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
Leif:
Neither you nor Wild have demonstrated that aerosol effects are significant in the face of naturally induced dimming (or brightening for that matter).
I have specified a mechanism as you well know since you have commented extensively on it. I agree that it is not yet proven but it has been specified and thus far it fits ongoing observations.
I previously gave you an extensive list of observations that would falsify it but none have yet occurred.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm
I have specified a mechanism as you well know since you have commented extensively on it. I agree that it is not yet proven but it has been specified and thus far it fits ongoing observations.
I have asked you many times to be specific, but you have never delivered. An unspecified mechanism will always fit anything.
I previously gave you an extensive list of observations that would falsify it but none have yet occurred
And never will, as you are not specific.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Thanks to Matt G and Sparks.
Both your charts add to my submissions and detract from Leif’s.
I’m not exactly clear on what Leif and yourself disagree on, Leif stated to me above;
” 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.”
Which is his position, It sounds sensible to me and I think it is correct.
I have also just noticed this chart that Mat G Posted from the Met office,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Sunshine/UK.gif
How is it possible that this Met office chart of Sunshine also matches this resonance Model derived from the ephemerides DE 102?
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/solar-activity-mod-1.gif
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm
I have specified a mechanism…
Let me give you an example of a statement that is not a mechanism:
“high solar activity moves the jet-stream”.
This is no mechanism because it does not say how that happens and by how much.
Leif.
You leave me speechless (almost).
You know full well that my contention is that a change in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun when the level of solar activity changes alters ozone quantities in stratosphere and mesosphere preferentially towards the poles. The consequence is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator which allows the jets and climate zones to shift latitudinally with effects on global cloudiness and albedo.
That is a mechanism. All that remains is to support or rebut that proposition.
As for quantification, no one has the data I need so I suggest the professionals go to it but in the meantime the real world climate observations are illustrating it perfectly.
Not surprising really because instead of applying ideology I simply asked myself what scenario could result in what we observe whilst complying with the basic laws of physics.
Sparks:
Leif considers that solar variations have little or no effect on climate but nonetheless he thinks that global cloudiness decreased whist the sun became less active and increased whilst the sun was more active.
In fact global cloudiness decreased whilst the sun was active (up to about 2000) and has been increasing whilst solar activity has declined (since 2000).
It is true that solar activity was declining slightly throughout cycles 21,22 and 23 but I would aver that throughout those 3 cycles the level of activity was high enough to keep the level of cloudiness decreasing. Only at the end of cycle 23 did solar activity decline sufficiently to reverse the trend in cloudiness.
You will see from both your charts that we have just passed a peak and are now on a decline in tune with reducing solar activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
You know full well that my contention is that a change in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun when the level of solar activity changes alters ozone quantities in stratosphere and mesosphere preferentially towards the poles.
A contention is no mechanism. For it to be a mechanism you must specify what particles, what ‘wavelengths’ and how much they change for a specified level of solar activity, how the ozone is altered, and by how much and what the preferences are. Without that all you have is hand waving.
So you hide behind a perverse definition of ‘mechanism’?
We know that the precise balance of ozone creation / destruction is what determines stratospheric temperatures over time.
We have seen that the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and may now be warming with the sun less active (the cooling has certainly stopped).
We know that a warmer stratosphere pushes the stratosphere down and a colder stratosphere pulls it up.
We know that solar effects on the atmosphere are greater at the poles than above the equator due to the lower height of the atmosphere and the magnetic field lines converging at the poles.
We know that the MWP and today saw zonal / poleward jets and the LIA (and glaciations) saw more equatorward / meridional jets.
We see that the global cloudiness trend went into reverse at the same time as the jets began to become more meridional and at the same time global warming stalled as did the earlier increase in ocean heat content. All those factors correlate with the decline of solar activity from cycle 23 to cycle 24.
Put it all together and there is a clear mechanism.
That mechanism covers all observations to date and I will not give up on this until the real world behaves in a way inconsistent with that mechanism.
Wake me up when we see a long term trend of more zonal jets at a time of inactive sun or an increasingly positive AO whilst the sun stays quiet or clouds decreasing again whilst the jets stay meridional.
In the meantime I suggest you keep an open mind as will I.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Leif considers that solar variations have little or no effect on climate but nonetheless he thinks that global cloudiness decreased whist the sun became less active and increased whilst the sun was more active.
Not at all, I don’t think there is any such physical relationship. I said: ” 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.”
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm
So you hide behind a perverse definition of ‘mechanism’?
What you are describing is a number of coincidences which are no mechanisms. My definition is precise.
Leif said:
“I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover.”
Well, that is wrong.
Clouds decreased while the sun was active and have been increasing with the less active sun.
“the Earthshine project now shows us that both global cloudiness and global
albedo are increasing again since the late 90s:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
Increased cloudiness and albedo are indications that the climate system is
receiving less solar energy overall and is therefore a sign of reducing energy
content for the system as a whole contrary to AGW theory.
It will be interesting to see what happens to ocean heat content over the next
few years. There are suggestions that it recently peaked and may start to trend
down and if does turn downwards that will confirm the significance of the
cloudiness and albedo changes.
Standard climatology proposes that, when the sun is more active, all the
layers of the atmosphere warm and, when the sun is less active, all the layers of
the atmosphere cool. That did not happen during the recent warming spell.
Whilst the thermosphere and troposphere warmed from the more active sun the
stratosphere and mesosphere actually cooled. Now that the sun is less active that
cooling trend in the stratosphere has changed to a warming trend so it is likely
that the stratosphere and mesosphere actually respond to changes in the level of
solar variability oppositely to the thermosphere and troposphere as part of an
entirely natural process.
Standard climatology has proposed that human CO2
and / or CFCs upset what was assumed to be the natural order of things. This
article will try to show that that basic assumption which has been incorporated
into all current climate models and theories may be wrong.
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf
Nowadays were pretty quick to put out wildfires, does anybody know if there were more or less acres burned by wildfires 30 years ago and earlier?
How much do wildfires affect cloud formation?
That Earthshine article said:
“The overall decrease in cloud amount from
1985 to 2000 is about 4–5% with a recovery
of about 2–3% from 2000 to 2004”
What has happened since 2004?
2000 to 2004 wiped out half the decrease from 1985 to 2000.
The start of the recovery in 2000 is exactly in accordance with the date when I say I first noticed a change in jet stream behaviour.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 2:49 pm
“I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover.”
Well, that is wrong.
Well, that is what the article implied. But here is a recent analysis that might educate you a bit:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Stratosphere-Trends-2012.pdf
“A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends”
l have to agree with Stephen Wilde here.
Because here in the UK at least a more southern tracking jet has lead to cooling temps in recent years. With a increase in sunshine during the winter (colder weather) but a decrease in sunshine during the summer (cooler weather).
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm
The start of the recovery in 2000 is exactly in accordance with the date when I say I first noticed a change in jet stream behaviour.
Stratospheric temperatures have not recovered since 2000, they continue downwards…
No answers there, Leif.
“The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with
attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change
using climate models.”
I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.
Let me know if I just saved you a few million in research expenditure 🙂
Leif said:
“Stratospheric temperatures have not recovered since 2000, they continue downwards”
Really?
Your own paper shows them pretty much flat since the late 90s.
Give it time.
The cessation of the cooling trend correlates with the decline in solar activity.
We are currently at the peak of cycle 24 so that is probably holding back the warming process.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm
“The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with
attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change
using climate models.”
That is concerning the models. There is no muddle when it comes to the data.
I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.
The data disagrees with your suppositions. Same thing here: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
BTW, the temperature trends in the stratosphere are smallest in the polar areas. Figure 3.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Your own paper shows them pretty much flat since the late 90s.
So, no recovery.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm
I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.
Figure 1 shows just the opposite: warmer at solar max and colder at solar min.
Leif said:
“So, no recovery.”
So no decline either. Where does that get you except to appear deceitful? At least I only said it ‘may’ now be warming and pointed out that we need to give it time. You categorically tried to imply a continuation of the earlier declining trend which is clearly false.
I think this makes it clearer:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723
As regards the size of the temperature trends above equator and poles I fail to see the relevance.
The bottom up oceanic effects obviously have a powerful effect at the equator.
The top down solar effects may well have a smaller effect above the poles but what matters is the net effect of both effects combined on the equator to poles gradient of tropopause height.
I have always said that the climate outcome is determined by the interplay between the two with a miniscule effect from GHGs but so small as to be not discernible on a multi centennial time scale.
From MWP to LIA to date the shift appears to have been 1000 miles or so latitudinally. Our emissions might contribute a mile or so at a stretch.
The glacial / interglacial shift is even larger.
“Figure 1 shows just the opposite: warmer at solar max and colder at solar min.”
In a single cycle the tiny variation in TSI has the primary effect.
Across multiple cycles the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths becomes more dominant.
It is the latter which I say is the cause of significant climate changes, not the former.
Leif said:
“So, no recovery.”
So no decline either. Where does that get you? At least I only said it ‘may’ now be warming and pointed out that we need to give it time. You categorically tried to imply a continuation of the earlier declining trend which is clearly false.
I think this makes it clearer:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723
As regards the size of the temperature trends above equator and poles I fail to see the relevance.
The bottom up oceanic effects obviously have a powerful effect at the equator.
The top down solar effects may well have a smaller effect above the poles but what matters is the net effect of both effects combined on the equator to poles gradient of tropopause height.
I have always said that the climate outcome is determined by the interplay between the two with a miniscule effect from GHGs but so small as to be not discernible on a multi centennial time scale.
From MWP to LIA to date the shift appears to have been 1000 miles or so latitudinally. Our emissions might contribute a mile or so at a stretch.
The glacial / interglacial shift is even larger.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Across multiple cycles the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths becomes more dominant. It is the latter which I say is the cause of significant climate changes, not the former.
In the three cycles since we have satellite data on stratospheric temperature, the stratosphere has steadily cooled as solar activity has decreased. The decrease in solar activity has little to do with the long-term cooling trend, so this ‘correlation’ is probably spurious. In any event it is the opposite of what you claim.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm
The glacial / interglacial shift is even larger.
But is not related to solar activity.