Guest post by Bob Tisdale
IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings
Or The Sun Also Can’t Explain the Warming in the Early Part of the 20th Century
INTRODUCTION
In two previous posts, AGW Proponents Are Two-Faced When It Comes To Solar Irradiance As A Climate Forcing and Climate Modelers Reproduce Early 20th Century Warming With The Help Of Outdated Solar Forcings, I illustrated the basic errors that arise when GCMs use outdated TSI reconstructions while simulating 20th Century surface air temperatures. The problem results because the obsolete TSI reconstructions assumed that solar cycle minimums varied significantly, but the current understanding is that solar cycle minimums are, in fact, relatively flat. That is, minimum TSI level during the Dalton Minimum is no lower than the minimum TSI levels during late part of the 20th Century. This can be seen in the comparison chart available from Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University, Figure 1. The current understanding of TSI variability is identified as Svalgaard. Note in Figure 1 that the Preminger TSI dataset also does not have the large variation in solar cycle minimums.
This is discussed in Preminger and Walton (2005) “A New Model of Total Solar Irradiance Based on Sunspot Areas”.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022839.shtml
The other datasets with large variations in solar cycle minima are no longer considered valid.
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
Figure 1
And there are many more climate studies that use the erroneous TSI datasets, including those employed by the IPCC.
THE IPCC USED “QUESTIONABLE” TSI DATA FOR ITS 20th CENTURY CLIMATE SIMULATIONS IN AR4
In Chapter 2, “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing”, page 190 (page 62 of 106 of the following pdf file) of the IPCC’s AR4, the IPCC first describes the three assumptions or motivations for the existence of long-term variability in TSI, and in the next paragraph, they state, “Each of the above three assumptions for the existence of a significant long-term irradiance component is now questionable.” Refer to:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
Then in their Supplementary Materials to Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, the IPCC identifies the TSI reconstructions used by the modelers in their table “S9.1. Models used in chapter 9 to evaluate simulations of 20th century climate change with both anthropogenic and natural forcings and with natural forcings only”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9-supp-material.pdf
The IPCC Table S9.1 is shown as Figure 2. And what TSI reconstructions does the IPCC list for the 20th Century Climate Simulations? The ones they consider “questionable”, of course.
http://s5.tinypic.com/aouzpi.jpg
Figure 2
The key to the solar forcings follows.
Even GISS acknowledges the problems with the use of the Lean et al data in the Hansen et al (2007) paper “Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE”. They state, “Lean et al. (2002) call into question the long-term solar irradiance changes, such as those of Lean (2000), which have been used in many climate model studies including our present simulations. The basis for questioning the previously inferred long-term changes is the realization that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance.” Following that, GISS goes on to explain the reasons for their continued use of the erroneous TSI data set, “The fact that proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply long-term irradiance change does not mean that long-term solar irradiance change did not occur.” Refer to:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
(Note: The Hansen et al file is 24MB.)
IPCC KEY TO SOLAR FORCINGS AND REFERENCES
The following is the IPCC’s Key to the Solar forcings and references from page SM.9-12 of the Supplement to Chapter 9 of AR4:
####
SOL = solar irradiance
L95: Lean et al. (1995).
L95 (C00): temporally varying solar constant based on Lean et al. (1995) (Crowley, 2000).
L00: Lean (2000).
L02: Lean et al. (2002).
HS: Hoyt and Schatten (1993).
SK: Solanki and Krivova (2003).
####
Data for the two Lean and the Hoyt and Schatten reconstructions are easy to track down. The Lean et al (1995) data is available here:
The Lean (2000) data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Note that there is a dataset included in Lean (2000) in which the minimums do not vary significantly. It is listed in the second column and identified as “11yrCYCLE”.
The Hoyt and Schatten (1993) data is part of the TSI reconstruction and composite comparison by Leif Svalgaard. It’s available in .xls format here, listed as Hoyt:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls
The Crowley (2000) paper listed in the IPCC references is “Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5477/270
Crowley (2000) refers to a version of the Lean et al (1995) data: “An updated version of a reconstruction by Lean et al. (5) that spans the interval 1610-1998 was used to evaluate this mechanism.” The 1995 and 2000 versions of the Lean reconstruction are part of this post, and since I’ll be looking primarily at the effect of the data from 1900 to 1940, how Lean Crowley updated the last few years of data is not pertinent.
The Solanki and Krivova (2003) paper referenced by the IPCC is “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?”
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
The data from Solanki and Krivova (2003) is difficult to find online (or I haven’t yet found it yet). The Solanki and Krivova (2003) data, however, is described by the National Center for Scientific Research (France) as, “The basic solar constant time series for the 20th Century simulations is constructed by Solanki and Krivova (2003). This data set is characterised by a 2-3 W/m2 increase in solar constant since the Maunder minimum. In the period 1850-2003 most of the total rise of about 1.5 W/m2 takes place in the period 1900-1950. Furthermore the solar cycle (and the variations therein over time) is included. The Solanki and Krivova (2003) time series is very similar to Lean (2000) but with some minor differences, mainly pre 20th century.”
http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/ensembles/public/data/Descriptionsolar.doc
Again, I’ll be illustrating the effect of the erroneous data on the first part of the 20th Century, so any “pre 20th century” differences don’t come into play.
ADDITIONAL COMPARISONS OF TSI DATA USED BY THE IPCC
Figure 3 is a graph of the current understanding of the long-term variations in TSI, represented by the Svalgaard data (purple). Also included are the reconstructions of Hoyt and Schatten (green), Lean et al 1995 (blue), and Lean 2000 (red). The data begins in 1851.5 and runs the length of the individual datasets. The two Lean datasets and the Hoyt and Schatten data are available through the above links. The Svalgaard TSI data is also included in the linked spreadsheet from Leif.org. It’s referred to as the Leif data in Column C.
Note how sharply the Hoyt and Schatten (green) data rises from 1890 to 1950, but the current understanding of TSI variability is that there was no rise in the solar cycle minimums as illustrated by the Svalgaard (purple) curve. The two Lean datasets also have a significant rise from 1900 to 1960. I’ve “normalized” the Lean 1995 (blue) data in Figure 3 by subtracting 1.1 watts/meter^2 to show that it does follow the same general curve as the Lean 2000 data, with some minor differences, until SC20.
http://s5.tinypic.com/fp6qyp.jpg
Figure 3
AND WHAT EFFECT DOES THIS HAVE ON THE IPCC GCMs?
Assume for example that the GCMs are set to reflect the currently accepted climate sensitivity for variations in TSI, so that the minimum-to-maximum variation in the past three solar cycles results in a 0.1 deg C change in global temperature anomaly. If the solar cycle amplitude for those three cycles is approximately 1 watt/meter^2, then the scaling factor is 0.1. So in Figure 4, the TSI datasets have been scaled by that amount.
http://s5.tinypic.com/2mg6rll.jpg
Figure 4
The Hoyt and Schatten data would reflect a global temperature rise of approximately 0.3 deg C from 1890 to 1940, and that’s a significant portion of the actual rise in global temperature anomaly for the same period. The effect is the same for both Lean et al datasets, but to a lesser extent. But keep in mind, the rise in TSI minimums from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s does not exist. Refer again to the Svalgaard data.
And to refresh your memory on just how much global temperatures rose during the first part of the 20th Century, Figure 5 is a graph of HadCRUT3GL data from January 1850 to December 2007.
http://s5.tinypic.com/296kpdz.jpg
Figure 5
AND A LOOK AT TRENDS FROM 1900 TO 1940
Figure 6 compares trends in the scaled TSI data of the Svalgaard dataset from 1900 to 1940 to the trends of the three other TSI datasets. Again, the datasets have been scaled by a factor of 0.1 to reflect the impact of TSI on global temperatures. Due the variations in the solar cycle maximums, there is a slight trend in the Svalgaard data of ~0.009 deg C/decade from 1900 to 1940. The trend due to the incorrect variations in solar cycle minimums, on the other hand, for the Lean 2000 data is approximately ~0.026 deg C/decade, and for the Lean et al 1995 data, it’s ~0.027 deg C/decade. Then there’s the Hoyt and Schatten data with a trend from 1900 to 1940 of ~0.056 deg C/decade.
http://s5.tinypic.com/t7bknm.jpg
Figure 6
CLOSING COMMENT
As noted in past posts and in blog comments on this subject, if the natural climate forcings used to recreate the temperature rise in the first part of the 20th Century are erroneous, then the anthropogenic forcings used to recreate the global temperature variations in the latter part should not be assumed to be correct.
You have a semi-empirical model that’s focused on the oceanic cycles.
Does adding the best of the TSI estimates to your model (after fitting to find the best scaling factors) improve your model’s fit more than the simple ‘hey, I added a variable, that always makes things better’ factor would predict?
IOW: If you added Constant*(Svalgaard-TSI) to your ENSO model, would that addition be merited statistically?
WUWT just gets better and better.
Bob Tisdale’s post simply proves the axiom: garbage in, garbage out.
When will Congress realize that important decisions are being made with long range consequences on the basis of broadly erroneous data and faulty analysis?
P Folkens (20:08:46) :
WUWT just gets better and better.
Bob Tisdale’s post simply proves the axiom: garbage in, garbage out.
When will Congress realize that important decisions are being made with long range consequences on the basis of broadly erroneous data and faulty analysis?
I suspect that the validity and the providence of the data matter a lot less than the prospect of
[1] Extracting $$$Billions of indirect taxes via CO2 CAP and Trade, and
[2] Maintaining the political capital that has already been invested in the AGW Movement.
Bob,
I really get a lot out of your postings here and on your website – great stuff thanks.
This has made what Leif posts about regarding his reconstruction very much clearer it terms on how it differs from the earlier reconstructions and how people have the idea that the temperatures during the famous minimums were caused by the sun’s extended minimums.
So is this why many AGW supporters websites (and the IPCC, I think) state that in the early part of the 20th century the sun had more of an influence on temperatures than the in the latter part of the century?
Also, the Hadley pamphlet, which Lucia posted about on her website, appears to use the Lean TSI reconstruction too. ie their climate science is still in the early 20th century!! :]
“The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.
In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.”
Willie Soon
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2933
THE IPCC USED “QUESTIONABLE” TSI DATA FOR ITS 20th CENTURY CLIMATE SIMULATIONS IN AR4
Perhaps “iffy” might be the AGW Proponents Politically Correct term to use in this situation.
Steve Hempell (21:00:19) :
So is this why many AGW supporters websites (and the IPCC, I think) state that in the early part of the 20th century the sun had more of an influence on temperatures than the in the latter part of the century?
The solar connection is actually central to the AGW dogma as explanation for climate change before fossil fuels took off.
I still have trouble when I compare the re constructed TSI plots to the 11000 yr solar proxy record. One shows a floor or flat bottom, the other does not. Am I missing something?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/800px-sunspots_11000_yearssvg.png
0.5 % change in solar radiation absorbed by Earth per year may not sound like much but just in terms of energy, isn’t it roughly equivalent to 50 years of energy consumption by mankind at the present level?
Sorry… this is OT sort of, but the quote begs a question, possibly an important one.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27680
“In contrast to the Earth’s atmosphere [2], most, if not all, of Pluto’s atmosphere is thus undergoing a temperature inversion: the temperature is higher, the higher in the atmosphere you look. The change is about 3 to 15 degrees per kilometre. On Earth, under normal circumstances, the temperature decreases through the atmosphere by about 6 degrees per kilometre. “
They’re saying this is due to GHG’s. But if so, shouldn’t GHG’s work the same way here? The sign should at least be the same. Anyone? Bueller?
***
No idea where else to ask this… sorry for the hijack.
Geoff Sharp (22:38:13) :
I still have trouble when I compare the re constructed TSI plots to the 11000 yr solar proxy record. One shows a floor or flat bottom, the other does not. Am I missing something?
plot just the last 400 years and the sunspot number and ask again. The proxy is 10 year averages and includes a fair amount of noise so you would not expect detailed correspondence.
G Alston (22:59:11) :
“In contrast to the Earth’s atmosphere [2], most, if not all, of Pluto’s atmosphere is thus undergoing a temperature inversion: the temperature is higher, the higher in the atmosphere you look. The change is about 3 to 15 degrees per kilometre. On Earth, under normal circumstances, the temperature decreases through the atmosphere by about 6 degrees per kilometre. “
Same with the Earth actually. The temperature 100 km up and higher is of the order of 1000 degrees.
OT A British Government minister Douglas Alexander said a on a TV programme (Question Time) last night that “Climate Change was the vehicle for creating jobs in the recession”. Sounds like it is being used as an excuse to keep unemployment figures down. I wonder if they actually believe in Climate Change at all. Lots of expensive green technology.
Regarding the comment from G Alston (22:59:11) :
I have asked a similar question before in the comments at WUWT, but without a satisfactory answer. If GHG’s absorb energy that should normally go to space, then the excess heat is deposited in the atmosphere. In turn that will heat the surface some. While I wouldn’t expect the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface, it would seem that the AGW hypothesis ought to dictate a greater temperature anomaly for the atmosphere than for the surface. That isn’t the case. I would like to hear from Bueller too.
Denis Hopkins (23:44:59) wrote: “Climate Change was the vehicle for creating jobs in the recession”.
Extrapolating from that, Denis, your Gordon Brown could say he had seen the crash coming and so had this contingency plan in place…
I have read somewhere (maybe even here on WUWT) that the AGW GCMs have now become expert at GIGO.
Garbage in – Gospel Out.
If Leif Svalgaard is right about the relatively invariant sun, and if Nir Shaviv is right about the speed with which the oceans temperature changes in direct relation to solar forcing and the amplitude being an order of magnitude larger than TSI accounts for, then the amplification process must be terrestrial.
Nir Shaviv thinks changes in cloud cover are the most likely candidate, and the earthshine project data supports this in the short time it has been available.
I wonder if changes in the size of earths outer atmosphere would affect the cross sectional capture area for UV particularly, and whether this could have a measurable effect on effective insolation. I heard the ionosphere had shrunk quite a lot recently. Perhaps Leif could comment.
And here in Sydney, with “summer” just 6 days over, we had our coldest night this year last night, 6c below usual for this time of year.
Whenever I’ve argued the very point that Bob T makes on AGW blogs they’ve moved the goalposts. Tamino now suggests “lack of volcanic activity” as a major reason for early 20th century warming.
Apart for the early warming, they can’t explain the mid 20th century ‘cooling’. I note the aerosol theory is still being but forward, but the pattern of cooling (and warming) suggests this is not the case. The climatic effects of aerosols are, according to Mann & Jones, “regionally specific”. In other words the most industrialised regions should experience the greatest cooling. According to the zonal GIStemp record, the Arctic cooled around 1 deg between 1915 and 1944 which is around 4 times as much as other NH latitudes.
The so-called “Detection and Attribution” studies discussed in recent IPCC reports are, to quote an earlier poster, simply a case of “garbage in – garbage out”
So is this why many AGW supporters websites (and the IPCC, I think) state that in the early part of the 20th century the sun had more of an influence on temperatures than the in the latter part of the century?
Yes. They need to explain the large warming at a time atmospheric CO2 levels were still only around 300 ppm.
Leif Svalgaard (23:26:48) :
plot just the last 400 years and the sunspot number and ask again. The proxy is 10 year averages and includes a fair amount of noise so you would not expect detailed correspondence.
According to Usoskin and Solanki the last 400 years IS sunspot data taken from (Hoyt & Schatten 1998). 10 year averages would still show the prevailing trend.
Does this back up what I said about temperature monitoring in the 19th century? Cities back then had such dense smog from coal and wood fires that sunlight could not have possibly penetrated to ground level as well as it does today. This means their surface temperature monitoring in or near urban environments would have recorded temperatures lower than they should have been.
Thus much less warming has occurred in the 20th century and most of the recovery from the Little Ice Age was in the 19th century itself, and the recovery was as natural a process as the occurrence of the LIA in the first place.
An experiment needs to be run in which we perform temperature recording in a smog filled setting versus recording in the cleaner conditions we have had in the last half of the 20th century.
tallbloke (00:28:45) :
Would like to have a read of that Nir Shaviv paper tallbloke, is there a link or perhaps email me?
Alan S. Blue: You asked, “If you added Constant*(Svalgaard-TSI) to your ENSO model, would that addition be merited statistically?”
I’m going to presume the “ENSO Model” you’re referring to is the one I used to reinforce the “Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976?” post here at WUWT. It would have been Figure 21 in the following link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/12/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-2/
I wrote another post on for my blog titled “Reproducing Global Temperature Anomalies with Natural Forcings.”
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
The following link is Figure 4 from that post. It’s a gif animation of two scaled and ranged running totals of NINO3.4 SST anomaly data. One of the datasets is the running total only. In the other, I’ve added the scaled effects of TSI, using Sunspots as a proxy. (I haven’t found a long-term monthly TSI dataset yet.)
http://i42.tinypic.com/k50pd0.jpg
The next graph (the next graph in this comment, not in that post) I’ve taken those two running totals and added linear trends. From 1871 to 2007, the trend without the “solar adjustment” is approximately 0.067 deg C/decade, while the trend with the “solar adjustment” is 0.069 deg C/decade.
http://s5.tinypic.com/28r1a8p.jpg
A second way to determine the impact on linear trend would be to scale the Svalgaard TSI data for the period in question, as I did in Figure 6 of this post, and click on the EXCEL trend.
tallbloke (00:28:45): Did you mean “heliosphere” which has made a lot of news of late; or has the ionosphere gone down, too?
Michael D Smith has an interesting comment over at the Landscheidt blog, pointing out that since the Earth is orbiting the SSB and not the Sun there will be an additional variation to that caused by the ecliptic orbit (adding a little to what he said) It just happens that around 1880, 1940 and 2000 Jupiter and Saturn line up at the other side of the Sun (seen for earth) around mid summer, pulling the Earth a little closer to the Sun increasing the northern summer insolation (which to my understanding is quite important for exiting glacials)
John Finn: You wrote, “Whenever I’ve argued the very point that Bob T makes on AGW blogs they’ve moved the goalposts. Tamino now suggests “lack of volcanic activity” as a major reason for early 20th century warming.”
As you know, we had two significant volcanic eruptions at the end of the 20th Century, too. Take the Sato index of stratospheric aerosol optical depth from 1900 to 1999, invert it, scale it so that Mount Pinatubo results in a 0.35 deg C drop in global temperature in 1991, and then throw on a linear trend line. The trend is negative over the 20th century.
http://s5.tinypic.com/sgjvjm.jpg
If we limit the data to the period of 1900 to 1939, the trend turns positive, but it’s only 0.009 deg C/decade.
http://s5.tinypic.com/rhl9q9.jpg
In my reply to Alan S Blue above, I noted that I had written another post on for my blog titled “Reproducing Global Temperature Anomalies with Natural Forcings.”
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
The following link is to a gif from that post (Figure 7). It compares the reproduction with solar added to the reproduction with both solar and volcanic aerosols added. In it you can see that volcanic aerosols impacted global temperatures at both the beginning and end of the data, which would keep the effect of volcanic aerosols on long-term trends to a minimum.
http://i39.tinypic.com/w7fz7k.jpg
Steve Hempell: You wrote, “So is this why many AGW supporters websites (and the IPCC, I think) state that in the early part of the 20th century the sun had more of an influence on temperatures than the in the latter part of the century?”
And that’s precisely why the secondary title to the thread reads, “Or The Sun Also Can’t Explain the Warming in the Early Part of the 20th Century”.
Regards
I trust the work and opinion of Leif Svalgaard. The IPCC AR4 LOSU for solar irradiance is ‘low.’ Smaller changes in the Sun could mean the climate is more sensitive to solar factors, not less? The questions remain how does the Sun influence climate, and how much? Shaviv’s recent paper provides more evidence of a solar amplifier, that was also mentioned by Lockwood and Frohlich who dismissed it as not being relevant to climate change over the past 20 years, without actually knowing what it is.
Alan S Blue and John Finn: Another way to look at the available data: The following is a graph of HadCRUT3GL global temperature anomaly data versus scaled Sunspot Number as a proxy for TSI and Scaled Sato Index as a proxy for volcanic aerosols.
http://s5.tinypic.com/jszh4g.jpg
Just as solar cannot explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century, solar plus volcanic aerosols cannot explain the warming in the first half.
Aron, You wrote, “An experiment needs to be run in which we perform temperature recording in a smog filled setting versus recording in the cleaner conditions we have had in the last half of the 20th century.”
I believe some studies have been done, but in more recent times. Investigate “brown clouds.” Refer to:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/ABCSummaryFinal.pdf
Those researching brown clouds claim they “have resulted in surface dimming, atmospheric solar heating and soot deposition.” At least, that’s what I get out of it with a quick look. There are a chunk of references at the end of that link.
Regards
Aron said (00:50:47) :
“Does this back up what I said about temperature monitoring in the 19th century? Cities back then had such dense smog from coal and wood fires that sunlight could not have possibly penetrated to ground level as well as it does today. This means their surface temperature monitoring in or near urban environments would have recorded temperatures lower than they should have been.”
I have long made this pont and would make three observations;
1) Firstly the co2 levels that Beck researched from around 1830 were real and were at similar levels to today.
2) The advent of ‘AGW’ closely follows the enactments of Clean air acts around the industrialised world.
3) Co2 levels don’t have too much to do with anything, as this natural temperature variation has occurred throughout our recorded history and are particlarly well documented in the MWP and Roman warm periods.
Can someone give me a large grant to research it all please?
Tonyb
Roger Carr (00:15:35) :
Extrapolating from that, Denis, your Gordon Brown could say he had seen the crash coming and so had this contingency plan in place…
He will, Roger, he will. This is,after all, the man who claimed in Parliament that he’d saved the world.
“A British Government minister Douglas Alexander said a on a TV programme (Question Time) last night that “Climate Change was the vehicle for creating jobs in the recession”.”
Yes, they should create quite a few jobs with Heathrow’s extra runway and other airport expansions and the expansion to the roads networks (although that is an on again – off again deal, depending on which Minister one speaks to.)
Thanks Bob. I’m writing a long article now and that looks right up my alley. Will research it thoroughly before writing.
some of this debate seems strange: The acrim site http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm shows that even this modern data is still argued over, secondly data on their site and graphs show that there is plausibly a decrease in solar activity over the last minimums ie a negative minimum trend line.
acrim data is by no means resolved as different researchers use different parts of the data ie using low variance data sets to explain future temperauture trends as a result of carbon dioxide rather than solar activity.
The acrim site shows discrepencies over even the recent data which is argued over in different papers, also there is an increasing amount of well documented data that correlate solar activty (sunspoot recordss) and temperature time lines with, be and carbon data. These are collected from the poles and are intimately linked to solar activity in the poles.
Lastly the sun is likely to experience larger external variation than the earth is. Isn’t the position of the earths orbit and tilt important too especially at the poles with their thinner atmopshere) solar variation could matter more at the poles.
yours,
Do my eyes deceive me, or this a new SC23 spot I see right now?
Pierre Gosselin (05:01:19) :
Do my eyes deceive me, or this a new SC23 spot I see right now?
The saga continues….welcome to the Jose minimum.
Anthony and Leif, before this disappears among the other comments:
Anthony, thanks for posting this. Your audience is significantly larger than my normal one.
And Leif, thanks for discussing the outcome of your research here at WUWT. Your findings that solar minimums do not vary significantly continue to be overlooked (or avoided) by climate researchers.
lgl (02:12:20) :
since the Earth is orbiting the SSB and not the Sun there will be an additional variation to that caused by the ecliptic orbit
No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not influenced by where the barycenter happens to be. We had a long discussion on that a while back. Here is a diagram showing the purported distances to the SSB and the solar radiation [TSI] that should be received [from a paper by Alexander that we have also discussed extensively] http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and here http://www.leif.org/research/David11.png is a plot of what is actually measured [black curve] with red dots showing the SSB distance TSIs.
Pierre Gosselin (05:01:19) :
Do my eyes deceive me, or this a new SC23 spot I see right now?
Good ole SC24 is still with us [as it should be because of the overlap between cycles. There might be another SC23 spot [or two] in about a weeks time.
Geoff Sharp (00:49:50) :
According to Usoskin and Solanki the last 400 years IS sunspot data taken from (Hoyt & Schatten 1998). 10 year averages would still show the prevailing trend.
Make a plot with both series on the same graph for the last 400 years and ask again.
Frank Miles (04:59:26) :
data on their site and graphs show that there is plausibly a decrease in solar activity over the last minimums ie a negative minimum trend line.
That decrease [mainly seen in the PMOD data] is likely an artifact due to drift of the PMOD instrument. Here is a plot showing the difference between PMOD and SORCE [the latter having a better calibration] http://www.leif.org/research/Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png
When activists demand green jobs they mean government jobs for activists and the most fanatically devoted environmentalists. The plan being that they take over parts of government bureaucracy without ever having the need for parties like The Green Party to be elected. It shows their disdain for democracy and liberty that they want to take over government via the back door and then impose laws and regulations upon us to force us to live the way they want us to live.
If Green jobs meant just the creation of technology related jobs or services to improve home insulation or install solar panels, etc then they could start their own businesses to provide society with those solutions and services instead of demanding that government must do it.
Shows up in the magnetogram.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/
A baloon heated with a propane burner demonstrates many things, among others that it goes up with a “hot atmosphere” composed of all the objects of passion of GWrs: CO2, Water. (C3H8+5O2=3CO2+ 4H2O), and if the burner stops…you know what happens.
I am still asking myself how do the GWrs. manage to heat their feet with a bottle filled with CO2 gas instead of being filled with warm and friendly water.
Thanks TonyB
I am beginning to think that our whole temperature reconstruction before satellites is off and needs to be recalculated.
First of all the temperature reconstruction from ice core data is quite low resolution and a localised effect. It provides a very good insight into fluctuations but the reconstruction itself might be a little cooler than actual global temperature averages because ice core data is after all localised and low resolution as I said. I think that global temperatures should be ever so slightly warmer than the ice core record tells us.
Then comes thermometer readings from the 19th century onwards. For the first century these records are too cool because dense smog prevented sunlight from reaching ground level in urban and outlaying areas. The data is also very low resolution for that whole century. Here I think global temperatures should be warmer, almost close to present day readings. In other words, nearly all the recovery from the Little Ice Age happened in the 19th century, not the 20th.
From the mid 20th century until present the smog has cleared up but the Urban Heat Island effect has skewed data. The data becomes higher in resolution (meaning derived from more locations) but according to the Surface Station site most of the stations (marked in orange) are of poor quality (next to roads, runways, air conditioners, on rooftops, on asphalt, etc). This time I think the records should be leveling off from the 19th century warming and show us a mostly flat line.
From the 70s we get satellite data which shows warming mostly as an urban heat island effect with almost nothing going on in the troposphere even though carbon dioxide emissions are increasing at the fastest rate ever. This time I think we should see a little warming, mostly because of the growth of urban areas, but it begins to cool off around the turn of the millennium and then begins to cool to present day conditions.
That’s the basics of how I think a revision will look like. Currently we have a 19th to mid 20th century that looks colder than it should be and thus it seems we have more warming in the 20th century than has occured. Most of the recovery from the Little Ice Age would have thus occurred not long after the Dalton Minimum.
Aron (07:32:00) said
” Thanks TonyB
I am beginning to think that our whole temperature reconstruction before satellites is off and needs to be recalculated.”
Anyone who posts here will have noted my huge scepticism about the concept of global temperatures and the reliabilty of temperatures back to 1850 based on a small number of ever changing unreliable stations, many now set against a backdrop of UHI.
Personally I much prefer National temperature databases and have been collecting them for publication here in the near future. These still need to be treated with a pinch of salt but their individual shortcomings-if any- can be recognised better than some global temperature where lots of datasets have been poured in.
This is Hadley CET back to 1660-unsmmothed and unfiltered..
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
The enormous temperature variations prior to increased levels of co2 can be readily seen, many of which approach todays even though they are mostly within the LIttle Ice Age. I think it perfectly reasonable to believe that temperatures would have been higher without smog as a sunnier climate is likely to result in greater warmth.
Tonyb
[snip NO MORE DISCUSSIONS OF BARYCENTRISM – Anthony ]
From previous comments, I now see that SOHO’s site is back with the living. That’s a petty good looking little speck, considering how weak the magnetogram’s looking. Saw that the spot was noted by Catania but not yet by the SWPC. In fact it does look to be SC23; just north of the equator and while not really unambiguous, the white is slightly leading the black.
Geoff Sharp (00:52:15) :
Would like to have a read of that Nir Shaviv paper tallbloke, is there a link or perhaps email me?
Drop me an email Geoff.
TonyB,
Gosh, if Hadley CET that you posted was smoothed it would be almost exactly as I proposed above. Thanks for that!
Roger Carr (02:05:23) :
tallbloke (00:28:45): Did you mean “heliosphere” which has made a lot of news of late; or has the ionosphere gone down, too?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/As+globe+warms,+atmosphere+may+shrink-a021227591
From 1958 through 1995, the average ionosphere height dropped by 8 km, according to the group’s report in the Sept. 1 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH Journal of Geophysical Research is a publication of the American Geophysical Union. JGR was formerly titled Terrestrial Magnetism from its founding by the AGU’s president Louis A.
“There does appear to be a global reduction in the altitude of the ionosphere. The best explanation is linked to the increase in greenhouse gases,” says Martin J. Jarvis of the British Antarctic Survey Based in Cambridge, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) is the United Kingdom’s national Antarctic operator and has an active role in Antarctic affairs. BAS is part of the Natural Environment Research Council and has over 450 staff. in Cambridge, England.
Well of course it is Martin, here’s your additional research funding…
[snip NO MORE DISCUSSIONS OF BARYCENTRISM – Anthony ]
This is cool. A couple of days ago I started, but didn’t finish, writing a post on listing the reasons why I don’t buy into the dooms-day version of the AGW theory. One of the things I mentioned was the comparative warming trends between 1910 through 1940, and the current warming cycle. If you look at the graph they have about the same slope (actually I think the first has a higher temp rise rate than the current warming trend). My contention was that causes of the 1910 – 40 warming period had not been explained with any degree of certainty. Now I have more amo for that contention. Now maybe I’ll finish that post.
“Do my eyes deceive me, or this a new SC23 spot I see right now?”
aHA! A Tiny Tim Geithner spot!
Re: Leif (22:07:36) “The solar connection is actually central to the AGW dogma as explanation for climate change before fossil fuels took off.”
Applying the AGW dogma, should not Mars with its 90% CO2 atmosphere be a tropical paradise? What else is involved besides distance from the sun that keeps Mars so cold?
Please except the fact that this old lay person is trying to learn despite being rather cynical.
The data from Solanki and Krivova (2003) is difficult to find online (or I haven’t yet found it yet).
I received an email from Dr Krivova pointing to the data sets for the
Solanki and Krivova (2003) paper:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1700.txt
Column titles are on:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html
[snip NO MORE DISCUSSIONS OF BARYCENTRISM – Anthony ]
Hey WUWT, it would be nice if you had a little bio next to the author’s name so we can see his/her’s credentials and experience.
REPLY: sure I’ll just code that in my free time and as everyone to setup their own bio. Yeah that’ll work
If I recall, the IPCC4 did include a questioning of the Lean data sets, preferring Muscheler’s interpretation of minimal solar influence – but his work was 2005-2007, and IPCC did not comment on where such a revision left all the models that had incorporated Lean.
They also mentioned the work of Wielicki and Wild showing that ‘global dimming’ was not a human pollutant caused phenomenon – because it occurred simultaneously in many global and unpolluted areas as well as cloud free areas – meaning it was caused by natural aerosol loadings (and not volcanic either). IPCC4 accepted this, but did not state where that left all the models that had replicated the 1945-1979 trough in global temperatures by factoring in sulphate aerosols to the model.
IPCC4 did not reference the very latest critique of upper ocean heat content – by Gouretski and Koltermann, relying instead on the out-dated Barnett ‘warming in the pipeline’ arguments – with 80% of ‘global warming’ held in the upper oceans – this warmth is factored in to the predictions of 21st century warming – and having replicated this heat content in the models, the modellers felt confident of the predictions. Unfortunately, the G&K corrections to instrument bias show the heat content was over-estimated by 200%. Hence, the models are also out by this factor in this area.
I think IPPC4 just scraped through on these issues – and by IPPC5 things will look very different.
Re the Maunder Minimum and Dalton – Camp & Tung have shown that the 11yr cycle max to min 0.1% variation creates a signal in the surface waters of the oceans. If during the MM and DM solar irradiance is reduced by this amount for 1 to 10 decades, this will affect the oceans – which will then take time in their oscillations and teleconnections to redistribute the cooler waters as a pulse in the system -likewise the recovery from the LIA will also involve such redistribution of the additional heat.
And I still feel that direct solar-cloud and UV-jetstream effects are involved too!
[snip NO MORE DISCUSSIONS OF BARYCENTRISM – Anthony ]
lgl (09:37:50) :
In june 2000 the Earth must have been more than a solar diameter closer to the Sun than in june 1960, when they were at opposite sides of the barycenter.
No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth does not care where you move the barycenter to.
tallbloke (11:45:52) :
The variation of the sun’s apparent size as seen from earth can be observed to a very high degree of accuracy. Any variation other than the one due to orbital eccentricity would be obvious.
Not only that, the TSI is very sensitive to the distance [goes with the square] as I showed on my diagram with the red dots. The barycenter crowd is insensitive to logic and physics, so perhaps only direct observations will help. The observations of apparent size and of TSI show very clearly that the real distance is just that calculated from the elliptical orbit of the Earth independent of the movements of the barycenter. We had a loooong discussion of that a while back.
Peter Taylor (11:36:59) :
Re the Maunder Minimum and Dalton – Camp & Tung have shown that the 11yr cycle max to min 0.1% variation creates a signal in the surface waters of the oceans. If during the MM and DM solar irradiance is reduced by this amount for 1 to 10 decades, this will affect the oceans
It does not matter for how many decades, centuries, or millennia the decrease lasts. A 0.1% decrease in TSI decreases the temperature by 0.025% = 0.07 degrees.
Has anyone been able to look at the variations in temperature of the Earth’s mantle nearest the crust, or is this not yet possible to observe at all? Could localised temperature changes of the magma be responsible for temperature changes on the surface and in the oceans, either random or cyclic? This could provide yet another layer of understanding.
Leif Svalgaard (12:38:57) :
It does not matter for how many decades, centuries, or millennia the decrease lasts. A 0.1% decrease in TSI decreases the temperature by 0.025% = 0.07 degrees.
Theoretically true, but the empirical evidence shows an order of magnitude bigger effect of TSI changes on earth’s temperature, according to Nir Shaviv.
Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989
“In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that
the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar
cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally
averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size
of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the
flux and the driving force further implies that it cannot be
part of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part
of a coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must
therefore be the manifestation of real variations in the global
radiative forcing.”
There must be an amplification caused by a terrestrial phenomena. Nir Shaviv thinks clouds are the best candidate.
I wonder if changes in the size of earths outer atmosphere would affect the cross sectional capture area for UV particularly, and whether this could have a measurable effect on effective insolation. I heard the ionosphere had shrunk quite a lot recently. Is this true? Apparently, the ionosphere shrunk a bit over the last few decades. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/As+globe+warms,+atmosphere+may+shrink-a021227591
tallbloke (11:45:52) :
Jupiters orbit varies it’s distance from the sun between 5 and 8 Au.
But this is incorrect. More like between 4.95 and 5.46 Au.
[snip NO MORE DISCUSSIONS OF BARYCENTRISM – Anthony ]
as regards Leif Svalgaard (06:31:02).
i see your point, however out of interest there are two virgo satellites sets of data etc. apaprently they are both corrected for fall out. negative trends are given as regards the IRMB and the PMOD data show a negative trends in the corrected data. all four sets are corrected.
However before correction: Tim seems to show a postive correlation (presumably wrong) one (a virgo) a very slight positive and two of the others (virgo plus acrim) negative trends for TSI over this solar minimum. as this is over a scale of low sunspot activity etc then it suggests that it would be quit e plausible for the reverse gradient to have existed back in time . If there were more data sets then presumably base line averages could be drawn better
I also think the negative trends seem to correlate much better with the lowered sunspot number of this minimum. however….
Also Be data seems to correlate much better with the temperature record than do some of the very slowly changing TSI models.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant is the page.
Leif Svalgaard (12:38:57) :
It does not matter for how many decades, centuries, or millennia the decrease lasts. A 0.1% decrease in TSI decreases the temperature by 0.025% = 0.07 degrees.
Leif,
Is this the absolute magnitude, peak to trough, for a solar cycle?
Basil
Basil (15:40:00) :
Leif Svalgaard (12:38:57) :
“It does not matter for how many decades, centuries, or millennia the decrease lasts. A 0.1% decrease in TSI decreases the temperature by 0.025% = 0.07 degrees.”
Is this the absolute magnitude, peak to trough, for a solar cycle?
Yes, for a large cycle.
Frank Miles (15:21:48) :
I also think the negative trends seem to correlate much better with the lowered sunspot number of this minimum. however….
There are several other reasons for the presumed constancy of TSI than the current composites.
tallbloke (13:04:52) :
“It does not matter for how many decades, centuries, or millennia the decrease lasts. A 0.1% decrease in TSI decreases the temperature by 0.025% = 0.07 degrees.”
Theoretically true, but the empirical evidence shows an order of magnitude bigger effect of TSI changes on earth’s temperature
First, that is just one paper which BTW is heavily model-dependent and not convincing at all.
Second, the point is a different one, namely if a small one-time drop will continue indefinitely to have an accumulating effect. It will not, the system will stabilize at a new lower temperature and not continue to drop.
According to the graphic up there, the A index is at 1, anybody else ever seen that?
I wonder how much model outputs are affected by the TSI magnitude inputted. The SORCE satellite (and latest) shows the TSI magnitude as quite a bit lower than previously assumed (closer to 1362).
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/other/SORCEwebsite_News_Solar_Cycle.pdf
alphajuno (21:40:34) :
The SORCE satellite (and latest) shows the TSI magnitude as quite a bit lower than previously assumed (closer to 1362).
That is just because the SORCE is systematically too low by 4.5 W/m2 compared to the mean of the others [which also varies between them]. The absolute level [i.e. if TSI is 1360 or 1365 or 1370 or …] is not known precisely and doesn’t matter much. What matters is the variation.
MattB (18:09:55) :
According to the graphic up there, the A index is at 1, anybody else ever seen that?
Yes, it has been zero several times before.
Leif Svalgaard (06:19:51) :
Here is a diagram showing the purported distances to the SSB and the solar radiation [TSI] that should be received [from a paper by Alexander that we have also discussed extensively] http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and here http://www.leif.org/research/David11.png is a plot of what is actually measured [black curve] with red dots showing the SSB distance TSIs.
The David11.png doesn’t seem to work. But DavidA11.png does work. I’m glad someone else thought that DavidA10.png was wrong. Can you remember when/where the Alexander paper was discussed? I’d like to have a look at that discussion.
idlex (10:46:58) :
The David11.png doesn’t seem to work. But DavidA11.png does work.
Sorry for the typo, but you found the obvious correction.
I’m glad someone else thought that DavidA10.png was wrong. Can you remember when/where the Alexander paper was discussed? I’d like to have a look at that discussion. It has been discussed both here at at ClimateAudit. There must be a search function somewhere.
Here is something else I found. Apparently the solar activity has an impact on radioisotope decay. Look at this paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5302292/Evidence-for-Correlations-Between-Nuclear-Decay-Rates-and-EarthSun-Distance
Ray (18:48:01) :
Here is something else I found. Apparently the solar activity has an impact on radioisotope decay.
This is VERY speculative and not generally believed.
Leif Svalgaard (19:52:48) :
I’d say they have a better case than those saying that CO2 in the atmosphere drives the temperature up and that the sun has nothing to do with it.
This article might also point to the fact that the sun has many secrets that we still don’t have any clue as to how this big ball of fire works, really. It’s like this idea that the forces of gravity act at higher speeds than light speed. Still speculative but very interesting.
the world is not going to end idiots
Ray (23:48:06) :
I’d say they have a better case than those saying that CO2 in the atmosphere drives the temperature up and that the sun has nothing to do with it.
That is not how science works. You don’t judge a theory by how bad another one is.
There is nothing so titillating as having a secret, or better yet, trying to figure out what it is. This notion captures the attention of every sentient animal on Earth.
koolaidpictures (07:30:07) :
“the world is not going to end idiots”
Duhhhhh… it’s not? Better ask Al Gore…
Leif Svalgaard (09:03:14) :
“Ray (23:48:06) :
I’d say they have a better case than those saying that CO2 in the atmosphere drives the temperature up and that the sun has nothing to do with it.
That is not how science works. You don’t judge a theory by how bad another one is.”
Leif, in science one can surely say that one theory is better or more plausible than the other and that’s how I would read Ray’s comment.
Chris Schoneveld (10:00:35) :
Leif, in science one can surely say that one theory is better or more plausible than the other and that’s how I would read Ray’s comment.
In that case, the theory [decay depends on distance] fails, as it is plausible that ‘the sun has nothing to do with it’. Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific as I, of course, meant to compare theories on the same subject. But my point still is that your theory being bad does not make mine good [they could both be bad]. Ray does not get to his statement by comparing the two theories point for point, but by a priory holding up the AGW as an example of a bad theory.
Leif, what is your opinion about Svensmark’s theory (about cosmic rays and clouds) ?
tony (14:00:02) :
Leif, what is your opinion about Svensmark’s theory (about cosmic rays and clouds) ?
Cosmic rays have not changed their trend since at least 1952 while temperatures have. The albedo [clouds] the past 10 years has not varied with the comic ray flux. So, in general, it looks to me that there is little support for the theory.