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
There was also that large explosion on the back side a few days ago.
The sad outlook for science matters is being demonstrated in this thread with the controversies with Leif. Matters that should be thrashed at the level of peers in conferences, real peer review, are being half digested by us hoi polloi and regurgitated on the internet waves because of this politicization of science.
The hockey stick debunked on a world stage has not just brought down the hockey stick but has introduced an enormous suspiciousness of motives for any scientific endeavor at the moment connected with climate but soon to inundate all disciplines.
🙁
Robert Bateman (21:09:42) :
A spot on whose radar?
The 23 is a small spot at 3:30 on both the visible and the magnetogram. Others are activities on the magnetogram at the moment.
Even though I have not been convinced that the maunder minimum and the LIA have a causative correlation, I still look at the sun everyday with a hope of seeing activity. I suppose subconsciously I am afraid there might be a correlation, and who needs a LIA. I would not cut my nose to spite my face.
Paul Vaughan (20:53:01) :
Perhaps the best way to achieve resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no effect on “temperature”.
At this point it is a simple question of data. You had a chance to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and you give me mumbo-jumbo instead… ;-(
–
I would also be curious to hear of any comments you might offer regarding possible connections between insights from Sturrock’s work (on neutrinos & solar core rotation) and the intermittent large-scale HMF pattern you (& Wilcox) found.
I’m not so sure the neutrino stuff holds up [time will tell], but there is at least several coincidences centered around the ‘28.5 day feature’. It was first noticed in 1972:
Interplanetary Magnetic-Sector Structure, 1926-1971
L. Svalgaard, Danish Meteorological Institute, Geophysical Section, Copenhagen, Denmark
The influence of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field on the geomagnetic field at high latitudes is used to study the long-term behavior of the sector structure during nearly four solar cycles. It is found that the rotation period of the sector structure varies from about 28.5 days in the beginning of a solar cycle to 27.0 days in the end. Also it is shown that short-lived sectors rotate more slowly than long-lived ones.
Citation: Svalgaard, L. (1972), Interplanetary Magnetic-Sector Structure, 1926-1971, J. Geophys. Res., 77(22), 4027–4034.
Leif Svalgaard (09:59:18) :
MartinGAtkins (06:19:15) :
The annual 7% oscillation is not detectable because over the thousands of years it has been going on, all feed backs are fully utilized.
Yes, the same can be said for the solar cycle(s) when we examine Earths climate over multidecadal periods. Primarily it is large bodies of water that smooth out the 7% annual differential in solar energy received by the earth. From there it is all the usual things we understand to govern our climate, such as humidity. cloud cover, ice bodies in all forms, vegetation and the ability of the oceans to sequester or emit gases such as CO2 and CH4. Also the amount of energy received and retained before it radiates back into space.
None of the above should be confused with seasonal variations in our climate or even decadal trends. These are governed by other factors and smother the annual orbital fluctuations in the energy received from the sun. This of course is only true if annual fluctuation of solar energy received by earth remains constant.
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%.
First let me point out that the 7% annual variable is yours and not mine. If this variable is at the halfway point in each year then we have:- year= t1+t2
t1=TSI(n)+/-7% t2=TSI(n)+/-7% therefore t=(n)+/-7%
Monthly I think t=((n)+/-7%)/12
I blinked the magnetogram and the continuum, anna, and I don’t see the match. Being the suspicious sort, I look carefully first. I’ll give a bit for rotation, but it seems rather far off. The central spot has nothing even close, so I am even more suspicious. A good whack of cosmic ray will do the trick on the 3:30 position (it’s slanted).
Ok, you win, anna. 2nd MDI Continuum in and a matching magnetogram.
Can’t be too careful with Tiny Tims and all those GCR’s flying about.
3:30 spot.
Are you projecting this?
anna v 21:55:33
Yes, it’s an awful conundrum and dilemma, isn’t it. The earth must get cold enough fast enough to stop this carbon nonsense in its tracks, and since I fear that isn’t happening I wish for it to get colder, faster. But millions are going to die in the coming cold and the more the faster and colder it gets. My only consolation is that my wishes will not be obeyed by nature, so no guilt accrues.
=================================================
And the sooner we stop this carbon nonsense and start adapting to the coming cold instead of trying to mitigate a warming that isn’t coming, the fewer will die. So bang I away at the keyboard. It is, in truth, a great enterprise.
===========================================
Micky C (MC) (14:35:31) :
The information you give us on plasma behavior is interesting, and a demonstration of chaotic behavior in coupled differential equations.
I think that it would be hard to find a way that it could work with the oceans. With plasma you have one medium, with the earth you have the atmosphere, the oceans, the lands , each with different mobilities and heat capacities.It is the oceans that have the huge heat capacity and their currents have to be stimulated/driven by some external input. The daily and seasonal changes of heating seem to me too large with respect to changes in TSI or the minuscule effect of AG CO2, with too much heat inertia, to be able to enter such a mode. A smart graduate student might prove me wrong though :).
I see more promise in your picture with the sun, which is a plasma after all. Maybe the small inputs of the gravitational tides could induce an amplified state. Another smart graduate student needed here too :).
>>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
>>Waldmeiers inexperience [Friedli, 2005] as he struggled
>>with learning how to construct the sunspot number.
???
Even if we did, this was only one observation center, while the graphs are constructed from a combination of many. Waldmeiers was not working at Greenwich, was he.
Ralph
Predicted for tonight, Sydney’s (Australia) coldest night of the year, it’s still autum. A town in the greater Sydney area experienced it’s coldest night last night, 7c below “normal” for this time of year.
In the alpine snow regions they’d had they best *early* start to the ski season in 50 years. SH entering winter now, lower tempeartures, early start to ski season in 50 years, lots of snow. This sounds very familiar somehow.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24), anna v (21:36:56), kim (23:45:19) & (23:49:32), and Others
It might take interdisciplinary understanding for us to (collectively) emerge from this economic/political/climate challenge in the best shape possible.
A few misunderstandings along the way are to be expected – water off a duck’s back…
kim (23:45:19) :
Excellent on both your posts. Someone is yelling fire on a crowded planet, and very few are asking “where?”. Invariably, most will head the wrong direction, and perish in panic.
The key to surviving an incident is to not panic. Those who panic are at least twice as less likely to survive, and most important, become a danger and a liability to those who are in charge of escape.
If we are going in the LIA direction, irregardless of whether we reach that state in 1-3 decades, preparation is key. Panic is the enemy. The planet is crowded.
>>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
>>Waldmeiers inexperience [Friedli, 2005] as he struggled
>>with learning how to construct the sunspot number.
So why not dig up Waldmeier’s drawings and recompute?
Makes sense to me to fix the error, and leave the good data alone.
However, if that won’t work, dig up ALL the drawings and start over.
And have a panel spot check the recomputations at regular intervals.
I’m quite sure there are researchers out there in need of extended employment. You can put my name in the basket.
“Robert Bateman (03:53:04) :
Panic is the enemy. The planet is crowded.”
Yes in the first instance, and certainly *no* in the second. We certainly have crowded cities, but the planet, that is the *whole* planet, is largely void of human population.
Lief,
I admit, I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t address my post above about the increases and decreases in the “atmospheric halo” that fluctuates with the solar cycle and the possible effect that aspect may have on the amount of solar radiation that could be trapped by the atmosphere especially at the polar regions.
Perhaps there may be something to that possible mechanism as a link between warming and solar cycle. So far, I have not been able to locate any scientific study regarding that. Perhaps you are aware of some?????
“This ‘paper’ is the biggest load of cods I have ever seen. ”
Keep reading, the noted ‘circularity’ frequents the lot. And then we hear their conclusions are toasted in observatories the world o’er.
Dell Hunt, Michigan (04:57:36) :
I admit, I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t address my post […]
“My question is for the scientists out there, has there ever been any significant research done in calculating how much more solar radiation is trapped in the fringes of this “atmospheric halo” during periods of high solar activity versus low solar activity?”
Sorry, that I missed it. The density of the atmosphere falls rapidly with height: by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km you go up. So at 100 km it is only 1/1000,000 of the surface density, at 150 km only 1/1000,000,000, at 200 km only 1/1000,000,000,000, at 250 km only 1000,000,000,000,000, at 300 km only 1/1000,000,000,000,000,000, and so on. So the amount of radiation trapped by such dilute matter is equally minute.
Paul Vaughan (02:46:05) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24)
A few misunderstandings along the way are to be expected – water off a duck’s back…
what did you misunderstand?
ralph ellis (01:26:55) :
Even if we did, this was only one observation center, while the graphs are constructed from a combination of many.
No, the method used [different from today] is the one instituted by Rudolf Wolf: There is a ‘primary’ observer [Waldmeier himself]. If he had made a count on a given day, that was the official sunspot number. If there was no count [cloudy, he was sick, etc], the count of a ‘secondary’ observer was used [suitable adjusted to that of the primary observer]. If the secondary observer did not have a count [cloudy, etc], a ‘tertiary’ observer was used [also adjusted to the primary observer], etc.
>>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
>>Waldmeiers inexperience [Friedli, 2005]
No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.
Robert Bateman (09:40:39) :
>>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
>>Waldmeiers inexperience [Friedli, 2005]
No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.
Waldmeier was not aware of the abrupt change. He did worry that his calibration might be off and fussed endlessly about it.
Robert Bateman (09:40:39) :
“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
Waldmeiers inexperience [Friedli, 2005]”
No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.
There are no theories here. Just simple data comparisons. The facts are these:
1) Ca K data from Mount Wilson show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
2) Sunspot areas from Greenwich show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
3) The range of geomagnetic declination [controlled by solar EUV] show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
4) The inexperienced Waldmeier took over in 1945 and was himself unsure about the calibration of Rz
Waldmeier was not aware of the abrupt change. He did worry that his calibration might be off and fussed endlessly about it.
anna v (21:36:56) :
I think you make a very important point.
As a layman I have tried to understand the truth about global warming/climate change as my antennae told me that those in power were perhaps being a tad misleading.
Over the last couple of years I have also learned, thanks to the excellent work of Anthony Watts here and Steve McIntyre at CA, that scientists in this arena have perhaps been somewhat more focussed on ‘other things’ than trying to establish a sound scientific understanding of our climate.
I find this to be enormously disappointing.
I am, therefore, often left wondering whether I can trust anything I read anymore on this subject (even moreso in so called “peer reviewed” work).
Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24) & (07:42:27)
If conceptual paradigms from other disciplines come across to you as “mumbo-jumbo” (as you say), an alternative to dishing out insults & demands (in the imperative tone) is to issue a polite request for clarification &/or elaboration.
You have made a series of statements in this thread to which I object. This does not mean I have time to volunteer to debate every detail to your satisfaction (or at all), particularly given the nature of some of your claims and your style of engagement when conflict arises.
The most sensible option is to let ‘misunderstandings’ (a polite term encompassing both errors & politics) become water under the bridge.
In that spirit:
Regarding the preliminary investigation I suggested here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/cbs-charles-osgood-on-the-sun-and-a-surprising-suggestion
[April 24](01:19:01)
I spent some time thinking about how to simplify the investigation without sacrificing key information – and a few questions arose.
If your response is not a reply, I respect your choice.
The questions:
1) Say one eliminated all of the ‘unusable’ pixels around the edge of the solar disc, roughly how many ‘usable’ ones would remain clustered around the centre (at an instant in time)?
2) What is the temporal resolution of the record?
3) How long is the record?
4) Are there serious problems with missing data?