From the FECYT – Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology via Eurekalert comes this interesting note about solar forcing. It seems there’s a 2.3% per decade increase in solar radiation observed in Spain. Surely this is more than enough to account for the warming there? Cloud cover is said to be the issue, as Dr. Roy Spencer has previously pointed out, it only takes a small amount of cloud cover change to make a warming trend. – Anthony
Spain receives ever more solar radiation
Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3% every decade since the 1980s, according to a study by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds, which has increased the amount of direct radiation reaching us from the Sun.
“The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of + 3.9 W m-2 [2.3% more] per decade.” This is the main conclusion of a study published in the magazine ‘Global and Planetary Change‘ by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH, Switzerland).
The season-by-season data show the same “significant” increase in solar radiation impacting the nation: + 6.5 W/m2 per decade during the summer, + 4.1 W/m2 in autumn, + 3.2 W/m2 in spring and + 1.7 W/m2 in winter.
“These data relate to global solar radiation, in other words the increase in direct radiation reaching us from the Sun plus diffuse radiation which is scattered previously by clouds, atmospheric gases and aerosols,” explains one of the authors, Arturo Sánchez-Lorenzo, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Girona.
What is intriguing is that the scientists found a decrease in the diffuse component, because of which direct radiation has increased to a proportionately higher degree. Only in 1991 and 1992 did diffuse radiation rise, and this was due to the ashes from Mount Pinatubo. In general, however, we can observe a downward trend of – 2.1 W/m2 per decade between 1985 and 2010.
VIDEO: Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s.Click here for more information.
“The explanation lies in the fact that in Spain the amount of cloud has decreased markedly since the 1980s – as we have ascertained through other studies – and the tropospheric aerosol load may also have decreased,” states Sánchez Lorenzo. “It seems to be very simple: fewer clouds result in higher solar radiation on the surface,” he continues.
According to the scientists, this increase may also go hand in hand with more ultraviolet rays, an excess of which presents a health risk, potentially leading to skin cancer.
More global brightening
The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”. The fall in the diffuse component has also been observed in Central European and Eastern countries.
The team behind the study has not yet analysed the solar radiation data for 2011-2013 provided by the Spanish State Meteorological Agency, but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.
“Studies such as these may be of interest to the solar energy industry, especially in countries like Spain, where not only do we already have a lot of direct solar radiation but now we are getting even more,” affirms one of the other authors, Josep Calbó, who is a professor at the University of Girona.
References:
A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild. “Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends”. Global and Planetary Change 100: 343–352, 2013.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Ulric Lyons says:
June 15, 2013 at 11:15 am
I still don’t accept that, there were fewer holes even if there were relatively more low latitude ones. The amount of EUV decline is not totally certain either.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~avi/Abr+Linker-CHs-ApJ712-2010.pdf
Low- and mid-latitude coronal holes (CHs) observed on the Sun during the current solar activity minimum (from 2006 September 21, Carrington rotation (CR) 2048, to 2009 June 26, CR 2084) were analyzed using Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope and STEREO-A SECCHI EUVI data. From both the observations and Potential Field Source Surface modeling, we find that the area occupied by CHs inside a belt of ±40◦ around the solar equator is larger in the current 2007 solar minimum relative to the similar phase of the previous 1996 solar minimum
But, of course not, people hooked on their own ideas often do not accept the cruel verdict of data and reality. So, I presume that no matter what the data, the modeling, the science say, you will not accept any of that. I have tried hard to explain what we know about this subject, but, clearly, to no avail. What else is new?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..(from 2006 September 21, Carrington rotation (CR) 2048, to 2009 June 26..”
Only the last 6 months of that is relevant.
“But, of course not, people hooked on their own ideas often do not accept the cruel verdict of data and reality.”
What like there really was a dearth of coronal holes from late 2008? Which is odd, as I clearly remember you talking about the lack of holes back then.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 15, 2013 at 11:39 am
Only the last 6 months of that is relevant.
So, you only want to consider the last six months of 2009. That is not what Emmert and Solomon consider relevant. They talk about three years 2007-2009 and you can see the effect on the various graphs you have presented, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Thermosphere-Density.2009.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So, you only want to consider the last six months of 2009”
No read your own link again, to 2009 June 26 is the first 6 months of 2009.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
“So, you only want to consider the last six months of 2009″
No read your own link again, to 2009 June 26 is the first 6 months of 2009.
That does not make much sense for your claim that there were fewer [or weaker or whatever] coronal holes during that time.
The link says: “from 2006 September 21 to 2009 June 26 were analyzed using Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope and STEREO-A SECCHI EUVI data. From both the observations and Potential Field Source Surface modeling, we find that the area occupied by CHs inside a belt of ±40◦ around the solar equator is larger in the current 2007 solar minimum relative to the similar phase of the previous 1996 solar minimum”, so up to the time that you consider relevant the were more and larger coronal holes relative to the previous minimum. If we consider solar wind speed it was 391 km/s for the year preceding the sharp increase of thermospheric density in mid-2009, while for the time 2012Sep-2013Apr near solar max [before the latest upswing] the speed was [as is often the case at solar max] a low 377 km/s.
So, again, the thermospheric density is determined by EUV/X-ray and nor by solar wind temperature/speed. This is the fundamental fact you have to learn and accept. If you will not, then what is there to discuss? One can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“That does not make much sense for your claim that there were fewer [or weaker or whatever] coronal holes during that time.”
They were weaker and fewer for much of the rest of 2009 too, as I have said all along.
“If we consider solar wind speed it was 391 km/s for the year preceding the sharp increase of thermospheric density in mid-2009, while for the time 2012Sep-2013Apr near solar max [before the latest upswing] the speed was [as is often the case at solar max] a low 377 km/s.”
It’s not as low as it got in 2009: http://snag.gy/aLpr0.jpg
but has the 2012Sep-2013Apr dip you cherry picked resulted in any change of thermospheric density?
Ulric Lyons says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:57 pm
They were weaker and fewer for much of the rest of 2009 too, as I have said all along.
You need to be specific. How weaker and how fewer for exactly what period compared to exactly which period? For the last half of 2009 the speed was 359 km/s while the density increased rapidly http://www.leif.org/research/Thermosphere-Density-2009.png so you are claiming that the weaker and fewer coronal holes resulted in that slow solar wind speed and rapidly increasing thermospheric density.
It’s not as low as it got in 2009: http://snag.gy/aLpr0.jpg
The difference is very small. In 2009 the speed was 367 km/s compared to the 377 km/s for my selected solar maximum interval.
but has the 2012Sep-2013Apr dip you cherry picked resulted in any change of thermospheric density?
The thermospheric density must have gone up as solar EUV has increased because solar activity has picked up. and one would not expect any change in the first place due to the low solar wind speed as such is not the cause of variations of thermospheric density. My interval was picked as a time of low solar wind speed to see if it would had any influence on the density as we would hardly expect a reversal of the sharp rise in the 2nd half of 2009 seen here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2009.png . There is no published real-time data on the density [that I know of, although the US Air Force maintains {a proprietary} one] so we cannot show you yet what the actual density was, but since the density follows the EUV/X-ray flux very closely, the X-ray flux is a good proxy. Here is the X-ray data up to the present: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2002-2013.png
Emmert et al. have recently reviewed their data and state:
Observations of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in Earth’s thermosphere
J. T. Emmert et al. Nature Geoscience 5, 868–871 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1626
“Carbon dioxide occurs naturally throughout Earth’s atmosphere. In the thermosphere, CO2 is the primary radiative cooling agent and fundamentally affects the energy balance and temperature of this high-altitude atmospheric layer. Anthropogenic CO2 increases are expected to propagate upward throughout the entire atmosphere, which should result in a cooler, more contracted thermosphere. This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the orbital debris environment that is already unstable. However, observed thermospheric mass density trends derived from satellite orbits are generally stronger than model predictions, indicating that our quantitative understanding of these changes is incomplete. So far, CO2 trends have been measured only up to 35 km altitude. Here, we present direct evidence that CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere—probably the primary driver of long-term thermospheric trends—are increasing. We analyse eight years of CO2 and carbon monoxide mixing ratios derived from satellite-based solar occultation spectra. After correcting for seasonal–latitudinal and solar influences, we obtain an estimated global increase in COx (CO2 and CO, combined) concentrations of 23.5±6.3 ppm per decade at an altitude of 101 km, about 10 ppm per decade faster than predicted by an upper atmospheric model. We suggest that this discrepancy may explain why the thermospheric density decrease is stronger than expected”
So you can see that it is not only the Sun that plays a role here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“How weaker and how fewer for exactly what period compared to exactly which period?”
I gave you the period and the data already several times.
“..so you are claiming that the weaker and fewer coronal holes resulted in that slow solar wind speed and rapidly increasing thermospheric density.”
You know I’m not, but there was an uplift in plasma speed in the middle of 2009.
“My interval was picked as a time of low solar wind speed to see if it would had any influence on the density..”
We cannot check that without the density data for the period.
“..the density follows the EUV/X-ray flux very closely, the X-ray flux is a good proxy. Here is the X-ray data up to the present: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2002-2013.png”
I cannot see any strong rise in X-ray from mid 2009 there.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 16, 2013 at 7:20 am
I gave you the period and the data already several times.
You have given several contradictory statements [and no data – just words], so now is your chance to set the record straight.
You know I’m not, but there was an uplift in plasma speed in the middle of 2009.
The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’. In spite of the falling speed, the density increased. In your picture, falling speed should result in lower density; this is clearly contradicted by the data.
I cannot see any strong rise in X-ray from mid 2009 there.
Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2009.png
But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Xrays.png
There is no reason this relation should not hold after 2009 [except the small correction due to CO2 cooling]
Ulric Lyons says:
June 16, 2013 at 7:20 am
I gave you the period and the data already several times.
Regardless, as you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Speed.png there is no relationship between solar wind speed and thermospheric density.
If you really want to learn something here is an excellent review of what we know about thermospheric density http://www.leif.org/EOS/Thermosphere-Density-Review.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You have given several contradictory statements [and no data – just words], so now is your chance to set the record straight.”
That’s a fabrication. You steered the conversation to the Thermosphere collapse of 2009 and gave the solen links for evidence of fewer and weaker coronal holes during that time.
“The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’.”
Arbitrary period selection, the uplift is mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg
“But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Speed.png”
Vaguely, I would prefer to examine raw temperature data to check for correlations to plasma speed, daily data ideally.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 6:49 am
Thermosphere collapse of 2009 and gave the solen links for evidence of fewer and weaker coronal holes during that time.
You are confusing things. The issue is whether there were more coronal holes during the 2008/9 minimum compared to the 1996/7 minimum. The solen list does not go that far back, but I have given you several references to the fact that 2008/9 had more CHs than 1996/7.
“The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’.”
Arbitrary period selection, the uplift is mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg
Mid-month? Why not mid-day or mid-hour? The fact is that as the speed fall from the first half to the second half, the density surged. The period was the time of that surge, so not arbitrary.
“But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Speed.png”
Vaguely, I would prefer to examine raw temperature data to check for correlations to plasma speed, daily data ideally.
Temperature where? In the thermosphere? I don’t think we have those. The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature. If there is correlations on a daily basis there will also be correlation on longer time scales, and that is not observed. Read Qian/Solomon’s review carefully and learn.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You are confusing things. The issue is whether there were more coronal holes during the 2008/9 minimum compared to the 1996/7 minimum. The solen list does not go that far back, but I have given you several references to the fact that 2008/9 had more CHs than 1996/7. ”
No you are confusing things. My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9, which there was, they were very infrequent in several months. OK there was a shift away from polar to low latitude, but the total numbers were down and they were smaller and weaker generally, as you noted at the time.
“The fact is that as the speed fall from the first half to the second half, the density surged. The period was the time of that surge, so not arbitrary.”
No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg
http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2009.png
“The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature.”
Infra-red?: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
No you are confusing things. My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9
‘absolute decline’? What is important is the deecline relative to the previous minimum in deciding why the density this minimum was lower.
No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month
Since you seem to think that the density matches the solar wind speed on a daily basis, the decrease of wind speed from mid-2009 to end-2009 should have resulted in a similar decrease in density, while in fact just the opposite [the surge] was seen.
“The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature.”
Infra-red?: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg
That plot shows the cooling due to CO2 and NO.
What you have to accept and understand is that “The primary energy input to the thermosphere/ionosphere system is solar irradiance. The thermosphere absorbs solar irradiance in XUV (the soft X-ray ultra-violet, 1–30 nm), EUV (extreme ultra-violet, 30–120 nm), and FUV (far ultra-violet, 120–200 nm). The solar EUV ionizes, dissociates, and excites the thermospheric constituents, creates the ionosphere, and heats the thermosphere” [Qian/Solomon].
A secondary [smaller] energy source is “Geomagnetic storms which occur as a result of a sudden increase of dynamic pressure in the solar wind, and changes in strength and orientation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). These geomagnetic storms generate rapidly changing energy inputs, and occur predominantly at higher levels of solar activity”. Storms are very rare at low activity and play almost no role in the heating at such times.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9
Let me try one last time: Emmert et al. noted that the thermosphere had ‘collapsed’ in 2007-2009 compared to earlier solar minima and the issue was the possible reason(s) for that. As the density is controlled by the EUV flux, one explanation could be that there were less EUV during the 2007-2009 minimum. Now, if there were fewer coronal holes 2007-2009 that might be a cause of some excess EUV and more thermospheric heating. However, observations clearly show [and all investigators agree on this] that there were more CHs, so the resulting deficit of EUV could be a contributor to the collapse. Solar activity was much lower in 2007-2009 than in 1996-1997 and since active regions also are a source of EUV that would help explain the decline. Finally, CO2 cools the thermosphere, and the density has been decreasing steadily the last 35 years as CO2 has risen. so that could be yet another contributor to the decline of the density. Modelling with old [obsolete] models of the thermosphere did not fully explain the decline, so there was a puzzle. However, the most recent models [Solomon] can account for the difference, so there is no puzzle anymore. The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating are basically absent during solar minima.
Leif says:
“The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating are basically absent during solar minima.”
Thanks for the last paper link, that helps, eg:
“A large (X17) centrally located solar flare can cause ∼30–40% density enhancement on the day side. The flare response in neutral density can be best observed on the dayside at low to mid-latitudes. A large geomagnetic storm (Kp = 9) can cause density enhancement on the order of ∼100–200%.”
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for the last paper link, that helps, eg:
“A large (X17) centrally located solar flare can cause ∼30–40% density enhancement on the day side. The flare response in neutral density can be best observed on the dayside at low to mid-latitudes.
The response is due to the large increase of EUV and Xrays [not solar wind]
A large geomagnetic storm (Kp = 9) can cause density enhancement on the order of ∼100–200%.”
such storms are very rare, typically 4 per typical solar cycle. There has not been a single one since 2005, so their [short-lived] effect has been negligible.
I doubt that the paper helped as it seems you are still stuck in the same rut, trying to find things out of context that might seem to support your ideas.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
..No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month: ..
Sorry to interrupt, but I thought Dr. S. said you needed some energetic particles. They are there toooo for your time period.
I input March 2012 and botta boom botta bing. Energetic particles..
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/sis/Counts.cgi?LATEST=0&YEAR=2012&MONTH=3&DAY=1&DOY=-1
Check out the 27 day mass He spectra too.. from this link to ACE satellite data.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/summaries.html
But that’s not why I am here today.
Wondering if Dr. S. is up on solar rotation differential? Just checking.
INTERNAL-CYCLE VARIATION OF SOLAR DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION
K. J. Li et al. 2013 ApJS 206
The latitudinal distributions of the yearly mean rotation rates measured by Suzuki in 1998 and 2012 and Pulkkinen & Tuominen in 1998 are utilized to investigate internal-cycle variation of solar differential rotation. The rotation rate at the solar equator seems to have decreased since cycle 10 onward. The coefficient B of solar differential rotation, which represents the latitudinal gradient of rotation, is found to be smaller in the several years after the minimum of a solar cycle than in the several years after the maximum time of the cycle, and it peaks several years after the maximum time of the solar cycle. The internal-cycle variation of the solar rotation rates looks similar in profile to that of the coefficient B. A new explanation is proposed to address such a solar-cycle-related variation of the solar rotation rates. Weak magnetic fields may more effectively reflect differentiation at low latitudes with high rotation rates than at high latitudes with low rotation rates, and strong magnetic fields may more effectively repress differentiation at relatively low latitudes than at high latitudes. The internal-cycle variation is inferred as the result of both the latitudinal migration of the surface torsional pattern and the repression of strong magnetic activity in differentiation.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/206/2/15
VARIATIONS OF SOLAR ROTATION AND SUNSPOT ACTIVITY
K. J. Li et al. 2011 ApJ 730 49
The continuous wavelet transformation is used to study the temporal variations of the rotational cycle length of daily sunspot numbers from 1849 January 1 to 2010 February 28, from a global point of view. The rotational cycle length of the Sun is found to have a secular trend, which statistically shows a linear decrease by about 0.47 days during the time interval considered. The empirical mode decomposition analysis of the temporal variations of the rotational cycle length shows an acceleration trend for the surface rotation rate from cycles 11 to 19, but a deceleration trend from the beginning of cycle 20 onward. We cannot determine whether the rotation rate around the maximum times of the Schwable cycles should be faster or slower than that around the minimum times, implying no Schwable cycle in the long-term variations of rotation. The results obtained are compared to those from the literature. It is inferred that the variation of the rotational cycle length may be related to the variation of sunspot activity in the long run.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/730/1/49/ (Free Issue)
Thanks carry on..
Leif Svalgaard says
“The response is due to the large increase of EUV and Xrays [not solar wind]”
Well of course, it’s a flare, duh!
“I doubt that the paper helped..”
On the contrary, it is highly useful to have some figures rather than your solar-wind-doesn’t-do-this-and-doesn’t-do-that etc. I can get a much better idea of the proportions of the different causes of heating.
Carla says:
June 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Wondering if Dr. S. is up on solar rotation differential? Just checking.
I happen to be an expert on such matters, having published several papers on this over the decades. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf “the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation”, but this is off-topic for this article so we have to discus this at a more appropriate time.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 17, 2013 at 6:29 pm
“I doubt that the paper helped..”
On the contrary, it is highly useful to have some figures rather than your solar-wind-doesn’t-do-this-and-doesn’t-do-that etc. I can get a much better idea of the proportions of the different causes of heating.
I have shown you with Figures and numbers how little the solar wind matters, but we can hope that the paper can make you appreciate the truth of that, and in that way guide you along a more realistic path for your further investigations into such things.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“I have shown you with Figures and numbers how little the solar wind matters, but we can hope that the paper can make you appreciate the truth of that..”
The paper showed me that your claims of it doing nothing were not true, so I am grateful for that thanks. It is also useful to see the uncertainty levels of the satellite drag measurements from the Solomon papers.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:33 am
The paper showed me that your claims of it doing nothing were not true
It is a question of proportion. I’m [and the paper is] saying that the effect is so small that it has very little overall effect. To take an example, you picked up the statement that strong magnetic storms with Kp=9 can make a 100-200% increase as if that would be significant, but you ignore [or don’t know] that such activity is very rare. Since Kp was instituted in 1932 there has been some 235,000 3-hour intervals [Kp is measured over a period 3 hours long]. Only 29 of those had Kp=9 which is less than 1 in 8000 of the whole.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..but you ignore [or don’t know] that such activity is very rare.”
I don’t know how you arrived at that presumption, I am fully aware of their rarity. The value of it is as a measurement of the maximum event, at no point did I imply that they are common, and I was just quoting from the paper to respond to your claim: “The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating”. You sound like one of those government spokespersons that waters down the facts.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm
“The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating”. You sound like one of those government spokespersons that waters down the facts.
As usual you quote out of context, the issue was whether the solar wind was the cause of the collapse of the thermosphere in 2008-2009. [there were no strong magnetic storms then.
But I give up. I have tried to educate you on this subjects, but you are apparently quite learning-resistant.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“As usual you quote out of context, the issue was whether the solar wind was the cause of the collapse of the thermosphere in 2008-2009. [there were no strong magnetic storms then.”
A lack of strong magnetic storms would then aid the collapse, as would the scarcity of coronal holes, and low plasma speeds, it all adds up.