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
Why the obsession with tiny? Bigger is better. Earth’s intrinsic factors, as a sustained driver, are bigger.
Quite Ms Gray
It can hardly get bigger than the Mid Atlantic Ridge .
There are good data only for one small fraction from Icelandic records going back to 1600, and they show
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm
a remarkable ‘wiggle match’ with both solar and N. Atlantic SST for the last 130 years.
Matt G says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:22 am
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.
More accurately: ‘this suggest that cloud cover has a large influence on recent surface temperatures’. You can keep the ‘sun’ in your assessment by rephrasing: ‘This suggests the amount of sunlight that gets past the clouds has a large influence on recent surface temperatures’, which nobody would quibble with.
“—and the stall in surface temperatures did not end by 1994.”
Should read ,”—and the stall in surface temperatures did not start by 1994.
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:28 am
It can hardly get bigger than the Mid Atlantic Ridge .
Nonsense repeated is still nonsense.
vukcevic:
There are good data from Icelandic records going back to 1600, and they show
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm
a remarkable ‘wiggle match’ with both solar and N. Atlantic SST for the last 130 years.
Leif Svalgaard:
Nonsense repeated is still nonsense.
My ‘nonsense’ is only surpassed by the nonsense of those who think they talk sense.
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:48 am
My ‘nonsense’ …
You can safely leave the quotation marks. It is nonsense to claim that tectonic forces in Iceland cause solar activity 6 years later.
L.S. It is nonsense to claim that tectonic forces in Iceland cause solar activity 6 years later.
Misleaders mastering misinterpretations.
Solar activity and the tectonic forces in Iceland are synchronous; it is the N. Atlantic SST that is 6-7 years out of phase
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm
It is delayed due to ocean currents flow, Subpolar gyre -SPG, the home of AMO and distributor of heat across North Atlantic has an assumed internal time constant of similar magnitude
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~born/publications/spg_ipsl.pdf page 17
Pamela Gray says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:12 am
Leif! Ouch. That will leave a mark on NASA’s backside.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2013 at 8:13 am
‘That’ what?
“No need to watch the dumbed down version.”
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2013 at 12:52 pm
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?
William:
The Little Ice age was global in that it affected both hemispheres. There was regional cooling in the LIA however not global cooling. The fact that there is regional warming and cooling supports that assertion that the cause of the regional warming and cooling has not TSI changes but rather solar magnetic cycle changes that modulate planetary clouds. (i.e. The mechanism must explain the regional limitation of the observation, the fact that warming is cyclical, and the fact that it affects both hemispheres simultaneously.)
Each of the above observational eliminates other hypotheses for explaining what has happened. Ocean current changes cannot affect both hemispheres simultaneously and cannot cool and warm both hemispheres simultaneously. TSI changes cannot explain what is observed as the warming and cooling is regional both hemisphere. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate again and again with what is observed.
The LIA cooling more or less is a reversal of the warming in the same regions of that planet that experienced warming during the Medieval Warm period.
The fact that the warming and cooling is regional and is cyclical and that it correlates to solar magnetic cycle changes provides smoking gun evidence that the sun is causing what is observed. Don Easterbrook in this forum provided a summary of the extraordinarily rapid and unimaginably strong Heinrich type abrupt climate change events. The physical explanation for the Heinrich events is the same as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, the only difference is the magnitude of the solar change. There is a physical explanation for abrupt termination of both the glacial period and the interglacial period. The end of the glacial and interglacial cycle is abrupt not gradual.
The mechanisms that cause cyclic warming and cooling and abrupt super warming and super cooling are a variation of the Svensmark and Tinsley modulation of planetary cloud cover (low level clouds and high level cirrus clouds). The inhibiting of the cloud modulation mechanism was caused by the current abrupt change to the sun.
I have solved how the sun caused what is observed current and past. There are fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect. As I have noted I have looked at astrophysical anomalies and have found a pattern. There are specialists in astrophysics that have developed a mechanism that is on the same line as what I am proposing for the sun.
As there is now observational evidence of cooling (it appears we will have 1970’s cooling in the next couple of years, certainly before the US 2016 election) and there is now observational evidence that there will be an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle (it appears the sun will be spotless in roughly a year). I will provide a full explanation of the warming that has been observed in the last 20 years, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, and what to expect next, when there is public announcements concerning the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle and cooling.
lsvalgaard says:
“So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…”
Cloud amounts in the mid latitudes (developed countries) are dominated by the jet stream position, and a less active Sun (slow plasma, dearth of coronal holes etc) leads to negative AO/NAO conditions and a more southerly jet track giving increased cloud cover. Globally, a less active Sun lowers the cloud base and increases low level cloud amounts at the expense of mid level clouds.
Activity was reasonably high from 1999 to 2007: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
Solar activity and the tectonic forces in Iceland are synchronous
In http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm the ‘geological record’ is moved forward half a solar cycle for best fit, thus precedes solar activity by half a cycle.
William Astley says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:47 am
I have solved how the sun caused what is observed current and past. There are fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect.
This explains why you are resistant to learning.
I will provide a full explanation of the warming that has been observed in the last 20 years, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, and what to expect next, when there is public announcements concerning the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle and cooling.
Since you have never explained what an ‘interruption’ is, don’t expect any such announcements, so your secret is safe.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 8, 2013 at 10:08 am
Globally, a less active Sun lowers the cloud base and increases low level cloud amounts at the expense of mid level clouds.
The opposite of what is observed…
Ulric Lyons says:
June 8, 2013 at 10:08 am
a less active Sun (slow plasma, dearth of coronal holes etc)
Generally the solar wind plasma is slowest and the coronal holes less prominent at high solar activity. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png showing that the pressure of the solar wind is at minimum near solar max. High solar wind speed and large coronal holes occur during declining solar activity just before solar minimum. You can see that clearly in the Sargent Recurrence Index which measures the prevalence of coronal holes http://www.leif.org/research/Sargent-Recurrence-Index.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
In http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm the ‘geological record’ is moved forward half a solar cycle for best fit, thus precedes solar activity by half a cycle.
You are again misinterpreting.
For best fit the SST not SSN !
In here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm
SSN and NAP are in real time and well matched from 1880 to 2012.
However here NAP is moved forward by 6 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm
in order to compare to the SST, now concurrence with SSN is less apparent, but since it is an integrated signal there is a still high degree of correlation but not as good as S-T link .
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The opposite of what is observed…”
That’s because you’re going by TSI only.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Generally the solar wind plasma is slowest and the coronal holes less prominent at high solar activity […] showing that the pressure of the solar wind is at minimum near solar max.”
You switched from speed to pressure there, and I can see that it is slowest from a year or so after minima, right where the big Nino’s are: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:09 am
For best fit the SST not SSN !
As I said, your wiggle matching is nonsense.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:25 am
You switched from speed to pressure there, and I can see that it is slowest from a year or so after minima, right where the big Nino’s are: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg
as is clear from your graph, flow speed is lowest near solar maximum [which is also clear from the physics of the solar wind – there are more closed field lines at maximum].
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:37 am
As I said, your wiggle matching is nonsense.
Since all your other attempts have failed. See you next time.
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:51 am
Since all your other attempts have failed. See you next time.
As learning resistant as ever…
Leif Svalgaard says:
“as is clear from your graph, flow speed is lowest near solar maximum”
1997/8 and 2009/10 are just after minimum which is the usual low point:
http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2013 at 10:14 pm
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.
Just a casual stamp collector here. Casual observers learn from reading, visuals and discussions like that conference.
What is the current rank of gov’t spending on the Space programs. I had heard at one time that it ranked 3rd. Of course it is behind the spending of the Military. So it is important these little visuals we get from NASA to help us understand what is going on in our local section of the galaxy.
Some of the earlier research on the local interstellar clouds were indicating a Micro Interstellar Cloud (MIC) separating the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) (where we reside in but are near the edge of) from the neighboring cloud called G cloud. Because the MIC cloud was between two larger clouds they thought that it might be filamentary and turbulent. The Voyager 1 recently discovered that there is a huge intensely strong magnetic highway or magnetic convergence region. Based on how many times Voyager 1 flopped in and out of this region may be indication of a turbulent filamentary region associated with the convergence of LIC and G clouds in this region of the inner arm.
Not done here yet could be some “Holy Grail,” coming from a university in Wisconsin.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:54 am
As learning resistant as ever…
I read almost all of your papers and many of the links, but I do learn from what I see in the data:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
If you were not so trivializing and dismissive you could learn something new too, from the link above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/solar-gains-in-spain-may-cause-warmists-pain/#comment-1330015
Thanks Leif. When i access to the link, i get “file damaged” but i think this is figure 1 http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/stratosphere_temps-500.jpg for the full picture.
From vukcevic on June 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm:
First graph, I see a sine wave added to something else, added to a slope line. I do not know where this compound sine wave comes from, although the coloration tells me it is somehow “Natural Variation”.
There is an inset graph, “Future is ‘cool'”. It looks like a mirror image. The previous amplitude sequences had small-medium, small-medium. You mirror it, straight line is negative as shown, and pattern would be medium-small, as shown. No explanation why it should go negative, and that pattern should flip.
Huh? Main graph is absolute °C on Y-axis, “Future” is anomaly of unknown base.
At second graph, I find out the CET record, starting circa 1660 and having a positive trend to the linear fit to current times, has a natural drop starting in 2006, so that’s why that trend line went negative. After three and a half centuries, suddenly based on six years data it’s been determined the CET has a long natural drop coming, that’ll last longer than 140 years by the length of that plotted trend line.
350 years later, 6 years says it’ll flip over to long-term cooling. Okay…
You derive from CET, so the resulting equation theoretically describes CET, then you add the equation back to CET, reinforcing the description on the CET.
Much like taking the linear fit of some data, merging the line to the data. And marveling at how well the “improved” data resembles a linear fit?
Third graph. That compound sine is “CET syntesis from its 3 harmonic components”.
It’s synthesis, syn + thesis.
Somewhere you must have decided the CET was frequency-based, as you have found harmonics.
Wait, you’ve actually been using a ‘CET synthesis’ instead of the real CET, from which you derived the “natural variability” equation, which gets added back into this ‘CET synthesis’ to yield that compound sine “Natural Variability” in the first graph?
Too much unexplained. Cooling trend will be 1/2 the warming trend, based on only 6 years data? Questionable derivations with too much “self reinforcement”. Etc.
Besides, the ranges of values around your “great fits”, makes me feel you were asked what is 1+1, you responded with 1.7 +.6/-.3, thus both 2.2 and 1.5 can equal 1+1.
At this point, I have pushed onward into your page half-again as deep as did before I declared it nonsense, just in case it redeemed itself later.
And came across your special “North Atlantic Geological Records” (NA Precursor) again. You know, it looks like you traced a city skyline on the left 1650-1860, many block shapes, then finished with the woods next to it, many little zigzags and curves. Why has the nature of the data changed so dramatically?
Ulric Lyons says:
June 8, 2013 at 12:16 pm
1997/8 and 2009/10 are just after minimum which is the usual low point
And 1970 and 1980 are the usual low points right at maximum. The fact is that coronal holes and high-speed solar wind [which presumably are when any effects are] usually occur just before solar minimum, c.f. the Recurrence Index. The flow pressure [which must be one of the determining factors] is lowest at solar maximum.
vukcevic says:
June 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I read almost all of your papers and many of the links
but learn almost nothing from them as you say:
but I do learn from what I see in the data
No, you misinterpret what you see and don’t learn from the data. Learning is acquiring knowledge from well-established, sound principles.
If you were not so trivializing and dismissive you could learn something new too, from the link above.
What you claim is trivial, unfounded, and unsound, often even against the laws of physics. Such things are naturally dismissed.
MattG @ur momisugly here
I don’t know where the data for your chart comes from, but I am going from the study that is the topic of this post. The researchers have said that the data pre-1994 is unreliable. From their viewable charts of the data, there is a 3w/m2 increase in global solar radiation from 1994 to 2010. Assuming, as the researchers indicate, that their local results are reflected globally, and that there has been little to no surface/tropospheric warming from about 1996, then does this suggest that solar influence on surface/tropspheric temperatures is insignificant?