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
John says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:26 am
A weaker sun has only been in the last 6 or so years, hasn’t it?
From http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
“It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987”
Clouds are part of the strong feedback system, very little to do with sun variability or aerosols. Read the Willis’ post on the Pacific Ocean.
Should there be a net figure for direct minus diffuse?
So much confusion here that I hardly know where to start.
I’d like to see the Spanish numbers for 2011 and 2012.
Suffice it to say that global cloudiness has been increasing since about 2000 but slowly and the Spanish observations show a peak in 2005 and a slight fall by 2010.
Interestingly both the recent Spanish peaks in sunshine correlate well with the last two El Nino events.
So what we have here is a pause in increasing sunshine for Spain rather than a fall in sunshine for Spain because the global trend of increasing cloudiness has been disguised for Spain by that location’s sensitivity to El Nino events.
As I’ve been saying for years the climate shifts that we have seen are a result of a continual interaction between bottom up oceanic effects and top down solar effects.
Each region responds slightly differently depending on its position relative to the nearest climate boundary or jet stream track.
The fact is that global dimming has been in train since about 2000 but Spain has a lagged effect due to local and regional factors such that so far it only registers a pause since 2005.
If the sun stays quiet I expect La Nina to become more dominant and Spain to then join the rest of the globe in dimming.
Meanwhile our CO2 emissions will continue to rise.
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:22 am
I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover. Whether these things are related is another matter, but any claim that they are must account for the above empirical fact.
That’s great, I agree with this position.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 10:42 am
If the sun stays quiet I expect La Nina to become more dominant and Spain to then join the rest of the globe in dimming.
The global brightening is not confined to Spain, but is a global phenomenon [perhaps with the exception of India and China]. As the article explains: “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 Wild (not Wilde) paper referred to by Leif at:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
concludes with this:
“We cannot exclude the possibility that we are currently
again in a transition phase and may return to
a renewed overall dimming for some years to come”.
My view is that the current transitional period is about to register a clear change to dimming and may already have done so when the 2011 to 2013 numbers are in.
The cause will be solar changes altering climate zone positioning and jet stream tracks which together affect global cloudiness far more than any other factor.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 10:50 am
My view is that the current transitional period is about to register a clear change to dimming and may already have done so when the 2011 to 2013 numbers are in.
The article says:
“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.”
That paper says this too:
“The latest updates on solar radiation
changes observed since the new millennium
show no globally coherent trends anymore”
Precisely.
At the turn of the millennium decreasing solar activity between cycles 23 and 24 started to have an impact on global cloudiness trends.
Since 2008 I have been telling you all that it was in 2000 that I first noticed the reversal of the earlier trend in jet stream behaviour.
That reversal in trend has consolidated over the past 13 years.
To Leif Svalgaard:
Here I was thinking that the amplitude of solar cycles, and the numbers of sunspots, were the appropriate proxies for short term solar influences. This isn’t my field, so I’m going to defer to you, Leif. When I suggested that the drop in solar activity was just the last six years or so, I was thinking about how weak the current solar cycle has been.
Looking back over longer periods, here is a NASA link showing sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum, with a big drop in the early 1800s (Dalton miminum). There doesn’t seem to be much of a downturn from the late 1980s in that data.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
Here’s another graphic, this one also showing a pretty slight drop since around 1990:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
But if you say that there has been a significant weakening since 1987, I won’t argue — it is your field.
“but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.”
That contradicts everyone’s recent experience of West European weather.
The UK media have been full of news about cloudy cool rainy summers since 2006 and recent European winters have been much colder than before.
However more equatoward jets in winter would place Western Europe north of the jets in winter rather than under them so there could be brightening in winter offsetting dimming in summer.
As I said, the regional experiences are substantially affected by the location relative to the nearest climate zone boundary or jet.
On that basis Spain could become dimmer for 2011 to 2013 (being more often under the jets) whilst the rest of Europe could become brighter (being more often north of the jets).
Much better to look at the world as a whole and Wild clearly expresses that the global signals are inconclusive since 2000.
The Earthshine project comes down more clearly in favour of dimming at the surface since 2000 on the basis that the Earth has become brighter from space due to more clouds.
Brian H said on June 7, 2013 at 10:35 am:
Nah. Direct plus diffuse equals total illumination, or insolation, whatever the exact circumstance is.
Think of a windowless room in your house. Direct light onto the desk is from a lamp with a mini flood light, there is a shaded ceiling fixture supplying diffuse light. Direct on or off with diffuse on or off has meaning. What is physically described by direct minus diffuse?
Several questions above about direct and indirect (scattered) solar radiation, and how both vary with cloud cover.
This may clear up the issue:
Assume a perfectly clear atmosphere, or – equally – solar radiation in the absence of an atmosphere effect (the moon for example ) . Radiation at the bottom of atmosphere (surface) = radiation at top of atmosphere (TOA).
Turn a panel flat – facing up – and only the direct radiation can be absorbed. Received radiation is a function of solar radiation times a function of latitude times a function of time of day.
However, the actual radiation you can receive on a vertical surface at the surface of the planet (bottom of atmosphere) is the direct radiation from the sun, plus the reflected radiation from other surfaces nearby: the ground, or a roof shingle if the panel were on top of a building, or a mirror-like surface near the solar panel.
So, radiation received on a vertical surface could be more than a flat surface: Received radiation is a function of solar radiation times a function of latitude times a function of time of day times (perhaps) a multiplier of the nearby surfaces albedo and surface area. So you could get more radiation on a vertical panel than a flat panel, right?
Now, in the real world, .
Clouds scatter the radiation and dust and aerosols scatter the incoming radiation around. Both also absorb the radiation available at top of atmosphere.
A flat panel then gets direct radiation from the sun (as always a function of latitude and time of day), plus a part of the scattered radiation from the whole sky. The indirect (scattered) radiation has been measured between 22% and 38% of the direct radiation. So, available radiation at the panel is between 1.22 and 1.38 times the theoretical direct radiation at the surface.
BUT, nothing is the real world is free. Depending on cloud density and coverage and dust levels, only between 88% and 20% of the top-of-atmosphere radiation arrives at that real-world flat panel on the surface. The rest is reflected back up or absorbed. Air Mass (actual hour-by-hour thickness of atmosphere with respect to the theoretical thickness at the the equator) and “lambda” (an exponential factor of the transmittal of energy through the real atmosphere) are used to correct the theoretical top-of-atmosphere radiation to the theoretical radiation available at the bottom of atmosphere.
So, you may get received radiation = 80% of that 1.38 of the theoretical direct radiation.
increase cloud coverage both increases (raises that 1.22 multiplier factor up to 1.38 perhaps) but at the same time reduces the amount of solar radiation transmitted through the atmosphere from 80% transmitted to only 30% transmitted. Consider, for example, the heat you feel standing in the sunshine on a clear day. Nice, very sharp definition of your shadow on the green grass, right? You are getting almost only direct radiation. You are getting reflected radiation from the grass (lower planet albedo due to higher CO2 levels.)
Now, go to the beach (or a snow-covered field), but on a cloudy day. Large amounts of diffuse radiation from the whole sky, almost no defined edge to your shadow, and maybe even shadows from different directions. Lots of energy reflected up from the ground (the beach or the snow) into your eyes and on to your skin. You get sun-burned anyway. All of this makes the “calculation” of albedo very, very tricky to both measure and to account for in models.
After all, if radiation is reflected from the top of clouds, can it be absorbed below the clouds?
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
As I said, the regional experiences are substantially affected by the location relative to the nearest climate zone boundary or jet.
No matter what the data shows one way or the other you always claim that they support your ideas, so nothing new there. You also quote selectively and ignore “on the other hand…” and this “However, such renewed dimming and associated impacts would likely have a limited persistence,
since emerging nations will be forced to implement air quality measures in face of increasingly pressing health problems. Thus, with the foreseeable inevitability and undisputable necessity for clean air regulations and aerosol reductions also in emerging nations, potential dampening of global warming by a renewed dimming could only be temporary, and greenhouse gases will ultimately become the sole major anthropogenic forcing factor of climate change”. and “Brightening continues beyond 2000 at sites in Europe and the United States”
John says:
June 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
But if you say that there has been a significant weakening since 1987, I won’t argue
One problem is the cyclic nature of solar activity. Perhaps slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Observations.pdf will clarify things.
“Green Investors Face Bankruptcy As Spain Cuts Subsidies”
http://www.thegwpf.org/green-investors-face-bankruptcy-spain-cuts-subsidies/
“Spain’s government plans to reduce subsidies to renewable-energy producers by 10% to 20%. The move could drive tens of thousands of struggling solar-energy companies and individual investors into default.”
And Trenberth: what stability did you work with to determine a “missing” 0.58W/m2?
Another Positive Trenberth Event: observation of a decrease in cloud cover that wasn’t supposed to be there. And the reaction, I’m sure: Small, local changes are part of the normal variability, but are not signficant on the global level as we “know” these events are random and cancel each other out.
So we know from the Central UK data (Bright Sunshine Hours) that there has been an increase in bright sunshine and, therefore, decrease in cloud cover, since the 1960s. The decrease stopped in 2010 (NothingSettledNothingCertain.com). Now we know from Spain. Next ….. the Arctic and Greenland?
Wouldn’t that be a burn?
This graph says it is the sun that does it
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm
not via TSI, UV, SSN or GCR, but I suspect by individual geomagnetic storms of a particular strength and polarity.
vukcevic says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm
This graph says it is the sun that does it
not via TSI, UV, SSN or GCR, but I suspect by individual geomagnetic storms of a particular strength and polarity
Nonsense.
It is unusual that significant theory issues (What portion of the regional warming that has occurred in the last 20 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes Vs the increase in atmospheric CO2? As noted above the regional warming observed is not in agreement with the AGW theory. There are multiple observations that are not in agreement with the AGW theory.) can be resolved by direct live observation. When the solar magnetic cycle slows down there is a 10 to 12 year delay before there is cooling in the high Arctic regions.
There is a mechanism reason for the delay in cooling. Thermal lag cannot explain the delay. There is now observed cooling in the same regions that experienced regional warming in the last 20 years. The current observed cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….
Europe/North America
….The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps caused by fluorosis after the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783.[20] Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early 15th century), as crops failed and livestock …. …. Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier … ….Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]… …. Historian Wolfgang Behringer has linked intensive witch-hunting episodes in Europe to agricultural failures during the Little Ice Age.[36]
Antarctic
Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note “other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear.”
William: There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Australia
There is limited evidence about conditions in Australia, though lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north of the continent, the limited evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, while coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the LIA.[53] Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that, over the last 500 years, the 17th century was the coldest in that continent,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. … ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
The chart above that shows that “Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s” looks very similar to My resonance Model derived from the ephemerides DE 102, this model stretches back to 1850, it should not be read as a statistical trend, but as a physical position or “resonance” in relation to Solar activity over the stated interval of time.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/solar-activity-mod-1.gif
The reason why I have used ephemerides DE 102 only between 1875-2050, even tho it covers the span from 1411 BC to 3002 AD, is because the more accurate positions are given by DE 102 for time around the present epoch over the interval between 1850 – 2050.
The accuracy of the angular positions of these objects degrade as the time interval is extended and estimated as:
– less than 1 arc-second for the Mercury through Saturn;
– a few arc-seconds (up to 4″) for Uranus through Neptune;
The rate of growth of position errors over of time is about 0.04″ per century for the Earth and Mars, about 0.06″ per century for the Venus, and about 0.14″ per century for the Mercury (Unused). The outer planets have progressively larger errors.
This resonance Model below, also derived from the ephemerides DE 102, but stretching between 1749-2040 will not be as accurate as the model above over the interval between 1850-2050. But, it does give me a good idea of where the resonance plot will be after the time interval is corrected for, until I have the time to update my ephemeris to the latest data.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ssn-monthly-average-1749-2040-n-n1-n2.jpg
Solar radiation reacing the surface has been been increasing over the recent decades while global cloud levels have declined. The UK also supports other countries world-wide with increasing sunshine levels during the same period.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Sunshine/UK.gif
There are signs since 2006 that global low clould levels have stabilized or even very slightly increased. My view was the world’s warming globally was mainly caused by more solar radiaition reaching the surface and when this stopped increasing global temperatures would fail to increase further.
Leif said:
“You also quote selectively and ignore “on the other hand…” and this “However, such renewed dimming and associated impacts would likely have a limited persistence,”
I quote the bits that involve data but ignore the bits that are subjective opinion.
Leif accepts subjective opinion whenever it suits him but if it does not suit him he rejects it.
It is not a demonstrable fact that human emissions of particulates will override the effect of naturally induced dimming, it is merely an agenda driven guess.
Thanks to Matt G and Sparks.
Both your charts add to my submissions and detract from Leif’s.
William Astley kindly reprised some of the historical evidence that led to my conclusions.
Solar variations clearly affect global air circulation, global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
The mechanism involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows the climate zones and jets to shift latitudinally thereby affecting global albedo.
It is the temperature of the stratosphere which is key. It must cool naturally (more towards the poles) when the sun is active and warm naturally (more towards the poles) when the sun is inactive which is contrary to current climatology but that must be so to get the latitudinal shifts to occur in the observed direction.
William Astley says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm
The current observed cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.
Most reasonable researchers would say that the LIA was global… so wet weather is global?
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm
I quote the bits that involve data but ignore the bits that are subjective opinion.
Subject to your subjective opinion as driven by your agenda. That much is clear.
It is not a demonstrable fact that human emissions of particulates will override the effect of naturally induced dimming, it is merely an agenda driven guess.
Wild: “In polluted regions, on the other hand, cloud microphysics effects tend to saturate with the logarithmic sensitivity to CCNs, whereas the direct extinction of SSR by aerosols becomes more relevant, which increases proportionally to the aerosol loadings. Absorbing pollution layers further heat and stabilize the atmosphere and attenuate SSR and related surface evaporation. This generally leads to a suppression of convective cloud formation and dissolves clouds in layers heated by absorbing aerosol (known as the semi-direct aerosol effect) (Ramanathan et al.
2001).”
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Solar variations clearly affect global air circulation, global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
The mechanism involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows the climate zones and jets to shift latitudinally thereby affecting global albedo.
This is your problem: you have not specified any mechanism nor how solar variations can affect anything.