Guest post by Guillermo Gonzalez
I recently happened upon the SORCE/TIM website and decided to look up the plot of the full total solar irradiance (TSI) dataset (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#plots)
The SORCE mission began collecting TSI data in February 2003.
I was curious to see if the variations in the TSI had begun to rise yet, perhaps indicating a start to cycle 24. Visual inspection of the SORCE TSI plot showed just the opposite – variations continue to decline in amplitude. If cycle 24 has started, there are no signs of it in these data.
We can be a bit more quantitative if we examine, instead, a plot of TSI variance with time. I produced such a plot using the daily average TSI data provided on the SORCE web site.
The red data are variance values calculated at two-week intervals. The blue curve is the smoothed data calculated in the same way as smoothed sunspot numbers (basically a 12-month running average). Note, the vertical axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale.
To compare the recent TSI variance trend with the previous sunspot minimum, I looked up the ACRIM2 daily average TSI data at: http://www.acrim.com/Data%20Products.htm
These data are plotted on the same scale as the SORCE data. The smoothed data show a minimum TSI variance near the beginning of 1996, some months before sunspot minimum (October 1996). Notice that the minimum value for the variance during the 1996 minimum was about an order of magnitude larger than the present TSI variance.
The SORCE web site quotes long-term 1-sigma precision (relative accuracy) of their TSI measurements to be 0.001%/yr. This corresponds to a variance of 2 ´ 10-4 W2 m-4. However, the precision should be considerably better than this on the 2-week timescale that I selected for calculating the variance. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate a quote for the estimated precision of the ACRIM2 measurements. It would be worthwhile to know if the minimum TSI variance of the previous sunspot minimum measured by ACRIM2needs to be corrected for the instrumental precision.
Guillermo Gonzalez writes on his background:
I’m an astronomer, though my present title is associate professor of physics at Grove City College, PA. I wrote a paper (in Solar Physics) with Ken Schatten back in 1987 on predicting the next solar maximum with geomagnetic indices. That was my only contribution on anything having to do with the Sun-Earth connection, but I also got a letter published in Physics Today in 1997 wherein I urged readers to takethe Sun-Earth climate connection more seriously.
These days most of my research is on extrasolar planets.
UPDATE: I received a suggestion for an overlay via email from Terry Dunleavy and I’ve worked one up below. This was done graphically. I took great care to get the two lined up correctly. Note however that the datasets span different lengths of time, as you can note on the two timescales I’ve included on the combined graph. The vertical scale matches exactly between graphs though. – Anthony
UPDATE2: Here is another graphical comparison of the two TSI variance graphs, scaled to have a matching X-axis and appropriately aligned side by side. – Anthony
Interesting quote from the Independent [from Ralph’s link above]:
If the Earth cools under a quiet Sun, then it may be an indication that the increase in the Sun’s activity since the Little Ice Age has been the dominant factor in global temperature rises. That would also mean that we have overestimated the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to an increase of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial three parts per 10,000 by volume to today’s four parts per 10,000.
Finally, some needed perspective. “Climate sensitivity” is the wild card. Lots of folks speculate on its number, and they have computer models to prove they’re right. Guesses range from under 1 to over 6. But it’s speculation. Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.
And if the CO2 = AGW argument goes down in flames [which it will if sensitivity is a low number], then the entire human-caused global warming argument goes down with it.
Leif Svalgaard (22:04:07) :
you’re correct! I’ll dig out the TSI data and redo the plot.
Paul Vaughan (18:58:24) :
Micky C (MC) (06:36:54)
“[…] suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency […]
The onset occurs very quickly […]
The key is that the white noise can […]”
“[…] start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.”
“Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa.”
An interesting theory – If I understand correctly you are suggesting that the 11 year solar cycle is providing synchrous stimulous to an underdamped system with a resonance at an exact multiple of the 11 years. certainly not an infeasible situation. So in this case one would be looking at harmonics of 11years – 22, 44,55,66 etc.
Looking at the plot of FFTs
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5025/cetssnavgfft.jpg
There is no evidence for 22, 33, 44 or 55years althoug above 30 years the FFT becomes limited by insufficient samples. The 31 year peak (which I think should be nearer 32) may be the only evidence that there is a stimulatred harmonic.
It should be remembered that the harmonic needs a stimulous at the exact same time in its resonance for build up to occur (a stimulous fractionally out will damp the oscillation). It should also be remembered that TSI is not an exact 11 years but varies between 9 and 14(?) so resonance will not readily build.
There are problems with the resonance
1. There are lager influences that will stimulate the resonance that are not synchronous with solar effects – Eruptions and seasons
2. I cannot see how a high frequence can stimulate a low frequency resonance. At one point in the resonance cycle it is pulling temperature to stimulate resonance and then half a cycle later it is pulling and negating the stimulous – try simulating a LC circuit in a Spice simulator – LOW freq (resonant freq/n) will stimulate resonance especially if a pulse is used But Hi freq (resonance*n) will not stimulate the resonant circuit
3. white noise (which TSI is not) will be modified by the resonant circuit and depending on its damping factor will basically filter the resonant frequency. It will not increase its amplitude, but where does the rest of the filtered energy go???
4. TSI modulates the suns output. A resonant “thing” cannot increase the average power it can only redistribute it.
Smokey (03:43:23) :
…Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.
…
So I come back to the problem SSN== TSI does not appear in temperature outputs either FFT or Temp vs SSN. BUT temp vs CO2 shows a correlation. Why?
ralph ellis (02:56:17) :
N.B. With reference to graph correlations I posted above, the CO2 data cannot explain the Medieval Warming nor the Maunder and Dalton cooling eras – whereas the Sunspot (magnetic flux) data explains both perfectly.
In addition, the Sunspot data has predicted the recent cooling, whereas the CO2 graphs and supporters all predicted continued warming. We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is significant in climate terms. The CO2 theory cannot explain this (and will not even admit to it!), whereas the Sun explains everything.
I will ask then what is the sun doing that is not included in the TSI that has been causing a “Steady” wam since 1900s and has now changed to a cooling.
Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?
It is not only arctic ice that has cracks. How about this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.
Do we want scientific truth as far as we know it, or do we want good PR. Nothing like the PR of a cooling sun to offset a warming arctic :).
Micky C (MC) (06:36:54) :
I am impressed by this effect you describe.
The basic point though is that a small change in input power causes a large change in behaviour because the ions in the plasma start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.
Maybe it could be used to see how small tides on the sun ( less than 2mm) could influence the plasma or even the sunspot rate and provide the missing link to what look like spurious correlations.
We have to wait and see if there really is a grand minimum in the cards.
>>We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is
>>significant in climate terms
And you have to factor into these global temperature graphs another significant (and often ignored) forcing factor. This is known as the AGW bias, in which every snippet of data is rounded up instead of down.
I would estimate that half of the ‘hockey stick’ that we have been presented is the result of “AGW bias”.
.
>>Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar
>>scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?
Its called magnetic flux and solar wind. Have you not heard of these before?
Science fiction writers have known all about these phenomina for decades, you should broaden your mind a little.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seedlings-Solar-Winds-Other-Stories/dp/0980170303/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240832386&sr=1-2
.
I know its only a proxy but surely French pinot Noir Grape harvest dates would have been affected by a global little ice age (1315 to 1850) and maunder min. (1645 to 1715).
But grape harvest dates show little sign of cold period
1340 to 1480 and 1630 to 1690 seem about as warm as 1990s
a cold spike at 1450
a warm spike at 1522
only 1740 to 1890 show harvests delayed by more than 5 days
Perhaps they were skating on rivers in UK and Netherlands but in pinot noir country weather was not a lot different. Certainly ther were not total crop failures.
The graph below compares central england temps and grape harvest anomalies.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6204/grapeharvestcetlongqc0.jpg
The problem with these kind of threads is that I spend so much time downloading interesting papers I haven’t seen! And i have no time left to use them! Big thank you, as ever.
My thoughts:
First and foremost all references to anthropogenic CO2 and its radiative forcing effect – remember, the latter – at about 2 watts/square metre in the atmosphere is a computed effect and already includes a water vapour feedback effect (for which there is no direct evidence) of 300% (see Lindzen’s work and Monckton’s article in the newsletter of the American Physical Society);
Second: there is a voluminous oceanographic literature on detected solar cycles in both ocean surface temperature and depth average temperature, global and regional, including the variation over 11 years picked up by Camp and Tung at Seattle – these authors also found a spatial component of polar amplification; there is an even larger literature on paleoclimate proxies analysed for cycles – showing 11, 22 and longer harmonics;
Third: the TSI (I am not clear if it includes UV – but if it does, the UV is probably accounting for the reduced variance as it normally varies by 8% over the 11 year cycle, compared to 0.1% for the visible spectrum – and UV is a chief suspect in climate impact via atmospheric heating effects in the polar regions that affect the location of the jetstream;
Fourth: ocean temperatures in the tropics stay pretty constant, but show periodic pulses – ENSO, meaning the warm waters go north and south – when they go south they eventually get entrained in the circumpolar current, spun round the planet in a zone of permanent heat loss – with some build up off the Antarctic Peninsula, and do not contribute greatly to the warming signal – which is mostly in the northern hemisphere and contained in two major ocean gyres in the North Pacific and North Atlantic – westerly winds then warm Alaska and western Europe, and the warm pools also feedback to the jetstream and shift the standing wave (which can bring torrential rain to Britain, as in 2007, 2008) – check out the work of Charles Perry at the US geological survey;
the north Pacific pool loses heat to the storm tracks that dump it in Alaska – but there is a cycle of 30 years build up and loss – that cycle ended in the autumn of 2006 and Alaska began to cool – the differential temperature between Alaska and the Beaufort Sea determines the strength of the wind-driven gyre and the whole dynamic of the Arctic basin – which has a long cycle of 70-80 years – with the latest peak melting the summer ice, but now reversing – there is no further feed-in of warm water, so I expect the cooling to continue –
Despite the correlation to TSI (and UV) – I suspect there is an amplifier in the form of cloud – not as feedback from the warming ocean, but in the spatial distribution of cloud banks in relation to the warm pools of water – and there is the reality of long er term changes in percentage cloud – the Intl Satellite Cloud Climatology Project has up-to-date data and can be broken down to low-level reflective cloud – which has reduced by 4% over the post-1980 global warming period – quite enough to creat ‘global warming’ – indeed it dwarfs the computed carbon effect – as shown by Palle’s graphs on albedo.
The AGW camp believe that the reduced cloud is a feedback of warming oceans and the warming oceans are caused carbon dioxide – but NASA’s experts are less convinced and rightly point out that the clouds could be primary and causing the warming
and for Micky C
the plasma electrics are under-researched – my intuition tells me they have a role – and Brian Tinsley at the University of Dallas has several papers suggesting this – voltages and voltage changes (shocks) can clear the air of aerosol, and several papers show that the ‘global dimming’ of the 1945-1980 period when global temperatures were low, was not caused by anthropogenic sulphur – but by a combination of cloud and natural aerosol effects, and likewise the ‘brightening’ observed thereafter – now accepted even by the IPCC, but the modellers who replicated this effect don’t draw attention to it!
ocean heat storage data shows no increase since about 2002, just after the ISCCP and albedo data of Palle showed increased global cloud cover and reflectance – this will have contributed most to the current lowering of global temperatures – and has timelags also to land temperatures – but occurred during a solar maximum – so these ocean cycles, land cycles, solar cycles – they do not line up easily and require a more sophisticated analysis using time lags and harmonics – each ocean basin has a different cycle – for example, the current low in the PDO will also depress the amplitude of the ENSO.
These cycles are COMPLEX and global warming and cooling is clearly MULTIFACTORAL!
I have had a stab at explaining this complexity in a book due out in June – ‘Chill – a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory’. I estimate from all the data I have seen that the CO2 effect contributes between 15-20% to the unusual warming signal of the late 20th century – thus halving CO2 emissions by 2050 (a tall order for the global economy) will deal with 7-10% of the driving force and hence have no effect on what the climate does in this century.
bill (04:07:47) :
2. I cannot see how a high frequency can stimulate a low frequency resonance.
High frequencies frequently excite a lower frequency resonance.
Here is an example from a personal experience: on opening of Millennium (wobbly) bridge in London, most people, including myself were walking at 2-3 paces a second, bridge started to oscillate at its natural resonance oscillations at less then ones per second, which with feedback forced people to walk at same rate.
If even small amount of feedback is involved then resonant synchronisation could be an important factor.
See:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ and follow link solar current.
vukcevic (00:50:58) : Ergo: the Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count has to be considered as ACCURATE.
Cycle 24 and cycle 25 SSN curve will look almost the same in the next few years!!. (Hope it will be considered accurate by then 🙂 )
Professor Ian Plimer on SBS, here in Australia tonight, author of a book “Heaven and Earth”, speaks out at the concensus on climate change. Yay!!! The word *IS* spreading it appears.
This guy is awesome!!!! Refering to the 4 sets of data sources which shows a cooling trend from 1998.
“So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?”
Is it possible the earths magnetic field, energised by higher solar activity may be bottling up long wave radiation?
Sorry, *NOT* SBS, ABC. The interviewer, is pro-AGW. ABC = BBC, pretty much in this respect.
>>Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar
>>scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?
Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg
Here is the plot of Sunspots vs geomagnetic activity, demonstrating a synchronicity between sunspot activity and geomagnetic activity.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aassn07.jpg
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aasspot.gif
This is the GW plot, which closely follows the sunspot (and aa-geomagnetic) trends.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
.
With reference to the main topic of this thread, the TSI variability plot is not entirely irrelevant – even though TSI does not directly drive global warming** – because TSI variability may well be a good indicator of what the sunspot cycles are doing. I think Anthony has demonstrated an entirely plausible link between TSI variability and the base of the sunspot minima.
Thus the TSI variability data is very useful in that it points towards the sunspot minima for 23-24 being still in the far future, and thus sunspot cycle 24 will be greatly delayed or diminished. Since sunspot activity and strength directly controls the climate, this TSI variability graph is an important indicator pointing towards a cooling trend.
** If the TSI suddenly dropped or rose significantly, it would indeed drive global warming/cooling – but in this case it is not the determinator of climate.
.
Leif Svalgaard (21:01:17) :
MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil.
The feedbacks in the example I gave are both negative. One is cumulative and the other critical. As the pan heats up an increasing amount of energy is lost at the surfaces. At the point of boiling the temperature of the water falls.
As for it being a directly driven process, then what is the sun if not the direct driver of our climate? The annual 7% oscillation is not detectable because over the thousands of years it has been going on, all feed backs are fully utilized.
You would be able to detect the variation of the annual TSI if you removed all our atmosphere along with the water. A back of an envelope calculation tells me it would be about 7%.
Hi Leif,
Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse have joined the Sun-Temperature Cult.
Almost as scary as the Mann-made Global Warming Cult, except the S-T guys may actually have some evidence to support their position, at least at the macro (time) scale.
At the micro scale, I have found it difficult to determine a strong correlation, but maybe I’m looking at this incorrectly. Others (Joe d’Aleo among them) believe they have found a good micro correlation.
Regards, Allan
from CCNet
TIME THE REASSESS THE SUN-CLIMATE LINK
Benny Peiser
There is no let up in new research findings and news reports about the extraordinary behaviour of our sun. Both the UK National Astronomy Meeting and the Swedish Research Council are addressing the sun’s prolonged inactivity that is baffling the astrophysical community. Solar researchers are readily admitting that they do not understand the mechanisms and dynamics that drive solar variability. Nor are they able to predict the timing and the climatic effects of the next solar cycles.
Most climate researchers, in contrast, seem happy to ignore the whole quandary as the sun’s shifting activity and its terrestrial impact do not play any significant role in what is called the ‘climate consensus.’
Solar scientists have been monitoring the sun’s activity for many years in an attempt to establish whether or not its variability is correlated with terrestrial temperature changes. Interestingly, the sun was more active during much of the 20th century than it was for the last 1000 years. Yet, as long as the terrestrial warming trend persisted, this discovery was routinely rejected as wholly insignificant.
Now, however, the sun’s cyclical behaviour has gone into reverse. And, coinciding with its exceptional inactivity, temperatures around the world have actually begun to stall, if not to drop slightly. The arrest of the warming trend of the late 20th century at a time that solar activity is exceptionally low again raises the key question of climate science: has our star perhaps a much more dominant effect on climate change than is generally assumed?
As David Whitehouse makes clear in The Independent today, this question can no longer be dismissed that easily. Neither can it be resolved, on way or another, in the short term. Only time and a determined effort to study and understand the sun’s behaviour will provide answers. There is no doubt, however, that a growing number of scientists are concerned that the next two or three solar cycles may coincide with low solar activity comparable to previous solar minima.
Given the unexpected arrest of the global warming trend and the extraordinary behaviour of our sun, it is prudent to reassess the solar-climate link with extra rigour. The current climate lull provides the scientific community and the world’s decision makers with a respite. They would be well advised to spend more time and money on the study of our variable star whose intrinsic dynamics and climatic effects remain a mystery to this day.
Benny Peiser
bill (04:07:47) :
Do your fft on monthly HadCRUT3 data since 1850 and tell us what you find.
CET is nice because it is a longer record, but it is hardly indicative of global climate. It is just regional, and oceanic and atmospheric systems can make regional climate, especially for an island like GB, look very different than global climate.
Global cooling, not warming. Oceans/water around ice caps are circulating which may explain effects from warmer water mixing in, however this is short term. More stats/proof for cooling then warming. Warming is stupid and just a hype up to create slush funds for the criminals in DC to steal from Americans to create a socialist state.
Basil (07:01:02) :
Do your fft on monthly HadCRUT3 data since 1850 and tell us what you find.
It’s done but not with me – will post later
This is some of the locations noted in the average FFT that I have posted before.
A couiple show 11 year cycles but mostly in the noise.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1127/ffts.jpg
ralph ellis (06:18:50) :
Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).
Here is the plot of Sunspots vs geomagnetic activity, demonstrating a synchronicity between sunspot activity and geomagnetic activity.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aassn07.jpg
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aasspot.gif
But these are sychronouse with SSN so should show up on an FFT at the 11, 22, 33,44, 55 year positions. There is no peak at these periods so magnetism must be playing a minor role.
Any info on solar wind over time?
Basil
I would give Bill credit for his Spectral analysis of the East England data. In his figure:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5025/cetssnavgfft.jpg
he shows the presence of a strong 57 year cycle correlated to the sunspot activity and the east England temperature. This may not be the ~10 year cycle in this thread, but a fairly strong longer wave. If one were to filter out the frequencies above 0.02 cycles/yr (50 yr periods), two strong ~57 wave show up ( 1650-1750’s, and in the current time period).
This is shown in the below figure:
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_05-NVRm1.gif
The spectral plot should be labeled in cycles/yr, not Hz.
ralph ellis (06:18:50) :
Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).
The aa-index is wrongly calibrated. There are two errors:
1) a jump up in 1957
2) a change of observers in ~1937
http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf
Those errors especially influence the count of days above a threshold.
The important result is that geomagnetic activity in 1845-1875 is comparable to the past 30 years, while temperatures are not.
Allan M R MacRae (06:29:30) :
Interestingly, the sun was more active during much of the 20th century than it was for the last 1000 years. Yet, as long as the terrestrial warming trend persisted, this discovery was routinely rejected as wholly insignificant.
It is not only insignificant, it is also wrong. Solar activity in the 20th century was no higher than in the 19th and 18th centuries, while temperatures were:
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Leif 21:01:17
The path to understanding is diffuse. Some deduce, some dream up. It is not wrong to contemplate how climate hypersensitivity might be ameliorated. It’s the big objection to TSI being the climate driver. You yourself denigrate other solar manifestations as simply not having enough energy within them.
==========================================
It is worth noting from the SORCE data sheet that sigma with their UV sensor ranges from 12-24%. This is no doubt do to the sudden 100% swings in UV intensity associated with solar flares–absent for the past year and a half versus the 22 minimum during which flaring continued.
As an engineer having experience creating sensors of analog data, we damp signals with large swings. This occurs prior to averaging, i.e., during measurement. Because of this even TSI at 1AU is not precisely determined but this effort will continue to improve.
Note in addition that the energy transferred by radiation increases with frequency. Radiation intensity does not capture energy transferred.