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
Matt G
Only proxy data though, not instrumental as in the above.
Instrumental TSI (a hoch poch filled sausage)
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/org_comp2_d41_62_1206_vg.pdf
is no more reliable than sunspot count.
Jason Miller says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:38 am
“All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.” Doesn’t the nighttime low have a higher rate of temperature increase than the daytime high? How do sunspots explain this since the “sun is not shining”?
The assumption is that different factors affect nighttime temperatures. AGWists would argue GHGs. Many sceptics would argue UHI, I’d argue decreased aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds causing increased early morning solar insolation, increasing the minimum temperature.
Take your pick.
Just The Facts says: September 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Odd thing was I couildn’t access a bunch of pages beyond that WUWT page. Thanks for fixing that. All clear now. Have a fine day.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:36 am
“Here is what Schrijver et al. suggest the solar magnetic flux [which generally is accepted as the cause of the variation of TSI] looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png [red dots]”
Nice graph. Looks like we just dropped down to levels not seen since the last Dalton, though that was preceded by two high peaks, but this one is preceded by a lower peak. We wait.
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Sunspot Numbers didn’t detect the bigger drop more recently in solar activity around the last minimum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/normalise/offset:-0.4/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1978.83/normalise/offset:-0.2
I find it obvious that changes in the energy supply should be changing temperatures.
Delays and temporary climate changes should be the role of the oceans (ENSO et al).
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Okay.
I actually went ahead, digitized the graph, and fixed it to “Leif 2007″ assuming that they used “Lean 2000″ (worst case scenario) as basis.
Thick black line – original TSI assumed to use “Lean 2000″
Thin orange line – recalculated TSI using “Leif 2007″ (original values from the graph divided by appropriate “Lean 2000″ values and multiplied by appropriate “Leif 2007″ values)
http://i45.tinypic.com/8wxt1e.png
You may disagree but it doesn’t look all that different to me.
=========================
Leif would you please respond to this post.
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:35 am
Easy Leif, you were up too early this morning. Get some bread and milk.
If you would stick to science and not hide behind meaningless chat, it would be refreshing
“The solar curve looks much like the old Hoyt & Schatten curve.”
Did they use ACRIM data for that?
For a self-proclaimed ‘historian’ of science your ignorance of the basics should be an embarrassment to you. H&S did this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01844.pdf
‘We used (1) the equatorial rotation rate, (2) the sunspot structure and decay rate, and (3) the length and decay rate of the sunspot cycle as proxies’
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:42 am
So if you are so perfectly sure how they created the curve, maybe you could share a more detailed explanation? Or maybe a reconstruction?
Some time ago it was discovered that earlier measurements of TSI had a systematic error [a bit of extra light was leaking into the instrument] of about 4 to 5 W/m2. Newer instruments do not have that error. For convenience in comparison the newer values were often [and in my case for TSI-LEIF] increased by 4.5 W/m2. Lately, it has been more convenient to lower the old values [S&B did that], so my comparison plot http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png have used the newer convention. As you can see S&B matches my curves for the last few cycles.
aaron says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:48 am
Leif, what is the history; why are the low, early 20th century curves wrong? How were they created?
Several dubious methods [see the H&S referred to above], typically by using the now discredited Group Sunspot Number.
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:52 am
we can probably expect such time lags to be quite large (decades?)
The S&B plot does not show any lags
Robuk says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:10 am
I like Leif`s graph, Sunspot number (traditional view) and Sunspot number (corrected for weighting), everything’s corrected in one direction. Its not the sun stupid.
Only ONE correction is needed, around 1945.
Fernando(in Brazil) says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:11 am
This reconstruction can be considered correct? Observed solar constant reconstructed from satellite observations., Please cite C.Fr\”ohlich, 2000, “Observations of Irradiance Variations, Space Science Rev., 94, pp. 15-24., source,
Unfortunately not, as Froehlich mesaurements suffer from uncorrected degradation.
wobble says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:06 am
It seems to me that Group 3′s average is higher than Groups 1 and 2.
Yes it is about 12% higher, which is insignificant compared to the very large change in solar radiation postulated by S&B’s Figure.
highflight56433 says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:18 am
From the mouth of babes comes the truth.
Having brought up four of themn, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg”
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:47 am
Did you get as far as the sunny island of Hvar ?
I’m too busy right now, so Ed Cliver is giving the talk.
Mark and two Cats says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:52 am
Don’t take it personal – just teasing 🙂
In such cases, you append a smiley.
John W says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:50 am
If what you say is true in the above statement, then why do you bother to post comments here?
Because as a tax-payer funded scientist I feel I have an obligation to give back something, and what better than correct science and patient education of the sheep that have lost their way.
John F. Hultquist says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:51 am
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and l look in vain for a downward slope. Not there! What’s going on?
We are stedily climbing into the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Silver Ralph says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Thus the temperature variability must be regulated by something other than TSI. I would suggest that magnetic variability has the greater effect, but you need to find the mechanism for this.
The variation in TSI is caused by variations in magnetic activity, so no change in TSI means no change in magnetic activity.
I would suggest that Svenmark is closest to the prize.
His theory is already falsified.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
It drives me crazy seeing people think that responses should be instantaneous. They never are, often by a wide margin, when you are talking about systems as expansive as the Earth.
The S&B graph does not show any lags, so if there must be a lag, the absence of one falsifies the premise that the sun did it.
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:51 pm
you can see that that TSI (derived from sunspot magnetic activity) changed puny 0.1% since the Maunder minimum, while the Antarctic magnetic field percentage change was 40-50 times greater (about 4-5%), and it closely follows the TSI.
It seems to follow the TSI derived from the idscredited Group Sunspot Number, so just a coincidence.
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
You may disagree but it doesn’t look all that different to me.
What you have just shown is that S&B probably used Lean 2000 [and not Hoyt & Schatten]. But Lean 2000 is still wrong, even Lean acknowledges that. She is a co-author of the other curve marked ‘Wang 2005’.
HenryP says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Will Nitzschke says
Leif Svalgaard insists this warming period cannot be explained by increased solar activity.
Regardless of the temperature curve, what I’m saying is that the ‘solar radiation’ curve is wrong.
J Martin says:
September 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Nice graph. Looks like we just dropped down to levels not seen since the last Dalton
The point is that at every solar minimum we drop to level close to Dalton or even Maunder. The variation at the bottom is much smaller than at the top of the curve. That is the important insight.
James Allison says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Leif would you please respond to this post.
I just did.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
“It is also well documented that solar activity today is back to what it was in the early part of the 20th century, but apparently temperatures are not…”
As others have mentioned, there is a time lag in these things.
Not according to Soon & Briggs there isn’t. Actually that’s also true of most of the “solar-climate correlations”.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:07 am
solid data that refutes any L&P type effect that so many of the skeptics tend to believe in blindly. http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/darkness1.png
Matches quite nicely the L&P solid data over the same period: http://www.leif.org/research/Liv-Penn-Latest.png
Thanks for the confirmation.
The level of scientific hubris on this subject is amazing. One hundred years ago X-rays were unknown as were Gravity waves; both sources of energy transfer between the Sun and the Earth. One hundred years from now new sources of energy transfer will have been discovered; perhaps explaining the curious correlation between Solar output and earthly temperature fluctuations.
Katana says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm
explaining the curious correlation between Solar output and earthly temperature fluctuations.
No explanation is needed because there is no correlation: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Why the focus on the contiguous US?
Last I checked scientific positions had educational and experience requirements. You of course can argue with them that credentials don’t matter and try to get hired. I don’t consider statistical arguments from people who lack the very basic credentials to make these arguments, least of all over someone who is actually qualified to make these arguments (Briggs).
The “You’re not a climate scientist” argument is completely different because those in the field have such varied educational (all scientific however) and experience backgrounds. They do not all have degrees in climatology or atmospheric science. I do not believe there is an objective criteria to determine who is a “climate scientist” by credentials. Though you would find general agreement that they need to have to have a scientific education and have published in the peer-reviewed literature. Briggs and Soon both have extensive scientific credentials.
FYI, Einstein had a BS in Mathematics & Physics and a PhD in Physics.
Oh and you are talking to the wrong person if you think I am ever going to STFU.
Poptech says:
“…you are talking to the wrong person if you think I am ever going to STFU.”
Good for you Poptech! [Not that I disagree with JJ. I don’t.]
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Matches quite nicely the L&P solid data over the same period: http://www.leif.org/research/Liv-Penn-Latest.png
Thanks for the confirmation.
Nice try, but way off base. My data shows the darkness or magnetic strength fluctuates with sunspot activity. The L&P data does not show this during Nov 2011. I also measure the entire solar disk every day which shows a similar trend.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/darkness2.png
If we take the same data back further we see a rise in magnetic strength from 2008.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sunspot_darkness.png
The L&P data does not show this trend but instead a steady decline since 2003. This is because they are measuring more smaller spots as the speck ratio increases during this period. Smaller spots by nature measure a lower magnetic strength. I measure the speck ratio every day which is clearly increasing.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
With some added notes:
A quick but striking illustration of adding to this article’s plot also the temperature history for the Arctic and for the entire Northern Hemisphere average (very importantly not using the versions of such flattened in the pre-1980s by dishonest CAGW-movement revisionism):
Preferred link:
http://s18.postimage.org/3z3ytbrav/gw_illustration_1.jpg
Backup version of the same:
http://postimage.org/image/5e5ji1sdx/full/
The following are text versions of the source links in the image, placing them here as well so they are easier to copy and paste:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part4-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-185.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig71.jpg
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005A%26G….46d..31H/D000031.000.html
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf
Leif said:
Because as a tax-payer funded scientist I feel I have an obligation to give back something, and what better than correct science and patient education of the sheep that have lost their way.
A very laudable motivation. And I am sure you aware the people who read your comments with interest and accept what you say, far out number those who dispute them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
“The S&B graph does not show any lags, so if there must be a lag, the absence of one falsifies the premise that the sun did it.”
Does it not? Looks to me that there’s a good decade or so, especially the later you go in the series, as the quality of the data improves.
John Finn says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Ditto the above.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Darren Potter says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm
“If you plot the yearly average the, large, effect due to the elliptical orbit averages out.”
I don’t see that you’ve really resolved Darren’s query. The variation in insolation may average out over a year, but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects, depending on where the Earth’s axis is pointing over the year.
Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.
JJ, Poptech,
In Mosh’s case these do matter as he goes around describing himself as ” As an engineer “. He did so last month at JC’s blog. He’s not an engineer. He’ an english major. He misrepresented as if he was an engineer. And this was when no one even asked him what his qualifications were. He also ridicules other people about their qualifications, like he did it here about Stephen Wilde just a few days ago, implying that a lawyer running a blog should not talk about climate.
His stats for the BEST paper were torn apart by Ross Mc.Kitrick and the crap BEST paper got rejected. Yet he goes around literally proclaiming that paper as infallible.People like Mc.Kitrick, Briggs, etc., are well qualified, known, respected and published statisticians. They have also exhibited integrity. Mosher has neither exhibited such qualifications, has no publication record in statistics and has not exhibited the kind of attitude which experts in statistics like McKitrick, Briggs and Steve McIntyre have displayed.
I do agree with the fundamental statement that it does not matter who you are, it’s your work that matters and should stand up to scrutiny. Willis Eschenbach is one who always states that he pounds nails for a living and also has interest in climate and does work on climate issues on the side. He does not come out with holier than thou attitude like Mosher as if he’s the smartest and the rest are idiots. And Willis doesn’t misrepresent who he is and what he does. And he has also had peer reviewed published stuff about climate.
Mosher as none of those and yet the way he goes around nowadays with his BS one would think that he was some all round expert in every area imaginable. And he has been going around at JC’s blog, discussing with pathetic trolls like Robert, Lolwot and others of that ilk, moaning about WUWT and stating that one can’t hold a discussion a WUWT. Yet, in the literal sense, have you seen him even attempting to hold any discussions here? People like Dr.Robert Brown, Dr.Leif Svaalgaard, Walt Meier, Bob Tisdale and a host of others come here, post articles, discuss, argue knowledgeably, elucidate their points and there is a robust debate. Does Mosher do any of that? No, he does only high handed cryptic ” know better than you, I’m smarter than you, go figure ” kind of drive by drivel. So personally and professionally I have not seen any integrity or straightforwardness in such behaviour.
So in his case, I believe that Poptech’s comments are well justified.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.”
When I wrote this, I was thinking in terms of the fact that, though the illumination is weaker at aphelion, the planet hangs around there longer, and so the NH might absorb more energy overall. However, it turns out that, with irradiance falling off as the square of distance, coupled with the tilt and the rate of revolution, the total insolation of the North Pole, neglecting any shading from the horizon or clouds at least, is zero mean annually. I have a funny sense of deja vu that we may have argued these points and come to the same conclusion at some time in the past on these boards.
Now, the fact that there is shadowing may still offset things a bit – quite a bit, I think, in some regions. And, differing cloud cover in the winter versus summer might have an effect as well. I do not know how large these effects might be, and working it out for myself takes time and collection of data I currently lack, so I’ll just throw it out as a question for all to ponder and comment upon: can these asymmetries, or any others anyone can think of, appreciably affect the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the warming has been observed?
There could also be some effects of orbital perturbations, but I suspect these are small, or at least, pace Nicola Scafetta, I am not convinced they are large.
Matt G
Sunspot number calculation provides daily number with long term continuity across centuries. But none of that is crucial to the point you are making. Global temperatures and the AMO oscillate with period of about 9 years, while the solar cycle (sunspot or TSI) is near 11 years, the oscillations drift in and out of phase and are not directly comparable, or correlated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-SSN.htm
Minor differences between the instrumental TSI and SSN cann’t account for that.
Sorry if above wasn’t of any help, but of course, you are entitled to your opinion,
Leif Svalgaard says: September 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
….
Appreciate your effort and task to explain and educate. I, of having no desire to drive the highway of science, but wander trough a rocky wilderness of coincidences (btw, the area I spent my formative years), still find it curious that if the Antarctica field change is de-trended it gives a reasonably good match to the Svalgaard’s TSI
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.htm
which ‘resonates’ with the statement by Jean Dickey from NASA/JPL in
‘NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights’
I still have to do some work on this one. I looked at residuals between geo-solar and temp oscillations (iterations driven by excel) and frequencies come within fraction of what was initially found. Coincidences may be, but it is what I waste my time on.
Do suggest to Dr. Cliver to sail down along to cast into bay of Kotor
http://www.flickriver.com/places/Montenegro/Kotor/Perast/