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
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.)
“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.
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?
Sincerely!
@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!
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.
William:
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). http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
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.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
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.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
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
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal…/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…
“””””……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.
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.
@RACookPE1978
@William Howard Astley
After reading your comments
I would be interested to know what you guys think of my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
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.
@cba
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.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
let me know what you think
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.
Regards
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.
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.
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]
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?
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.”
Brief but interesting. Good to see some different techniques applied.
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.FTFY
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…”
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 –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
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. –
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
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.
Now that’s funny right there!
US plunges to 45 place in the World’s Press Freedom Index below Rumania and just above Haiti: http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/02/u-s-plunges-to-46-in-world-press-freedom-index-below-romania-and-just-above-haiti/
Do you think there is a climate connection here?
Gail Combs says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:02 am
—————————————
Nice link, Gail. Thanks for sharing.
lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2014 at 5:09 am
“I consider this kind of paper to be voodoo cyclomania, so count me out.”
Leif,
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.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sunspot-number-ephemerides-de-102.jpg
The original question posed still stands. in addition to question, How is it that these independent data sets agree each other?
Is the data for The integral curve available anywhere?
I’d like to take a closer look at the numbers!
Konrad says:
February 12, 2014 at 2:26 pm
February 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Evidence of an agile, creative intellect.