From NASA’s website (h/t to David Archibald)
By Adam Voiland
NASA’s Earth Science News Team
Two satellite instruments aboard NASA’s Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission — the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) — have made daily measurements of the sun’s brightness since 2003.
The two instruments are part of an ongoing effort to monitor variations in solar output that could affect Earth’s climate. Both instruments measure aspects of the sun’s irradiance, the intensity of the radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.
Instruments similar to TIM have made daily irradiance measurements of the entire solar spectrum for more than three decades, but the SIM instrument is the first to monitor the daily activity of certain parts of the spectrum, a measurement scientists call solar spectral irradiance.
In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
“We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
Cahalan, as well as groups of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Johns Hopkins University, presented research at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December that explored the climate implications of the recent SIM measurements.
Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.
Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.
Measuring Variation
As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field.
Indeed, TIM and its predecessor instruments, whose records of irradiance began in 1978, show that the sun’s output varies by about 0.1 percent as the sun cycles through periods of high and low electromagnetic activity every eleven years or so. In practice, this cycling means the sun’s brightness, as measured by TIM, goes up a bit when large numbers of sunspots and accompanying bright spots called faculae are present on the sun, yet goes down slightly when sunspots and faculae are sparse, like they have been in the last few years as the sun has gone through an unusually quiet period.
However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths — including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light — into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.
Notably, this makes SIM the first space-based instrument capable of continuously monitoring the visible and near-infrared portion, parts of the spectrum that are particularly important for the climate. SIM also offers the most comprehensive view of the individual components that make up the sun’s total solar irradiance to date.
Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.
Climate Consequences?
Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. “I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.
“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution.
Researchers will surely continue puzzling over the surprising SIM results for some time, but there is already considerable agreement on one point: that the need for continuous SIM and TIM measurements going forward has grown more urgent.
Modeling studies are showing that our climate depends critically on the true solar spectral variations. “If we don’t have the instruments up there to watch this closely, we could be arguing about spectral irradiance and climate for decades,” said Cahalan.
A new TIM instrument is slated to launch on the Glory satellite this February, but a replacement for the SORCE SIM instrument — called the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) — likely won’t fly until 2014 or 2015. This could create a gap between the current SIM and its replacement, a situation that would present a significant obstacle to identifying any possible longer-term trend in solar spectral irradiances, and thus to nailing down the sun’s role in long-term climate change.
“Both instruments — TIM and SIM — are absolutely critical for understanding how climate works. We neglect either of them at our peril,” said Cahalan.
Solar activity – including sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae – vary over the course of a solar cycle and affect solar irradiance. Credit: NASA
Related Links:
SORCE Website
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
AGU Session: Solar Variability and Climate
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm10∂=GC13E&maxhits=400
=====================================================================
Additional information:
Leif Svalgaard writes in email:
This is legit.
It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission has
changed between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing one
expected UV to decrease. Instead it increased. The increase was offset
by a decrease in IR, leaving TSI almost constant. That the near UV
goes up when solar activity goes down I pointed out some time ago
[before the LASP people noticed it], see the lower two panels of
http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png (provided below)
There are all kinds of ramifications, see the talks in Session 4 at:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html#speakers
“Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:59 am
The graph shows the difference between UV in 2007 and 2004. This difference is positive, hence UV [the near UV not the extreme UV] increased from 2004 to 2007.”
=================================
A decrease was expected, and the black line gives positive values. So points above the 0-line (=positive values) must mean decrease.
The vertical axis should have been named: ‘AMOUNT OF DECREASE in spectral irradiation′.
The graph thus shows much more decrease in UV than expected and a slight INCREASE (=negative value) in visible light.
2. Leif’s statement, that a decrease for UV was expected and an increase was measured, creates a problem.
Whatever the vertical axis exactly means, an increase and a decrease in UV should be on opposing sides of the 0-line.
Right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Solar activity has always been in the climate models. That you haven’t seen this is because you haven’t looked. The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.”
Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed? Now, I have not seen every climate model, nor have I attempted the reverse statistical analysis on the data output. But, I would expect that if the solar cycles were reflected in the model there should some their influence in the output. Yet when I look at the model averages as issued by the IPPC, and others this signal is absent.
In my job as an engineer I gather data on appliance systems in actual field usage. My data showed that a refrigerator did not respond to door open and close cycles. The people that designed the control system did not believe it. However, it was later found that the algorithm severely suppressed the monitoring thermistor, to the point that the thermistor was almost superfluous. So for all intents and purposes the thermistor was removed from the control system and the refrigerator would run fine with a resistor in its place.
So, while yes the solar cycle may be in the model, if it is essentially removed, is it any different than not being there at all? And given the outputs of the models (at least the ones I have seen) do not vary for solar cycle effects how can you say they are there? Thus, an input that is significantly suppressed is probably not an input at all.
So SIM is compared to “Expected”.
So who the hell is “expected” and why would we want to believe “him/er/it/whatever.
On WHAT basis is “expected” to be expected ??
So what are the implications for OZONE HOLES; if either SIM or “expected” is real, or both; or neither.
Adding up the SIM one should get TSI. One doesn’t quite get that:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIM-TIM-TSI.png
Here is a screen shot of LASP’s SIM page [interactive tool]
http://www.leif.org/research/SIM-TIM-TSI2.png
I have selected a wavelength a wavelength in the near UV. For that wavelength there is a good anti-correlation between UV and solar activity [rather the time variation is opposite]. Most of the energy in the UV is, of course, in the near UV.
It occurs to me that this is another PIT (point in time) as significant as Harry Read me (please) file last year. However, I speak from the analogue period whilst the majority of you who contribute here are digital, so to speak.
In other words, I applaud the efforts of everyone here, even though I comprehend about 10%. People, I trust most of you and that’s about as close as an Englishman gets to saying “Er, I think I, er, I might just have, erm, y’know erm, feelings, er, for you.”
“You’ve all done very well.”
PIT off, you SORCE (saucy) NASA!
Dear Moderator,
Several of my comments from ~2hrs ago apparently went to the nether regions.
Can you grub around in there and resurrect them?
Thanks,
John
REPLY: We are constantly pulling your comments out of the spam filter, may I suggest a different writing style?
Richard P says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:44 am
if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed?
The basic input is radiation from the Sun. This varies with the distance to the Sun [a lot 7%] and with the solar cycle [a lot less, 0.1%]. UV is a part of that input. All of this goes into the model as they must. For the verification of the models, actual measured solar radiation is used. For the future evolution, we don’t have observed solar radiation, but instead the model use the typical solar cycle behavior from the past to represent the solar input. One can also play ‘what if’ questions with this: crank up the cycle and see what happens.
Whatever one does, the effect of the solar variations are so small that they hardly show up in the modeled output, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
Stephen Wilde says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
What is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun.
These things are [and can be] considered, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
The result is invariably that the influence is tiny.
Moderator said, “REPLY: We are constantly pulling your comments out of the spam filter, may I suggest a different writing style?”
Moderator,
Sure, maybe it is the use of blockquotes?
John
[(Different mod here.) WordPress uses an algorithm that puts some comments in the spam folder based on certain words and phrases. They don’t tell us what those words are. Sorry for the inconvenience. If your comment doesn’t appear in a reasonable amount of time, post a request to check the spam folder. ~dbs]
Stephen Wilde says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
What is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun.
The models do not have ‘representations’ of anything, but calculate from basic physics equations how the system evolves. The time step is of the order of five minutes, so from the current state the differential equations are integrated five minutes into the future to get the next state, etc. This is similar to how one calculates planetary orbits. They are not ‘represented’, but starting from an observed state the equations of the law(s) of gravity are integrated over a time step to the next moment in time.
I had to drill down to Robin Kool to find the explanation that suited me for the supposed discrepancy. The graph plots the difference between 2007 and 2004 values. What’s not made clear on the graph is whether values above the x axis mean that:
(a) 2004 values are greater than 2007 (not contradicted by “2004 to 2007” at the top of the graph) or that:
(b) 2007 values are greater than 2004.
OK, so there is ambiguity in the labelling of the graph, which is a shame, but it’s clear from the body of the report that it is the first of these that is being used.
Are not the data compatible with a slight (?) surface cooling, with a decrease in overall irradiance (yes, decrease), but a shift from uv visible and ir , as expected from the equation that relates absolute temperature to frequency?
John Whitman says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:45 am
So I am slightly confused.
Me too. Harder does a poor job of presenting this.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:02 am
Leif, that is because the models only take into account the TSI/4 changes and assume that 1 W/m2 change in insolation has the same effect as 1 W/m2 change in IR absorption by CO2. But solar (UV) has effects in the stratosphere
I’m tired of pointing out that changes in UV and chemistry in the stratosphere are very much part of the models.
sciencebod says:
December 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
OK, so there is ambiguity in the labelling of the graph, which is a shame, but it’s clear from the body of the report that it is the first of these that is being used.
Except if you actually plot the integrated flux between 242 and 300 nm [from the very same source] and shown in my plots at the top of this article, it is clear that the reported UV has increased.
Here is a screen shot of LASP’s SIM page [interactive tool]
http://www.leif.org/research/SIM-TIM-TSI2.png
showing the flux near 300 nm.
Leif, tis kinda like responding ad infinitum ad nauseum to a toddler who is stuck on “why”.
Pamela Gray says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Leif, tis kinda like responding ad infinitum ad nauseum to a toddler who is stuck on “why”.
The difference is that the toddler eventually gets it. [‘whys’ are generally good].
Richard P says: “Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model…”
TSI data is represented in AR4 to be part of the GCMs. 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 following is S9.1:
http://s5.tinypic.com/aouzpi.jpg
XXXXXXX
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).
XXXX
The table and the key are presented in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
It also ran here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
The following is a gif animation that shows a reconstruction of global temperature anomalies with and without TSI data:
http://i42.tinypic.com/k50pd0.jpg
As you can see, with all of the other variations, it would be difficult to pluck out a solar component without the use of a visual comparator. That graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
Regards
Stephen Wilde failed to answer, so I will repeat previous posters’ question because we need to know this basic fact before we can proceed to hypothesise at all, at all.
Under the graph [which appears to show an increase in UV] is written: “Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line).
Leif Svalgaard comments at the end of the article:
“This is legit. It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission has
changed between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing one
expected UV to decrease. Instead [UV] increased.”
Stephen – Leif – mods – anyone – Did UV decrease or increase from 2004-2007?
Richard P says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:44 am (Edit)
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Solar activity has always been in the climate models. That you haven’t seen this is because you haven’t looked. The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.”
Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed? Now, I have not seen every climate model, nor have I attempted the reverse statistical analysis on the data output. But, I would expect that if the solar cycles were reflected in the model there should some their influence in the output. Yet when I look at the model averages as issued by the IPPC, and others this signal is absent
###########
the solar forcings are available for you to look at. Yes the cycles are represented. TSI varies as a function of time ( the Lean dataset is use) The reason you dont see that cycle repeated in the output is:
1. the peak to peak variation is small.
2. There are other forcings ( internal and external) that swamp the signal.
The standard “skeptical” argument is that the sun effects the climate in more ways than just TSI. That may be true. That may be false. To test that someone would have to come forward with an actual theory ( something that could be put in code).
Worse and worse.
The NASA text (under Measuring Variation, para 6) says
but Leif’s graphs clearly show UV increasing
Yet I would logically expect UV to decrease and IR to increase when the solar energy / output falls, just as Sun emits UV but Earth can only emit IR.
WUWT???????????
“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
So that means all the science pre AGW 1958 is junk.
All the low sunspot counts from the time of Galileo which coincided with cool periods on earth are now suspect, hundreds of years of science and many eminent scientists should be discounted, on what evidence, from a third rate paper and from third rate scientists.
This is junk science, try this,
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/04/4593/
Lucy Skywalker says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Did UV decrease or increase from 2004-2007?
Part of the confusion [apart from the confusing graphs] stems from the fact that UV is not a ‘uniform’ simply beast, but varies with wavelength. So you can have a decrease at one wavelength and an increase at another. If UV in band A decreased by 0.01 W/m2 and in band B increased by 18 W/m2, did ‘UV’ increase or decrease? From a climate point of view the UV from 242-310 nm [green oval] is where the heating of the tropical stratosphere takes place: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png so the interesting part of the UV spectrum is from 242-310 nm and there the SIM people report that integrated UV increased [i.e. goes inversely with solar activity]: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
At shorter wavelength, UV decreased, but the energy down there is minuscule, and its heating effect [see first link] minute.
Harder has done a poor job presenting his work.
Re: “The standard “skeptical” argument is that the sun effects the climate in more ways than just TSI. That may be true. That may be false. To test that someone would have to come forward with an actual theory ( something that could be put in code).”
See Gerrit Verschuur’s work. He demonstrates that the interstellar medium is permeated by extremely filamentary (spaghetti-like) hydrogen, as apparent from observing HI hydrogen at 21 cm. Conventional theorists propose that these are “clouds,” but Verschuur — who is a radio astronomer making the actual observations — is adamant that the term “cloud” is inappropriate because they are twisting, knotted filaments akin to what is observed in a novelty plasma globe.
So, why aren’t these structures just indications of shock waves? If you observe their redshifts, you will notice that many of these structures exhibit redshifts which suggest that the objects are moving far too quickly given their location. The most common anomalous redshift exists at 35 km/s, but there also exists redshifts at 50 km/s and 13 km/s.
These redshifts are notable because they validate the prediction by Hannes Alfven many decades ago that critical ionization velocities would be observed in space. A CIV occurs within the laboratory when you slam a beam of charged particles into a cloud of neutral gas. In the process, the neutral cloud of gas gets ionized, and the emission is associated with the CIV’s of the *neutral* matter. 50 km/s, 35 km/s, 13 km/s and 6 km/s cover the CIV’s of the universe’s most common elements.
When you see CIV’s affiliated with filaments in space, this strongly suggests that you are observing plasmas conducting electrical current.
The movement of these charged particles constitutes an additional power input which is surely not being factored into your models, because the conventional plasma models ignore all of our laboratory observations of plasmas, and suppose that plasmas are dominated fundamentally by gravitational forces. While idealized to the sterile universe which the Big Bang theory demands, the non-electromagnetic plasma models are completely hypothetical. They have no basis in laboratory experimentation. After all, plasmas which exist within an ambient magnetic field can ignore gravitational forces with less than 1% ionization!
I’m quite sure that you will ignore all of this. But, the rest of you guys who are still open-minded on these issues should read Verschuur’s extensive publications on this topic. With a little background research on Marklund Convection, like from Anthony Peratt’s plasma physics textbook, it’s even possible to get a handle on the rotational geometry from which the CIV’s derive.
To be clear, this theory is completely testable, as plasma filaments should naturally sort elements radially in a specific order. And since galaxies are really two twisting Birkeland Currents, the sorting should manifest in galaxies as well. If you look at the hydrogen profile for galaxies, you will see some unusual sorting which is easily explained with these plasma-based cosmologies.
With regard to the confusion I’ve been working from this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an
altitude of 45km, with an increase above this altitude.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I’m tired of pointing out that changes in UV and chemistry in the stratosphere are very much part of the models.
Yes, but the models underestimate the effects, be it directly (as is pointed to in this article) by underestimating the change in UV, or indirectly the effect of such changes on feedbacks, like cloud cover and/or cloud patterns and the (in)direct influence on sea surface temperature.
The first point is Harder vs. Lean about 10:1, while most GCM’s are based on Lean.
Then take from your reference:
Next Steps:
Include stratospheric chemistry & circulation (see Haigh, also Stolarski)
Which are not included in the first runs???
Surface radiative forcing very small, direct surface response < 0.1 K in 11-year
But in reality, the minimum-maximum difference is ~0.2 K over the solar cycle:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm
But the real changes at the sea surface in the tropics are much larger at +/- 0.5 K within 3-4 years (probably caused by changes in cloud cover), but I don’t find the reference back. If even a small change is sustained over several cycles, the influence would be felt globally, far beyond the TSI change.
Further from:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
Nevertheless, our main conclusion, that models underestimate the climatic response to solar forcing [note: factor 2 for the HadCM3 model, within the constraints of the model], is supported by two other detection studies that used diagnostics tailored for the 11-yr solar cycle. Hill et al. (2001) showed that models underestimate the tropospheric temperature response to solar forcing by a factor of 2 to 3 and North and Wu (2001) found an underestimate of about 2 for near-surface temperatures.
Enough for further study…
If the models do take account of changes in the sun then they can’t be much good 50 or 100 years projected into the future as we don’t know what the sun is going to do in that time.
I also have trouble with this: “The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.”
They do? I thought the mechanism was that the surface gets heated by that radiation which then heats the lower atmosphere by conduction and convection.
Judith Lean seems keen to dismiss these measurements as instrument error. So NASA flys instruments into space and has no good data on possible drifts etc?
Yeah actually I’ll believe that having been periphery involved in one NASA CF.