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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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.