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 Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 10:16 am
“There is no doubt that greenhouse gases cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower. The question is ‘how much’? and that is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated.”
Therefor the accompanied verbiage which clearly states “The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases.”
Is nothing but complete nonsense and they can not attribute a human mechanism to the data.
Surly, to make such an extraordinary statement like this you would disagree with their use of this data in this way? especially as it is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated. No mechanism has been shown.
Basically what these people playing scientist are saying is; the fluctuations that the data shows is as a matter of fact, the interactions between human-emitted CFC’s and human-emitted CO2, if it’s Warming it’s human CO2 and if it’s cooling it’s human CFC’s.
So what they have claimed to have found in the data is a new kind of artificial system that has all the understood behaviors of a Natural system.
Ah… Life! Ah… finds away! /jk
Dr. Svalgaard: “The data is not reliable so far back. The mark of a spurious correlation is one that ‘works’ even with poor data [sometimes even better].”
Wrong again ?
I marked on the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm
the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious, prior and after, pre Gauss resolution of the data is too low to establish correlation..
You also use Woolf’s magnetic data from the same period, for correcting the sunspot number, and you do not say that data is not reliable, but anyway there is a good correlation since 1900.
What I am suggesting is that geomagnetic storms electric currents induction at confluence of the salty (conductive) and fresh (less conductive) waters in some way affects mixing, changing salinity and consequently is reflected in the degree of icing-up (which could be reflected in the atmospheric pressure over Arctic), or even the imprint is carried all the way from Arctic into the North Atlantic.
Hence there is same delay between atmospheric pressure and the AMO.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-NAO.htm
This means that the change is the atmosphere is nearly immediate, while ocean currents take much longer time.
No coincidence, it is a natural process taking place, which you as a scientist of repute are wrong to dismiss as
you misinterpret what you see and don’t learn from the data. What you claim is trivial, unfounded, and unsound, often even against the laws of physics.
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious, prior and after, pre Gauss resolution of the data is too low to establish correlation..
There were no observations in the Yamal region that far back, so Gauss is irrelevant.
Your ‘mechanism’ is not viable as we have discussed at length elsewhere.
which you as a scientist of repute are wrong to dismiss
Scientists evaluate claims from their store of knowledge and understanding of how nature works and I find your stuff wanting and hence dismissable.
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
What I am suggesting is that geomagnetic storms electric currents induction …
To get a second opinion write up what you think you have and submit it to reputable scientific journal, or if you think is it truly revolutionary submit it the Nature or Science magazines.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 12:06 pm
As you well know data is from A. Jackson’s gumf1 data base, which is world wide accepted, and you once described as ‘the best there is’. And as confirmation there is atmospheric pressure measured accurately in Reykjavik for more than 150 years.
So data is no god when it contradicts you view:
As in the Antarctic geomagnetic magnetic field and solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
data must be wrong even when fully correlates with your own work
as in the Arctic, must be wrong since it matches solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
as in the Loehle’s reconstruction, you often quote as the temperature reference
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LLa.htm
Time to reconsider ?
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious,
As an example of your wrong-headed ‘analysis’, you talk about the effect of geomagnetic storms [which is a worldwide effect] and what looks like [because you don’t say what it is] the secular variation of the field in the Yamal Region [70N, 70E]. The secular variation is internal to the Earth and is due to processes in the core and has nothing to do with geomagnetic storms.
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Time to reconsider ?
no, because you correlate oranges and apples. Now, if I am completely wrong and you are correct, I must be incompetent and unable to recognize good science when I see it. That is, in effect, what you are saying. I am, however capable of recognizing bad ‘science’ when I see it, and yours certainly qualifies, or rather, since it is not science at all, Pauli’s saying ‘that it is not even wrong’ applies.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm
………….
Now you are moving in right direction.
It is not just one or the other exclusively, solar or the Earth’s core, it is cross-modulation of two at the receptor.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm
It is not just one or the other exclusively, solar or the Earth’s core, it is cross-modulation of two at the receptor.
You are regressing back into nonsense…
It is not consensus but contradictions that move science forward.
You do it your way as academia stipulates, and I value results of it.
I do it my way, you don’t see or don’t wish to see any value in it, that is your choice and it is fine with me.
vukcevic says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm
It is not consensus but contradictions that move science forward.
It are valid contradictions that move science forward, not amateurish nonsense, no matter how entertaining. And I am concerned with your dilution of the value of WUWT. I often am met with the question why I bother frequenting a blog that harbours cranks and the like.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 10:36 am
Carla says:
June 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region. Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess
Colleagues of mine long ago used a diurnal variation to infer the direction of the Galactic Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA074i016p04157.pdf
Thanks for the link Dr. S. Figures 2a and 2b from your link are comparable to the figure 2, I directed your attention too.
Carla says:
June 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Thanks for the link Dr. S. Figures 2a and 2b from your link are comparable to the figure 2, I directed your attention too.
Yes, it seems that we back then had a pretty good idea about what to expect.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
“I often am met with the question why I bother frequenting a blog that harbours cranks and the like.”
=============
Don’t encourage us Leif, we’ve only just begun 🙂
u.k(us) says:
June 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Don’t encourage us Leif, we’ve only just begun 🙂
You have not yet reached the lofty heights of some others here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm
===========
I know when to back off, and wait for the explanation.
I also know when there won’t be one.
Great fun.
To answer some of ‘constructive criticism’ above and in order to clarify the method used, I have added the Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s graph from recent WUWT post, which does employ the same principle.
I used 3 principal components to create multi-decadal variability, enabling me to produce more detailed future trends, this time in the CET, but it is worth noting that the instrumental record for global temperature has similar trend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”
Yet the Ap minima match the velocity well:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
“The pressure is what compresses our magnetosphere and is therefore the important agent in the interaction between the solar wind and the earth.”
Velocity is proportional to temperature, which is the important factor.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”
Did you not reconstruct the velocity from the geomagnetic record here?:
http://www.leif.org/research/Compare-OMNI-Leif-Speed.png
Ulric Lyons says:
June 10, 2013 at 5:43 am
“The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”
Yet the Ap minima match the velocity well
Because the velocity of sometimes low when the magnetic field is low. The dominant factor is the magnetic field.
Velocity is proportional to temperature, which is the important factor.
No, the temperature has really no effect on the earth. The flow pressure and the magnetic field determine the effects on the Earth.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:08 am
Did you not reconstruct the velocity from the geomagnetic record here?
Yes, by first removing the dominant effect of the magnetic field [determined from the IDV index], the small residual has a dependence on the solar wind speed. Again: the dominant factors are the field and the pressure.
Leif,
We’re all cranks huh? 🙂
Actually, it may seem like that sometimes, but I think it’s a case of; when people know all there is to know about a subject, they like to explore it a bit further and move into unknown territory, If you were to ask me any textbook question about the sun for example, I could give you the correct textbook answer, I could even quote Wikipedia until the cows come home, personally for me It gets boring, there’s no challenge and no mystery when there’s nothing new to learn. The other point is; if every commenter of this blog agreed with everything you say and quoted directly from the great work you have done, would you become board? I think you wouldn’t even reply and eventually stop commenting here altogether. I enjoy hearing all the different views, the advanced overly complex explanations of simple processes makes my day, I do take scientific subjects seriously and I’m not being condescending but sometimes you do have to have a laugh!
The most annoying occurrence I’ve noticed on blogs is when two or more stubbornly arrogant personalities clash, two or more intelligent people battling it out to the death over mildly trivial issues like spoiled brats is hilarious, but also can be annoying.
Sparks says:
June 10, 2013 at 9:15 am
We’re all cranks huh? 🙂
No, there are only a handful of those. They show up every time and peddle their nonsense ad nauseam.
Actually, it may seem like that sometimes, but I think it’s a case of; when people know all there is to know about a subject, they like to explore it a bit further and move into unknown territory.
Our resident cranks do not know much about their subjects [although they claim so], and about moving into unknown territory there are well-worn and correct ways of doing that. Al Gore supposedly once said “when you don’t know anything, everything is possible”. This seems also to be the credo of our cranks [we all know who they are – perhaps with the exception of themselves].
I read that the Sun’s core is 27 times the diameter of Earth. I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out? or is it just considered to be this size. an internet search and cross checking in some books I own is producing different values. should I just average these values and use that? lol
Sparks says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm
I read that the Sun’s core is 27 times the diameter of Earth. I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out?
since you have not specified what you mean by the sun’s ‘core’ it is a bit hard to formulate a meaningful answer. But, I’ll assume you mean the volume of the sun where energy generation by fusion of hydrogen to helium takes place. If so, I can be specific: a good number for the radius of the core is 20% of the solar radius or 22 earth radii. Of course, the boundary is not infinitely sharp so the ‘radius’ is somewhat fuzzy.
Sparks says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm
I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out?
We have very accurate models of the sun’s interior and can calculate e.g. the temperature. Where the temperature is high enough fusion sets in. The fusion process is extremely gentle. The rate at which energy is generated is so low that it would take several weeks to bring an ordinary tea kettle of water to a boil.