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
“But is not related to solar activity.” (the glacial / interglacial climate shifts)
Didn’t say it was.
The Milankovitch cycles mimic a change in solar variability but the negative system response is just the same via a shift in the global air circulation pattern.
“In the three cycles since we have satellite data on stratospheric temperature, the stratosphere has steadily cooled as solar activity has decreased”
I dealt with that but you didn’t notice.
There was a slight decrease in solar activity across cycles 21, 22 and 23 but not enough to stop the solar induced cooling trend in the stratosphere. Throughout that time solar activity remained high enough to keep cooling the stratosphere.
From the late 90s solar activity dropped enough to stop the stratospheric cooling trend.
We now need to wait and see if the stratosphere does actually start to warm whilst the sun remains inactive.
I think it will. You think it won’t.
So be it. The cards are on the table.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm
The Milankovitch cycles mimic a change in solar variability but the negative system response is just the same via a shift in the global air circulation pattern.
No, they do not mimic the changes of the ‘mix of particles and wavelengths’.
From the late 90s solar activity dropped enough to stop the stratospheric cooling trend.
The cooling has continued unabated:
http://www.leif.org/research/Stratosphere-Temp-Trend.png
The cards are on the table.
Not that simple, as you continue to say all the time that all the data already fully support your [wrong] ideas. If you now change your tune and claim that we have to wait and see then it is hard to maintain that you have been right all along. Especially since the data show that you have not.
Interesting discussion. Questions for either or both of you: is it correct in general that high frequency solar UV destroys ozone while lower frequency solar UV creates ozone? Does an increase in solar activity increase the higher frequencies of solar UV more than lower? Does a decrease in solar activity decrease the higher frequencies more than the lower? Does ozone contribute to stratospheric warming?
If those are all true, then the higher solar activity in the 20th century could account for some stratospheric cooling and current solar minimum should ultimately result in stratospheric warming
http://www.leif.org/research/Stratosphere-Temp-Trend.png
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/inspect/catalog/research/eraclim/timon/timon_ana_2D!TLS!anom!Globe!198901-201303!/
??
Camus says:
June 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm
??
Difference between upper/middle stratosphere and lower stratosphere. A top-down solar effect might be expected to be most felt in the upper stratosphere.
Camus says:
June 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm
??
Forgot to link to paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Stratosphere-Trends-2012.pdf
see Figure 1.
Re the effect of cloud trends on global climate, the mainstream position is that there are possibly different results for low-level and high-level clouds.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
I don’t know if the FECYT paper includes this sort of detail, but they have updated their research, including this caveat.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713000916
1994 to 2010 is a period in which surface/tropospheric temps appeared to have stalled or risen very little while solar radiation has increased due to fewer clouds. Assuming this study is a fair proxy for global, does this suggest the sun has little influence on surface/tropospheric temps?
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
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.
I like that answer to this question.
Dr. S. thinks you need a mechanism for moving the jet stream around the solar cycle. Ask him if this works.
Don’t let the title throw you off..
Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere
R.A. Haaser1, R. Davidson2 R.A. Heelis1, G.D. Earle2, S. Venkatraman1, and J. Klenzing3
..First storm observations by C/NOFS occur about 3-5 hours after the first southward-turning of the Bz reported by ACE/Wind, in agreement with previous studies suggesting that phase fronts in the thermosphere propagate from the polar regions toward the equator with velocities of about
500 – 800 m/s3,4,5.
Evening and nighttime neutral wind perturbations in figures were noticably higher than those occurring during the day [II., IV.] .This is likely the result of stronger daytime ion density motions and gradients in the ionosphere/thermosphere system. Most of the storms are observed in the southern magnetic latitudes, except for the [IV.] Jan 2012 storm. As expected, a majority of the observed storms, demonstrated equatorward perturbations of meridional neutral winds (including the Jan 2012 storm), propagating away from the nearest magnetic pole, on the order of about
100 m/s.
However, one exception to this rule was the set of [V.] Mar 2012 storms which appear to exhibit poleward flow. This storm occurs when northern magnetic pole rotates through midnight during the storm onset. Such a case is consistent with equatorward meridional winds propagating across the equator into the opposing hemisphere, similar to the model prediction by Fuller-Rowell et. al [1994]…
Carla says:
June 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Dr. S. thinks you need a mechanism for moving the jet stream around the solar cycle. Ask him if this works. Don’t let the title throw you off..
… Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere
This will not work as the upper thermosphere is MUCH too thin, like a trillion times thinner that the troposphere..
Dr. Svalgaard, recent IBEX results are saying the H ENA has ahh disappeared. Since like 2009 to 2011. Possibly solar activity picked up a little related. I wondering if they considered a shift.
As in:
“An unexplained 10–40 degree shift in the location of some diverse neutral atom data at 1 AU”
Michael R. Collier a,*, Thomas E. Moore a, David Simpson a, Aaron Roberts a,
Adam Szabo a, Stephen Fuselier b, Peter Wurz c, Martin A. Lee d, Bruce T. Tsurutani e
or is the IBEX not going to miss shifting flow patterns?
I highly recommend this NASA Tv conference Dr.S.
Scientists Discuss Space Matter
IBEX lead Dave McComas, Scientist Pricilla Frisch and Dr Eberhard Mobius.
And a Special Invited guest Seth Redfield (Remember “Cloud Tripping The Milky Way” Redfield and Linsky?) Seth is also involved in locating and plotting nearby astrospheres in the cloud maps. This is all too cool.
Quote from Dr. David McComas IBEX Lead.
“””The heliosphere is then dominated more by the Interstellar Magnetic Field than by pressure. Makes the magnetic field component even more important. My picture of the heliosphere now is that this is even more compressed by the Interstellar Magnetic Field and less driven by the inflowing pressure.”””
E. Mobieus says of those pesky neutrals, “they just punch their way in”
Carla says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Dr. Svalgaard, recent IBEX results are saying the H ENA has ahh disappeared. Since like 2009 to 2011. Possibly solar activity picked up a little related.
Of course, the outer heliosphere is determined by the interaction between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, but none of that has any influence on the Sun because the solar wind is supersonic.
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:43 pm
You didn’t watch the NASA conference yet did you? No, critiquing on the first watch either, Dr. S. The findings Dr. S., in our generation how cool is this?
Carla says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:52 pm
You didn’t watch the NASA conference yet did you?
No, because the findings are known to researchers in the field. No need to watch the dumbed down version.
Leif thinks that a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of cooling.
AGW proponents think that a stall in tropospheric warming since 1998 nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of warming.
One cannot overcome that sort of mental block until the data becomes even more overwhelming.
Hmmm … according to the paper, the solar radiation increased by 9 W/m2 over the period of the study, 1990-2012.
And according to the BEST data, the temperature in Spain went up by about 1°C over the same period.
Other things being equal, this puts the climate sensitivity over the period at about four-tenths of a degree per doubling of CO2.
Of course, other things are never equal …
w.
From Willis Eschenbach on June 8, 2013 at 12:04 am:
Huh? Says above:
Found a link to the paper’s paywall:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112002238
It’s Elsevier and they want $39.95, so they’re not going to get it, but the abstract is there. From 1985-2010, if that’s 25 years and not 26, at 3.9 Wm^-2/decade that’s a 9.75 Wm^-2 increase (round that as you please).
I checked out your BEST link. What are these fools calling an “Annual” figure? After playing with a sample in the spreadsheet, I find the “January” 2012 value is an average of August 2011 to July 2012. Thus from the start of 1/2012, what I would expect, they’ve averaged 5 months back with 7 months forward. Likewise 12/2011 averages 7/2011 to 6/2012. They’re filling up column entries with monthly “annual” figures that are really just 12-mo running means, and can’t even indicate the center properly.
Who programmed up that cluster-BEST anyway?
Stephen Wilde says:
June 7, 2013 at 11:21 pm
Leif thinks that a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of cooling.
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png
On 12 March 2012 I flew to Madeira. On the way I observed a vast area of smoothed water — 20,000 sq miles plus — where wave action was reduced. Something was smoothing the surface.
If this phenomenon is now common then fewer salt aerosols will be produced by breaking waves. This will lead to fewer clouds and warming.
I have postulated that the smoothed areas are caused by oil and surfactant pollution — human spills. Someone has mentioned surfactant production by phytoplankton, and the fact that we are producing a huge fertiliser boost from the Haber process and from dissolved silica run-off may mean we have changed the ecology of the ocean surface. Or it may change of its own accord, changing cloud amounts as it does.
Lower albedo will not produce a tropospheric hotspot and as such would match reality better than the models.
Warming may not be CO2 at all.
JF
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Nonsense.
It is indeed nonsense to declare reliable data ‘nonsense’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 7:19 am
It is indeed nonsense to declare reliable data ‘nonsense’.
The nonsense is to claim they are physically connected.
Too funny! I haven’t read the thread till this morning but I guessed that someone would say something like this: “See!!! The Sun drives the changes!!! It’s the Sun!!!”
The point of the study has nothing to do with solar changes. It has to do with intrinsic variability (Earth bound). Earth is a marvelous place, quite capable of letting in and blocking out the rays of the Sun not only on a daily or monthly basis, but over yearly, and much longer spans of time. It is also quite capable of letting stored heat escape through the layers of goop we call the atmosphere. Only something very powerful could manage that. Any measure of Earth’s intrinsic factors clearly leads a reasoned person to put Earth at the head of the list of temperature anomaly changes. The tiny measures of solar changes are simply not capable of creating those sustained oscillations. And neither are minute molecular CO2 additions to the atomsphere.
Why the obsession with tiny? Bigger is better. Earth’s intrinsic factors, as a sustained driver, are bigger.
I used to think the Sun was the driver of the change in temperature but only for a couple months. Then I got schooled. It’s Earth’s “window shade” that’s letting in too much Sun on my face and causing my physician to declare, “That has got to come off.” Not to worry though. Tis only a little scar on me lip.
From Pamela Gray on June 8, 2013 at 7:48 am:
So says our favorite almost-5-ft-tall Irish pixie.
Leif! Ouch. That will leave a mark on NASA’s backside.
Pamela Gray says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:12 am
That will leave a mark on NASA’s backside.
‘That’ what?
barry says:
June 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm
“1994 to 2010 is a period in which surface/tropospheric temps appeared to have stalled or risen very little while solar radiation has increased due to fewer clouds. Assuming this study is a fair proxy for global, does this suggest the sun has little influence on surface/tropospheric temps?”
This misses the bigger picture where solar radiation reaching the surface due to fewer clouds mainly occurred from 1983 until 2000. The change from 1994 was only little compared to what happened before and the stall in surface temperatures did not end by 1994. In fact the change has mainly stabilized since 2000 and that is likely why surface temperatures have stalled.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif
Overall global cloud levels declined until 2000 and global temperatures behaviour changes with global cloud levels. This suggests the sun has a large influence on recent surface temperatures not little.