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.
(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: @ur momisugly 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