
Why would this occur?
Icelandic Low in the summer months has been progressively weaker and moving further north ( cause: solar-geological ).
There are time lags involved, but current data show that reversals of the previous 30 year trends are taking place. Some will attribute this to strong presence of the ~60 year cycle in the N. Atlantic.