One of the big problems of climate science is uncertainty. Some things that always seem to be in flux are historical datasets, partly because, well, they have so much inherent uncertainty built in. Such is the case of the Historical TSI plot presented on the University of Colorado SORCE web page. All of the sudden, with little fanfare, it changed, and not just a little. What is interesting are the drops during the Maunder Minimum as well as our current Solar Cycle 24
Readers may know that a controversy persists as to the actual TSI behavior in the late 80s/early 90s. The so called “ACRIM gap” was created when the Challenger shuttle was destroyed in a famous accident due to mismanagement combined with launch pressure. It caused by the delay of the shuttle-launched ACRIM2, a satellite that was to maintain continuity of TSI measurements. The debate over how to bridge the gap is relevant to the explanation of the warming that persisted into the 90s. The debate has been quite heated, with those invested in the IPCC forcing story claiming that the TSI decreased in the 90s and those (Willson and Scafetta) who argued that the TSI continued to increase in the 90s.
Some previous TSI reconstructions:
Now there’s even more tinkering from SORCE:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
The SORCE TSI reconstruction looked like this a month ago (word BEFORE added):
Here is what it looks like as of today (word AFTER added):
They say this about it today:
This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group’s Assessment Report and based on TSI reconstructions by Krivova et al. (JGR 2010) and Ball et al. (A&A, 2012). The values from their SATIRE model have been offset -0.30 W/m2 to match the SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed by G. Kopp using TIM V.15 data in February 2014, and is updated annually as new TIM data are available.
Download the ASCII data file
Explore the data interactively with LISIRD
Since the previous dataset wasn’t available to me to plot to show differences and comparisons, here is an overlay of the 2013 and 2014 image versions of the plot, scaled to fit properly since the Y axis changed in 2014 to accommodate the greater range:
They have changed the last three solar maxima and now show a clear roll-off since about 1975. Those are enormous changes since last year’s dataset.
Of note is the drop of about 0.3 w/sqm during the last minimum. You’d think they have a measurement handle on that with our current satellite platform, so you have to wonder why that would need adjustment.
Also of note is a drop of about 0.2w/sqm during the Maunder Minimum.
Not only is global temperature adjusted and is a constantly moving target, now so it is with solar irradiance. With so much input data in flux, the “uncertainty monster” of climate modeling output keeps growing.
h/t to Gordon Fulks and Aaron Smith
The model used [SATIRE – not a pun] is based on the Group Sunspot Number which we now know is about 50% too low before the 1880s. The arguments for this can be found here: http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf and in more detail here http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciling-Group-and-Wolf-Sunspot-Numbers.pdf and here http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
so no wonder there is a problem. On the other had, it is also true that we do not KNOW for sure if there is an ever-rising ‘background’, see here: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
My own assessment is that there [is] no evidence for a secular upward trending background.
These are indeed large changes. I note that the lower end of the range is now about 1360.0 rising to about 1360.7, whereas Leif’s goes from around 1365.6 to 1365.7. Even Judith Lean’s is consistently higher than the new measure. Are these really attempted measures of the same thing?
Interesting. Thanks for noticing and posting this here.
Layman here; could it be being adjusted as the recently found the large change in UV over the solar cycle?
Mike Jonas says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:04 pm
These are indeed large changes. I note that the lower end of the range is now about 1360.0 rising to about 1360.7, whereas Leif’s goes from around 1365.6 to 1365.7.
That difference of about 5 W/m2 is artificial in the sense that pre-SORCE data had a systematic error [due to scattered and diffracted light]. Correcting for that systematic error brings the two scales into agreement for the satellite era since 1978.
More on tinkering with the TSI data in the past, including a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites) stating “Fröhlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorized and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-update.html
Alec aka Daffy Duck says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:07 pm
Layman here; could it be being adjusted as the recently found the large change in UV over the solar cycle?
No, because those changes are too minute in energy terms [although large in percentages]
Hockey Schtick says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites) stating “Fröhlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorized and incorrect adjustments
One does [NOT] need to have authorization to correct what one finds to be wrong.
One does NOT need to have authorization to correct what one finds to be wrong.
No, Leif gave me 1361 as TSI year round average a few weeks ago.
But HIS source was all over the place over the years, each “official” reading lower than the previous “official” reading due to calibration issues. It’s validated based on a source I trust, so all can use below as they see fit.
When I calculate radiation at TOA for each day of the year, I assign a single yearly average as TSI to the spreadsheet as a variable ..
Then calculate each day-of-year TOA value from
TSI_DOY=TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((F1-3)/365))))
ANY daily radiation absorbed or reflected calculation uses the DAILY TSI value, never a yearly average or a wikipedia-approved “everybody-knows-it” value.
This assumes that maximum radiation = 1408 on 3 January.
Wow, I see why people get so sarcastic about NOAA and NASA and such on this site now. I have also thought, as have others, that whenever possible we should do reconstructions of all the many graphs/data sets, etc. that begin in 1979 to show what they would look like starting a few years or decades earlier. I think they are tinkering with Great Lake ice coverage this year as well. But in this case we have a unique opportunity. At or near peak ice coverage, if someone will fly over Lake Michigan especially, but also hopefully Lake Superior and Ontario … on a clear day and take video … we could see if they have been tampering and how much.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm
But HIS source was all over the place over the years, each “official” reading lower than the previous “official” reading due to calibration issues.
I long ago pointed out that they had degradation problems, see e.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
They have now acknowledged the problem [but still not corrected their dataset].
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 6:57 pm
This is the kind of article where I really appreciate having you around.
OK, but that now brings up a “calibration” problem of my own you may be able to help with:
When I digitize the daily (hourly) radiation charts (usually direct, indirect, and total are plotted for each 15 minutes) for a given year, then try to check the “requied” attenuation percent for that latitude and that day-of-year for that paper, do i need to “change” the yearly_average_TSI at the TOA for the YEAR when the measurement was made?
Clearly, if today’s TSI = 1361 was not 1361 in 2001 or 2008, or 1992 but some other value, then the plotted total radiation on ANY date that year will also have changed. If I assume a constant yearly_average_TSI and only correct for the day-of-year cycle, then my attenuation figures will be wrong, right? 8<)
On the other hand, the actual measured global or direct or diffuse radiation by some instrument doesn't care what happened on the sun's face, it is measured at what it is measured, right?
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm
This is the kind of article where I really appreciate having you around.
Yes, it is important that we get a dataset giving the correct energy input to the climate system.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm
If I assume a constant yearly_average_TSI and only correct for the day-of-year cycle, then my attenuation figures will be wrong, right? 8<)
Yes, there is a [real, true] solar cycle variation of 1 to 2 W/m2 [depending on the cycle], with maximum near sunspot cycle maximum. You can get the daily values since 2003 here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
RACookPE1978 says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm
On the other hand, the actual measured global or direct or diffuse radiation by some instrument doesn’t care what happened on the sun’s face, it is measured at what it is measured, right?
To evaluate the impact on the Earth, one should use the value reduced to the varying distance between the Sun and the Earth, which as you point out produces an annual variation some 70 times larger than the puny solar cycle variation everyone is so worked up about.
The motivation behind this looks clear! It explains the warming period out of the maunder min and the early 1900 warming until 1950. Then it show’s a clear discrepancy with temperatures from 1950 onwards, giving the impression that there must be another reason behind the continued warming. I expect to see papers citing this very information to show that ‘the sun did not cause the warming from the 50’s but could explain the current pause’ out very soon.
Tim says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:45 pm
The motivation behind this looks clear! It explains the warming period out of the maunder min and the early 1900 warming until 1950. Then it show’s a clear discrepancy with temperatures from 1950 onwards, giving the impression that there must be another reason behind the continued warming.
I think you are correct about the motivation. It is also good for funding.
I thought SORCE Tim had failed.
But 7 days of data shows up at Christmas which is right around the previous numbers. Still 0.4 W/m2 or so lower than expected at the top of the solar cycle but that is really nothing when divided by 4 and multiplied by 70% for Albedo.
0.07 W/m2 lower than expected, so what. It is still higher than normal given we are the top of the solar cycle so it is not contributing to the cooling, it is just contributing less warming than it should have.
——————-
And I don’t see how the historical TSI numbers can just be adjusted over and over and over again. We have absolutely no idea what the data should be now.
I think we have to back-up and just assume that it was much lower in the Maunder Minimum etc. because all these adjustments have just forced one to use reality and the cold temperatures of the late 1600s to say, yes, it was 4.0 W/m2 lower then. It just had to be.
And, therefore, the Sun is not the very stable Star we thought it was.
Well, Polaris’ intensity is varying much more these years than what it “should” …
the end times, they are nearer than they ever have been before.
(Which is a true statement every time it is uttered.)
The change of the SORCE TSI reconstruction is curious. In the 2013 TSI version the SORCE reconstruction was nothing but an extension of Lean TSI model.
In our recent paper, published a few weeks ago,
Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson, 2014. ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models. Astrophysics and Space Science (in press).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9
we demonstrate (figure 14), among many other things, that that SORCE TSI reconstruction based on Lean model failed to reproduce the TSI reduction from the TSI minima in 1996 to 2008-2009 as demonstrated by both the ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite.
It appears to me that now SORCE has tried to cover up the problem by reproducing a new TSI record made of an extension of Lean TSI model merged to the TSI PMOD composite since 1980. The PMOD is however shifted down to the ACRIM3 and TIM scale.
This is however a dangerous trick because as explained in our paper PMOD composite was originally based on altered TSI satellite measurements. The alterations were originally deduced from Lean TSI proxy model.
Thus, as explained in our new paper the fact that Lean’s proxy model failed to reproduce the TSI reduction from 1996 to 2008-2009 demonstrates also that PMOD composite is likely baseless.
In our figure 15 we show how TSI appears without the PMOD modification during the ACRIM gap with a possible forecast to 2020.
The paper can be download on my web-site.
In addition, in
Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson, 2014. ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models. Astrophysics and Space Science (in press).
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007s10509-013-1775-9.pdf
we demonstrates that Lean and Solanki TSI model have serious troubles.
The SORCE TSI seems now based on Solanki model which is carefully calibrated to reproduce the minima of the PMOD composite. However it fails to reproduce the maximum in 2002 which is too low and has other problems discussed in our paper.
Climate science, ever continuing to disappoint.
Small wonder Jones and co had so little regard for the original data.
Astrology is looking more credible every time the data gets “corrected”.
Given the variation in “measuring methods” is this reconstruction of any value?
Or do we just accept we have no useful data prior to the latest spaceborne instrumentation?
Bill Illis says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:52 pm
I thought SORCE Tim had failed.
It had, but there is still battery power enough to make a few measurements now and then, until the next satellite is launched.
We have absolutely no idea what the data should be now.
On the contrary, we know what the data should be now, it is the past [before 2003] that is murky.
I think we have to back-up and just assume that it was much lower in the Maunder Minimum …It just had to be.
I hope you realize that this is a circular argument.
“The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”
Did we land on the moon?
As the temperatures drop next year and the years after that, the ‘noise and the twisting of the data in the record won’t matter, not one little bit…as the cold records fall planetary wide…
On the SORCE web-site
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
They say:
“This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group’s Assessment Report and based on TSI reconstructions by Krivova et al. (JGR 2010) and Ball et al. (A&A, 2012). The values from their SATIRE model have been offset -0.30 W/m2 to match the SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed by G. Kopp using TIM V.15 data in February 2014, and is updated annually as new TIM data are available.”
Kopp is quite confused here or perhaps IPCC AR5 is confused and messing up things.
The CMIP5 models used in the IPCC AR5 used the TSI model of Wang and Lean (2005)
This is clearly stated here
http://solarisheppa.geomar.de/solarisheppa/cmip5
Where it is written:
Total solar irradiance for CMIP5 models:
For CMIP5 models with a poorly resolved stratosphere and models that are unable to make use of spectrally-resolved data, the following annual mean TSI time series provided by J. Lean should be used: TSI_WLS_ann_1610_2008.txt.
In the file it is written:
ANNUAL MEAN TSI: Lean (GRL 2000) with Wang Lean Sheeley (ApJ 2005) background
Mon Apr 6 11:29:27 2009 PMOD absolute scale – multiply by 0.9965 for TIM scale
Somewhere in a box, buried by other boxes of books and magazines, is an old text. On an otherwise blank page on what would be the frontispiece photo, there is a quote of this sort: For 100 years, great minds have studied the Sun and have come to opposite conclusions.
It is nice that now we have this all clarfied.
Final comment.
Note that the first figure used by Anthony above with Lean2000, Wang 2005 and in red Leif 2007 was figure that Leif took from one of my papers where he added his red TSI nonsense that was nothing but the Sunspot record written in TSI units.
As everybody can see Leif’s “flat-sun” model is contradicted by SORCE TSI and by the other TSI reconstructions.
If you are good, you can look at this series of visible images and deduce that portion of the lakes which are ‘uncovered’ (open water is darker tone); be sure to observe for low-clouds/steam versus ice:
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=DTW&itype=vis&size=large&endDate=20140210&endTime=17&duration=2
Note: Wind ice has forced the bulk of free-floating ice to the western half of the lake for the most part; near shore we used to term this ‘pack ice’.
One can also view the LWIR imagery and deduce ‘open water’ based on temperature as seen on this series of images below. Allowances for obscuration by low clouds/steam from the open water must also be made, the series of images allows one to occasionally see or ‘peak’ at open water as the wind blows the low clouds forming off the open water:
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=DTW&itype=ir&size=large&endDate=20140210&endTime=17&duration=2
.
Minor correction:
Note: The westerly wind has forced the bulk of free-floating ice to the EASTERN half (areal extent better than what looks like 2/3) of the lake for the most part; ….
[“aerial” extent? Mod]
“I expect to see papers citing this very information to show that ‘the sun did not cause the warming from the 50′s but could explain the current pause’ out very soon.”
I’m sure too. Roughly, the big change is that before you can see a large increase in the maximums after 1940 across all of those cycles except in the 1970’s, but now, poof, mostly gone… a constant sun.
Ho, hum. Business as unsual.
What still amazes me is why the other planets and moons temperature variances are so in synch with those here on Earth since we could track them. If not the sun, what caused their “Global Warmings”?
I suppose it took a while for those in the Maunder minimum to finally, just now report their data.
The ‘Hand Of Trenbert’ doth touch.
Sad tis.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:43 pm
his red TSI nonsense that was nothing but the Sunspot record written in TSI units…
As everybody can see Leif’s “flat-sun” model is contradicted by SORCE TSI and by the other TSI reconstructions.
Since SORCE began in 2003 there is nothing to contradict my plot. And expressing TSI using the sunspot numbers is the correct thing to do as it is solar magnetism [expressed by the sunspot number] that is responsible for the variation of TSI. To suggest anything else is just baseless speculation [which you obviously excel in, one has to, at least, give you that]. My reconstruction does indeed disagree with the two other obsolete ones which mutually disagree. This was the whole point.
An appreciation of the [lack of] accuracy of the ACRIM data can be obtaained from here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/posters/Pa_Cookson_poster.pdf
Whenever records of data have been posted without immediate controversy, which marks the records as adequate, and subsequently altered as historical records, science has been abandoned and a scam is in progress.
Leif states “Since SORCE began in 2003……….”
Leif, I was referring to the SORCE TSI reconstruction shown in the above graphs (adapted from Solanki and Kivova), not the TIM TSI satelite records since 2003.
Moreover, Dora’s poster that you highlights was not based on TSI measurements but on a proxy model based on ground measurements
Your are getting old don’t you?
I shall admit to a certain amount of befuddlement (I think that is the technical term).
The back story is very interesting as is the ensuing debate. But in terms of earth’s temperature, we’re talking about adjustments that would change the effective black body temperature of earth by about 0.02 degrees.
Am I missing something?
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:43 pm
As everybody can see Leif’s “flat-sun” model is contradicted ….
From http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-011-9867-6#page-1 we learn that “These results provide further support for the hypothesis that the quiet Sun is constant over time”.
As also found by Schrijver et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf and by the careful measurements since 1974 by Bill Livingston http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005ASPC-Livingston-Temp.pdf “Quiet Sun unaffected by Activity Cycle” … “Abstract. The Sun’s 11 year sunspot cycle, and all related phenomena, are driven by magnetism in the form of hot flux tubes which thread through the surface from below. Full disk chromospheric Ca K intensity observations track the activity cycle. But center disk Ca K and photospheric temperature sensitive lines are invariant to cycle magnetism. Recent high resolution photographs of the photosphere show that the flux tubes are confined between the granulation cells and do not interact with them. The result is a constant basal atmosphere without cyclic consequences for the Earth”, and so on.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Leif, I was referring to the SORCE TSI reconstruction shown in the above graphs
No, you said ‘SORCE TSI’.
Moreover, Dora’s poster that you highlights was not based on TSI measurements but on a proxy model based on ground measurements
Which very accurately reproduce the only reliable TSI measurements: SORCE TIM.
Your are getting old don’t you?
with age comes wisdom.
With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.
Michael Moon says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Whenever records of data have been posted without immediate controversy, which marks the records as adequate, and subsequently altered as historical records, science has been abandoned and a scam is in progress.
Not so. Often errors only come to light much later when complimentary data and deeper understanding become available. Here is an example: http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf
lsvalgaard Feb 10 7:08pm – re the “difference of about 5 W/m2“. Thanks for the info. Looking again at the lower bounds in the graph I would be interested in any comment you might have on the discrepancy between the latest chart and yours. The latest chart is similar to “Wang 2005” in that the lower bounds increase by about 0.7 wm-2 over the period, whereas in yours the lower bounds vary no more than about 0.1 wm-2. I suppose that is the “flat sun” reference in some comments here. How confident are you that your version is more accurate, and how could it be tested?
Can someone explain to an ignoramus like me why the TSI curve is so smooth between approx 1650 and 1720 ?
Thanks in advance.
WillR,
“With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.”
Best comment on this entire thread.
Mike Jonas says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm
I suppose that is the “flat sun” reference in some comments here.
Indeed, it is.
How confident are you that your version is more accurate, and how could it be tested?
We are fairly sure that we have reconstructed the Sun’s magnetic field back to about 1840 [Figure 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf ] and the ‘bottom’ of that is almost flat [except for minor bumps caused by the sunspot number not always dropping to the same low value at sunspot minimum], so my confidence is high.
GregK says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Can someone explain to an ignoramus like me why the TSI curve is so smooth between approx 1650 and 1720 ?
It probably should not be flat [as cosmic rays seem to be modulated normally during that time], but whenever you use the sunspot number as the basis for your reconstruction you get a flat curve because almost no sunspots were observed from 1645-1715 [the so-called Maunder Minimum].
Tim says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:45 pm
The motivation behind this looks clear! It explains the warming period out of the maunder min and the early 1900 warming until 1950. Then it show’s a clear discrepancy with temperatures from 1950 onwards, giving the impression that there must be another reason behind the continued warming. I expect to see papers citing this very information to show that ‘the sun did not cause the warming from the 50′s but could explain the current pause’ out very soon.
————————————————————————————————–
If the casinos had a line on that, then I would bet with your proposition.
“Your are getting old don’t you?
with age comes wisdom.”
Or the increasing awareness that one knows everything about nothing?
Can anyone superimpose a UV variation chart on that TSI record ?
Similar for solar protons and NOx would also be helpful.
Indeed, anything that can have an impact on the ozone creation / destruction balance in mesosphere and stratosphere.
Separate treatment for mesosphere and stratosphere would be good too since there is some evidence that they each have an opposite sign ozone response to solar variations.
It doesn’t matter to me how ‘flat’ or ‘bumpy’ the TSI chart becomes as long as it retains a shape even remotely similar to the temperature record (subject to oceanic modulation due to thermal inertia) and it does achieve that even in Leif’s flatter version.
So this thread could be more of a ‘ how many angels could fit on on a pinhead?’ type of discussion.
WillR says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:03 pm
With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.
—————————–
That is a quote to remember for all time.
I actually lol.
cn
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm
One does NOT need to have authorization to correct what one finds to be wrong.
Yes you do. It the authorisation that comes from the scientific method. If you have NO data, you have NO data. The fabrication of data from a best guess model is to my scientific training totally unacceptable. The modification of any existing data after it has been faithfully recorded is also TOTALLY unacceptable.
As Leif Svalgaard says, if the data is wrong, it’s wrong. With you there buddy. The simply amazing thing about it is that every single one of the historical data sets that needs to be
tampered withadjusted, always and invariably yields a result more favourable to the AGW narrative. What are the odds on that happening, and isn’t nature wonderful?But Trenberth claims that TOA irradiance is 340w/m2 (see AR4/5).
Is he wrong then??????????
johnmarshall says: “But Trenberth claims that TOA irradiance is 340w/m2 (see AR4/5).
Is he wrong then??????????”
The TOA 340 watts/m^2 presented by Trenberth and others is the average for the entire planet, even the portion experiencing nighttime, where the TSI 1361 watts/m^2 or so is the value focused at the top of the atmosphere.
How did they work out that a sunspot number of 200+ before the maunder minimum has a TSI of 1360.4 w/m2 yet solar cycle 19 with a maximum sunspot number of 200 has a TSI of 1362.3 w/m2?
@johnmarshall
>…ITOA irradiance is 340w/m2 …
That is the shortwave irradiance normalized over the surface area of the Earth’s sphere. The total area of the globe is 4*pi*r^2, but only the sunlit side, whose cross section area is pi*r^2, is irradiated. So, dividing the total area by the effective cross section, the average irradiation over the globe comes out 1360/4 = 340W/m^2
Why not just use the sunlit side for analysis? Because we need to compare these shortwave emissions to the longwave blackbody radiation emitted by the Earth, which radiates more or less uniformally in all directions, day and night.
To see this, watch these satellites loops of visible/IR light reflected/transmitted from the Earth’s surface. The visible loops go dark at night, but maybe you’ll be surprised to see that the IR loops stay lit all the time:
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/index_old.html
😐
Oft times I shake my head in wonder, I see scientists like Leif telling us the sun hardly varies so can not control temperature and Nicola trying to show variations that may cause temperature differences on our little blue ball.
Sad to see when an idiot like myself only needs to click on the solar page on this site and see the historic solar cycles. They tend to track the ups and downs of global temps, any real scientist worth his salt should be asking why, if this is what he does for a living.
Defending the status quo should never be option to a real scientist ,often the further you stand back regardless of failing eyesight the bigger the picture you see, a failing of most science is standing too close and not seeing the trees, let alone the forest.
Thus I ask all scientists to stand back and have a good look around, I have waited half a century for any of you to make sense, so far all your standard models are a total useless fudge and climate science has proved to be a political manouver.
Look outside the square and forget please the standard any thing, we know very little and will learn nothing unless we look beyond what we are taught as fact.
Lief your unshaken belief that the sun varies little and cannot effect the temperature is demonstrated to be wrong by the historic temperatures and the solar cycles.
It may be a paradigm shift in your thinking, but it may be worth looking at, for at the moment climate science is a dogs breakfast.
lsvalgaard Feb 10 10:56pm – you say “my confidence is high“. Without wanting to doubt that you have good grounds for confidence, and acknowledging that I know nothing at all about this, I have two questions: (a) Is it reasonable to equate zero sunspots with the same low magnetic field each time – IOW is it possible that the magnetic field in some periods of zero sunspots sinks lower than in others? (b) As I asked before, is there any way in which your analysis can be tested?
Bart says: @ February 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm
This is the kind of article where I really appreciate having you around.
>>>>>>>>>
lsvalgaard says: @ February 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Yes, it is important that we get a dataset giving the correct energy input to the climate system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You are missing the point Leif, It is very important to DOCUMENT the dataset/graph BEFORE changes were made, AFTER changes were made and WHY changes were made.
This is akin to the old days where you draw a line through the bad data in your lab notebook, explain why it is bad and initial and date. If needed you reference another page where you write a lengthy explanation. Just like in accounting the lab notebook was the same as a ledger in bookkeeping.
In booking if you mess with the data using an unapproved method you can lose the court case and might even face fines and/or jail time.
Computers have allowed scientist to get sloppy. There are a lot of papers out there referencing the old data set and without careful documentation you get confusion as to just what the heck is going on. Most people think the historical data is cast in stone not fluid.
Santa Baby says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:57 pm
“with age comes wisdom.”
Or the increasing awareness that one knows everything about nothing?
Which is preferable to knowing nothing about everything.
Mike Jonas says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:35 am
(a) Is it reasonable to equate zero sunspots with the same low magnetic field each time – IOW is it possible that the magnetic field in some periods of zero sunspots sinks lower than in others?
The careful measurements since 1974 by Bill Livingston http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005ASPC-Livingston-Temp.pdf “Quiet Sun unaffected by Activity Cycle” …
suggest that the magnetic field when no sunspots is constant: “Abstract. The Sun’s 11 year sunspot cycle, and all related phenomena, are driven by magnetism in the form of hot flux tubes which thread through the surface from below. Full disk chromospheric Ca K intensity observations track the activity cycle. But center disk Ca K and photospheric temperature sensitive lines are invariant to cycle magnetism. Recent high resolution photographs of the photosphere show that the flux tubes are confined between the granulation cells and do not interact with them. The result is a constant basal atmosphere without cyclic consequences for the Earth”
(b) As I asked before, is there any way in which your analysis can be tested?
The analysis stands on itself, the conclusion may be a different matter. It is up to the individual person to draw the conclusion himself. So the question is whether you can draw a different conclusion from the same analysis. I don’t see how, so if someone does, he must explain why he differs.
wayne Job says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:31 am
Leif your unshaken belief that the sun varies little and cannot affect the temperature is demonstrated to be wrong by the historic temperatures and the solar cycles.
I wish it were so, as that would make my field of work of great importance and do wonders for funding of the same, however, such is not the case. You are welcome to provide me [and my funding agencies] with convincing evidence of your assertion.
Might be useful to have a link on this site that lists every single ocean temp measuring adjustment, every single air temp adjustment, every single TSI adjustment, etc. And which direction they made global warming look (better or worse).
Gail Combs says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:56 am
You are missing the point Leif, It is very important to DOCUMENT the dataset/graph BEFORE changes were made, AFTER changes were made and WHY changes were made.
And why do you think that we don’t do this? Here is an example of the care a scientist exercises when correcting errors in a dataset: http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf and here is another example: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciling-Group-and-Wolf-Sunspot-Numbers.pdf
So what point am I missing? The points you are missing are that scientists [at least some of us] are not bumbling morons and that careful attention to and analysis of historical data are sometimes necessary. A guiding principle is and must be that the ‘raw’ data is inviolate, but that does not mean that the beef must be eaten raw.
wayne Job says: “so far all your standard models are a total useless fudge and climate science has proved to be a political manouver.”
Along with AGW climate science being job security with liberal funding.
PS: Thumbs up for saying what needed to be said.
johnmarshall says:
“But Trenberth claims that TOA irradiance is 340w/m2 (see AR4/5).
Is he wrong then??????????”
……………..
Bob Tisdale explains @ February 11, 2014 at 3:44 am
The TOA 340 watts/m^2 presented by Trenberth and others is the average for the entire planet, even the portion experiencing nighttime, where the TSI 1361 watts/m^2 or so is the value focused at the top of the atmosphere. [ToA]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember that the ~ TSI 1361 watts/m^2 @ ToA is affecting the atmosphere by creating and destroying ozone among other things esp. in the tropics.
hmmm….angels on a pin head? I am with Stephen Wilde here on the importance of UV variation rather than visible wavelengths since reading Shindell’s work on shifts in the jetstream during the Maunder Minimum, and talking with Vaclav Bucha, who has published on these themes, in Prague about links between geomagnetic variability and changes in the polar vortex. These are all correlations which do not go away – just as the Maunder Minimum correlates with both increase Be-10 and C-14 data, implying a change in the magnetic field strength that Leif holds does not happen. But it is hard for us non-specialists to adjudicate when all parties to the argument get published in respectable journals – so we have to take on board the uncertainty. There remains a general suspicion that the data bases are adjusted with some prior-commitment motivation – which of course cannot be proven either way. But to re-iterate – the correlations point to UV variability having the potential to alter the jetstream tracking….and UV does NOT always follow the sunspot number as the 10.7 cm radio peaks show…and note to Leif, the energy content of the UV may be low, but the stratospheric dynamic as consequence of UV heating is strongly transferred to the troposphere, is it not?
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:10 am
“A guiding principle is and must be that the ‘raw’ data is inviolate…”
_______________________
should be carved in stone
lsvalgaard says: @ February 11, 2014 at 5:10 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where is the before and after graph shown on: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots ???
They state on the Total Solar Irradiance Data page:
So where in the several pages of verbiage has the changes to the Historical TSI Reconstruction been noted and the explanation of why been given?
Or are you are saying that the laypeople who pay your salary are second class citizens and don’t deserve the same courtesy as ‘Scientists’ ?
The motivation behind this looks clear! It explains the warming period out of the maunder min and the early 1900 warming until 1950. Then it show’s a clear discrepancy with temperatures from 1950 onwards, giving the impression that there must be another reason behind the continued warming. I expect to see papers citing this very information to show that ‘the sun did not cause the warming from the 50′s but could explain the current pause’ out very soon.
A question for Drs. Svalgaard and Scafetta — and for Anthony:
Consider this in tandem with Watts, et al. (Yet To Be) which suggests that warming from 1979-2008 (i.e overlap with positive PDO) is spuriously exaggerated by >60 (All stations) to >100% (Rural MMTS) owing to poor microsite.
And, as a corollary, that the cooling from 1998-2008 is likewise exaggerated by poor microsite for the same reason (a “what goes up must come down” observation that strongly supports the exaggerated warming hypothesis).
Stipulating that our hypothesis is correct, how would that square with the new findings? It appears to me, prima facie, that this might bring the recent warming more in line with TSI than previous comparisons. Unless I have my head confused with my tail, which occurs far too often for comfort.
We have been looking at all this solar stuff in isolation. But what if it turns out that Mohammed actually did come to the mountain, after all?
Or am I missing something?
wayne Job says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:31 am
“Sad to see when an idiot like myself only needs to click on the solar page on this site and see the historic solar cycles. They tend to track the ups and downs of global temps…”
______________________
Sad to say, I’ve not found any solar/temp correlations and am clueless about principle climate temp. causations. Perhaps you would be so bold as to present your data in graphs so I can see a correlation.
Peter Taylor says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:39 am
just as the Maunder Minimum correlates with both increase Be-10 and C-14 data, implying a change in the magnetic field strength that Leif holds does not happen.
Read section 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
Gail Combs says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:49 am
So where in the several pages of verbiage has the changes to the Historical TSI Reconstruction been noted and the explanation of why been given?
Kopp carefully refers to the reconstructions used and anybody can follow the references and see on what they in turn are based. Don’t be lazy.
is updated annually as new TIM data are available….
One would hope so as the new data has to be appended to the end of the reconstruction. Would you not expect the weather forecast to be updated when new weather observations become available?
Only minor corrections are anticipated at this phase in the SORCE/TIM mission.
All instruments in space degrade and the degradation must be carefully tracked and constantly corrected for. As the mission gets longer, the degradation effect becomes better known, but SORCE has already lasted so long that the degradation is already sufficiently well-known by now that no large changes are anticipated. Fair enough?
So where in the several pages of verbiage has the changes to the Historical TSI Reconstruction
There is no Historical TSI Reconstruction carved in stone. There are several people’s attempts to reconstruct TSI using different methods and models. There is no ‘raw’ data on TSI before 1978. Kopp explains which attempt he has used. One can agree or disagree with his choice. It is up to you to decide what you want to do.
Or are you are saying that the laypeople who pay your salary are second class citizens and don’t deserve the same courtesy as ‘Scientists’
the laypeople have the same opportunity as scientists to examine the reconstructions [study the literature referred to]. I grant you that that entails a bit of work [if you don’t want to take someone’s word for it] but that applies to everybody.
[“aerial” extent? Mod]
*******
areal – of or relating to or involving an area
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Areal
not a word I see often but is one of the few I know about 🙂
Truly, one is challenged to parse and diagram this without crossing over the dotted white line (denoting the other lane) and thereby venturing into the path of oncoming traffic …
“you’re and your” – the difference courtesy of grammar-monster:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/youre_your.htm
.
evanmjones says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:55 am
A question for Drs. Svalgaard and Scafetta — and for Anthony
I’m not sure what your question is. My take is that people have a tendency to manipulate/correct/adjust/fake/ data in such a way as to improve the agreement with whatever theory they are peddling.
As an active licensed ‘ham’ radio operator, my aerials may extend to the edge of my property, but the areal extent of my property is not very extensive.
She sells sea shells by the sea shore. The shells she sells are surely seashells. …
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck If a woodchuck could chuck wood? …
She stood on the balcony, inexplicably mimicking him hiccoughing, and amicably welcoming him home. Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.
…
etc.
.
How did they work out that a sunspot number of 200+ before the maunder minimum has a TSI of 1360.4 w/m2 yet solar cycle 19 with a maximum sunspot number of 200 has a TSI of 1362.3 w/m2?
That is a very good question, looking forward to seeing it answered.
Hey Jim @ 6:25, I manage menageries you people wouldn’t imagine.
=====================
Thanks WillR,
“With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.” That gave me my laugh for today, and I think it’s worth a banner in my study room. You are Will Rogers, right!?
The several blogs , including WUWT,where well informed scientists discuss or defend their work against others who are well informed is a wonderful example of peer review in real time. With all the questionable things happening in climate science, we can be thankful for this and encourage more of it by refraining from the ad hominem, and showing some modesty that most of us are not experts in every field!
Dr. Svalgaard, do you agree? If so, how do we encourage more such participation?
@lsvalgaard-Do you have up to date monthly resolution data files for your TSI and HMF reconstructions?
This isn’t really on topic, I’d just like to know because it will be useful information for something I am working on.
Doug Allen says:
February 11, 2014 at 7:46 am
and showing some modesty that most of us are not experts in every field!
some people here have much to be modest about 🙂
Now, solar-terrestrial relations [as the field used to be called] does embrace several other [broad] fields so it can be difficult to achieve the right mix of expertise needed to discourse properly.
If so, how do we encourage more such participation?
By more severe moderation, both to discourage the personal attacks [e.g. a la Scafetta] and also to better filter out the peddling of less than half-baked pet ‘theories’. Now, this is a fine line to tread and one must, in addition, encourage questions [there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers] from non-scientists and scientists alike.
timetochooseagain says:
February 11, 2014 at 7:53 am
@lsvalgaard-Do you have up to date monthly resolution data files for your TSI and HMF reconstructions?
Those are hard to come by [and the noise would overwhelm the extra information that the higher resolution may give you] . Yearly data is about the best we can do when we go into the past. For the past 60 years we have daily resolution of both.
@lsvalgaard-I’d settle for annual resolution. So do you have the files?
timetochooseagain says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:07 am
@lsvalgaard-I’d settle for annual resolution. So do you have the files?
I make them up as I go. Give me a day or so to put together a package for you. Just watch my website http://www.leif.org/research in the next day or so for the latest version of the files.
@lsvalgaard-Thanks, you have my appreciation!
I always enjoy the solar postings where Leif provides and responds to comments. I read all of the comments because it’s refreshing to learn something from a scientist that knows his craft and can respond without the snark. Thanks Leif for your participation here.
Is it too much to ask these “scientists” to learn about version control? I would like to be able to download current (presumably politically correct) data, as well as an older (presumably less tinkered with) version.
The UN would probably de-fund any such effort. They prefer an Orwellian world.
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:12 am
“I make them up as I go…”
Perhaps ‘put them together as I go” would have been a better phrase, unless vuk, tallbloke, ashley et al are actually correct (sarc) 🙂
Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your informative comments.
The 0.25 reduction in TSI in the 1996-2013 period is what I find insufficiently explained.
WTH?? With billions of dollars of high-tech gizmos studying the sun from perches on and off the Earth, somehow the TSI is shifted by more than 10% of it’s decadal variability?
I can see why this was done with little fanfare. If you can’t trust TSI values directly from instruments designed for the purpose, why should we put faith into any proxy reconstruction?
Stephen Rasey says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:52 am
The 0.25 reduction in TSI in the 1996-2013 period is what I find insufficiently explained.
That reduction is now well-understood. To keep track of instrument degradation each spacecraft carries several identical sensors. The trick is to expose them [i.e. keep the shutter open so sunlight can reach the sensor] for different lengths of time. One sensor is exposed all the time [it degrades most], another one is only open, say, once a week, or less and degrades less. The assumption was that if a sensor was never open it would not degrade. This has now been found to be wrong. Sensors degrade [a bit] even if not exposed. Taking that into account, one finds that there is no 0.25 W/m2 reduction over the past cycle.
Tom in Florida says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:29 am
“I make them up as I go…”
Perhaps ‘put them together as I go” would have been a better phrase
‘I make them up as I go’ is the more correct [or at least more honest] phrase. The observables are sunspots [for TSI] and geomagnetic data [for HMF B]. Those are not made up, but ‘measured’ [and adjusted where needed] the best we can [with all the uncertainties that involves]. From the observables a model forms the link to TSI and B. The model is calibrated to the actual data during the spacecraft era of direct observations [which also are taken at face value], then projected into the past from the observables from the past. This is the ‘making up’ part as there is no guarantee that the assumptions in the model hold at all times. But in absence of good evidence to the contrary we must go along with the assumptions. There are a few anomalies. e.g. with the cosmic ray flux that are not fully understood [as they say], but those are active research areas, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf in the process of being resolved as we speak.
Leif:
I could not help but notice….
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:12 am
timetochooseagain says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:07 am
@lsvalgaard-I’d settle for annual resolution. So do you have the files?
I make them up as I go. Give me a day or so to put together a package for you. Just watch my website http://www.leif.org/research in the next day or so for the latest version of the files.
I certainly do know what you mean, but, in this climate (ahem) your comment could be word-smithed into perhaps the greatest crisis of the 21st Century.
I can see the headline Now! Leif Says: I make them up as I go.
Just sayin’ 😉
Cheers!
WillR says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
I can see the headline Now! Leif Says: I make them up as I go.
Honesty is always the best course. But see my comment just above about ‘making up’.
‘Michael Moon says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Whenever records of data have been posted without immediate controversy, which marks the records as adequate, and subsequently altered as historical records, science has been abandoned and a scam is in progress.”
##################
Michael, do you believe we landed on the moon?
look here doctored photos. note the crosshairs..
http://www.fascinatingpics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/666.jpg
There is only one perpendicular point on the planet that receives the fullest level of watts the sun’s TSI generates. Even though we see the disc as a flat surface, the reality is the increasing anlge of curvature reflects the TSI into space. If we assume the wattage to be constant (just for argumentation) then any long term change in cloud cover would seem to have a large affect on TSI input to the the surface raising and lowering the long term temperatures accordingly. Similar in effect is the coolness at the poles as the sun’s TSI is less effective to heat the surface. I don’t see the point in arguing over TSI change as much as is the importance of total cloud cover.
“That reduction is now well-understood. To keep track of instrument degradation each spacecraft carries several identical sensors. The trick is to expose them [i.e. keep the shutter open so sunlight can reach the sensor] for different lengths of time. One sensor is exposed all the time [it degrades most], another one is only open, say, once a week, or less and degrades less. The assumption was that if a sensor was never open it would not degrade. This has now been found to be wrong. Sensors degrade [a bit] even if not exposed.”
Thanks Leif. That is a wonderful example of how assumptions play a role in “measurement” and “raw” data.
….So, parking a satellite above the clouds may be well intended for a cleaner measurement of TSI, what counts is the TSI that actually heats the surface.
Steven Mosher says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:43 am
Thanks Leif. That is a wonderful example of how assumptions play a role in “measurement” and “raw” data.
But also a wonderful example of detecting an error and rightly correcting the ‘precious historical record’ when it should be.
Well ages ago I used the value 1353 W/m^2, but that was based on rockets and balloons, and not really extra-atmospheric. That also is the value suggested in my (somewhat dated) infra-Red Handbook.
Then I settled on 1366 after looking at some satellite numbers from several different satellites; and then recently someone Possibly Leif said NASA/NOAA had a new value more like 1362.
Well I don’t think it’s a big deal, I still get about a 0.1% cycle over the solar cycle, and as Leif mentions; mox nix compared to the annual change due to earth orbit.
I’m sure the numbers will keep changing as “better” data shows up; but I’m not looking for any holy grail in TSI numbers.
Looks like 1366 is a good number for me to remember to use in calculations.
But there isn’t any big revelation there in TSI numbers.
(1) Specific lack of a demonstrated chain-of-custody (vis-a-vis disregard of Chain-of-Custody Considerations); anybody can do anything to ‘something’ once it has left the possession of the custodian/original owner, including substantial alteration.
The Chain of Custody and Formal Admissions; why a ‘chain of custody’ is important.
http://www.academia.edu/933101/The_chain_of_custody_and_formal_admissions
(2) Poster presents his case based on a figurative (and allowably, a doctored) ‘sample of one’ (one ‘type’ of evidence, from one non-crosschecked source, etc.)
Hasty generalization – informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
george e. smith says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:32 am
Looks like 1366 is a good number for me to remember to use in calculations.
As we have finally figured out how the measure TSI, the better number to remember is 1362. That is not likely to change much.
WillR says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:03 pm
With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.
Oh dear yes, it is.
There are data results:
http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_ACRIM_Composite.pdf
But what would be climate science without a bit of adjustments?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/cheating-just-as-they-planned-to-do/
Steven Mosher says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:29 am
Michael, do you believe we landed on the moon?
Steven, for this pearl, you should ask these guys directly:
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html
“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program.”
Does a more timelessly and objectively observable item exist in our solar system?
How about gaseous parts per millions, fractions of degrees centigrade and sea level millimeters etc? Tricky using earth-sized sample even with modern equipment today – let alone decades before electricity was invented.
So does Leif think this new curve is the best record of TSI?
_Jim.
you missed the sarcasm.
Curious George – “Is it too much to ask these “scientists” to learn about version control? I would like to be able to download current (presumably politically correct) data, as well as an older (presumably less tinkered with) version.”
Version tracking would be reasonable to expect of real scientists. But when it comes to Climatologist Alarmists out to protect their sacred Gold Goose, Forgetaboutit. GHCN weather temperature data stored by NOAA is in Flux. Whether it is deleting of existing records, adding in of “missing” historical records, modifying records, or changing record format, they know no version control, at least publicly.
Same Climatologist Alarmists can’t even be bothered with explaining how they derived their adjusted data from in Flux raw weather station temperature data. Let alone get one mann to show his tree-ring-circus work. Deceptive is acceptive in Global Warming “science”.
_Jim says – “… essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.”
Like say, just perhaps, possibly – Global Warmers jumping all over man-made CO2, while ignore the SUN, wind, clouds, oceans, volcanic eruptions, changes earth’s orbit, miss-calibrated and faulty instruments, UHI and station locations, …?
😉
lsvalgaard Feb 11 4:57am – Thanks again for the info. I can see that the “flat sun” idea is based on careful measurement etc. We are currently near the peak of a sunspot cycle which appears to be different in some respects to the immediately preceding cycles. Could a very precise prediction be made for the next time there are no sunspots? A prediction that would be an extra test of the theory and which would, if accurate, support it?
Mosher,
Do you believe in “significant digits?” Do you know the difference between precision and accuracy? Do you know how to read a thermometer, a pyrgeometer, or a thermocouple? Do you know what “temperature” means, and how empty a concept is “average temperature?”
Did you know that Neil Armstrong’s first words on descending the lander’s ladder were, actually, “It’s some kind of dusty stuff, I can move it around with my foot.”???
My take is that people have a tendency to manipulate/correct/adjust/fake/ data in such a way as to improve the agreement with whatever theory they are peddling.
That’s why gos made peer review. For what it’s worth.
But my question is basically this: What if the temperature trend (Tmean) from 1979 – 2008 is lower than the official number? Would that suggest greater TSI influence or argue against it?
Svalgaard,
You link to your own paper (“geomagnetic variometer,” indeed) to explain to me how people did not actually used to know how to read a thermometer? Just how fast did they haul those buckets of seawater up from the ocean to the deck, exactly? And is the intake water a half a degree warmer, or cooler, or what?
“Adjustments,” meh…
@lsvalgaard at 9:00 am
RE: Stephen Rasey says: 8:52 am
“The 0.25 reduction in TSI in the 1996-2013 period is what I find insufficiently explained.”
That reduction is now well-understood. …… This has now been found to be wrong. Sensors degrade [a bit] even if not exposed. Taking that into account, one finds that there is no 0.25 W/m2 reduction over the past cycle.
The 2014 version of the data is LOWER than the 2013 version. At least as shown on the plot. So Leif’s explanation seems in the opposite direction. Did someone switch out a proper 2013 for an incorrectly adjusted 2014?
And have we been measuring TSI from satellites only since 1996?
Michael Moon says: @ February 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm
On the bucket method of measuring sea water temp there was a long discussion about that here at WUWT this year and that is another ‘Urban Legend’ useful to the data manglers. I think it was Tony B who gave a long history on it that does not jive at all with the data manglers ‘Official Version’
(I looked but I couldn’t find the comment.)
It is obviously much worst than just climate change!
All is changing! Stop the world, I wanna go down.
It is like walking on quicksand; if you don’t sink here you will over there, soon.
But nature will have the last word. Watch for ENSO.
Re: “The Bucket {Excuse}”
This is not likely exactly what Gail was looking for (a comment, versus an entire thread), but, perhaps the following will be helpful. A selection to help you decide whether you want to read further:
“It appears that the Team that brought us Climategate, was hard at work adjusting/correcting the Sea Surface Temperature record back in the 80s and 90s…
Here Jones and Briffa team up to summarize the purported basis of the Sea Surface Temperature record adjustments/corrections ***
… the technique” and “The Bucket Model” … rely upon an array of assumptions and estimations, … made by people like Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, who have apparent biases, …
Steve McIntyre has written extensively about bucket adjustments starting back in 2005 … .”
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/
*****************************************************
I hope that is helpful.
Yes Leif, but knowing ” Everything about nothing”, is the same as “Nothing about everything”, and the same as “Nothing about nothing” actually!
The earth has entered a period of cooling, the main source of energy, the sun, is entering a weaker state and planetary orbits have altered, which are all a coincidence.
We need to alter historical data to reflect man made climate change /sarc
wayne says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:54 pm
What still amazes me is why the other planets and moons temperature variances are so in synch with those here on Earth since we could track them. If not the sun, what caused their “Global Warmings”?
==============
Not too sure about Earth, but on the other planets Global Warming results from (illegal?) aliens driving around in SUV’s.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm
One does [NOT] need to have authorization to correct what one finds to be wrong.
==============
I have a lot more faith when folks correct present data rather than past data to maintain continuity. Unless you were there in the past, corrections made today are just so much hand waving. Human Beings have an infinite capacity to rationalize and fool themselves into believing just about anything.
The folks that took the readings and published their results in the past, that is their record. They said these were the facts. No one today has a crystal ball into the past. We can say “we believe” the past readings were in error, but we cannot say “we know”.
The only readings that anyone knows for sure are in error are the one you took, and even then you can’t be sure of what you’re seeing. The human subconscious is always seeking to lend a human hand, to fill in the data with what we expect to see, rather than with what we actually see.
Hands up all who are surprised the older data is lowered and the recent data is raised.
Case in point, my previous post. I wrote “lend a helping hand”, and that is what I saw, but somehow my subconscious changed it to “lend a human hand”. I wonder if the same process left [NOT] out of Leif’s original posting?
Darren Potter says:
February 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Curious George – “Is it too much to ask these “scientists” to learn about version control?
===========
Applying correction to corrections is such a nonsense it is hard to know where to being. How does one know the base data you are working with hasn’t already been corrected? How does one avoid creating processing artifacts when applying corrections on top of corrections? How does one know that what is are seeing isn’t simply due to artifacts, rather than the original data?
george e. smith says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:32 am
Well ages ago I used the value 1353 W/m^2.
==============
But what is the value? Sure you can calculate the power, but it is the spectrum that controls the effect. 100 W/m^2 of X-rays is not going to have the same effect as 100 W/m^2 of IR.
ferdberple says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:50 pm
RE: george e. smith
“Well ages ago I used the value 1353 W/m^2.”
ferdberple says:
“But what is the value? Sure you can calculate the power, but it is the spectrum that controls the effect. 100 W/m^2 of X-rays is not going to have the same effect as 100 W/m^2 of IR.”
TSI is a measurement of variable goniochromism modeled from an absolute position from the sun. lol
Goniochromism — lol, indeed. #(:))
Now, for some applied (literally, heh) science… here’s a model worth gazing upon, showing variable goniochromism from many angles. (re: Sparks at 7:23pm today)
Trans-Am Custom Chameleon Paint Job
Janice Moore says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:06 pm
…
Now don’t confuse everyone with awesome paint work.
It’s in the right direction, why is seaweed purple? 🙂
Oh, Sparks you KNOW I’m not a biologist or a chemist or any kind of scientist! #(:))
Okay. I just looked up a few things and here’s my guess: Someone sitting in the sun on a beach dipped green sea weed into their alcoholic beverage removing the chlorophyll which was replaced by iodine. Somehow, this has to do with goniochromism. lol
What? You say it was purple from the get-go? Well then! My answer is just this: Iodine.
“… which was replaced by {the} iodine {that they bought at a store}.”
LOLOLOL okay, at least you got a good laugh (so did I)
#(:))
TomRude says:
February 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm
So does Leif think this new curve is the best record of TSI?
No.
Mike Jonas says:
February 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Could a very precise prediction be made for the next time there are no sunspots?
No.
evanmjones says:
February 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm
What if the temperature trend (Tmean) from 1979 – 2008 is lower than the official number? Would that suggest greater TSI influence or argue against it?
It would not be either way. What is needed is a sunspot cycle signal greater than 0.1 degrees.
Michael Moon says:
February 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm
“Adjustments,” meh…
Adjustments when justified are needed.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm
The 2014 version of the data is LOWER than the 2013 version. At least as shown on the plot. So Leif’s explanation seems in the opposite direction.
No, when the sensor is degraded [as it is with time] it gives you a LOWER number. But perhaps, you are not talking about measurements but about VERSIONS of the dataset.
And have we been measuring TSI from satellites only since 1996?
Since 1978, but the early data had various systematic errors. TSI is only really good from 2003 on.
holts7 says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:00 pm
Yes Leif, but knowing ” Everything about nothing”, is the same as “Nothing about everything”, and the same as “Nothing about nothing” actually!
Sounds like you know “everything about everything”.
ferdberple says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Unless you were there in the past, corrections made today are just so much hand waving.
Nonsense. Corrections are often obvious, simple, justified, and necessary. What is your expertise in making corrections? How many have you made?
Janice Moore,
Challenge accepted 🙂
Purple is the evolutionary biological color that plants starved of sunlight turn, they are that color because they thrive in environments where sun light is scarce, It’s the most efficient colour that a plant under these circumstances can receive sun light efficiently, seaweed produces Iodine as a response to sunlight to make its color pigments.
Mike Jonas says:
February 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm
“Could a very precise prediction be made for the next time there are no sunspots?”
Yes.
Janice Moore
lol You’re welcome 🙂
#
Mike Jonas
The reason why I have said yes to your question is this,
I disagree with your question, your question was “Could a very precise prediction be made for the next time there are no sunspots?” what it should have been is “Could a very precise prediction be made for the next time there are no sunspot groups?” Counting specks has it’s place and the odd sunspot speck is a kin to static during solar minimum. Prolonged solar minimum can in theory produce random speck activity. If you count the specks as a sunspot-group then you could end up with a false positive.
I don’t know if Leif has fallen out with me.. Let me check! TSI causes climate change!
lsvalgaard and Sparks – If the theory is worth anything, it should be possible to make a meaningful prediction. I said just “no sunspots” but I assumed that this would be taken as a generalised condition and the sunspot/group situation would need to be specified very precisely along with the very precise prediction. The nature of the theory (“the magnetic field when no sunspots is constant“) would surely lend itself to a very precise prediction, namely that when a suitably specified “no sunspots” condition is reached then the magnetic field will be at precisely the given constant. Otherwise it isn’t a constant.
WillR,
“With Climate Science only the past is uncertain.”
:)))
@lsvalgaard \at 9:28 pm
Stephen Rasey at 3:19 pm
“The 2014 version of the data is LOWER than the 2013 version. At least as shown on the plot. So Leif’s explanation seems in the opposite direction.”
No, when the sensor is degraded [as it is with time] it gives you a LOWER number. But perhaps, you are not talking about measurements but about VERSIONS of the dataset.
Leif, look again at the title of this post:
“Historical and present Total Solar Irradiance has been tinkered with again”
Yes, I am questioning the lack of explanation of why the 2014 VERSION of the data for 1998-2013 is 0.25 lower than the 2013 VERSION.
What is to believed and why? Is the 2014 Version a mistake? Does the 2014 Version make a crucial recalibration? If so, what and why not prior to 1996? How can the most recent and best recorded portion of the historical record be changed overnight by almost as much as they changed the year 1680 proxy? Why isn’t this just as flabbergasting as if GISS overnight changed the USCRN temps by +0.20 C for the past 8 years?
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 8:16 am
Yes, I am questioning the lack of explanation of why the 2014 VERSION of the data for 1998-2013 is 0.25 lower than the 2013 VERSION.
It helps that you now say VERSION.
What is to believed and why? Is the 2014 Version a mistake? Does the 2014 Version make a crucial recalibration?
The SORCE TSI [from 2003] is now at version 15. For each version, the entire dataset is published. Between versions, the absolute value [the 1361… part] can change within the stated error bar which is 0.5 W/m2, as a result of improved calibration. This is perfectly OK [and must be done] and is well-documented [all users should read the fr***ing manual, right]. The changes from day to day in TSI are much better determined, to better than 0.007 W/m2 and THAT is the important number.
The earlier [than 2003] part of the reconstruction must, obviously, be adjusted to match the newest part where they meet.
@Brian H at 6:23 pm
Hands up all who are surprised the older data is lowered and the recent data is raised.
My hand is not raised. But to the cynically minded as well as the skeptically minded, one has to wonder why the 1998-2013 region of the 2014 VERSION is 0.25 lower than the 2013 VERSION. It could it be to better explain “The Pause”?
Good Grief, how many scientific instruments to we have measuring TSI these past two decades? How much money has been spent measuring TSI daily (hourly?) fluctuations since 1988? Then, “Let’s drop TSI by 0.25 W/m^2 since the start of The Pause and see if anyone notices.” The window of the adjustment demands an explanation.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 8:35 am
one has to wonder why the 1998-2013 region of the 2014 VERSION is 0.25 lower than the 2013 VERSION.
I just told you why. And the observer is perfectly allowed to change the dataset [even without detailed explanation] if the new version is within the error bar of the old [which it is]. What you should know is that we only know the absolute [real]TSI to within +/-0.5 W/m2. The important issue is not the accuracy of the measurement, but the precision. and the latter is a hundred times better. Stop that ‘cynical/skeptical’ crap and RTFM.
@lsvalgaard at 8:42 am
the observer is perfectly allowed to change the dataset [even without detailed explanation] if the new version is within the error bar of the old [which it is]. What you should know is that we only know the absolute [real]TSI to within +/-0.5 W/m2.
I am shocked. Truly.
How big is Trenberth’s imbalance? “It can’t be the Sun.” It all rings hollow now.
Sorry, my cynical/skeptical meter just pegged off scale.
The tinkering of TSI IS to better explain The Pause.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 8:55 am
I am shocked. Truly. …Sorry, my cynical/skeptical meter just pegged off scale.
That is what happens when your emotions take over your rationality. A 0.25W/m2 change in TSI changes the temperature by 0.01 degrees.
@lsvalgaard at 9:00 am
This has now been found to be wrong. Sensors degrade [a bit] even if not exposed. Taking that into account, one finds that there is no 0.25 W/m2 reduction over the past cycle.
According the most trustworthy data from NOAA, presumably to 2014 version, has there been a reduction of about 0.25 W/m2 over the past cycle or not? Or are the error bars too wide to say?
@lsvalgaard at 8:42 am
“the observer is perfectly allowed to change the dataset [even without detailed explanation] if the new version is within the error bar of the old [which it is]. What you should know is that we only know the absolute [real]TSI to within +/-0.5 W/m2.”
So then is it Ok to take one figure from the lowest part of the error bar and one from the highest to plot one’s increase or decrease?
@ Leif
So does Leif think this new curve is the best record of TSI?
No.
So was the previous one better? thanx
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:06 am
According the most trustworthy data from NOAA, presumably to 2014 version, has there been a reduction of about 0.25 W/m2 over the past cycle or not? Or are the error bars too wide to say?
The question is ill-posed. The SORCE data [2003-2014] have been adjusted down [as they should] due to better calibration. this has nothing to do with ‘past cycle’. All the other data should be adjusted similarly if one wants to match the recent SORCE TIM data. The changes from day to day are precise to 0.007 W/m2.
Jim G says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:09 am
@lsvalgaard at 8:42 am
So then is it Ok to take one figure from the lowest part of the error bar and one from the highest to plot one’s increase or decrease?
No, the correct way is to accept anything within the error bars.
TomRude says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:20 am
So does Leif think this new curve is the best record of TSI?
The new TSI from 2003 is better by definition. Everything before 1978 derived from models using wrong sunspot numbers is junk [both old and new].
No, the observer is not allowed to do that.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:40 am
No, the observer is not allowed to do that.
The observer knows his instrument, its errors, calibration, etc and is souverain. We should not continue to use old data that the observer knows is wrong. Some people actually prefer to do that, if the old wrong data supports their pet ideas. Are you one of those?
evan
‘Consider this in tandem with Watts, et al. (Yet To Be) which suggests that warming from 1979-2008 (i.e overlap with positive PDO) is spuriously exaggerated by >60 (All stations) to >100% (Rural MMTS) owing to poor microsite.”
Problem:
Even if the surface stations are falsely warm by 60%.. that would amount to 18% in the total record. or less. remember land is 30% of the total.Note:
1. You are only talking about the US.. 2% of of the planet, assuming this amount of contamination
in all areas is just that: an assumption
2. WUWT 2012 ( maybe 2014) failed to reclasssify over 30% of stations previously rated.
That will bear intense investigation, as many stations of quality 3 and 4 were moved to
quality 1 and 2.. A strange decision given that Berkeley was criticized here on WUWT for
doing the same thing as a sensitivity test.
3. by cooling the surface, you will confirm what models say about amplification in the troposphere.
science as they say is never settled.
RE Rasey 8:55am: estimates of Trenberth’s “Energy Imbalance” from WUWT Jan 17, 2014:
NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process
The reported energy imbalance is 0.6 to 0.9 W/m^2.
The 2014 version of historical TSI with its downward revision of 0.25 W/m^2 for the period of 1998 to 2013 (contemporaneous with The Pause) erases about 1/3 of the alleged imbalance. How convenient!
Frank 1/17/2014 2:21 am
In his 2009 paper, Trenberth chose this number so that there would be a net +0.9 W/m2 imbalance at the surface.
Trick 1/17/14 4:26 am
The Stephens et. al. 2012 paper covering 2000-2010: ” For the decade
considered, the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm–2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14).”
Trick 1/17/14 5:35 am
The 0.64 W/m^2 imbalance (from ocean energy increase assessments in joules) error ranges are in the link I posted above also, repeated for convenience:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/NatureNV10.pdf
Rud Istvan 1/17 6:24am
The error bars on all the graphs are significant. Other peer reviewed papers conclude that the energy imbalance is about 0.7+\- 15 w/m^2. In other words, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Which is an alternative explanation for Trenberth’s missing heat—there isn’t any missing.
Steve Case 1/17/14 8:13 am
Trenbeth’s “Global Energy Budget” was updated March 2009 to show an imbalance of 0.9w/M² I wonder how that came about might have gone something like this:
[The rest of the post is a good read. Particularly if your cynicism gauge needs some recalibration.]
Dear Mr. Rasey,
In your eagerness, you perhaps did not go back up and read what Dr. Svalgaard said 6 minutes before your question at 9:06am.
Q. “… has there been a reduction of about 0.25 W/m2 over the past cycle or not?” (Stephen Rasey at 9:06am today)
A. “A 0.25W/m2 change in TSI changes the temperature by 0.01 degrees.” (Leif Svalgaard at 9am today)
In other words, TSI variation (or data adjustment) does not prove your fervent assertion that:
“The tinkering of TSI IS to better explain The Pause.”{!!} (Rasey at 8:55am today)
Pause a moment and reflect on the lovely fact that there is NO known explanation for the lack of warming for 17 years. Which means, (now, smile!) AGW is dead. DEAD, I say! Moreover, it never was more than the walking dead, pure unsupported speculation from its conception.
The AGWers have NEVER proven their conjecture. Not in the least. And, just to prove beyond all doubt that their speculation which they style a “theory” is deader than a coffin nail (Dickens, A Christmas Carol), we have this glorious fact:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
TSI cannot support AGW!
Rejoice!
Truth is Freedom — now, to help lift your spirits out of the gloomy cells of the dungeon of misplaced dudgeon so that you can think with the clarity of which your obviously highly intelligent mind is capable… listen to this and go your way singing! In the end, truth wins. Every time.
#(:))
“Ninth Symphony,” Beethoven, Leonard Bernstein conducting in Berlin
(Note: in the final, Choral, movement, they sing, “Freiheit!” (Freedom!) (instead of the original, “freude” (joy))
(And how moving it was that a Jew, whose people suffered brutally at the hands of the parents or grandparents of many of those present, was conducting. A moving concert, indeed.)
Enjoy!
With admiration for your passion for truth, but hoping you can realize precisely what that truth is,
Your WUWT friend (I hope),
Janice
Okay, I should add, that, yes, your assertion that the motive for the TSI adjustment was to explain away the stop in warming [may be true]. But, so what? The “tinkerers” have thereby proven exactly nothing and explained away nothing. Their bad motives, if true, are creepy, but of no consequence. They are still dead in the water!
Hurrah!
Talk about “overeager”!! Aack, {your assertion … may be true}
@lsvalgaard \at 9:34 am
The changes from day to day are precise to 0.007 W/m2.
That may be but it is misdirection. The question at hand is what is the drift and uncertainty in precision from year to year, decade to decade, and cycle to cycle?
If we assume precision of 0.007 W/m2 day to day, then how might that build up over time?
With an sequentially independent random walk, mean of zero, the potential drift per year is 0.13 W/m2 and drift per decade is 0.42 W/m2. But since we know that sensors degrade, the mean is not zero, so the potential drift is larger than these estimates. This all ties in nicely with the statement “you should know is that we only know the absolute [real]TSI to within +/-0.5 W/m2”
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:15 am
[The rest of the post is a good read. Particularly if your cynicism gauge needs some recalibration.]
What needs recalibration is your capability of rational thought. The 0.25 W/m2 is a 0.000184 part of the total 1362 W/m2, so worst case your should use 340.2*(1-0.000184) = 340.14 .
Hi, Mr. Rasey (in the off chance that you even read my posts, lol),
Re: “…how might that build up over time?”
Remember, we must also consider how the oceans, clouds, etc… have negated that potential forcing over time.
Janice (again!)
@Leif: Thank you.
@lsvalgaard at 10:40 am
The 0.25 W/m2 is a 0.000184 part of the total 1362 W/m2, so worst case your should use 340.2*(1-0.000184) = 340.14 .
Ok, I’ll admit that I forgot the “divide by 4 thingy”.
Trenberth’s energy imbalance is 0.6 – 0.9 W/m2 on an average of 340 W/m2.
The TSI reduction of 0.25 w/m2 is on a base of 1362, so it is a reduction in 0.06 W/m2 on a base of 340 W/m2. So the TSI reduction isn’t 1/3 of the energy imbalance, but about a 1/12th.
Still, the time envelop of the change 1998-2013, coincident with The Pause begs for an explanation other than “We can.”
Jim G says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:09 am
@lsvalgaard at 8:42 am
So then is it Ok to take one figure from the lowest part of the error bar and one from the highest to plot one’s increase or decrease?
“No, the correct way is to accept anything within the error bars.”
That is what I said. “anything within the error bars” would allow one to choose low figures from one end and high figures from the other end of the series, as long as they are within the error bars of +/- 0.5 W/m2, or a total possible range of change of 1.0 W/m2 is possible to be used to show a different slope to the line to satisfy one’s particular spin desire. So your answer, now that I have hopefully made myself more clear on the question, I would assume is “yes”.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:39 am
The changes from day to day are precise to 0.007 W/m2.
That may be but it is misdirection. The question at hand is what is the drift and uncertainty in precision from year to year, decade to decade, and cycle to cycle?
Your use of ‘misdirection’ is offensive. By ‘day-to-day’ I meant [and should have said] really the stability of the instrument, that is how stable it is with time. The answer is 10 parts per million per year, that is in one year it drifts no more than 10 ppm = 0.014 W/m2, or 0.14 W/m2 per decade [and that is not a steady drift but more of a random walk, so the actual drift is smaller than that, perhaps 0.1 W/m2]. So there is very good control of instrument. See http://www.goes-r.gov/downloads/AMS/2013/posters-part1/322-Privette.pdf
Jim G says:
February 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm
That is what I said. “anything within the error bars” would allow one to choose low figures from one end and high figures from the other end of the series
I don’t think it is allowed to choose in that way [to cherry pick].
lsvalgaard says:
“I don’t think it is allowed to choose in that way [to cherry pick].”
I would hope not however, if no one is watching would not put it past some to do so.
Thank you.
“No, the correct way is to accept anything within the error bars.”. But an adjustment also moves the error bars. So some values within the new error bars can be outside the old error bars. So a succession of adjustments – all within the error bars – can generate unlimited change.
Mike Jonas says:
February 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm
So a succession of adjustments – all within the error bars – can generate unlimited change.
Adjustments are made as a consequence of measured changes to the instrument [e.g. degradation] and are thus not arbitrary and cannot be fiddled with. If a change is measured, the data MUST be adjusted accordingly. Therefore ‘unlimited’ change signifies a broken sensor.
@Leif Svalgaard at 3:04 pm
Your use of ‘misdirection’ is offensive. By ‘day-to-day’ I meant [and should have said]
I thought your “What needs recalibration is your capability of rational thought. “ offensive, but I decided then to let it slide.
As for “day-to-day”, I can only go by what you write. You said day-to-day precision was 0.007 W/m2. But the absolute value isn’t knowable to +/- 0.5 W/m2. The rational issue is what is the precision year-to-year [0.014 W/m2] and decade-to-decade. [0.1 W/m2].
Really? year-to-year is only twice day-to-day? OK….
But that really begs the question of how there can be so abrupt a change in the 2014 Version at about 1996-1998. The TSI is suddenly reduced by 0.25 W/m.
The earlier [than 2003] part of the reconstruction must, obviously, be adjusted to match the newest part where they meet. I suppose that still needs to be done.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Really? year-to-year is only twice day-to-day? OK….
This is not hard to understand. Try to imagine measuring the length of something with a ruler. The smallest division of the ruler determines the ‘precision’. If you measure every day you get results that varies only by the size of the division [or perhaps by half of it or some other fixed fraction]. Now imagine that there is wear of the length of the ruler associated with it being used so that slowly over time the length changes, this is the drift over time or lack of ‘stability’,and really has nothing to do with the size of each division. Finally, imagine that the ruler expands and contracts depending on temperature. That introduces a variable error of the measured length of the object you are measuring. This is the ‘accuracy’ of the measurement. In much the same way the same sort of thing applies to the measurement of TSI in regards to precision, stability, and accuracy.
But that really begs the question of how there can be so abrupt a change in the 2014 Version at about 1996-1998. The TSI is suddenly reduced by 0.25 W/m.
TSI was only measured by SORCE since since 2003. Before that, the record is made up of pieces from other satellites, each with their own issues of variable accuracy. Depending on how those pieces were selected and put together you get small discontinuities. As long as those are small enough, i.e. less than 0.5 W/m2 you cannot do much to avoid them as the data simply is not accurate enough. Then before 1978 there are no measurements and data is ‘made up’ based on models and [as it happens] somewhat faulty input data [sunspots]. Thee errors in those early guesses are large, say, 5 W/m2, and can only be improved by better models and better input data.
“Your use of ‘misdirection’ is offensive. ”
I thought your “What needs recalibration is your capability of rational thought. “ offensive
the difference between those two statements is that your statement implies willful mischief on my part, while mine refers to lack of ability on your part, which you probably cannot help and which very likely is not willful. You may correct me if I am wrong about that.
—–
Your whole attitude is somewhat deplorable. The scientists involved are doing their best to produce a combined dataset which is as good as they can make it. That they [in my opinion] has not succeeded is not because of willful manipulation or a desire to deceive, but rather that their task is a difficult one. The title of the leading post is not the best, as ‘tinkering with’ does not do justice to the honest and necessary adjustments derived from the continuing improvement of the understanding of the sensors and what influences them under the harsh conditions of Space.
RE: CHECKING NOAA AND CIS REPORTED GREAT LAKES ICE COVERAGE DATA:
So, it is looking like Sunday or Monday might be maximum ice cover on Lake Michigan as a warm streak is FINALLY coming. Maybe some of you are more privy to the longer term weather … BUT my point is it sure would be nice for someone to fly over the part of Lake Michigan they will likely be saying is not frozen. I think you would find they are under reporting ice coverage … and this would be tangible “catching them with their hand in the cookie jar” type scenario with erroneous, biased data. I mean, what do their percentages of ice coverage really mean … very questionable, arbitrary, and easily manipulated. Milwaukee to the west coast of Michigan ON A CLEAR DAY WITH VIDEO. Maybe Anthony Watts or Joe Bastardi or some Ph.D. that is a known, reputable skeptic! (Funny how “reputable skeptic” nowadays looks almost like an oxymoron, when actually it connotes exactly what a good scientist would be.)
My first post at 8:52 am
The 0.25 reduction in TSI in the 1996-2013 period is what I find insufficiently explained.
WTH?? With billions of dollars of high-tech gizmos studying the sun from perches on and off the Earth, somehow the TSI is shifted by more than 10% of it’s decadal variability?
Leif followed at 9:00 am with
Taking that into account, one finds that there is no 0.25 W/m2 reduction over the past cycle.
Looking at the 2014 version of the record as plotted, there clearly is a reduction of about 0.25 W/m2 since 1996-98. It is less than the 0.5 W/m2 absolute precision, but It is a reduction of more than the 0.1 W/m2 decade-to-decade precision.
There are many changes to the TSI record,
mostly displaced lower about 0.2 W/m2 prior to 1880,
peaks raised 0.2-0.5 W/m2 1880-1950.
Not much change 1955-1990.
All those changes prior to 1990 are based on estimates from proxies and poorer instruments than
we have today. Not really surprising.
Then, 1996-2013 when we have the greatest number of high quality, built for purpose instruments pointed at the sun, we have a downward displacement of about 0.25 W/m2.
I thought that surprising — and insufficiently explained.
Later, in regards to The Pause, I found it coincidental.
I still do.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:28 pm
Looking at the 2014 version of the record as plotted, there clearly is a reduction of about 0.25 W/m2 since 1996-98. It is less than the 0.5 W/m2 absolute precision,
You are not paying attention. The SORCE TIM data begins in 2003. The accuracy and precision numbers I gave you are for data for 2003 and to today. Not for 1996-2002. Before 2003 the data is much more uncertain. I gave you a link to the accuracy and stability of other satellites. Did you study that? I don’t think so.
There are many changes to the TSI record,
Before 1978 there is no ‘TSI record’. The graph is based on some theoretical modelling using sunspot numbers as input.
Then, 1996-2013 when we have the greatest number of high quality, built for purpose instruments pointed at the sun, we have a downward displacement of about 0.25 W/m2.
The high quality record starts in 2003, and the data from 1978-2003 were also taken with ‘purpose instruments pointed at the sun’. The downward displacement is just the difference between those data and the SORCE TIM.
I thought that surprising — and insufficiently explained.
There are no surprises. I have explained in some detail what has taken place. That you are not paying attention is consistent with my previous characterization of your abilities, so sadly demonstrated several times here.
Later, in regards to The Pause, I found it coincidental.
You may do so, but it is unlike that Mother Nature should adjust her temperature to match the incidental changes of satellite instrumentation.
I still do
Proves my point.
Attention: Stephen Rasey #(:))
You ignored my posts above, but just in case you read what I write here:
Re: “Later, in regards to The Pause, I found it coincidental.” (Rasey at 10:28 pm today)
But, it is a coincidence without meaningful consequence for proving (or disproving) the AGW speculation. (Isn’t that really the main point of your posts? That the TSI “tinkering” may resurrect AGW?)
***************************************************************************
FYI: Here’s the self-edited gist of what you missed in my post at 10:28 am (what a coincidence — cool! (:) )today:
“Let’s say that your assertion that the motive for the TSI adjustment was to explain away the stop in warming. So what? The alleged “tinkerers” have thereby proven exactly nothing and explained away nothing. Their bad motives, if true, are creepy, but of no consequence. The AGW gang is still dead in the water.” (me)
Thus, as I urged you at 10:24am today, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/historical-and-present-total-solar-irradiance-has-been-tinkered-with-again/#comment-1565883
Rejoice!
AGW is permanently sunk. And TSI cannot save that speculation.
How much would TSI have to be “tinkered” with to possibly save AGW (by arguing that a kalte sun caused the stop in warming)? A WHOLE LOT! So much that even Kevin “P. T. Barnum” Trenberth could not hide that elephant under his big top of nonsense.
And I self-edited out just above the mod’s kind editing in of my original mistake — that I made AGAIN!
Correction: “Let’s say that your assertion… {is accurate}. So what?”
@Janice Moore at 11:43 pm
You ignored my posts above, but just in case you read what I write here:
I didn’t ignore them. I just didn’t reply.
But, it is a coincidence without meaningful consequence for proving (or disproving) the AGW speculation. (Isn’t that really the main point of your posts? That the TSI “tinkering” may resurrect AGW?)
Tim at 2/10 7:45 pm and lsvalgaard at 7:47 pm might be on to something about motivation. It might be coincidence.
Change between the 2013 to 2014 versions makes a surprising wholesale displacement to the curve from about 1998 to 2013 of about 0.25 W/m2. Anthony noted it: You’d think they have a measurement handle on that with our current satellite platform, so you have to wonder why that would need adjustment.
These are not big changes in TSI reconstructions between the 2013 and 2014 versions. Lower pre 1880, raise 1880-1950, drop the last 15 years. Not big. But Isn’t it fortunate they are changes in the right direction to nudge the GCM’s closer to historical temperatures in future runs? Lucky coincidence.
lsvalgaard – something doesn’t make sense. You said ““No, the correct way is to accept anything within the error bars.”. Then you said “Adjustments are made as a consequence of measured changes to the instrument [e.g. degradation] and are thus not arbitrary and cannot be fiddled with.“. If this is a correct description of adjustments – and I don’t doubt it – then what on Earth was the first point about: ‘within the error bars’ is irrelevant.
Mike Jonas says:
February 13, 2014 at 4:40 am
what on Earth was the first point about: ‘within the error bars’ is irrelevant.
The record is composed of data from different sensors. For each sensor the measurements and adjustments stand on their own, but when comparing two sensors the error bars become important in order to ascertain if there is any real difference between the sensors.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 13, 2014 at 12:54 am
Change between the 2013 to 2014 versions makes a surprising wholesale displacement to the curve from about 1998 to 2013 of about 0.25 W/m2.
You are still not paying attention. It is not a surprise. Simply the result of improving measurement of the degradation of SORCE since 2003 and the adjustment necessary to correct for that.
Anthony noted it: You’d think they have a measurement handle on that with our current satellite platform, so you have to wonder why that would need adjustment.
Again, the current platform started in 2003 not in 1996. Adjustment since 2003 is needed because of improved calibration. This is what the data says. Should we ignore the data?
But Isn’t it fortunate they are changes in the right direction to nudge the GCM’s closer to historical temperatures in future runs? Lucky coincidence.
Not fortunate, just the way it is. And anyway, the change in temperature resulting from the adjustment is much too tiny to make any difference re the ‘pause’. You can forget about your conspiracy theories. They are juvenile.
here is my best guess of TSI back to 1700: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png. The assumptions are that variations of TSI are due to variations of the magnetic field. Two proxies for the magnetic field are the sunspots and the field in interplanetary space drawn out from the Sun by the solar wind. Below my guess you can see Schrijver et al.’s reconstruction of the ‘open flux’ [another measure of the Sun’s magnetic field]. Also plotted is the reconstruction by Kopp of LASP which is the topic of this posting [the curve is pink in my plot and [dashed] green in Schrijver’s.
“lsvalgaard says:
February 13, 2014 at 9:15 am
here is my best guess of TSI back to 1700: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png. The assumptions are that variations of TSI are due to variations of the magnetic field. Two proxies for the magnetic field are the sunspots and the field in interplanetary space drawn out from the Sun by the solar wind. Below my guess you can see Schrijver et al.’s reconstruction of the ‘open flux’ [another measure of the Sun’s magnetic field]. Also plotted is the reconstruction by Kopp of LASP which is the topic of this posting [the curve is pink in my plot and [dashed] green in Schrijver’s.”
Thanks leif
@lsvalgaard-I don’t mean to be a pain, but perhaps I should have specified that I wanted either a text file or a spreadsheet, not a picture. I can’t do anything with a picture.
timetochooseagain says:
February 13, 2014 at 11:57 am
I can’t do anything with a picture.
Be patient, I have to extract what you want from a much larger dataset…
@lsvalgaard-Sorry, I didn’t meant o be rude.
timetochooseagain says:
February 13, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Sorry, I didn’t meant to be rude.
You were not, I understand your eagerness 🙂
A suitable file can be found under http://www.leif.org/research/download-data.htm
Some of the other files referred to there are dead or obsolete links. Don’t go there. If you file frustrated go here http://www.leif.org/research/Frustration.gif
@lsvalgaard-Thanks, you’ve been very helpful. 🙂
Hypothesis: Some of the CMIP5 GCM in this plot from Spencer’s Feb. 10 post were run using the 2013 version of TSI reconstruction. If this is not true, then the rest of this post is void.
Prediction: at least some of the CMIP5 GCM will be rerun using the 2014 version of TSI reconstruction If the only inputs that change are the TSI profile, (lower pre 1880, higher 1880-1950, lower post 1996) then the GCM Anomalies output for 2000-2013 will decrease by 0.01 to 0.03 deg C (as per Leif 2/12 9:00am)
In the CMIP5 plot, the Mean of the 90 GCMs is about 0.25-0.30 deg C above the Observed data. So a -0.01 to -0.03 deg C change looks quite insignificant compared to the mean difference. There appear to be about 14 of the GCMs that are within 0.10 deg C of the past couple years. Maybe 30 that are within 0.15 deg. C.
More significant will be a change to the confidence interval.
For as set of 3 two-tail confidence intervals: (90%, 95%, 98%)
The probabilities of observations falling with in the low tail are:
(0.05, 0.025, 0.01).
Given a difference between mean and tail of 0.15 deg C
The implied Standard Deviations are: (0.0912, 0.0766, 0.0645)
Move the mean by an “insignificant” -0.02 without changing the std. dev.
Now the probabilities of observations falling within the low tail are
(0.078, 0.048, 0.022)
Under the old data what were
1 in (20, 40, 100) events are now viewed as
1 in (13, 22, 46)
We have effectively doubled the likelihood of the improbable result. Thus, the results and the models become harder to reject. with the 2014 Version of the TSI than with the 2013 version.
If the spread between mean and tail is 0.3 deg C, and we lower the mean 0.02, then the
1 in (20, 40, 100) becomes
1 in (16, 30, 66)
To use Janice’s terminology, a change in the TSI profile cannot not be the “resurrection of AGW”, but it can be used for the resuscitation of the GCMs. I predict the version change in TSI Profiles will be used to give the GCMs another couple of years of life.