This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous claims that solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause, and when solar activity resumes, global warming will return anew. Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.
I’m also more than a little bit puzzled how the journal editor and the peer reviewers let this sentence pass, everybody makes typos, but this one takes the cake. I kid you not:
But secondly, there must be a fair global coverage such that localized climate variations like the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.
Yes, I really want to see what the La Ninja effect looks like.
Here’s the paper abstract and excerpts:
Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.41008 Author: Peter Stauning
ABSTRACT
The question whether human activities seriously affect climate is asked with increasing voice these days. Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports [1].
However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [1]. The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.
- Introduction
The alarming rise in global temperatures from about 1980 to 2000 gave much concern around possible serious future climate changes, global warming, that could result from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. However, as shown in [2] the strong rise in global temperatures faded after year 2000 and was replaced by a rather steady level or even small decreases in the global temperatures from around 2001 to present (2013). This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.
The question is now whether the present fading of the temperature rise is related to the concurrent decrease in solar activity scaled, for instance, by the sunspot numbers. Scientists have linked past climate changes to solar activity. The so-called “Little Ice Age” in the 17’th century was linked to the Maunder minimum in solar activity by [4]. Many later works have linked climate changes to changes in solar activity (see reviews [5,6]).
In the earlier analysis [3] from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) a quantitative assessment was made of the relation between solar activity represented by the cycle-average sunspot numbers and the terrestrial climate represented by the global temperatures averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years. In the present communication the anticipated effects of the developments in solar activity on the recent global temperature changes are analyzed.
2. Sunspots and Global Temperatures
The former analysis [3] and the present work assume that solar activity can be represented through the classical international sunspot number SSN = k·(s + 10·g), where s is the number of sunspots, g the number of sunspot groups while k is a calibration parameter to ensure that different observatories derive the same sunspot number regardless of observational qualities. A discussion of this index and of modified versions of the sunspot number is provided by [7]. The sunspot number is used here rather than satellite-based observations of solar radiation be- cause of the extended length of the time interval of available data.
…
Presently (2013) we are about 4 years into cycle 24. Figure 1 also displays the extensions through 1.5 years derived at SIDC with different models (kfsm “clas- sical standard” and kfcm “combined” models). The fig- ure, furthermore, displays the predictions prepared by the Australian IPS Radio and Space Services [10] and the NASA solar cycle 24 predictions [11] as of October 2013.
The mean of the two SIDC extrapolations [8] 1.5 years ahead as well as the NASA prediction places the maxi- mum of cycle 24 in mid-2013. The currently observed and predicted sunspot numbers makes this sunspot cycle the weakest since cycle 14 which had a maximum in the smoothed data of 64.2 in February of 1906. When final sunspot data become available they may turn out still lower to make cycle 24 even weaker than cycle 14.
Sunspot numbers have been reconstructed back to around 1850 with quite good accuracy based on as- tronomers’ careful and detailed recordings of the ap- pearance of the solar surface. The yearly sunspot num- bers since 1850 available from SIDC [8] are shown by the thin blue line in the bottom panel of Figure 2. The extension shown by the dashed line from present through the remaining solar cycle 24 to 2020 is based on the mean of the IPS [10] and the NASA [11] predictions.
The bottom panel of Figure 2 also displays the averages of sunspot number from minimum to minimum (usual solar cycle) marked by squares and from maxi- mum in a cycle to maximum in the next cycle marked by filled circles.
…
The top panel of Figure 2 displays global temperature variations since 1850 through the deviations from aver- age level 1961-1990.
…
Presently, the series are extended up to October 2013 and comprise the combined land-surface/sea-surface global temperature series, HadCRUT-4gl [2], shown in the up- per panel of Figure 2, which is used here for the analyses. For the discussions here it should be noted that following
the steep rise between 1980 and 2000, the global average temperatures flatten out after year 2000. The extension of the temperatures beyond present shown by the dashed line represents the average of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013.
3. Relations between Solar Activity and Global Temperature
It should be recalled that solar activity-related changes in global temperatures must arrive after the activity changes. The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. In Figure 2 the cycle-average global temperatures are presented by the squares and filled circles, respectively, for the min-to- min and max-to-max intervals shifted 3 years.
The averaging presented in Figure 2 over min-to-min or max-to-max solar cycle intervals delayed by 3 years include years beyond present for the last two points. In the summations a reference value equal to the mean value of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013 has been substituted for values beyond 2013. Error bars extending from the two points represent the results obtained with global temperatures beyond 2013 systematically defined 0.1˚C higher or lower than the reference value.
In Figure 3 the individual cycle values of the sunspot number, SSNA, averaged over either min-to-min or max- to-max intervals of the solar cycle (appr. 11 years) and the change in global temperatures, ΔTA, averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years, are shown by filled squares and circles, respectively. This way of averaging reduces the scatter and makes it easier to se the persistent relation between sunspots and global tempera tures. The relation was found statistically in the former analysis [3] to be: ΔTA = 0.009 (±0.002)·SSNA − 0.70˚C.
…
6. Conclusions
The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.
The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.
=============================================================
Open access to the full paper here: PDF (Size:544KB) PP. 60-63
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The paleoclimate data shows the Earth has been generally thawing since the last major ice advance with minor glaciation coinciding with low sunspot activity. Thawing means temperatures rise, but not because of heat input. Like a thawing glass of ice water, the ice will be less effective at maintaining a lower temperature than its environment as it melts. The Earth will continue to “warm” as long as there is ice to melt. The warmth of the Earth will always have an upper limit due to hurricanes and typhoons, which pump infrared heat off the planet. These storms are nature’s air conditioners. So nobody should be too worried about global thawing and it should be allowed to run its natural course (as though we have anything to say about it).
I disagree with the author who said it is unlikely solar activity will be lower during the next cycle. I suspect we will see cycle 25 with near zero sunspot activity and cycle 26 will still be lower than cycle 24. We may not see 1990 levels of sunspot activity until around 2150.
In the meantime, the ice is certain to advance during the next 30 to 40 years. Generations 140 or so years from now can worry about the thawing when it returns.
So, the cause of the pause was not the cause before the pause?
[snip]
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 14, 2014 at 6:46 am
lsvalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
**********
Well not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
———————
Nooooooo really? The stamp collector thinks some changes in interstellar reconnection at the heliosphere interface has shape shifted… again..
Good night
@ur momisugly Davis Thomson, your statement about an upper limit due to storms is exactly where the IPCC and I digress. CO2 according to the IPCC retains the latent heat that is released from storms, therefore leading to a “tipping point” beyond which it continues to get hotter and hotter. Since we have by all measures dumped tremendous amounts of CO2 just in the last 10 years, the recent trend in temperatures has to be most troubling for them. I certainly agree with you that the heat is released. The IPCC has provided no scientific data that proves that the IR is retained. CO2 absorbs only 3 wavelengths in the nanometer band. ( Just as a comparison, the human eye can discern 2 million shades of red) Next for the light to be returned as heat the refractive index of the upper atmosphere would have to be like the cladding of fiber optic cable. As far I know CO2 is not a doping agent that would cause IR to be reflected back . As a sudden thought as of today a doping agent could be released by meteorites, or volcanoes. These are just some random thoughts. That would be a counter point to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. The IR being reflected back would be too little with the amount of CO2 currently available wouldn’t be able to produce the effect without a cladding effect. There is more space between the molecules, in other words the heat just keeps on going. I can quite easily write a huge book on what’s wrong with AGW Theory and a very short one with what s right.
I did this mostly for Janice, but others may find it appropriate. The ninja training video can help us prepare from La Ninja:
There is logical science in using the term La Ninja in this study. Ninjas were well known for their assassination skills – is the publication of this study not an assassination of science and peer review?
If its absence “caused the pause” what makes them believe that normal or elevated solar activity was not the cause of the supposed warming initially.
If something on its own is enough to stop the warming then it is at least equal to it. If the cooling is equal to the warming, then the warming can easily be caused by the same thing that caused the cooling. Cherry picking what they like with half mechanisms is not proper science, just shows their agenda here in the first place and continues how bad climate science has become. Assumptions and no evidence to support different behavior in their cherries.
Scientific evidence supports the reason why the sun especially caused warming during this period and can be explained unlike what this article assumes.The mutant El Ninja turtles contributed to warming for the period as an indicator of the suns energy warming the tropical oceans previously. Reduced global cloud levels enabled this extra energy to penetrate the oceans and warm global temperatures. There might have only been a little increase in solar activity over this period, but was enough to generate lot more energy in the tropical oceans than before, especially due to lowering global cloud levels. This is the mechanism that magnifies small changes by the sun to explain larger ocean energy changes on global temperatures.
Hence, no to the article, the sun does explain both warming and stabilizing of global temperatures.
Matt G says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
++++++++++
very well stated.
derfel cadarn says:
January 15, 2014 at 3:07 am
If its absence “caused the pause” what makes them believe that normal or elevated solar activity was not the cause of the supposed warming initially.
++++++++++++
This is a very astute question sir. Well asked! I’d say it invokes the “Heads I win, Tails you lose” game.
Leif says:
The ‘other’ mechanisms are just straws to grasp at IMHO, but proponents will of course reach for any straw, no matter how weak.
++++++++++++
Grasping at straws, perhaps.
I choose to bring up some things that has been bothering me, because I cannot be convinced. Sure – I know this is my problem.
I have a hard time swallowing the claim that TSI is all that matters. It’s said that the sensors collect energy at full spectrum, and that this shows that the range of total energy from the sun is within very small and cannot account for the temperature variations we see on the earth.
I say, the sensors are not the earth! Thyat statement is correct. But whether it’s meaningful to this discussion, needs to be explored further by men.
This is not a subtle statement. The sensors are perfectly stable with respect to changes in TSI. The sensors have been tuned to collect all of the heat energy from the full spectrum of the solar output. The earth, however has not been tuned by a laboratory to perfectly collect all of the full spectrum of the solar output. The process of heating the sensors and heating the planet earth are not similar, I posit.
I think it’s valid to say that the earth (unlike the sensors) absolutely changes in response to the changes of the frequency output of the sun. There are all sorts of mechanisms by which different wavelengths cause physical changes on planet earth, which in turn affects how the earth receives or rejects energy from the sun. I say receive and reject to include all of the energy from all means whether convective, radiated, conducted absorbed, stored released etc.
The energy comes from the sun (I exclude magma, and radiation for this post). Bob Tisdale has tracked where the heat came from and where it went –and I do not pretend to explain his point of view correctly. However, it is reasonable to accept that the oceans can store and release heat, such that there has been a net gain (over a 25 or so year period) of temperature that can be tracked to the oceans, over various decadal time periods. Why that is? Is it just random? Maybe. When the sun goes into a bit of a slump (like cycle 24), we might expect ENSO to tend towards weaker La Nina recharging, and less powerful EL Ninos if we integrate cumulative heat uptake. We’ve been seeing this, I think.
If there is a significant change in spectral frequencies that are on order of factors of 10 (ten) or more than the TSI, then it makes sense that the earth will respond differently than the tuned sensors that measure TSI. I would expect energy uptake to the earth to change in response to this shift. Does UV have an effect on ozone? If yes, how does this effect heat balance?
We also know that the magnetosphere changes in response to solar output, and there are some studies – maybe they are bunk – that show creation of more ionized particles seeding water vapor into cloud droplets.
To me, there are so many straws, that I feel the need to take a drink… yes I know, Leif you might call the drink Kool-Aide.
But to conclude, TSI measurements from tuned sensors in space do not experience the same energy that the earth experiences since it changes in response to the sun’s changes.
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 9:01 pm
If there is a significant change in spectral frequencies that are on order of factors of 10 (ten) or more than the TSI, then it makes sense that the earth will respond differently than the tuned sensors that measure TSI.
This is a classic straw. Those frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI. The amount of loose change in the pocket of Bill Gates may change by a factor of 10 or more from day to day, but that hardly makes a dent in his total wealth. Same thing with the solar wind, magnetosphere, etc, TSI is where the energy is. The very small variations of the higher energy photons and particles can [and do] make large changes in the tenuous upper atmosphere because the air density up there is less than a millionth of the lower atmosphere where we [and climate] live.
But to conclude, TSI measurements from tuned sensors in space do not experience the same energy that the earth experiences since it changes in response to the sun’s changes.
“tuned” is the wrong word here. The sensor is not ‘tuned’ at all. It directly measures the actual, real amount of energy that fall into it. That same energy falls upon the Earth as well.
Leif says:
“tuned” is the wrong word here. The sensor is not ‘tuned’ at all. It directly measures the actual, real amount of energy that fall into it. That same energy falls upon the Earth as well.
+++++++++
Thank you Leif:
I read the link to NASA’s pages a while back – but don’t remember where it is. I believe I recall that there are a number of different components that are specifically sensitive to a variety of frequencies. If that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
Leif says:
“Those frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI. The amount of loose change in the pocket of Bill Gates may change by a factor of 10 or more from day to day, but that hardly makes a dent in his total wealth”
+++++++++++
“My problem comes with descriptions like:
“frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI”
I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature. I cannot believe that this trivial temperature change (0.2%) is in no way related to the sun, which changes by half that amount in TSI, sometimes for decades at a time and with different frequencies profiles that have unknown affect on the way our atmosphere and oceans uptake energy.
My bearded dragon eats more and gets more active when he gets a fresh UV lamp. As a matter of fact, he changes color in response to a lamp when it no longer puts out enough UV for him. He loses appetite with an old lamp. The temperature, stays relatively constant. And I measured the current – the lamp draws the same current. [I have run experiments which warmer lights, with no UV, and even with warmer temperatures, the animal will not eat without enough UV.] So, the tiny, “pocket change” difference in UV makes HUGE changes to the life, behavior and color of this meager animal. But, I can’t prove the light source has ANYTHING to do with it because, well, the total energy from it changed only 0.001%. Let’s call it a straw man experiment, because I know it’s apples and oranges.
Dr. Svalgaard,
1) re: potential effect of UV on global climate (at the surface):
Q 1 – Would the following comment by you (and the linked .pdf) about 3 years ago be a potential help to Mr. Lento in getting the answers he is seeking re: UV?
Q 2- Has anything new along these lines been observed or is the state of knowledge on this essentially what it was at the end of 2010?
“Leif Svalgaard says: December 22, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Re: Stephen Wilde says: December 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
What is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun.
These things are [and can be] considered, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
The result is invariably that the influence is tiny.”
{emphasis mine}
{See slides ## 8-13 from above-linked .pdf:
Experiment 1: as in Lean (2000)
»UV, VIS and NIRvary in phase with TSI
»UV, VIS, NIR amplitudes proportional to band energies
–Amp (UV, VIS, NIR) = 0.28, 0.47, 0.25 X Amp (TSI)
Experiment 2: as in Harder et al. (2009)
»VIS varies out-of-phase with TSI
»UV amplitude much larger, compensated by out-of-phase VIS
–Amp (UV, VIS, NIR) = 1.67, –0.80, 0.13 X Amp (TSI)
Both Experiments: °
»TSI variations (peak to peak) ≈0.09% X TSI ≈ 1.2 W/m2
»TSI top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing: [cos (55°) / 2] X TSI ≈ 0.34 W/m2}
*****************************************************************************
2) re: “Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. “I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.” {quoted in the same thread in which your above-quoted comment appears: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/sorces-solar-spectral-surprise-uv-declined-tsi-constant/}
Q. In the 3 years or so since Ms. Lean said that, what has been observed, if anything, about whether or not the SIM trends are merely “instrumental?”
Trying to stick to the science,
Janice
P.S. Nice analogy using Bill Gates’ loose change. Now, THAT is a tiny %, indeed.
Oh, Mario, I’m sorry to have jumped in here — I thought you had likely hit the sack for the evening and was only hoping to elicit helpful information. Please disregard my post if it is not helpful, both you and Dr. Svalgaard.
btw: what is “bearded dragon?” It sounds like a horrid pet. GET A DOG!
#(:))
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm
If that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
There is a set of sensors measuring the energy in several wavelength bands. They measure the Solar Spectral Irradiance [called SSI]. And they are not ‘tuned’; they simply pick up all the energy in their band [e.g. using a filter]. The reason I don’t like ‘tuned’ is that that word usually denote some manipulation or setup such that the instrument [or a model] has a ‘desired’ response: you tune until the response matches a set goal. This is not what instruments that measure SSI or TSI do.
I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
The energy content of the oceans and atmosphere is enormous compared to the variations of the incoming energy.
0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature.
The percentage change in energy is 4 times the percentage change of temperature, so deltaT = 0.2% corresponds to 0.8% in energy, or 11 W/m2 of TSI. This is about 10 times as much as TSI is observed to vary over a solar cycle. No matter what processes you invoke the energy budget must balance. Mother Nature is very strict on this. The way some people get around this problem is to postulate that the solar cycle rides on top of a large long-term ‘background’ [e.g. that has changed by 11 W/m2]. I personally don’t think the data supports this view, but some people simply posit that there is such a change and voila you can match the observed climate changes. I take a dim view of such circular logic, but it may be to your liking as it solves all problems and does away with all uncertainty.
because I know it’s apples and oranges.
Such comparisons are the straws being grasped at. Here is another: by pressing a button I can explade a 100 Megaton nuclear device.
Janice Moore says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Q. In the 3 years or so since Ms. Lean said that, what has been observed, if anything, about whether or not the SIM trends are merely “instrumental?”
The jury is still out, but I would tend to agree with Lean. In any event, even if the changes were real their impact on climate would be minimal [as per Calahan], of the order of 0.05 degree over a cycle.
Janice Moore says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Oh, Mario, I’m sorry to have jumped in here — I thought you had likely hit the sack for the evening and was only hoping to elicit helpful information. Please disregard my post if it is not helpful, both you and Dr. Svalgaard.
btw: what is “bearded dragon?” It sounds like a horrid pet. GET A DOG!
#(:))
+++++++++++++
No problem Janice. Wife is allergic, and we don’t have the room that a dog deserves.
Dragon is scary looking, but nice temperament.
The point that I make is, saying something is small –is only small in terms of how it heats a sensor. Small changes can be significant, and to dismiss that, without considering what the small changes affect (verb) leaves me wondering about those feedbacks.
UV has a very significant affect on ozone, for instance, that will directly affect how the TSI affects the energy that interacts with our climate. Ozone has a significant effect wrt temperature leaving the earth system. This is just a single example of what I mean. These effects are absent (not considered) with the said RTD temperature sensors and their devices. UV changes are an order of magnitude greater than delta TSI. So, I do not consider it dismissed as part of the cause. There are many other factors, this is just one example.
The burden of proof is with me, not Leif, and I have no direct experience in this field. I pale in contrast to what Leif knows, still I remain skeptical.
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm
still I remain skeptical
One can only be skeptical if one knows enough about the subject. As Al Gore puts it: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
Mario===>[Mario’s new comments in brackets]
lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm
If that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
There is a set of sensors measuring the energy in several wavelength bands. They measure the Solar Spectral Irradiance [called SSI]. And they are not ‘tuned’; they simply pick up all the energy in their band [e.g. using a filter]. The reason I don’t like ‘tuned’ is that that word usually denote some manipulation or setup such that the instrument [or a model] has a ‘desired’ response: you tune until the response matches a set goal. This is not what instruments that measure SSI or TSI do.
Mario===>[the terms bandwidth and filter denote tuning. I understand what you mean, but what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
Leif===>The energy content of the oceans and atmosphere is enormous compared to the variations of the incoming energy.
Leif===>0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature.
The percentage change in energy is 4 times the percentage change of temperature, so deltaT = 0.2% corresponds to 0.8% in energy, or 11 W/m2 of TSI. This is about 10 times as much as TSI is observed to vary over a solar cycle. No matter what processes you invoke the energy budget must balance. Mother Nature is very strict on this. The way some people get around this problem is to postulate that the solar cycle rides on top of a large long-term ‘background’ [e.g. that has changed by 11 W/m2]. I personally don’t think the data supports this view, but some people simply posit that there is such a change and voila you can match the observed climate changes. I take a dim view of such circular logic, but it may be to your liking as it solves all problems and does away with all uncertainty.
Mario===>[I defer to you here Leif]
Leif===>because I know it’s apples and oranges.
Such comparisons are the straws being grasped at. Here is another: by pressing a button I can explade a 100 Megaton nuclear device.
Mario===>[That’s why I said apples and oranges, perhaps I should have said apples and staplers. Still, the effects on other things (not unlike how UV dramatically changes activity in a lizard) is not considered in just looking at sensor data vs earth which is a living breathing complex system. This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI]
Mario===>[Remaining skeptical I do not say you’re wrong – I say I am unconvinced that these effects are zero or close to zero. I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable). I say they are more significant than they are being considered by looking only at sensors in space] I wish I were writing a thesis, and could devote my time to studying such things –so for now, I appreciate your expertise, and willingness to entertain me.]
AGW will return…
Tell that to these fish: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/it-got-so-cold-so-quickly-in-this-norweigan-bay-that-it-froze-a-bunch-of-fish-swimming-in-it-232504960.html
lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm
still I remain skeptical
One can only be skeptical if one knows enough about the subject. As Al Gore puts it: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
++++++++
I’ll take that as a plus… so I get a C+ instead of a C for effort.
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm
but what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
Regardless, ‘tuned’ is the wrong word. A radio receiver can be tuned to a specific frequency, but we would not say that the receiver is tuned to FM band 2, but rather to a much narrower part of the band. The correct terminology is important. The engineering community that builds SSIs does not use the word ‘tuning’ so we should not either. The ‘filtering’ in SSI-instrument is done by spreading the light out into a spectrum and then let pieces of that spectrum fall on appropriate sensors [which themselves are not ‘tuned’ in any way]
This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI
Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable).
Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
When you say that I have not considered them, in what sense have you considered them and quantified your considerations? People who consider these things [by modeling them] find very small effects at the surface, as Janice points out.
lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm
but what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
Leif===> Regardless, ‘tuned’ is the wrong word. A radio receiver can be tuned to a specific frequency, but we would not say that the receiver is tuned to FM band 2, but rather to a much narrower part of the band. The correct terminology is important. The engineering community that builds SSIs does not use the word ‘tuning’ so we should not either. The ‘filtering’ in SSI-instrument is done by spreading the light out into a spectrum and then let pieces of that spectrum fall on appropriate sensors [which themselves are not ‘tuned’ in any way]
Mario===>The appropriate sensors are sensitive to particular frequencies. If the sensors were not let’s say “created to be sensitive to those frequencies”, they would not realize the magnitude of the measurement, being that they are not in tune, and there is no resonance. So I use the word tune, since that is what a tuned sensor is. It does not change your correct argument, and I do not believe there is any hocus pocus, nor do I believe a result is being sought.
This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI
Leif===>Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
BONUS ROUND – smoking gun
Mario===> I believe you’ve helped me understand why I feel the sun is more of a driver than you believe. Leif, above, you’re talking about the magnitude of over a 1/2 of a single solar cycle –agreed? That is, you say there is a 0.1K delta throughout 1/2 a single solar cycle. I infer from this that the delta is realized between the min and max. In my explanation, I suggest that we must integrate the rate of solar output over “several relatively inactive solar cycles.” This is not a trivial statement. Doing so, must/should show an accumulation in that rate over strong cycles vs a reduction over weak cycles. I discuss a waning level of activity over several cycles. Calculus tells us that we can integrate the rate to find the energy that accumulates.
(For those of us unfamiliar with Calculus, if we integrate acceleration, we get velocity. Integrating velocity, gets distance. Likewise, if we differentiate distance, we get rate, and the differential to rate is acceleration. If we differentiate acceleration, we get what we call jerk (in motion control).
I conclude that if we have several relatively inactive solar cycles, those changes on order of magnitude of 0.1K deltas should add up. And this does not include the argument of feedbacks based on ozone production.
Older post===Mario says -I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable).
Leif===.Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
Leif===> When you say that I have not considered them, in what sense have you considered them and quantified your considerations? People who consider these things [by modeling them] find very small effects at the surface, as Janice points out.
Mario===> It was late last night, and I should be careful of saying what you consider or not. No disrespect meant –sorry!