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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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?