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.
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.