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.
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: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm
This is the kind of article where I really appreciate having you around.
>>>>>>>>>
lsvalgaard says: @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.