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
Correction to Paul Vaughan (20:53:01)
I said:
“Perhaps the best way to achieve resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no effect on “temperature”.”
The more accurate statement which was intended:
Perhaps the best way to pursue a resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no relationship with “temperature”.
Also, in light of developments in this thread I’m dropping a few assumptions about what is common knowledge. If anyone is unfamiliar with the concept “spatiotemporal heterogeneity”, please feel welcome to inquire.
Paul Vaughan (12:10:09) :
The most sensible option is to let ‘misunderstandings’ (a polite term encompassing both errors & politics) become water under the bridge.
I don’t know what politics you are up to, but it cannot take much energy to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to my simple question. And I think that is a request for clarification/elaboration. The insult comes from your continually evading the simple answer.
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?
1) all pixels are usable. The synoptic maps are made using only the central strip from one pole to the other.
2) 20 data points [magneto/doppler-grams] per day [typically]
3) as you can see, several decades [since the late 1970s], with the quality degrading as you go back in time.
4) yes and no. If there are no observations on a day or two, data from adjacent days can be used if rotated to central meridian. Long periods of missing data [upgrade of instruments and such] cannot be dealt with, but are not very important as the phenomenon is large-scale in both space and time.
Leif Svalgaard (12:31:53)
“The insult comes from your continually evading the simple answer.”
Clarification: I perceived your question as equivalent to asking if sunspot counts are higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum (so it appeared as an insult &/or distortion-politics to which I should not yield). Water under the bridge now…
–
Leif: “all pixels are usable. The synoptic maps are made using only the central strip from one pole to the other.”
How many central meridian pixels are there? – and does that vary over time? (according to instrument changes, for example)
Leif Svalgaard (07:41:22) :
“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.”
Pretty big numbers for somebody who believes that a 1/10000th change in atmosphere composition will doom us.
However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight pass through earths atmospheric halo during “typical” height versus the current lower atmospheric hieght that has been directly linked to solar minimum. So even a minute percentage of that would be significant, especially at the poles, where they would see more constant exposure all day particularly at the equinoxes.
Paul Vaughan (13:41:44) :
Clarification: I perceived your question as equivalent to asking if sunspot counts are higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum (so it appeared as an insult &/or distortion-politics to which I should not yield). Water under the bridge now…
The question was: “was the temperature in the 1845-1875 time frame different from the past 30 years”? I said it was and you said you challenged that. Possible answers could be: 1) yes, 2) no, 3) don’t know, 4) meaningless question, 5) I don’t want to answer for political reasons.
I don’t think I do what you accuse me of. There is a Danish proverb: “thief thinks everybody steals”. I don’t do politics or distortions. My views may not be correct, but they are ALWAYS seriously and genuinely meant.
–
How many central meridian pixels are there? – and does that vary over time? (according to instrument changes, for example)
each pixel is 12 arc seconds [out of 1920 pole to pole]. The strip is several pixels wide. Both of these numbers vary with time by a factor of 2 or so, both because of instrument changes [larger pixels in the past], but also because of missing data that means one must use off-central meridian data. Bottom line: many pixels.
Dell Hunt, Michigan (14:09:16) :
Pretty big numbers for somebody who believes that a 1/10000th change in atmosphere composition will doom us.
Don’t be scared by those big numbers. Perhaps your belief in doomsday is not well founded…
However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight
Well, the math has to be correct in the first place. Then the physics has to be correct, that many watts per square meter?
The upper atmosphere is, indeed, heated a lot, to a thousand and more degrees, but because the air is so thin even that is but a tiny amount of heat. The solar wind itself has a temperature of 100,000 degrees Kelvin, and the Solar corona is millions of degrees, but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.
Leif Svalgaard (14:17:33)
“I don’t think I do what you accuse me of.”
There has been no accusation.
Thank you for answering the questions about the data.
Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) “[…] but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.”
This statement makes me curious about the fractal geometry of the surfaces.
Paul Vaughan (16:08:09) :
Thank you for answering the questions about the data.
I wish that I would have been able to thank you for answering my question…
Paul Vaughan (16:13:54) :
Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) “[…] but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.”
This statement makes me curious about the fractal geometry of the surfaces.
Could be, except the human skin isn’t fractal [I don’t have little hands growing on my hand with littler hands on them, etc; the epidermis is quite smooth]. You will be frozen into a curious stiff.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (16:38:39)
Clarification: The point is about actual dimension vs. apparent dimension (not about temperatures). E.g. surface-filling tendency of a winding line; volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)
Paul Vaughan (20:47:36) :
volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)
I don’t know what assumptions you are making, but it is observed fact that space is cold to a body in it and that the 100,000K solar wind does not fry the spacecraft and that meteorites are deep frozen when they hit the Earth, so no need to worry about wrinkles.
I’m still awaiting a simple answer to my simple question.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)
As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.
I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer. WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if…
The tiny tim at 3:00 hours persists. I suspect if it had a cycle 24 signature it would have gotten a number by now. It is the unwanted cycle 23 left over that is ignored.
I will keep a copy and compare it to the next numbered 24.
Paul Vaughan (21:57:15) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)
As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.
Then I do not understand your comment as I was talking about temperature.
I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer. WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if…
And what is the result of your speculation?
As clarification: I stated that the temperature in 1845-1875 was not comparable to the temperature the past 30 years. You said you challenged that. This to me, means that you disagree with me? Is this a correct statement? And where is the insult? I don’t see any and I don’t mean any.
Paul Vaughan (20:47:36) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (16:38:39)
Clarification: The point is about actual dimension vs. apparent dimension (not about temperatures). E.g. surface-filling tendency of a winding line; volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)
It isn’t really, the fractal dimension of the surfaces is a red herring brought in by you. In any case in the situation described it’s likely irrelevant since at the conditions in effect the mean free path is so large that the surface will be effectively Euclidean and a dimension greater than 2.0 would only accelerate the freezing if it had any effect at all.
Paul Vaughan (21:57:15) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)
As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.
I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer.
So you don’t know the answer…..
WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if… arrogant know-it-alls who like to show off by using big words without saying anything of substance didn’t waste everyone’s time. I had a student like that a few years ago, everyone sussed him out, he ended up getting a D and dropping science for sociology, he could never answer a straight question (remind you of anyone?). Posts from real scientists like Leif are welcome however.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:27:02)
Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for the constructive comments you made earlier in this discussion.
Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
Now I am no expert… but I can definately identify the smell of cooking when I go to a restaurant… expect in England where they just heat up the bag containing the ready meal… but i digress. Now my problem is that thanks to this site I realise just how many people are cooking the books and fiddling the figures… so thank you so much Anthony for making this possible… back to topic…
Now what strikes me is that the point of solar minimum is being heavily sold as being behind us WHILE the graphs clearly show that the sun is getting quieter by the day… it is slowly slipping away into a coma… with just the occassional blip of activity… but the reporting of these blips is not even handed.
Cycle 24 is being talked up.
Daily Sun: 21 Apr 09
A new sunspot is forming at the circled location.
The magnetic polarity of the spot identifies it as
a member of new Solar Cycle 24.
Daily Sun: 22 Apr 09
Sunspot 1015 is fading away.
It emerged late yesterday, April 21st, with a magnetic
imprint that identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24.
At the rate it is decaying, the lifetime of the spot could total
fewer than 24 hours.
While Cycle 23 is being talked down
Daily Sun: 28 Apr 09
A sunspot is struggling to emerge at the circled location.
The magnetic polarity of the proto-sunspot identifies it as
a member of old Solar Cycle 23.
Daily Sun: 29 Apr 09
Yesterday’s proto-sunspot failed to coelesce into a durable sunspot.
The sun remains blank.
From what i have read nobody KNOWS what is going on… but their are plenty of ideas… and red faces… but somebody wants us to think that the sun has returned to “normal busy” and that there is nothing to worry about… show over.
Is it just me?
Can anyone else smell the cooking?
I personally like by toast brown on both sides 🙂
Perhaps i should be more direct… when i read that a “proto-sunspot failed to coelesce into a durable sunspot” then my bull detectors start pinging….
I am left wonder what is the definition of a “durable sunspot”….
Especially when i can still see yesterdays “non-durable” tiny sunspot while the “sun remains blank”……
Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) :
“However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight.”
Well, the math has to be correct in the first place.
Yes I realized long after I posted that it was not that wattage per m2 (my bad), but overall increased wattage that Earths Atmosphere is exposed to during “typical” times versus current solar minimum. Other than incorrectly putting the per m2 in my original post, are my calculations correct for overall extra solar radiation that passes through the atmosphere?
So then you do the math. Using the numbers from the report (see link below) how much of that energy is trapped as the atmosphere expands vs contracts?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm
Dell Hunt, Michigan (04:58:24) :
To visualize the inefficacy of the heat containment of air, think of the following gedanken experiment:
Heat up an oven to 100C. Take the air out into a bag, using the vacuum cleaner in reverse. How long will the air stay hot in the bag? It is the reason we use hot water bottles and not hot air bottles. Mass is really important. And in the stratosphere there is much much less mass involved .
Is it just me?
Can anyone else smell the cooking?
Yes. S740 was, was not, and now is back this morning on Teide GONG Image
tdiqa090429t1154.jpg with a massive contrast of 1.06 to 1.
Since January, these SC23 lookalikes have been popping up. I say lookalikes because at first they were justified as reversed SC24’s. After a steady diet of them, they don’t look quite like the exception rather than the rule.
There is a point reached where normal outlying reversed polarity Sunspots have worn out thier explanation, and simple bias comes into play.
Somewhere in between, reluctance is a better word for it.
Returning to the contrast levels of these spots since January: An order of magnitude weaker than last year’s already diluted run. They are straining even the limits of our best ground based Solar Towers.
If this is minimum behind us, it’s not displaying any decisive or obvious characteristics.
The reluctant souffle has fallen.
MalagaView (03:52:31) :
Thanks for the post on topic.
I was really hoping for a discussion on what the Sun is doing.
I have been very disappointed of late.
W/m2 logjams. Oy ye vay.
“arrogant know-it-alls who like to show off by using big words without saying anything of substance didn’t waste everyone’s time.”
As recalcitrant offenders perhaps we should lead a confessors circle, ‘eh, Phil.?