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
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:53 am
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.
The sensors are NOT sensitive to particular frequencies. They are equally sensitive at all frequencies. To measure how much energy we get from wavelength W1 to wavelength W2 we make a spectrum and pass light from W1 to W2 to a sensor. There is no resonance. See, thinking in terms of ‘tuning’ you are led to the erroneous notion of ‘resonance’ [which would be how a radio receiver tuned to a station would operate: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/8504028.pdf ]. It is important to use established terminology.
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.
This is another one of the classical straws. From 1834 to 1901 solar activity was much like from 1954 to 2014: progressing from high cycles steadily down to a very weak cycle, so the ‘integrals’ would be similar, yet the climate didn’t behave like this. Here is a comparison between those two periods http://www.leif.org/research/Rz-Comparisons.png
You see: the ‘straws’ have a strong hold on you even if you are only grasping for them..
Leif===> This is another one of the classical straws. From 1834 to 1901 solar activity was much like from 1954 to 2014: progressing from high cycles steadily down to a very weak cycle, so the ‘integrals’ would be similar, yet the climate didn’t behave like this. Here is a comparison between those two periods http://www.leif.org/research/Rz-Comparisons.png
You see: the ‘straws’ have a strong hold on you even if you are only grasping for them..
Mario===> This is sort of what I meant: If you integrate and normalize, there is pretty good indication of some relationship.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-40/integral/normalise
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:37 am
Mario===> This is sort of what I meant: If you integrate and normalize, there is pretty good indication of some relationship.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-60/integral/normalise
It all depends on the cherry picked -40. Try -60
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:41 am
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-51/integral/normalise
It all depends on the cherry picked -40. Try -60 [I used my corrected version of Rz].
Using the ‘official’ series the mean is 51. Try -51.
Leif===>The sensors are NOT sensitive to particular frequencies. They are equally sensitive at all frequencies. To measure how much energy we get from wavelength W1 to wavelength W2 we make a spectrum and pass light from W1 to W2 to a sensor. There is no resonance. See, thinking in terms of ‘tuning’ you are led to the erroneous notion of ‘resonance’ [which would be how a radio receiver tuned to a station would operate: ]
++++++
Mario==>To tune or not to tune, that is the question! I did not understand how the sensors were designed, you’ve explained it to my satisfaction. I learned something –thank you. The sensors are not tuned, rather they are exposed to selective frequencies of radiation. Those selected frequencie affect the sensor, and the temperature is measured. (I understand the mechanism is proportional to how much voltage is needed at constant current to maintain a constant temperature –but I digress) The resulting temperature is an attribute of the frequencies being measured. Got it.
Mario=====>>This tune/not tune issue does not address the following. A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero. For your argument to be true, the feedbacks must be close to zero. There is where my skepticism exists. The creation of different amounts of ozone, and other factors related to the changes of the sun, which are not trivial, lead to changes which have leads and lags in them. Integrating those over time has effect, I think.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:50 am
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:41 am
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-51/integral/normalise
It all depends on the cherry picked -40. Try -60 [I used my corrected version of Rz].
Using the ‘official’ series the mean is 51. Try -51.
_________
Come on now, we are talking about leads and lags. Your tuning (just kidding) offset still shows a relation that is a signature. I did not leave that out as a caveat that there are leads and lags. One can not simply dismiss that the integral of the changes in energy of the sun is the argument, as you can see it is quite a strong indication.
Don’t you think exploration in this area would be important for advancing our understanding of climate?
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
The albedo of the Earth is automatically taken into account in the relation dS/S = 4 dT/T (S is irradiance). Regardless, the solar cycle effect on the climate is 0.1 degree. Ozone, UV, solar wind, etc are a small part of that 0.1 degree.
There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero.
The feedbacks work mostly to keep the temperature constant [the ‘thermostat’]. This has prevented a run-away over billions of years, in spite of large changes both in the Sun and the Earth.
Integrating those over time has effect, I think
Except that the ‘integration’ does not work in explaining the observations, apart from a lack of explanation of how that would work: how long the integration interval? careful picking of ‘normalization’ offset and other shenanigans.
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:01 am
Come on now, we are talking about leads and lags.
With suitable leads, lags, and offsets one can fit anything.
One can not simply dismiss that the integral of the changes in energy of the sun is the argument, as you can see it is quite a strong indication.
The integral of changes of a series is just the series itself. And, no, there is no good correlation, and correlation is not causation anyway.
Don’t you think exploration in this area would be important for advancing our understanding of climate?
No, not at all. This is just a convenient way of pushing an agenda.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
The albedo of the Earth is automatically taken into account in the relation dS/S = 4 dT/T (S is irradiance). Regardless, the solar cycle effect on the climate is 0.1 degree. Ozone, UV, solar wind, etc are a small part of that 0.1 degree.
Mario===> I did not know you have documented the specific contribution varying ozone has on temperature.
There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero.
The feedbacks work mostly to keep the temperature constant [the ‘thermostat’]. This has prevented a run-away over billions of years, in spite of large changes both in the Sun and the Earth.
Mario===> That is the point… Quantify “mostly constant.” That part minus the mostly is what we are all looking for. If some change in frequency can change the albedo, or chemical makeup of the atmosphere, then even at constant TSI, there would be changes in energy balance. It’s undeniable, just perhaps not quantifiable to a specific feedback.
Mario===>There has been no disagreement on the idea of runaway feedback mechanisms.
Leif===>Integrating those over time has effect, I think
Except that the ‘integration’ does not work in explaining the observations, apart from a lack of explanation of how that would work:
how long the integration interval? careful picking of ‘normalization’ offset and other shenanigans.
Mario===> Yes – “how long the interval”, and leads and lags are of course topics of a study which I would love to see someone do. Integrating the 0.1K over sustained waning is the only way to account for it. Looking at TSI and temperature change in the same time domain without considering the leads/lags and integrative effects is of little value.
Put a lit cigarette in someone’s mouth and claim that as proof there’s no link between smoking and lung cancer because the cancer did not show up while they were smoking. Guess at a lag of 1 year, 5 years 30 years and you’ll start to finding some links.
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Mario===> I did not know you have documented the specific contribution varying ozone has on temperature.
Since the solar cycle variation of temperature is 0.1K, that due to ozone alone is smaller.
Mario===> That is the point… Quantify “mostly constant.”
The solar output has varied by more than 20% over time, but the temperature has remained within the limits that were tolerable to life [and liquid water], i.e. perhaps 10 degrees.
i>Mario===> Integrating the 0.1K over sustained waning is the only way to account for it.
That is a circular argument. Since it must be the Sun, you must integrate [the only way to account for it].
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy,…
————————
Let’s say that during times of higher solar activity, the sun produces, solar cosmic rays.
Let’s say that during times of lower solar activity, the sun interacts instead with galactic cosmic rays.
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
The continued..flux of GCR.
During a ‘normal?’ solar cycle, we would be seeing a decrease in cosmic rays at solar maximum.
Because this cycle is low we now have a period 2005-present at high levels maintained higher level.
No, big swing down for a half a cycle.
Solar cycle 25 is expected to be lower than 24. The Galactic cosmic rays are to remain at higher levels.
Increased flux in the atmosphere, riding in with little solar spurts and sputters…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
Then there is the problem with POES and the electron flux at the ground so much higher than what POES was seeing.
How many other satellites might have a problem with being in the wrong location, outside the optimum of the bounce loss cone?
Other planets, interplanetary space, the size of the heliosphere is still undergoing a change.
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Let’s say that during times of higher solar activity, the sun produces, solar cosmic rays.
Let’s say that during times of lower solar activity, the sun interacts instead with galactic cosmic rays.
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
nothing, because the energy of the cosmic ray flux is extremely small.
During a ‘normal?’ solar cycle, we would be seeing a decrease in cosmic rays at solar maximum.
Because this cycle is low we now have a period 2005-present at high levels maintained higher level.
No, big swing down for a half a cycle.
The cosmic rays are behaving normally: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png
Then there is the problem with POES and the electron flux at the ground so much higher than what POES was seeing.
No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.
Other planets, interplanetary space, the size of the heliosphere is still undergoing a change.
The size of the heliosphere has no impact on the Sun or the Earth.
All your alarmism is misplaced and rooted in misunderstood observations.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
nothing, because the energy of the cosmic ray flux is extremely small.
————————————–
Above a certain mega electron volt level, not even the sun can see its energy, only feels it. Then there are terra and pata electron volts of GCR energy and some greater, but that might get unholy.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
The cosmic rays are behaving normally: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png——————————
The new average Dr. S. To continue over a prolonged period of time… hello…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
—————————————–
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.
Do you mean this paper?
Tuesday, 10 September, 2013
Comparison between POES energetic electron precipitation observations and riometer absorptions; implications for determining true precipitation fluxes
http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/67865/4/preprint.pdf
Craig J. Rodger
Department of Physics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Andrew J. Kavanagh and Mark A. Clilverd
British Antarctic Survey (NERC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
Steve R. Marple
Department of Physics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
…”””Abstract. Energetic Electron Precipitation (EEP) impacts the chemistry of the middle atmosphere with growing evidence that it couples to surface temperatures at high latitudes. To better understand this link it is essential to have realistic observations to properly characterise precipitation and which can be incorporated into chemistry-climate models. The Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) detectors measure precipitating particles but only integral fluxes and only in a fraction of the bounce loss cone.
Ground based riometers respond to precipitation from the whole bounce loss cone; they measure the cosmic radio noise absorption (CNA); a qualitative proxy with scant direct information on the energy-flux of EEP. POES observations should have a direct relationship with ΔCNA and comparing the two will clarify their utility in studies of atmospheric change.
We determined ionospheric changes produced by the EEP measured by the POES spacecraft in ~250 overpasses of an imaging riometer in northern Finland. The ΔCNA modeled from the POES data is
10-15 times less than the observed ΔCNA when the >30 keV flux is reported as <10 6 cm-2sec-1sr-1. Above this level there is relatively good agreement between the space-based and ground-based measurements.
The discrepancy occurs mostly during periods of low geomagnetic activity and we contend that weak
diffusion is dominating the pitch angle scattering into the bounce loss cone at these times.
A correction to the calculation using measurements of the trapped flux improves the discrepancy considerably and provides further support to our hypothesis that weak diffusion leads to underestimates of the EEP…"""
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
All your alarmism is misplaced and rooted in misunderstood observations.
——————————-
Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into these climate, these climate, these climate…never mind.
Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into, STUFF like this..
New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
Some numbers for you to play with Dr. S., cause something is missing in all these analysis..density anomalies…
…”””According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for….”””
Do you recall the following article?
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
…”””The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
…”But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.
In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.
“The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached.”
Or not….”””
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Above a certain mega electron volt level, not even the sun can see its energy, only feels it. Then there are terra and pata electron volts of GCR energy and some greater, but that might get unholy.
As always, you have no sense of proportions. Those high energy particles are so rare that they don’t add up to anything that can be measured or felt.
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
Have a look for yourself. The intensity is not higher than at some earlier minima.
“No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.” Do you mean this paper?
Yes, of course, as the paper says: “Above this level there is relatively good agreement between the space-based and ground-based measurements” The discrepancy was for a small part of the lowest energy particles. No importance in the grand scheme of things.
Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into these climate, these climate, these climate…never mind.
Properly assessed there is no problem with this. Misinterpreted by people who have the need to do so, the data bothers them. But this is not really important for the more sober of us.
…”But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
So, they have to work a bit on their models and update their understanding and refrain from the usual NASA hype [=’send more money’]
For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli
some advertising for AGW that you happily spread around.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm
Have a look for yourself. The intensity is not higher than at some earlier minima.
———————
Except Dr. S. its solar max, so maybe you should take another look..
The new average Dr. S. To continue over a prolonged period of time… hello…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
All the little straws add up to break the camels back..
Good night..
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Except Dr. S. its solar max, so maybe you should take another look..
Cosmic rays maximize at minimum, and you probably didn’t even look at:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm
All the little straws add up to break the camels back.
Camels eat straws. The straws seem to bolster your alarmism to the point where you even begin to believe [some] NASA press releases rather than your own eyes.
PS – Leif: Thank you for engaging. It was fun, and your candor and patience is appreciated to this neophyte.
PS – I resisted tossing in the whole cosmic rays ionizing effect that purports to cause water droplet condensation at low altitudes yada yada… though, the hypothesis seems interesting, I do not know much about it.
If the Solar Funk in activity is causing the flattening out of Global Temps, then the 90,000 previous years of the last Ice Age should also show weak Solar Activity in the proxies.
Does it?
And the same should also hold true for all the Ice Ages.
Which would imply 10,000 years of high Solar Activity followed by 90,000 to 100,000 years of low Solar Activity.
This theory digs a hole ever deepening. I’m not sure that they are able to successfully toss the dirt out of the hole, being so far down it. Yes, that is a silly way of looking at things, but then so is the act that the theory requires of believers.
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy,…
————————
Mario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
Examples of Radiant Energy
The term radiant energy refers to energy that travels by waves or particles, particularly electromagnetic radiation such as heat or x-rays. Radiant energy is created through electromagnetic waves and was discovered in 1885 by Sir William Crookes. Fields in which this terminology is most often used are telecommunications, heating, radiometry, lighting, and in terms of energy created from the sun. Radiant energy is measured in joules.
Understanding Radiant Energy
Radiant energy is a form of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy refers to the movement of the energy whether is is of atoms, molecules, waves, substances or objects. Other forms of kinetic energy include thermal energy, sound, motion energy and electrical energy. Without radiant energy, like that from the sun, life on Earth would not be possible.
Radiant energy is the result of a change in configuration of electrons. It can travel through any substance including air, liquid, glass, and space. However, matter is not necessary for transmission of radiant energy. Even in a vacuum environment, radiant energy can move.
Radiant energy moves in a straight line at a very high speed and can be absorbed, transmitted or reflected. Radiant energy is reflected if the object receiving the energy cannot absorb it. If the energy is only partially able to penetrate the object, then it is absorbed. The energy is transmitted if an object cannot absorb it.
All of these examples help to better explain the important concept of radiant energy.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-radiant-energy.html
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Except Dr. S. its solar max, so maybe you should take another look..
Cosmic rays maximize at minimum, and you probably didn’t even look at:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png
——–
Yes I did. The same graph was used in:
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
Except for the line indicating the average over solar cycles for GCR between the highs and lows. Cycle 24 is defining for us a new average within a solar cycle. GCR will not be declining to the prior low levels as they would usually do for a solar max.
With respect to the lowering of Earth’s Atmosphere, and the missing DENSITY, GCR, electron fluxes are in the running for the missing density anomaly.
Don’t try and read so much into these things DR. S.
rbateman says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:00 pm
If the Solar Funk in activity is causing the flattening out of Global Temps, then the 90,000 previous years of the last Ice Age should also show weak Solar Activity in the proxies.
Does it?
—————–
maybe it goes into helicopter mode? Strange looking kinda of accretion cycling, helicopter mode. Hmm sorta of asymmetry effect perhaps. So many astrosphere’s out there all doing similar things…
Carla says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Mario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
Cosmic rays are not ‘radiant energy’. The name ‘rays’ is a holdover from a hundred years ago, when they didn’t know what cosmic rays are [particles, not rays]. The energy of the particles [cosmic rays] hitting the sensors is so small that it cannot be measured.
GCR will not be declining to the prior low levels as they would usually do for a solar max
Sure they will when solar maxima are large again in some 70 years. The cycle change in cosmic rays is BTW tiny, only a few percent, e.g. from 4500 counts to 4150 counts. As even the 4500 counts cannot be measured in terms of total energy, so the change down to 4150 will be even less measurable.
Your alarmism is totally misplaced.
Carla says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Mario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
++++++++++
Carla, when you hear of cosmic rays and climate related to a waning sun, the cosmic rays are NOT claimed to be a significant source of energy. The hypothesis was something like this (and I am too lazy to look it up for you). During times where sun spot activity is very low, the the sun’s affect on our magnetosphere is such that it blocks fewer cosmic rays. More cosmic rays then pass throughto our atmosphere and are said to ionize particles which causes seed nucleation of water vapor which increases the albido of the earth. So – weak sun = slightly less TSI reaching past clouds. So when the sun is weaker, the earth is supposed to cool more than in proportion to just the TSI.
To me, this sounds plausible. But I do not have enough information to verify whether the hypothesis has been validated.