From the The Washington Times – By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.
This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note – Washington Times
A new graph adjusting Hadcrut3 global temperatures to ones expected if the global low level clouds had remained the same. So basically global temperatures that have had the change in effect of low level clouds removed. Makes a very interesting visual and still not sure what to make of it yet.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/8922/had3vlowcloudvsolar.png
One noticeable feature seems global temperatures now match the sun much closer than ever before, over a period that was believed the link no longer existed.
leif says
If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png
Henry says
it appears that you still do not understand what “absorption” means;
it does not mean “heating” (unless there was mass like water or solids);
if radiation hits a gas, and there is absorption, you get re-radiation,mostly, which, in the case of ozone, ultimately results in more back radiation i.e. more energy lost to space
If you look carefully at the graph you quoted, you should understand where most or at least a lot of the action is: more short wavelength radiation lost to space due to more ozone being present (since 1995 )
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
“The IR at 2000 nm is where CO2 is strongly absorbed.”
So what? It’s not incident IR upon which everyone is focused.
“If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is.”
This is a circular argument. The action is there because our models say it is there, therefore our models are correct and comprehensive.
“The objective standard is the amount of energy involved which is weel-researched and known”
Again, UV and higher frequency inputs cause reactions the others cannot, no matter how much there is of the other. So, this is not a particularly good standard.
“Picking something from the bottom and saying it is good because the top is better…”
What is your evidence that this paper is “from the bottom?”
Matt G says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:34 am
One noticeable feature seems global temperatures now match the sun much closer than ever before, over a period that was believed the link no longer existed.
You use PMOD. It is now recognized that PMOD suffers from uncompensated degradation and that the decrease the past decade is not real. As far as we can tell there is no observational evidence for TSI being lower this past minimum that at previous minima.
HenryP says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:40 am
If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where …
What you say is ‘not even wrong’. No need to argue this anymore as you seem impervious to learning. I have tried, but, alas, failed.
ironargonaut says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:33 am
as I’ve said before temperature is NOT a unit of energy nor a measurement of energy, it does even correlate to energy.
Temperature is a measure 1) of the kinetic energy of the random thermal motions of the atoms and molecules of matter or a 2) measure of the energy of radiation.
Mind you, note that ozone absorbs (and subsequently re-radiates/ back radiates) in the region of 0.2 to 0.8 um. This is why I was saying that it is possible that an interaction on the top of the atmosphere involving a small amount of energy causing a reaction (e.g. formation of ozone from oxygen) can ultimately lead to the loss of a lot more energy (more light 0.2 -0.8 being back radiated)
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:43 am
Thanks for advice, do you recommend one without degradation?
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1075290
Henry says
Can you be clear as to whom you were quoting. You were quoting yourself.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:42 am
It seems that your hole is getting deeper
So what? It’s not incident IR upon which everyone is focused.
True, it is UV and its variation, but who was saying something about ‘orders of magnitudes’ for IR?
The action is there because our models say it is there, therefore our models are correct and comprehensive.
Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.
Again, UV and higher frequency inputs cause reactions the others cannot, no matter how much there is of the other. So, this is not a particularly good standard.
Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate. And energy deposition is the appropriate standard. We get [rare] gamma ray bursts from outer space, causing things that others cannot and ultra-high energy cosmic ray particles doing the same, yet the total energy input is negligible.
What is your evidence that this paper is “from the bottom?”
What is your evidence that it is not? Except to praise the top. I have read [and reviewed] many Russian papers on this and they consistently are at the bottom. Perhaps you could point out where the particular paper you have in mind shines?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“True, it is UV and its variation, but who was saying something about ‘orders of magnitudes’ for IR?”
The question was whether IR energy associated with a particular CO2 vibration state was in any way significant, or worthy of being made the reference for overall IR. It isn’t. The statement that the average IR photon is several orders of magnitude less energetic than an average UV photon remains valid.
“Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.”
Therefore, we must avoid looking any further to see if there is anything else to be learned.
“Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate.”
They are absorbed, but have no effect. Amazing…
“What is your evidence that it is not?”
I’d prefer something better than a coin toss in deciding. If you have any actual critique, rather than innuendo, it would help move the conversation forward.
Matt G says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:56 am
Thanks for advice, do you recommend one without degradation?
This one http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
but it only goes back to 2003.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm
The question was whether IR energy associated with a particular CO2 vibration state was in any way significant, or worthy of being made the reference for overall IR. It isn’t. The statement that the average IR photon is several orders of magnitude less energetic than an average UV photon remains valid.
But irrelevant, the average F10.7 photon is 15 orders of magnitude less energetic. We were discussing UV and the UV photons of relevance are only 2-3 times more energetic
“Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.”
Therefore, we must avoid looking any further to see if there is anything else to be learned.
There is no other better place to look than direct measurements in the laboratory combined with precise calculations from well-understood theory.
“Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate.” They are absorbed, but have no effect. Amazing…
Yes, see, you learn something new every day. The reasons they have no measurable effect on climate at the surface is that the air density up there is a billion times smaller than at the surface and the number of high-frequency photons falls of exponentially, so there is no real energy involved.
I’d prefer something better than a coin toss in deciding. If you have any actual critique, rather than innuendo, it would help move the conversation forward.
The shoe is on the other foot. Again: Perhaps you could point out where the particular paper you have in mind shines? You made general statements about the superiority of Russian science and I made a general statement about my [intimate] knowledge of the Russian scientific literature on Sun-Climate relationships. If you want to be particular, please be so.
Keep up the good work, Anthony! You’re credibility remains.
Leif Svalgaard: “Here is our best estimate [blue and pink, from two different reconstructions] overlaid the temperature curve: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png”
Leif, I do not agree with your chart/statement premise. In part because your premise goes against what we so easily observe with day vs. night and with the seasons. The being the changes in levels of solar radiation has a substantial effect on earth’s temperature. Then there is the whole matter of varying temperatures on planets where man (anthropological) ain’t.
I propose if you applied the same kind of smoothing/averaging to the temperature data as you have applied to solar radiation data, compensated for how solar radiation and temperatures were measured in the past, recent past, vs. currently, and removed the bias from NOAA’s weather station temperature data, I think you would see a trend or Temp-Track-Sun.
You can be entirely correct that a mistake was made in between Wolf and Wolfer’s counting methods. However, that does not mean that when the measurements are done correctly there won’t be a correlation between solar radiation and earth temperatures.
Perhaps I misunderstanding your chart on page 36, but it appears there is correlation between solar radiation and the very slight increase in global temperatures (as claimed to be caused by AGW) up until 2000. After 2000 we know steps were taken by Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc. to hide the declining global temperatures.
What would the chart on page 36 look like if it was plotted to the present (2012)?
Can you overlay HadCrut and satellite measured temperatures (at least for the years available) on to your chart on page 36?
Darren Potter says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm
I propose if you applied the same kind of smoothing/averaging to the temperature data as you have applied to solar radiation data, compensated for how solar radiation and temperatures were measured in the past, recent past, vs. currently, and removed the bias from NOAA’s weather station temperature data, I think you would see a trend or Temp-Track-Sun.
There has been no smoothing of the solar data. What is plotted is the average for each year. The measurements are made in space outside of the earth and do not know about day/night/sommer/winter and there are no weather station bias.
However, that does not mean that when the measurements are done correctly there won’t be a correlation between solar radiation and earth temperatures.
I believe that the people measuring TSI are doing it correctly, I also believe that myself, Preminger et al., and Schrijver et al. are correctly reconstructing the past TSI. I base this on the fact that TSI depends on the sun’s magnetic field, which in turn influences special effects on the Earth’s field, which in turn has been monitored accurately for almost two centuries. I’m not sure about the temperature, but Soon and Briggs seem to be.
Perhaps I misunderstanding your chart on page 36
which reference do you mean? I have many papers and talks with a page 36.
HenryP says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:58 am
Can you be clear as to whom you were quoting. You were quoting yourself.
The quote was just to refer back to one of your posts quoting me. I don’t think anybody would be in doubt as to whom the ‘not even wrong’ remark referred to.
Fellas, your ignorance is impeccable; brilliant ignorance… the gold medal for ignorance is yours.
If ”THE SUN” was controlling the climate on the planet – Sahara and Brazil would have had SAME climate…!!! Anthony is keeping you in a perfect darkness… The truth: H2O regulates the climate, on many different ways (apart of altitude + latitude) b] there is NO such a thing as GLOBAL warming! oxygen & nitrogen regulate the overall temp in the troposphere to be always the same!
It’s the SAME sun for Florida and west of Texas – but different climates. Vietnam, Burma rain-forests have SAME sun as Arizona. On SAME latitude in Australia, the rivers are dry for 4-5 months in the year – but NOT the tributaries that fill up with water in the Amazon river. THOSE PROOFS ARE NOT MICROSCOPIC. Get the wool off your eyes, guys… start using your own brains! Sunspots have being discovered for the first time after year 2005, and the first filter made to see the sunspots was made then; but to see them clear filter was made 2008-9.
”Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records”’ WOW, WOW!!! Chinese imperial astronomers had brains, not to look at the sun. Contemporary Urban Sheep can look directly at the sun; because on them, ALL the wool is over their eyes…?! Shame, shame…
Bart.
Lief is peddling propaganda when it comes to UV variation and atmospheric impacts. He has been shown the wide knowledge on this topic and anyone with some basic research under their belt knows mesospheric/stratospheric ozone is influenced by both EUV and FUV that vary greatly over the solar cycle. I also had this confirmed with private correspondence with Joanna Haige.
There are some interesting links contained in an article I did some time back.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
HenryP:
As you noted:
“After analysing the daily data from 47 weather stations, balanced by latitude and sea-inland 70-30, my results for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K / annum for maxima versus time now stands at 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).”
Assuming I didn’t make any careless mistakes here, your compiled temperature change figures for maxima look like they correspond to:
1) 1974 to 1980 = warming by 0.44 K, +0.073 K/yr within that period
2) 1980 to 1990 = warming by 0.62 K, +0.062 K/yr within that period
3) 1990 to 2000 = warming by 0.50 K, +0.05 K/yr within that period
4) 2000 to 2012 = cooling by 0.192 K, -0.016 K/yr within that period
The deceleration in the rate of warming followed by transition to cooling is apparent.
For instance, periods 1 to 4 as marked above amount if combined to 0.44 + 0.62 + 0.50 – 0.192 =~ +1.368 K over 38 years for around +0.036 K/yr over the past 38 years since 1974 as you noted.
Overall there was a temperature peak in the late 1990s, as I recall you have often mentioned too.
I would be cautious about extrapolating from 4 data points for assuming just a long-period sine wave, though. While you can fit such mathematically to those 4 points in particular, there is also variation from short-term El Ninos to the grand picture in http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Gisp-ice-10000-r..png (backup version if the prior link doesn’t work: http://tinyurl.com/8rxo3m5 ). The latter ends 95 years ago, but the graphs in my September 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm post in this thread covered the past century. I know you are focusing on maxima and not the mean temperatures more commonly plotted, but even so…
However, anyway, a temperature peak in the late 1990s followed by the start of cooling is what we both see. Solar cycles 20->21->22 over the 1964->1996 period rose from 1.00 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 in relative inverted cosmic ray counts, followed by temperatures and solar activity overall declining afterward. I can’t very readily use the prior 4 discrete text-based datapoints as a much more specific illustration, though, for what you were asking. To do a decent job, I’d need to add in other influences superimposed on top, including the AMO and PDO ocean oscillations. All combined could most readily be shown graphically but would take quite a while. So if I spent tens of hours eventually, I’d try submitting an entire article to WUWT as opposed to a comment. Short of that, there are the links in my prior comments if helpful.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm
knows mesospheric/stratospheric ozone is influenced by both EUV and FUV that vary greatly over the solar cycle.
This is where you are wrong. EUV and FUV are mainly absorbed in the ionosphere and thermosphere and do not play any significant role in stratospheric ozone [in the mesosphere the density is 1000 times smaller than in the stratosphere, so the amounts created there are negligible]. The important wavelength range for ozone is 200-300 nm, and as you can see here the solar cycle variation in that range is tiny [0-3%]: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-Variation-UV.png
The myths you people believe in are amazing, people who drive those myths are doing a great disservice to the debate.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Lief is peddling propaganda
That is slander, which should be beneath the dignity of a gentleman, but then perhaps you have no aspiration to be one.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard
This whole thread has been a revelation to me and has been a great learning experience. I apologise for any offence caused to you due to my spat with you and unreservedly withdraw any negative comments I made about you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_comment
In the United States, the traditional privilege of “fair comment” is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.
Henry Clark says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1075570
Henry@Henry Clark
Thanks! But I am not not yet convinced that it is in the clouds. But I donot count it out yet. Whatever the case, it is clear from my results that there is a timescale of some sort, affecting maximum temperatures. Applying a binominal curve with rsquare=0.998,
I think it is fair to calculate with high accuracy that a turning point was reached sometime in 1995, as far as energy-in is concerned. Energy output by earth might be different, because earth stores energy and lags behind by what comes in on top. Looking at that curve (by FW and BW estimation) it becomes apparent that the (warming) cycle previously changed sign (from cooling to warming) some 40 or 50 years ago. There is little doubt about that aspect. I understand why you you say I must be careful here; I know that but I think the deviations you mention follow the energy-in cycle, rather than affect it. So, if I now try to put the results into a sine wave I get my best fit with a wavelength of 88 years. That would mean that the maxima follow on an a-c wave with a warming period of 44 years and a cooling period of 44 years. Following this, we cannot expect the end of declining maxima before 1995+44=2039, at best. It also means that what the proponents of AGW have termed “global warming” started in or around 1951 and it is clearly part of a natural cycle that ended in 1995.
I just looked at some ozone data again, and found a bending point of ozone going down as from 1950, if I put that data from 1940-1995 in a binominal as well. Then, if I look at same data from 1980-2007, I find another bending point, this time ozone going up from 1995…
Too many coincidences here. I am not one of those who believe that our life on earth is part of a cosmic lottery.
Leif says
The myths you people believe in are amazing, people who drive those myths are doing a great disservice to the debate.
Henry says
I would say that this blog is our “lab” and our “kitchen”.Nobody is less or more important here than another as long as we work together to find out what the truth is. Here we debate and discuss the scientific issues based on actual tests and observations. As I have said before, we all appreciate your input. But if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Venter says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:57 pm
This whole thread has been a revelation to me and has been a great learning experience.
WUWT can at times be that. The blog is also a micro cosmos of human foibles.