An end to the 'Modern Warm Regime' identified from TSI data?

Dr. Sam Outcalt : Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Michigan writes in with an analysis of the recently revised TSI Data from the University of Colorado as mentioned on WUWT here. He notes that elements of his analysis align with some notable changes in global temperature.


Hi Anthony:

I did a Hurst ReScaling of the Revised TSI Data from the University of Colorado.

I used only the 1960-2013 portion of the record with the mean subtracted.

The integral curve shows a minimum in 1977 near the base of the hockey stick and the start of the Modern Warm Regime in NOAA, GISS and Hadley data.


The convex inflection in 1998 appears to mark the end of the Modern Warm Regime.

The maximum of the integral trace in 2004 appears to indicate the onset of a new cooling regime.

These solar events are synchronous with the major events in the earth’s thermal history.

I did a similar analysis of the Ap Index for you some time ago but as I recall it didn’t display the strong link with Global Climate Change as does the TSI.

Best Wishes

Samuel I Outcalt


From that analysis on WUWT here

Dr. Sam Outcalt  shows his application of Hurst Rescaling to the Ap Solar Magnetic Index data. Using that method, he has independently identified the “step function switch off” I reported in Feb 2008:

The major regime transition is at the maximum of the integral at 2005.71, which corresponds to October 2005, the same date I identified.

Clearly the sun entered into a magnetic funk then, and has yet to come out of it.

We live in interesting times.

For more on Hurst ReScaling, see this paper: SIO_HurstReScale

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bloke down the pub
February 12, 2014 3:51 am

Time will tell. I don’t see any big change, but what do I know?

Stephen Wilde
February 12, 2014 3:55 am

“Applying a little logic it must be the case that at a certain level of TSI (even if TSI is merely a proxy for other solar influences such as UV variations) the global temperature budget will be balanced i.e. neither warming nor cooling. During the 400 years since the world experienced the relatively low TSI levels of the 1600’s that point of balance must have been crossed and re crossed many times as the TSI numbers varied with time. That is why the world has experienced warming and cooling spells regularly over the centuries (though with an average warming trend since 1601)
As it happens the chart shown (in the linked article below) covers TSI from the depths of the Little Ice age to the recent warm spell so it is clear that the point of transition from net cooling to net warming is somewhere within the range 1363 to 1367 Watts per square metre. Indeed on the basis of just a brief glance at the chart that point of transition is obviously lower than the average TSI between 1961 and 2001 hence my assertion that during those years there was a steady solar warming effect which adequately explains the observed warming without reliance on rising CO2. This is such a simple and obvious point that I really do not understand why the IPCC and the modellers did not see it.
The information that we need and which is critical to the whole global warming debate is some idea of the level of TSI at which the Earth switches from net warming to net cooling. It will be hard to identify because, as I have mentioned in my other articles, the filtering of the solar signal through the various oceanic cycles is neither rapid nor straightforward.”
from here:
June 4th 2008
I’m expecting to hear from Leif on this issue very soon but would aver that most likely it is not simple TSI that has the effect but rather particle and wavelength variations affecting the ozone creation / destruction balance above the tropopause.
Furthermore, I think that it is unlikely to be GCRs as per Svensmark or magnetic field strength as per many others.

February 12, 2014 3:57 am

Sorry but I don’t think this study has merit. Whether the integral goes up or down depends on where you put the average that you substract from the data, so it is an important value. But we cannot be sure that the average of the last 60 years in particular has any physical significance. We don’t know if it represents the real average status of these solar variables. Other 60 year periods would offer different average values to substract, based on which the integrals would have looked different.

February 12, 2014 4:35 am

“This is such a simple and obvious point that I really do not understand why the IPCC and the modellers did not see it.” Steven
If it is not caused by man and curable through considerable wealth transfers from the productive to the political class then it is not worthy of inclusion in IPCC reports. They might well have seen it and rejected it. I believe this is the case for historical measurements of CO2 levels other than ice cores, which show concentrations exceeding 400 PPM over a century ago.

Gail Combs
February 12, 2014 4:42 am

Nylo says: @ February 12, 2014 at 3:57 am
…Whether the integral goes up or down depends on where you put the average that you substract from the data,…
It is ALL relative.
Taking it that the Earth does adjust it’s temperature based on the amount of energy accumulated. (and the oceans do accumulate energy) What this is telling you is given the early 20th C temperature are we net accumulating energy or losing energy and therefore is the temperature in response going to increase or decrease.

February 12, 2014 4:43 am


I rest my case and all science relating to “climate”…

February 12, 2014 4:45 am

I’m sure Leif will have something yo say about this.

Gail Combs
February 12, 2014 5:02 am

Guy says: @ February 12, 2014 at 4:35 am
…. I believe this is the case for historical measurements of CO2 levels other than ice cores, which show concentrations exceeding 400 PPM over a century ago.
Also shown in Ice Cores before history was re-written.

…In order to show that recent atmospheric CO2 levels have risen due to Man’s burning of fossil fuel, it was necessary to show a significant level increase above pre-industrial CO2 levels. We saw how Callendar was able to set a baseline of about 290 ppmv by rejecting values deviating more than 10% from his desired value.
It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the more than 2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about 190 to 420 ppmv, were falsely “filtered” when the alleged same data showed a rising trend from about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar’s pre-industrial baseline) at 4,000 years ago when re-reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) in their Fig. 5….

Darrel Dorbin
February 12, 2014 5:07 am

Steven Goddard is one of the scientists who was sidelined in the climate scammers’ takeover by non scientists, of scientific reporting on climate.
He recently did a subtraction of all the NASA/NOAA doctored data for the United States,
from the raw data, and showed the United States’ raw data, hasn’t warmed since eighteen ninety, (1890)
The raw data is placed unaltered online by law.
Ouch – so much for warming regimes.

February 12, 2014 5:09 am

kramer says:
February 12, 2014 at 4:45 am
I’m sure Leif will have something to say about this.

I consider this kind of paper to be voodoo cyclomania, so count me out.
REPLY: It’s not a paper, its an email posing a question. The question is; “can the TSI data be linked to global temperature”? Like you, I think not, but I’m always willing to ask the question again with new data and analysis.
I note you said pretty much the same thing about the Ap index too, yet here we are with it still bumping along the bottom in this new regime.- Anthony

Steve from Rockwood
February 12, 2014 5:11 am

To call and end to the modern warm period on 22.5 years of data seems a little premature. The last graph could be evidence of cooling starting in 2005 but not an end.

February 12, 2014 5:21 am

For those who insist that “Correlation does not mean causation,” let’s stipulate that the sun may not necessarily come up tomorrow. It’s just that it’s happened so many times before.

Joshua Richardson
February 12, 2014 5:36 am

When the Soviet Union fell the professional warmer grant scammers tacked .5 onto the world temperature because 5,000 of the world’s most cold stations vanished in a period of about six weeks: actually it was in one month, and actually, when the Soviet climate recording system fell, it was like one day before their pay day in Russia and many of the people keeping the data in Russia, had to get paid, in order to send the information in.
So it was said and you’ll see it occasionally written of that era that ”5,000 stations vanished overnight.”
The people who were trying to stop the wrecking of the US data and the World data too, complained bitterly and the Warmer grant scammers took off two tenths claiming it was ‘time for needed adjustments.’
The last century wasn’t even actually all that warm; in fact one of the prime legacies of the Mann-Hansen destruction of science era, turning atmospheric energy sciences into circuses of non scientific political activists and media hacks trying to horn in on the alarmism debate trough,
and wrecking entire GLOBAL data repositories,
is the willful deliberate protracted alteration of entire database systems in order to make times before seem colder than they were, and much flatter: less dynamic so they could blow the alarmism horn to create their own persona and then widespread feeding frenzy of grant funds and escape with their own amid the turmoil

February 12, 2014 5:45 am

Just looking at the first graph, I think it is significant, but incomplete. When you write “The maximum of the integral trace in 2004 appears to indicate the onset of a new cooling regime”, I believe that will only be truly indicated when the next peak in the series of increasing maximums is complete, and it shows a significantly lower peak than before, thus indicating a real break with the previous trend.
Now that may happen, indeed I believe it is likely to happen, but it will be 2 or 3 years still until we can say that it HAS happened, with certainty.

February 12, 2014 5:47 am

Well, I knew we had turned down (to negative) from zero warming around 1998
so this is nothing new to me.
The question is: is the world ready for 2 [or] 3 decades of cooling coming up?
I doubt it. I sure could use some help in trying the warn the world about this.

February 12, 2014 5:56 am

lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:09 am
REPLY: It’s not a paper, its an email posing a question.
It linked to a paper. My comment was about that paper which presumably is the basis for the question.
you said pretty much the same thing about the Ap index too, yet here we are with it still bumping along the bottom in this new regime
I don’t think there is a new regime. Ap is low because solar activity is low. This has happened many times in the past:

John Tyler
February 12, 2014 6:36 am

Imagine you are in the 50th year of the Little Ice Age; all the data “projects” that the Northern Hemisphere will experience a new Ice Age . Based on the historical record it is totally clear that massive ice sheets a mile thick will INEVITABLY reoccur .
The scientific ” consensus” demands that governments begin relocating people, farms, industry, etc., to more southern regions . The government spends ( steals) taxpayer money to begin a Relocation “Marshall” Plan to execute this “emergency” program . “Climate scientists,” Al Gore, the IPCC folks all fly – in their private jets – to Monaco to coordinate the world efforts .
Now, Imagine you are in the 50th year of the Medieval Warm Period; all the data project ………….
The above idiocy and stupidity is no different , conceptually, than what we are all witnessing today. Science will rue the day that they remained silent in the face of the greatest scientific fraud in the history of the world. As the pseudo-climate scientists scream out – in the manner of Joseph Goebbels- their massive scam, the “serious” scientific organizations wilted, remained silent, and REFUSED to speak out against the AGW willing executioners.
One can massage, manipulate, analyze the data any damn way you wish to produce your desired results. But history has demonstrated , and STILL DEMONSTRATES, that much remains unknown about the drivers of the earth’s climate, and that the climate is never static. It always changes. And no statistical analysis of extant data can predict ( not yet, anyway) when the climate will turn .
The majority of scientists are a sad sack bunch of money grubbing , greedy scum bags for abandoning their principles.

Henry Clark
February 12, 2014 7:14 am

The Modern Warm Regime is starting to end, although, for instance, so far this year 2014’s cosmic ray count ( is only 0.8% different yet from the overall multi-decade average since that example neutron monitor began readings in 1964, being 6193.12 versus a 6145.34 average count rate. For being presently in a maximum, this cycle’s maximum is weak, relatively weaker by a greater percentage than that compared to prior recent maximums. But the more interesting time will be after entering the subsequent minimum later this decade. Both C-14, Be-10, and other data suggest a number of times greater past variation has occurred, in terms of how much more Little Ice Age Maunder Minimum levels would differ.
These solar events are synchronous with the major events in the earth’s thermal history.
This article doesn’t itself show what would illustrate such, but it could be best read in the context of

February 12, 2014 7:24 am

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Only time will tell, but this may be another indicator that we are entering the next grand minimum.

February 12, 2014 7:35 am

This is from around 1992, but maybe it wasn’t “heard” by the data adjusters until later (keep watch at around 1:40 in….)…

February 12, 2014 8:02 am

“Like you, I think not, but I’m always willing to ask the question again with new data and analysis.”
How refreshing.

February 12, 2014 8:25 am

How does the author know that 2004 was the maximum? Is there something in the numbers I’m not seeing?

Gail Combs
February 12, 2014 8:27 am

John Tyler says: @ February 12, 2014 at 6:36 am
….Science will rue the day that they remained silent in the face of the greatest scientific fraud in the history of the world. As the pseudo-climate scientists scream out – in the manner of Joseph Goebbels- their massive scam, the “serious” scientific organizations wilted, remained silent, and REFUSED to speak out against the AGW willing executioners…..
“the “serious” scientific organizations wilted, remained silent No the scientific organizations did not stay silent as they should have (if this was a true scientific debate) Instead they LOUDLY jumped on the bandwagon proclaiming Global Warming is Real!

In December 2009 the Council of the Royal Society published a statement to coincide with the Copenhagen climate negotiations, Preventing dangerous climate change, highlighting the need for a global agreement. The statement discussed some of the policy options necessary for a strong agreement for preventing dangerous climate change.

The American Chemical Society with this article in Chem & Eng News, prompted me to drop my membership after almost forty years as a member:

June 22, 2009
Climate-Change News
Events are moving quickly on the climate-change front. In the past few weeks, there have been several major developments that, taken together, delineate pretty clearly how the political battle over climate change will play out in the coming months.
The science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established. The scientific consensus on the reality of climate change has become increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers (for brevity’s sake, CCDs).
Last week, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) released a comprehensive summary of the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the U.S. (see page 10). USGCRP “coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society,” according to its website…
On June 11, the presidents of the G8+5 national academies of science released a joint statement, “Climate Change and the Transformation of Energy Technologies for a Low Carbon Future ,” which states: “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change.” The G8+5 consists of Canada, Italy, the U.K., the U.S., Japan, France, Germany, and Russia (G8), and Brazil, India, South Africa, China, and Mexico (+5).
Additionally, legislation (H.R. 2454) with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases is beginning to move through Congress. The cap-and-trade provisions of the bill will finally begin to assign a cost to greenhouse gas pollution.
The prospect of having to pay to pollute has sharpened opponents’ focus. The CCDs’ strategy going forward became clear last week with the release of three full-page ads placed by the Heartland Institute in the Washington Post on June 16, 17, and 18 calling for an “open debate on the science of global warming.” ….
We see here the same tactics used by other purveyors of nonsense rejected by the mainstream scientific community. Creationists, for example, only want to expose students to “both sides of the debate over origins,” ignoring the fact that there is no debate over evolution. And, of course, it’s always useful to attack the “mainstream media.”
Heartland and its ally are also flogging an 800-plus-page report, “Climate Change Reconsidered ,” from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—kind of an anti-IPCC, get it?….
Sow doubt, make up statistics, call for an “open debate,” claim that you are being “silenced and ignored by the media and politicians,” claim that your opponents are just a “few bureaucrats and environmental activists,” not real scientists—those are the tactics that will be brought to bear in the coming months by the CCDs in their attempt to derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.

Other supposed ‘scientific’ organizations have done just the same.
As far as I am concerned they should all be defunded and disband. When psydo-scientific organizations start supporting a RELIGION it is time to implement the separation of Church and State and that goes for most of Academia too!

Richard M
February 12, 2014 9:03 am

It is always difficult to correlate one item when multiple items are in play. We can see a correlation of the PDO with global temperature trends all the way back to 1850 in HadCrut4. It could be the solar variations sometimes enhance and sometimes reduce the amplitude of the PDO phases. This makes a lot of physical sense since much of the solar energy goes directly into the oceans. What would be nice is to show the combined effect of this solar data with the PDO data. Here’s an approximate view of the PDO back to 1850.

gary gulrud
February 12, 2014 9:14 am

Gail Combs says:
February 12, 2014 at 4:42 am
One would think that a good answer awaits the simultaneous solution of a battery of differential equations for respective fluences of TSI, Albedo, Ocean and Air circulation, Thermal Evolution, etc.
My B+ in DiffEq being the zenith of my math pedagogy I recall that only a comparatively small number of problems submit to evaluation, permit a suitable equation to be found.
Regarding thermal evolution, during heating evolution relates to the 5th power of the temperature, otherwise to the 4th power. The emissivity of water is only 60% that of leaves and dirt. OTOH the blanket effect of greenhouse gases is negligible as the IR is absorbed as molecular bond vibrational energy which kinetic energy is immediately shared in collisions with the surrounding predominant gases of the Atmosphere.

February 12, 2014 9:36 am

But …. Given that we agree on these actual temperature is a symptom of the sum of different simultaneous cycles, what are the cycles?
Do we see a sum of one long term 1000 year cycle and only one single short 60/68/70 year cycle?
Do we see a accumulation of several different short-term cycles?
For example:
0.05 from an 11, 22, 44 or 66 year sunspot/solar cycle +
0.1 from a 66/68/70 PDO “fisheries” cycle that has been tracked since the mid-1600’s +
0.1 from a 200/204/208 year cycle from ????
0.1 from a 1000 year long cycle?
Or do we agree that that we (collectively) do not know the fundamental cause nor the actual accumulation of an unknown number of cycles each of an unknown peak size or cycle stability?
So – what is the correct prediction?
2000-2010 is the peak of the Modern Warming Period?
(1000 year + 60-68 year cycles coming right together at a peak right now)
2000-2010 is only the high BEFORE the actual Modern Warming Period peak in 2070?
(2000+60-68 years will be a peak, but it will happen in 2065-2070?)
2000-2010 is a peak “near” the top of the Modern Warming Period, but the actual peak will happen two (or maybe three) “short cycles” from now?
(2000+2×60-68 years, or about 2120-2130)?
If the CAGW propaganda fails in its purpose of killing innocents and destroying the world’s energy systems, what will a proper scientist report looking back at today in 800 years? (If the CAGW community DOES succeed in its deliberate destructive efforts, there won’t be any climate scientists alive in 800 years. They will be locked in caves being stored as food for realists for supper.)

gary gulrud
February 12, 2014 9:50 am

“2000-2010 is the peak of the Modern Warming Period?”
1980-1990. A differential equation provides the instantaneous value, a rate of change and the sum. A global average temperature is a proxy for the instantaneous heat flux.

February 12, 2014 9:54 am

John Tyler says:
February 12, 2014 at 6:36 am
The majority of scientists are a sad sack bunch of money grubbing , greedy scum bags for abandoning their principles.

Why thank you! I am so! Can I expect your contribution cheque in the mail?

Alan the Brit
February 12, 2014 10:01 am

@pochas says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:21 am
As a point of information, I don’t think anyone has actually said “correlation doesn’t mean causation!”. I think you’ll find that they have said that “correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation!”. It’s a slightly different slant on the debate, which we all know!

William Astley
February 12, 2014 10:02 am

In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:09 am
I consider this kind of paper to be voodoo cyclomania, so count me out.
Current observations and metavariable analysis (incorrect hypotheses/incorrect data proxy assumptions create paradoxes when all observations are considered) do not support most of what you have stated in this forum.
You have told us based on a your re-interpretation of proxy data and an assumption concerning Wolf’s observation of sunspots that the Maunder minimum did not happen, that the solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years was not the highest in the last 8000 years, that solar magnetic cycle 24 is normal, that solar magnetic cycle changes do not affect climate, and so on. We have been told by the warmists that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2, not solar magnetic cycle changes, even though the pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match that the pattern of warming predicted by the CO2 forcing mechanism and does match both the pattern of warming predicted by the solar magnetic mechanisms and does match past warming cycles that correlate with high solar magnetic cycle activity.
There suddenly is: record sea ice in the Antarctic, the most rapid increase in summer sea ice in the Arctic in record (the increase was caused by an increase in Arctic cloud cover summer 2013), sudden weakening of the jet stream, and a sudden increase in large precipitation events; all of which occurred in the past during the Maunder minimum. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleorecord that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes We are currently at the peak of solar magnetic cycle 24, the cooling and ‘weirding’ of the climate will increase when solar magnetic cycle 24 abruptly drops and solar magnetic cycle 25 does not occur. Heat hiding in the ocean will not explain global cooling.
The solar polar magnetic field strength has dropped 200% solar magnetic cycle 22 to 24 (125 microTelsa, 100 microTelsa, and 60 microTesla).
The solar heliosphere pressure has dropped 40% which reduces the magnetic intensity of the solar wind bursts. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere that removes ions from the Polar Regions and the equator. The affect solar wind bursts have on cloud cover and cloud properties in high latitude regions and equatorial regions is strongly dependent on the magnitude of the solar wind bursts which explains why there is suddenly an increase in La Niña events and an increase in cloud cover in the high latitude regions that have in the past been strongly affected by the electroscavenging mechanism.
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.
Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s: The extension of the sunspot number series backward in time is of considerable interest for dynamo theory, solar, stellar, and climate research.We have used records of the 10Be concentration in polar ice to reconstruct the average sunspot activity level for the period between the year 850 to the present. Our method uses physical models for processes connecting the 10Be concentration with the sunspot number. The reconstruction shows reliably that the period of high solar activity during the last 60 years is unique throughout the past 1150 years. This nearly triples the time interval for which such a statement could be made previously.
Doubling Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field in Last 100 years…/399437a0.html
The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth’s magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun’s properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment…

george e. smith
February 12, 2014 10:13 am

“””””……The convex inflection in 1998 appears to mark the end of the Modern Warm Regime……”””””
Obviously I missed a class in my math degree. What on earth is a convex inflection ? I always thought a point of inflection, was a point of zero curvature where the sign of the curvature changed.

February 12, 2014 10:46 am

Dr. Svalgaard, eyeballing that AP chart you posted, was there a prior solar cycle max with the AP under the blue dashed line?
What is that blue dashed line?
Thanks for any input.

February 12, 2014 10:49 am

After reading your comments
I would be interested to know what you guys think of my final report on this?

February 12, 2014 11:15 am

It isn’t the TSI that counts. Rather it’s the TSI * (1 – albedo) . TSI may be rather consistent but the vast majority of the albedo is due to clouds. Until they establish an ongoing albedo measurement database of the accuracy and resolution of the TSI database, the whole thing is worthless.

February 12, 2014 12:09 pm

albedo is not only due to clouds, although more clouds around the equator being formed due to global cooling are causing greater albedo….it is a downward spiral.
The actual global cooling is due to something else.
Our first protection against the most energetic (and harmful) radiation from the sun is the ozone, peroxides and nitric oxides being formed TOA. A variation within TSI, i.e. if more E-UV is coming from the sun (during a cooling period) than that will cause more ozone, peroxides and nitric oxides being formed, TOA.
More of these compounds TOA means less energy coming through the atmosphere, because of the back radiation.
If you don’t get this, you will not understand.
let me know what you think

David L. Hagen
February 12, 2014 1:39 pm

Samuel Outcalt
Thanks for the insightful TSI integration.
May I refer you to David Stockwell’s similar “Solar Accumulation” theory.where he predicts a Pi/2 (90 degree) lag in ocean temperatures from the solar cycles.e.g. See:
Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature August 2011. See also:
Solar Accumulative” articles at Stockwell’s NicheModeling site.
As you have already prepared the TSI integral, it would be insightful if you could test Stockwell’s theory.
David Hagen
PS I partly support cba’s comment on “TSI * (1 – albedo)”. While cloud uncertainties dominate, integrating TSI is important, not “worthless”. Solar-cosmic rays may be another important factor.

Pamela Gray
February 12, 2014 1:45 pm

Trunk wriggling. Hell, my past ill attempts at finding an appropriate mate is a better match to the temperature series. Which is why when I use derivative data, I actually shake I’m so afraid of the thin ice I am skating on.

Pamela Gray
February 12, 2014 1:52 pm

And if Leif eyeballs it, I will wag my finger at him and say, “You bad boy!” Eyeballing is for deciding whether or not a dress makes me look fat. It is not for the much more pleasant conversation around scientific data.
[The moderators assume no responsibility for the future safety or long time health of any reader considering the wisdom of comments relating to or about the plotted or extrapolated curves of any wiggles, waggles, wavers, dress sizes, trees, tranks, data shaking going on close vicinity to Pamela’s finger, trunk, or closet. Mod]

February 12, 2014 2:20 pm

cba says:
February 12, 2014 at 11:15 am
It isn’t the TSI that counts. Rather it’s the TSI * (1 – albedo) .

OK, lettuce grant that the Trenberth isolated-insulated-insolated “flat earth” cartoon rotating about a constant star at an average circular orbit for a fictional 1/4 area cylinder space is wrong. Well, I mean it “does work” for NASA-GISS’s purposes, but that says more about NASA-GISS’s purposes than the accuracy of the simulated cartoon.
First, assume a “constant” TSI can be assigned for any given year. TSI
Then, calculate TOA as a function of day-of-year (DOY)
TOA =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((F1-3)/365)))) for cosines and sines using radians.
Then, that TOA direct radiation has to get through a real-world atmosphere and land on a flat plate at some latitude on a rotating sphere. ONLY THEN can that DIR_RAD_HORI get reflected (back into space) or absorbed on a flat surface (to heat up that surface.)
Direct Radiation (on a flat horizontal sq meter) Bottom of Atmosphere =
DIR Radiation/Area = TOA Radiation * Atmos_Attenuation * sin(SEA) * cos (LAT)
To get Solar Elevation Angle, you have to use DOY to get declination angle, assign an hour angle (time of day), and assign a latitude.
But it is worse than you thought! Even that DIR_RAD_HORI energy needs further work: Direct solar radiation behaves one way (absorbing, reflecting, refracting, penetrating, etc.) but indirect diffuse radiation behaves another! The albedos at different solar elevation angles for diffuse and direct radiation are very different for the same surface (snow (slightly), ice (modestly), and water (very strongly); and for varying surfaces (plants, urban, trees). Usually, at higher solar elevation angles, the ratio of diffuse to direct radiation is constant, but as the sun goes lower in the horizon, even that fundamental ratio varies.
But it is worse than you thought if you though that was bad!
See, all of the above assumes a very clear (low turbidity) atmosphere with very few clouds. Add even moderate clouds in, and the direct component of solar radiation goes away. Only the diffuse radiation penetrates to the flat plate surface we are worried about, but the amount of diffuse radiation is varying strongly with the type of cloud cover and height of those clouds.
I’ve got the equations available. Anybody want any (or all) of them for any latitude, any day-of-year to check my work?

February 12, 2014 2:26 pm

William Astley says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:02 am
TSI may be just a proxy, however the late Jack Eddy’s comment regarding solar influence on climate was that there would be “many plugs”. (ie :many connections)
Your comment reminds me of one of mine from 2009 –
“Dr Svalgaard, we of course respect your client, Mr. Sun’s right to scientific representation and we appreciate your participation in these informal interviews. As you may be aware Mr. Carbon was formally charged with carrying heat after investigations into climate irregularities. We now find that we need to reopen investigations, as a key witness against Mr. Carbon has been found to be a heavy abuser of Bristlecone pine extract. While we are prepared to overlook minor variations in TSI levels, which your client claims relate to personal use, we feel that this does raise questions about Mr. Sun’s character. We also have unconfirmed reports linking some of Mr. Sun’s activities with known heavies such as Mr. Jupiter. In light of this information we would like to ask that Mr. Sun surrender his passport and remain contactable should we need further assistance with our inquiries.”

Greg Goodman
February 12, 2014 2:27 pm

Brief but interesting. Good to see some different techniques applied.

February 12, 2014 2:30 pm

John Tyler: 6:36 am
“The majority of ,scientists [human beings] are a sad sack bunch of money grubbing , greedy scum bags for abandoning their principles.
Except for POLITICIANS, no… wait…
Except for the MEDIA, no… wait…
Except for the CLERGY, no… wait…
But saying they abandon their principles assumes that they have some to begin with beyond getting by.
“Be not too hard…”

February 12, 2014 3:05 pm

David L. Hagen says:
February 12, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Accumulation hypotheses are well worth examination. AGW believers and many “lukewarmers” believe that the oceans would freeze in the absence of DWLWIR. As can be shown by simple empirical experiment, incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool, so the “weak sun, boosted by back-radiation” hypothesis of ocean temperatures is clearly false.
The reason SW from the sun is quite sufficient to heat the oceans can also be shown by empirical experiment, the results of which may indicate a far greater role for minor TSI variation than SB instantaneous radiative balance calculations allow.
Oceans are heated at depth by SW solar radiation. They are cooled at the surface by evaporation, conduction and radiation (in descending order of importance). However what must also be considered is the slow speed of non-radiative energy transports in returning energy from depth back to the surface.
The ocean is not being heated by a constant ¼ power (240 w/m2) solar SW source as climate pseudo scientists calculate. It is being heated at depth by intermittent pulses of solar SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2
This simple experiment (not yet built) can demonstrate just how hot our oceans could get if all atmospheric features except pressure are eliminated. No conductive or evaporative cooling and no downwelling LWIR. Simply heating by SW and cooling by LWIR –
While simple, it is very expensive.
A far simpler empirical experiment you can try for yourself is one I call “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic vinegar”-
Get two 100 x 100 x 10mm blocks of acrylic. Paint one black on the top surface, and the second black on the base. Spray both blocks with several layers of clear-coat on their top surfaces to ensure equal reflectivity and IR emissivity. Attach thermocouples to upper and lower surfaces. Insulate the blocks on the sides and base. Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses. Now expose to strong solar SW. Three hours should result in a 17C differential between the blocks. The block with the black base runs hotter. SB equations alone clearly do not give the correct answer. (caution – experiment temperatures can exceed 115C)
Both blocks have the same ability to absorb SW and emit LWIR, yet after three hours in full sun the temperature differential is 17C. Which block most closely models our oceans, and which is closer to how climate scientists modelled our oceans?
Here I go further and place the blocks under intermittent halogen light sources with air cooled IR shields between the blocks and the halogen lights. –
While the lights are less powerful than the sun, this set up demonstrates that when the SW heating is intermittent, the block with the black base can achieve not just a higher average temperature, but a higher surface temperature as well. The experiment also works if clear water filled blocks are used, one with a black top surface and one with a black base.
These simple empirical experiments demonstrate why SB equations should never be used for transparent substances or moving fluids in a gravity field. They also show how cumulative SW from the sun can heat our oceans without any DWLWIR. Extrapolating from the results, TSI variance will also have a cumulative effect.

Pamela Gray
February 12, 2014 3:21 pm

Now that’s funny right there!

R. de Haan
February 12, 2014 4:07 pm

US plunges to 45 place in the World’s Press Freedom Index below Rumania and just above Haiti:
Do you think there is a climate connection here?

February 12, 2014 7:04 pm

Gail Combs says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:02 am
Nice link, Gail. Thanks for sharing.

February 12, 2014 8:33 pm

lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:09 am
“I consider this kind of paper to be voodoo cyclomania, so count me out.”
Then you won’t like this, for what ever reason my research into outer planetary orbital resonance agrees with the TSI integral trace. An example below.
The original question posed still stands. in addition to question, How is it that these independent data sets agree each other?

February 12, 2014 8:35 pm

Is the data for The integral curve available anywhere?
I’d like to take a closer look at the numbers!

gary gulrud
February 13, 2014 8:07 am

Konrad says:
February 12, 2014 at 2:26 pm
February 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Evidence of an agile, creative intellect.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights