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
ferdberple says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:57 pm
In the United States, the traditional privilege of “fair comment” is seen as a protection …
Only as long as the comment is not made with ill will.
Thanks for your reply, but I’m a bit confused. It seems as if the S&B chart shows less than a 1% change in solar radiation over their period so how can you imply that the sustained increase of 12% (in your Slide 31) over recent periods is insignificant?
It seems as if a 12% increase in solar radiation could contribute to warming.
wobble says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:15 am
It seems as if a 12% increase in solar radiation could contribute to warming.
Indeed, it would fry us.
however, the 12% was an increase of the number of sunspots, not of solar radiation. A 100% increase in sunspot numbers would only increase solar radiation by 0.1% as the 99.9% of the rest comes from the part of the sun that is not magnetic. And 12% of 0.1% = 0.012% isn’t much and will give a increase of the temperature of the Earth of 0.01 degrees.
We know the solar intensity varies little. However, the solar magnetic field is not nearly so constant. The solar wind hitting the earth is like a drunk with a fire hose.
ferdberple says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:51 am
We know the solar intensity varies little. However, the solar magnetic field is not nearly so constant. The solar wind hitting the earth is like a drunk with a fire hose.
The energy in the solar wind is less than a millionth of that of solar radiation, so don’t do much for climate. On the other hand, the solar wind magnetic field reflects the solar magnetic field at the sun which gives rise to the variations of TSI. Since we have a good record of solar wind conditions [either directly observed or easily and accurately calculated from its geomagnetic response] for almost the past 200 years we can tell what TSI was doing over that time, and that is what shows us that S&B’s solar radiation curve is wrong.
The earth sits in the beam of a massive particle accelerator. The scale of the accelerator defies imagination. Everyone is fascinated looking at the exciter. See how steady it glows. Meanwhile they ignore the sweep of the beam in the magnetic field.
Consider an old style CRT tube. The filament glow is steady, never changes. However it the magnetic field collapses and the beam comes to rest for an instant it will burn a hole in the phosphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[27][28] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[28]
ferdberple says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:05 am
Meanwhile they ignore the sweep of the beam in the magnetic field.
As I pointed out, we monitor the beam and it shows no increase in TSI or solar magnetism over the past 200 years.
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional
So some people believe. However, recent research shows it is not, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs%20-%20Croatia.pdf [conclusion on slide 22].
Leif Svalgaard: “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.”
Leif you are all over the place with your arguments. Averaging for each year results in smoothing. Using measurements taken in space where there is no difference between day & night and the seasons results in smoothing. And makes for a bad model of Earth’s complex climate. As for the weather stations bias, that has to do with looking at the Global temperatures in relation to your premise that solar radiation is not related.
Leif Svalgaard: “I believe that the people measuring TSI are doing it correctly, I also believe that myself,”
I point you to your own page 10, where you argue there was a change made in counting of Sunspots that caused a discontinuity. From there you try to extrapolate TSI based on your own idea of what the correction should have been. That becomes an opinion, not science.
Leif Svalgaard: “which reference do you mean? I have many papers and talks with a page 36.”
The pdf paper you pointed to near the top of this WUWT entry. “The long-term variation of solar activity”. On page 36 it is clear there is an increase in solar activity. Which appears to correlate with the increase in Global Temperatures up until 2000. So again, what would the chart look like from 2000 through 2012, plotted with Global Temperature data?
Leif Svalgaard (page 14): “My modest proposal was met with fierce resistance from everybody,
but since I persisted in being a pest,”
After reading your paper and your numerous posts here, I think I am getting a good idea as to why there was “fierce resistance” and why they finally agreed. They got tired of your all over the place arguments and decided it was easier to appease you. Something that is not going to happen with all those here at WUWT. Understand, some here may agree with you, some may disagree, and some are just not going to give you the time of day. May not be fair, but that is the nature of the beast.
I do not accept your premise based upon your paper and comments. What I see is you are attempting to drive multiple round pegs in a square hole, and shaving off the edges in attempt to make them fit. The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236. In that the various cycles either cancel each other or reinforce each other causing periods of warming, mild warming, stability, mild cooling, or cooling of Earth’s temperatures.
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am
…..The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236….
oh dear!
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am
Averaging for each year results in smoothing. Using measurements taken in space where there is no difference between day & night and the seasons results in smoothing.
No, it shows the average for that year. Measuremets are taken every few minutes. Furthemore, the data plotted by Soon&Briggs are yearly averages. Take your problem to them.
And makes for a bad model of Earth’s complex climate. As for the weather stations bias, that has to do with looking at the Global temperatures in relation to your premise that solar radiation is not related.
There is no bias in the spacecraft data and according to Soon&Briggs not in the temperature data as they claim the two curves track each other.
From there you try to extrapolate TSI based on your own idea of what the correction should have been. That becomes an opinion, not science.
The correction is determined by comparison with simultaneous data from the solar observers and is accepted as correct. Good science and not opinion
On page 36 it is clear there is an increase in solar activity.
The correct slide to look at is the next one, slide 37.
So again, what would the chart look like from 2000 through 2012, plotted with Global Temperature data?
somewhat silly as no matter what it looks like people would claim there are lags in the system so the two curves cannot be compared on such a short time scale, but if you do it you get http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Satellite-Temps-2000-2012.png
They got tired of your all over the place arguments and decided it was easier to appease you.
They did it, because it is good science and the result is, of course, convincing to all: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Locarno-Svalgaard-Cagnotti-png
May not be fair, but that is the nature of the beast.
People will get out of this what they deserve to get out of it.
I do not accept your premise based upon your paper and comments….The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236.
As I said, it is your loss, and BTW you just showed your bias and adherence to the cyclomania cult. In face of such faith, no amount of real science will have any impact at all, I fully understand and appreciate that.
John Finn says
oh dear
Henry says
quote from what John Finn regards “oh dear”:
Solar UV ranges from 10-400nm on the spectral scale and is broken up into 3 basic categories. EUV is at the extreme end of the spectrum (10-125.6nm) which includes the important Lyman alpha portion which resides at the high end of the EUV scale. EUV values vary by 30-100% across the range over the solar cycle, and have the most potential to modulate atmospheric chemistry, size and temperature. FUV (126-200nm) also shows big variations in the 10-30% range and is a very important player along with EUV for ozone formation in the stratosphere and mesosphere. MUV (200-300nm) is a solid ozone backstop but only varies 1% over the solar cycle but still relevant when comparing overall TSI (total solar irradiance) variance of 0.1%.
Those that subscribe to AGW science will only push TSI when it comes to solar influence on climate. The records gathered from somewhat dubious satellites during the space age display a small 0.1% change in solar HEAT output over a few solar cycles. To really appreciate the true solar effect on climate it is necessary to include chemical changes and total solar influenced cloud cover to see the real picture.
end quote
well, yes, ehh,
isn’t that exactly what I have been trying to say in laymens terms (as I am not an expert in solar)
now if the persons who wrote this (Geoff Sharp?) can just report to me if they might be able to correlate my results of an apparent a-c wave evident in the record for maxima
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
….with the right cycles
that would make my day….
They did it, because it is good science and the result is, of course, convincing to all: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Locarno-Svalgaard-Cagnotti.png
The counting without weighting will be continued indefinitely.
I now understand your point. Thank you for patiently explaining it to me.
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 11:29 am
“FUV (126-200nm) also shows big variations in the 10-30% range and is a very important player along with EUV for ozone formation in the stratosphere”
if they might be able to correlate my results
Except what they wrote is not the way it is. EUV does not penetrate in enough amounts to play a significant role in ozone formation in the stratosphere, as these rays are predominantly absorbed much higher up, in the thermosphere and ionosphere.
Henry@Leif
I have been looking at studies on ozone formation but I gather these chemical reactions are complex and the points in the atmosphere to measure limited. Yet, somehow, as I have found, there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996, seemingly in tandem with respectively the rise and fall in maximum temperatures.
(I very much doubt now the ozone scare noises made in the eighties, its fall being blamed on CFC’s)
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm
there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996
Signe, my daughter-in-law is the family expert on ozone, here is her take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
Leif Svalgaard: “BTW you just showed your bias and adherence to the cyclomania cult. In face of such faith, no amount of real science will have any impact at all,”
This coming from a person who’s premise is the Sun’s Solar Radiation is consistent, does not have an effect on Earth’s temperatures as original posted here, and offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial. While ignoring what humans witness everyday, the Sun’s Solar Radiation effecting the Earth’s temperatures. There is a cult here alright, but it is your own.
BTW: Insistent of a premise, being all over the place with your arguments, and countering your own statements is NOT real science. But you go right ahead, keep ironing that Solar Radiation data, in fact steam press it, and you may eventually come up with a premise to deny why Mercury is hotter than Neptune.
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm
This coming from a person who’s premise is the Sun’s Solar Radiation is consistent, does not have an effect on Earth’s temperatures as original posted here
You are catching on to the fact that the solar curve ‘as original posted here’ is invalid just as the data shows, and that THAT was the issue, not what causes climate change.
offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial.
I could [e.g. changes in ocean circulation, orbital elements, etc] but no explanation is better than ten false ones. As I said, many people are happy with false explanations and it might be cruel to remove that sense of happiness [if it can even be done for die-hard believers], so go on and be happy.
While ignoring what humans witness everyday, the Sun’s Solar Radiation effecting the Earth’s temperatures
At this point people like you usually turn to the argument that it is colder at night when the Sun doesn’t shine, so I’m waiting for it.
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 11:29 am
now if the persons who wrote this (Geoff Sharp?) can just report to me if they might be able to correlate my results of an apparent a-c wave evident in the record for maxima
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
….with the right cycles
that would make my day….
Henry, what you see in your research is the repeating solar powerwave. I have a small article that tries to make it understandable.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/218
You will get no joy out of discussing issues with Leif as he never accepts science that goes against his ideas. He will use incorrect statements and throw away lines and then attack the person if that fails. His statement on UV is one example where he tells part of the truth to confuse, this is the behavior of a sophist.
He wrote:
Except what they wrote is not the way it is. EUV does not penetrate in enough amounts to play a significant role in ozone formation in the stratosphere, as these rays are predominantly absorbed much higher up, in the thermosphere and ionosphere.
Both EUV and FUV are ozone modulators, the following graph excepted by NASA and the majority of the world’s experts in this field shows the atmospheric penetration of the different wavelengths of UV.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/atmos.png
EUV is capable of penetrating into the Mesosphere which has a much lower ozone content but still none the less is thought to influence gravity waves and the northern polar vortex (AO index). Apart from that it is widely understood that chemicals created by EUV in the higher atmosphere make their way down via eddy diffusion and influence ozone production/destruction at lower levels. FUV which also varies 10-30% over its spectrum over the solar cycle then takes over and is a large player in Stratospheric ozone. Some of the ozone changes during low solar activity show a decrease of ozone under 45km and an increase above as shown via Joanna Haig’s work. I think this is all connected to the jet stream and pressure pattern changes we are seeing now, which obviously are having an impact. You may also be interested to read some of Stephen Wilde’s articles who is also a keen advocate in this area.
There are many advanced papers requiring hours of reading at the previous link I provided, but for anyone wishing to know more on the solar/climate link I can highly recommend the time required.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
Darren Potter says:September 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm: ”and offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial”
Darren, localized temperatures change every 10 minutes – but the GLOBAL temp overall is always the same! Stating that 1000y ago was colder. or warmer than today; it doesn’t say anything about the temperature, but about the person’s honesty / ignorance. 1000y ago people were scared to sail west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet – therefore: nobody was monitoring temp in both Americas, Oceania, Australia, Antarctic ocean and Terra Firma. Are they part of your ”globe”?!
People that concocted for the past 150 years ”LOCALIZED’ climatic changes as phony GLOBAL warmings; are the precursor of today’s evil. They were not scrutinized = they were inventing bigger lies than contemporary con, just to get the attention and funds. Here it’s for both camps to see: . http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Leif Svalgaard + HenryP say:September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm ”there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996”
HenryP, some people say that: the moon is made from mozzarella cheese – reason is melting every month, from the imaginary extra GLOBAL heat. Believing everything ”they” say, is not very clever / prudent.
Regarding real reasons about ‘ozone increase / decrease::: 1] nobody was monitoring increase / decrease of ozone in the 50’s, to be able to compare – that was added in 1980’s. People realized that: burning different synthetics – the smog is not as CO2 – goes into the lungs, then out with your own again. The smoke from those synthetics was coating your lungs and was staying there -> they invented ”the ozone story” Little white lie, to do good.
Unfortunately, by succeeding with that noble lie; some opportunist realized that: they can manipulate the society easy and make themselves lots and lots of money = that’s how the GLOBAL warming crap was born. So, 1996 the ”ozone trick” was removed from the debate, NOT TO UPSTAGE THE CO2. Because the money is in CO2, ozone isn’t good enough for loot money.
By the way: until 82, they were about ”Nuclear Winter by year 2000; because of CO2 dimming effect” Before we even defrosted from their Nuclear Winter – they had to turn into GLOBAL warming; because the countdown for year 2000 was supposed to start.
Henry, the building in East Anglia university, where the shonky climatologist are, is called ”Hubert Lamb, Building” Prof Hubert Lamb was promoting Nuclear Winter for year 2000. Now in the ”Building of English Shame” the idiots he created are promoting the phony GLOBAL warming, which is as real as their nuclear winter – only difference; they learned from Nostradamus – not to put a date – before they spend the loot money. Taking for granted what those Swindlers are telling / informing / misleading; created lots of nutters in the global warming blogosphere. Cheers.
Leif Svalgaard says:September 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm: ”solar curve”
Leif, the ”solar curve” has being made for misleading / confusing…. and they are succeeding.
BUT, if you learn about the: ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” the troposphere has – would realize that: everything else is bulldung:
1]-When is a solar eclipse – the moon is reflecting lots of sunlight, not to come to the earth. Same as when Mercury is in-between. But the earth doesn’t accumulate enough EXTRA coldness, to cool one beer!!! Because during the eclipse, gets colder for a millionth of a second -> oxygen & nitrogen shrink accordingly / decrease the volume of the troposphere for the duration of the eclipse and waste LESS heat – same as when you are cold in bed – you get in a feathus position – to minimize exposure- then when you get warm = spread arms and legs.
Earth’s troposphere can shrink / DOUBLE in size, in seconds. Imagine if your car radiator was doubling in volume when the engine warms up – like piano accordion. Here is some for you; if you have a stomach for the truth: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
Geoff Sharp says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm
He will use incorrect statements and throw away lines and then attack the person if that fails.
Still pursuing the slander angle, I see. Whatever the influences you may think there are, they have almost no effect on climate [less that 0.1 C], and some of the newest data indicate that the UV photons that influence the stratosphere actually vary in antiphase with the solar cycle: less solar activity, more UV. But, as usual, you are of topic. The issue is what TSI is doing as per Soon&Briggs.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm
influence ozone production/destruction at lower levels. FUV which also varies 10-30% over its spectrum over the solar cycle then takes over and is a large player in Stratospheric ozone.
You are trying to create the illusion that the solar cycle variation of ozone is large. In reality it is tiny. Quoting Haigh: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/fulltext.html
“Observational records (Figure 29a) suggest a peak in ozone response of about 2% over the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere, with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere, although the restricted length of the data series means that these results are not yet statistically robust. Ozone column (Figure 29b) shows 0.5 – 4% higher values in ozone columns at 11-year cycle maximum relative to minimum.”
You see that we are talking about a few percent only. That is the bottom line. Forget the 100%, the 30%, etc. If you were honest you should add to your discussion on your website that the effect is only of the order of 2%. I’ll be watching for signs of honesty.
HenryP says:September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm
there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996
Leif Svalgaard says: September 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Signe, my daughter-in-law is the family expert on ozone, here is her take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
Hello Leif
Within the paper noted, it states that:
My understanding of the dynamical effects of a Polar Vortex are that;
and that
Given the existence of a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole, an ozone hole and a methane hole within the vortex, wouldn’t the simplest explanation for these occurrences be the dynamical effects of the polar vortex on atmospheric pressure and circulation, as well as that within the Polar Vortex,
Further supporting this hypothesis is the apparent existence of an Ozone Surplus around the Ozone Hole, i.e.;
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
indicating that much of the ozone might not be destroyed, but rather displaced.
Additionally, if the above understanding of the dynamical effects of a polar vortex are reasonably accurate, then the reason for decreases in ozone concentrations during the 80s and 90s might be associated with the finding in;
Does this make reasonable sense? If so, then why the apparent attributions to anthropogenic influences (climate change and CFCs) when natural dynamical effects of polar vorticity might offer a suitable explanation for the atmospheric dynamics and existence of the ozone hole?