Changes in Total Solar Irradiance

Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”,  is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature.

In that regard, here are the monthly variations in TSI (as a global 24/7 average) as shown by the CERES data:

ceres monthly variation in tsiFigure 1. Variations in TSI. The upper panel (red) shows the actual measured TSI. The middle panel shows the seasonal component of that variation. The bottom panel shows the ~ eleven-year variation in TSI once the seasonal data has been removed.

There are oddities in this record. Overall, the ~ eleven-year variation is a bit more than a quarter of a W/m2. However, from late 2000 to early 2001, the TSI dropped a bit more than a quarter of a W/m2. However, I digress …

My question is, if the tiny eleven-year changes in TSI of a quarter of a W/m2 cause an observable change in the temperature, then where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth? That annual change is a hundred times the size of the eleven-year TSI change. Where is the effect of that 22 W/m2 change?

To get an idea of the predicted effect of this variation in TSI, using IPCC figures this TSI change of 22 W/m2 is about the same change in forcing that we would get from six doublings of CO2 … that is to say, CO2 going from the current level (400 ppmv) to the extraordinary level of 25,600 ppmv.

In addition, again according to the IPCC, using their central value of 3°C warming per doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2 additional forcing), this change in forcing should be accompanied by a change in temperature of no less than 18°C (32°F).

Now, I can accept that this would be somewhat reduced because of the thermal lag of the climate system. But the transient (immediate) climate response to increased forcing is said to be on the order of 2°C per doubling of CO2. So this still should result in a warming of 12°C (22°F) … and we see nothing of the sort.

I say this lack of an effect of the TSI changes is because the climate system responds to the current conditions. The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings. Instead, it reacts, it responds, it evolves and varies based on the instantaneous local situations everywhere. In particular, when it is cold we get less tropical clouds, and that increases the energy entering the system. And similarly, when it is warm we get more tropical clouds, cutting out huge amounts of incoming energy by reflecting it back to space. In this way, the system reacts to maintain the same temperature despite the changes in forcing.

However, I’m happy to listen to alternate explanations and to consider opposing evidence … so if you think that the IPCC is right when it says that changes in temperature are driven by the changes in forcing, I ask you why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature.

Best to everyone,

w.

My Request—if you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. This allows us all to understand just what you think is incorrect.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
380 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AnonyMoose
October 25, 2014 6:52 pm
John F. Hultquist
Reply to  AnonyMoose
October 25, 2014 7:12 pm

The ITCZ (aka the doldrums) has been known about for a long time, see below:
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

FROM:
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (originally published in Lyrical Ballads, 1798)
I am mystified as to how your link to the ITCZ fits with small changes in TSI – the subject of this post by Willis.

AnonyMoose
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 25, 2014 9:24 pm

The ITCZ is an example of the Earth responding quickly to solar radiation. Whether there is a sensitivity to small changes is not known, but there definitely are mechanisms which respond to the minor variation of the Sun’s apparent path across the surface.
“The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings. Instead, it reacts, it responds, it evolves and varies based on the instantaneous local situations everywhere.”

Joseph Bastardi
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 25, 2014 9:29 pm

Isnt this passage in reference to the ” horse latitudes, not the Itcz?. The area where the subtropical high resides with lack of wind, well north of the ITCZ

milodonharlani
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 25, 2014 9:55 pm

The Horse Latitudes (30 to 35 degrees N & S) lie well to the north & south of the ITCZ, which, as its name implies, lies in the tropics. However, the ITCZ does partially coincide with the doldrums, the band of frequent calms. But the trade winds subside again in the higher Horse Latitudes, so the “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” could have applied to either band of still air over the world’s oceans.
Nevertheless AnonyMoose’s point about the effect of sunshine on ocean & air is well taken.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 26, 2014 12:49 am

As I recall – it has been long since I read of this – Coleridge heard the tale while in an East coast port (Boston?), and the voyage was to San Francisco. He was not on the ship. These lines suggest the person telling the tale knew of what he spoke:
“And ice, mast-high, came floating by,
As green as emerald.”
—————————
Anyway . . .
They sail southward in the Atlantic Ocean
In Part 1, “The sun came up upon the left,”
They pass the tip of South America:
“And now there came both mist and snow,
And it grew wondrous cold:
And ice, mast-high, came floating by,
As green as emerald.”
Part 2 starts:
“The sun now rose upon the right:”
So now they are heading northward along the west coast of SA.
The South Pacific High is there to the west, and near the coast the Humboldt Current.
In this part there are these 4 lines:
“All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody sun, at noon,
Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the moon.”
If the ship is in the South Pacific High,
with the sun, at noon, above the mast, this would make the month December or January, maybe. Could be.
In March or September the ship would have to be nearer the Equator.
My thought was that a captain would stay closer to the coast, heading north.
The reasoning is that by these times, the locations of the STHP and the currents were widely known. They would try to stay away from the high pressure.
But, sometimes the trades do not meet and this would be much harder to predict or maybe even know about:
“We were the first that ever burst
Into that silent sea.”
Willis is a seaman. Maybe he has a better idea of this than I do.

Chuck L
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 26, 2014 7:26 am

I believe that in the next 5 – 10 years CO2-climate change hysteria will finally be put to rest and it will be written about its purveyors thusly:
He went, like one that hath been stunn’d
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man
He rose the morrow morn.

MfK
Reply to  AnonyMoose
October 27, 2014 6:24 pm

I don’t understand the seasonal TSI plot. The Earth’s aphelion is 152.1×10^6 km, and it’s perihelion is 147.09×10^6 km. The intensity of sunlight varies inversely as the square of the distance, so the ratio of irradiance from aphelion to perihelion will be (Rap/Rperi)^2 = (152.1/147.09)^2 = 1.069. If TSI = 1300 W/m^2 at perihelion, it will be 1390 W/m^2 at aphelion. That’s a 90 W/m^2 change, not a 21 W/m^2 change. It almost seems like you took the square root of the ratio of the orbital radii, which would give 21 W/m^2 swing. Am I wrong about this?

MfK
Reply to  MfK
October 27, 2014 6:25 pm

I had aphelion and perihelion reversed in my example, sorry. The ratio is still correct.

Ed A
Reply to  MfK
October 28, 2014 6:28 am

Perhaps it’s because virtually all of that radiation is coming in at an oblique angle? Outside of a small circular area in the center of the Sun-facing hemisphere, the incoming radiation is being spread across a larger and larger area, until the angle becomes tangential and parallels the surface of the Earth.
I’m terrible at math, but I’d imagine that’s why the TSI is lower than a simple area calculation would indicate- it’s striking a three-dimensional, increasingly-inclined surface.

milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 6:53 pm

Not just one amplification mechanism, & far from being “unspecified”, they have been discussed highly specifically.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/new-paper-finds-multiple-solar-amplification-mechanisms-which-modulate-winter-surface-temperatures.html
But more importantly, TSI is less important to climate than its energetic UV component, which fluctuates by orders of magnitude more than TSI, & than solar magnetic effects.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 7:58 pm

How many W/m2 of total TSI is caused by the “energetic UV component”? Even if the entire change in TSI was attributed to the “energetic UV component” how much would that be in actual W/m2?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 9:26 pm

The energetic UV makes up 0.00005 of TSI, not much in terms of energy.
Here is how the EUV has varied the past 174 years
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf and put in a wider perspective
http://www.leif.org/research/Keynote-SCOSTEP-2014.pdf
Hard to believe that there is any measurable climate connection

milodonharlani
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 9:40 pm

Total UV, not just its most energetic band, makes up more, as you know, & all UV is energetic compared to visible & IR spectra.
But it’s not the share of TSI that is UVa, UVb or UVc that matters, but the effect of UV on ozone & oceans that does.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 9:46 pm

And yet, when you want to show the variation of UV you show the EUV [Figure 4 of your last link] so you speak with a forked tongue [it seems that anything goes when it is about convincing the unwashed masses].

milodonharlani
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 9:57 pm

I would have shown total UV, but was responding to a specific request for information about energetic UV.
My tongue is unified, as the two other links show. Just aiming to oblige.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 10:20 pm

Since the variation of UV is due to the same agent [the magnetic field] that causes the variation of TSI, the UV and TSI vary together in lockstep, and the variation of TSI and EUV over the past 174 years does not follow the variation of climate. Even a unified tongue can wag nonsense [even if it is a firm belief, to which the data will have to submit]. I think it is better to follow the data and admit that the belief is unwarranted.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 10:36 pm

On the contrary, I find the correlation between UV & magnetism, on the one hand, & climate, on the other, to be so statistically strong, that causation is not only implied but inescapable. Somehow you have managed to let it escape.
For magnetism & climatic correlation, please see SSN minima & the Little Ice Age.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 10:38 pm

Spoken as a true believer. Nothing can rock your boat.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 10:49 pm

I find the true belief on your side. For whatever reason, you can’t see the sun shining on the forest for the shade of the trees.
I give you more credit than hopping on the CACA gravy train. When my friends in Congress ask where to cut in science, I never suggest solar research, even though a lot of it has become corrupted & polluted by the CACA virus.
How anyone can d*ny the influence of solar activity on climate is beyond me, but I attribute ulterior motives only to those who don’t practice the scientific method, as I feel you try to do.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 25, 2014 11:48 pm

The reason is simple: there is no good evidence for such a connection. Lots of claims, but none of them hold up according to my standards. You bar is much lower, evidently.
Here is one of the reasons I don’t see what you ‘see’:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-and-Global-Temps.png

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 3:22 am

Milodonharlani:
You had best pay attention to Leif, who only wants to remedy your crackpot theories. We all wish to help, you see.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 5:16 am

milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 at 8:10 pm
“Page 4 in the last link compares variation in TSI with UV.”
————————————————————————————————————————–
But the scales are different. The TSI is labeled W m-2 and the UV is labeled mW m2. Explain please.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 5:21 am

milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 at 9:57 pm
“I would have shown total UV, but was responding to a specific request for information about energetic UV.”
————————————————————————————————————————-
I asked it that way because it was how YOU addressed it here:
milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm
“But more importantly, TSI is less important to climate than its energetic UV component, which fluctuates by orders of magnitude more than TSI, & than solar magnetic effects.”

milodonharlani
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 2:38 pm

mpainter
October 26, 2014 at 3:22 am
Which theories do you imagine are crackpot?
I know that you adhere to the counterfactual crackpot belief that the Central American Seaway was closed by 10 million years ago & that warm currents only flow poleward, contrary to all available evidence from biology, geology & oceanography. Have you checked up on the direction of the equatorial currents yet?
Please state which “theories” of mine you consider crackpot. Is it that the variation in UV & solar magnetism affect climatically important phenomena, such as ozone production, seawater temperature & GCR flux? Too bad for you, because those effects have been observed in nature & confirmed experimentally.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 5:30 pm

Please state which “theories” of mine you consider crackpot. Is it that the variation in UV & solar magnetism affect climatically important phenomena, such as ozone production, seawater temperature & GCR flux?
Ozone and GCR flux, yes, but there is no evidence for seawater temperature variation following solar magnetism.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  milodonharlani
October 25, 2014 9:58 pm

Not only that, but the thickness of the ionosphere varies considerably with incoming UV: the range of thickness is typically from 200 to 500 km (diurnal variation) and from 50 to 2000 km over a solar cycle. This approaches two orders of magnitude variation.
Although the density of the ionosphere is quite low, it is thick enough that a photon can’t pierce it without collision with at least one molecule or ion. The result may be equivalent to a change in the black body temperature of the sky or its optical density.

Mario Lento
Reply to  milodonharlani
October 26, 2014 1:44 am

milodonharlani says: October 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm
I subscribe to this line of thinking. And I feel like people dismiss it or act like they do not know about it, so they can refrain from having to say, it could be worth exploring. It took about a dozen posts for me to get to the point where Willis admitted he knew what I was saying was correct, when I said the UV components changes substantially. He tried to say it changed by a fraction of a percent, but then went silent. I will find the posts if Willis would like to respond. But it’s quite a mess of posts.
Anyway – we all agree that UV changes substantially now, so I will not need to waste a dozen posts going around in circles. And yes – I am not a scientist and yes I have not put forth the study – I just subscribe to the ideas I read and think they are valid hypotheses to be explored.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  milodonharlani
October 26, 2014 6:27 am

milodonharlani, the V. Maliniemi, T. Asikainen and K. Mursula paper you quoted says the clearest signal for a positive NAO is in the declining phase of the solar cycle, that’s during the typical maximum of the solar wind speed. There is also a clear signal for negative NAO at the local minimum in the solar wind speed a year or so after each sunspot cycle minimum. There can also be a major minima in the solar wind speed at sunspot maxima, but not on every occasion, it was largely absent in solar cycles 22 and 23.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 26, 2014 4:05 pm

PS: Perhaps no accident that the end of the approximate end of the LIA coincides with the Carrington Event.
http://www.solarstorms.org/SS1859.html

October 25, 2014 6:58 pm

It is a mistake to assume that the mechanism of solar effect on temperature must be TSI. At some frequencies solar emissions vary by huge percentages over 11 year cycle. These might act on earth environment to allow other radiation to get through our not.

October 25, 2014 6:58 pm

“Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature.”
I don’t think it is ALL Frquencies but I could be wrong.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/tim-cullen-the-problem-with-tsi-total-solar-irradiance/

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Steve B
October 25, 2014 8:17 pm

This link is GREAT! Thanks for it.
WILLIS! Have you read this? If not, do so. What do you think about it. Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.

Reply to  Steve B
October 25, 2014 9:27 pm

You are wrong.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 25, 2014 9:41 pm

More precisely: Apart from Cullen’s nonsense about the atmosphere at 645 km height is ‘transforming’ TSI, TSI is also measured by the PMO6V and Diarad experiments on SOHO, about a million miles above the Earth’s surface
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo

gymnosperm
October 25, 2014 6:59 pm

Willis, where does your 22w/m2 annual variation come from?

Jeff L
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 25, 2014 8:27 pm

Asymmetry of the earth’s orbit – closer to the sun during the northern hemisphere winter / southern hemisphere summer means asymmetric TSI / non-constant / cyclic TSI of the solar year, Right Willis ?
Given the lags in the climate system, it does beg the question of just how “instantaneous” TCR is when compared to ECS; perhaps ECS is more of a figment of climate modeling imagination than something real, given that we don’t see the big variations in annual mean global temps as W points out (for that matter, we don’t see any systematic variations in annual temps correlated to annual variations in TSI).

gymnosperm
Reply to  Jeff L
October 25, 2014 9:33 pm

Orbital insolation changes balance out over the entire planet.

David A
Reply to  Jeff L
October 26, 2014 4:17 am

Curious that the earth’s atmosphere cools during this much more intense SH summer insolation. Yes, the NH does reflect more sun light during its winter, and as a whole the earth reflects more sun light. But the SH oceans absorb much of this increase in surface insolation, preventing said insolation from reaching the atmosphere, at least preventing said insolation from reaching the atmosphere right away.
Willis makes an excellent observation about how dynamic the earth is, and this seasonal response is an excellent example. Yet the question remains, is the earth gaining or losing energy when the atmosphere cools during the SH summer? I am guessing that it is gaining energy, but I have not seen this quantified.
Because of the oceans capacity to absorb energy I do not discount how a small change in TSI can, over TIME, add up to a substantial amount of energy which could ultimately manifest in an increase in atmospheric GAT, There are only two ways to change the temperature of a system in a radiative balance. One is to change the input. The other is to change some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system. A small flame under a large open pot of water can only arm that pot a little. However place a small flame under the center of a large open pot while thinning the center portion, and increasing the thickness of the rest of the pot, and placing a lid on top of the pot, and the small flame can, over time, boil the water. The only thing that changed was the residence time of the energy within the pot.
Just as the earth masks the annual immense change in seasonal insolation, so might it mask the decadal change in TSI, with a small increase in insolation entering the oceans, accumulating daily for years, perhaps decades. Other specify that this TOA change in insolation could affect cloud formation and jet stream location, greatly amplifying the initial change in TSI. (I see no great support yet for their theories, but, in light of the planets capacity to mask an immense seasonal change in TSI, I certainly do not yet discount them.) Also their are many mysteries about Jet stream patterns and cloud formation. Science is never closed minded. Scientist can be equally closed minded about not accepting criticism of a theory, and about not being open minded to understanding in areas poorly understood. As their are numerous peer reviewed papers discussing and attributing climatic impacts due to solar changes, it is an area IMV for science to continue to explore.
It does not shock me that no one factor shows a consistent affect on the earth’s atmosphere GAT. There are so many competing influences, some short term, some medium term, some seasonal, some decadal, some centurion, and some millennial. IMV only when an adequate number of disparate climate factors align do we get a substantial change in GAT. (The oceans varying release of energy, ENSO factors, as outlined by Bob Tisdale, are the closest thing that I have seen to showing a consistent affect on the earth’s GAT) However the atmosphere is the tail, not the dog. The atmosphere warming from an oceanic release of energy at the surface, could, and often does mean a cooling planet.

Reply to  gymnosperm
October 25, 2014 9:33 pm

the annual 90 W/m2 divided by 4 to account for the Earth being round and that one half of the Earth receives no sunlight.

Vic Titious
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 25, 2014 10:29 pm

Given that the NH winter is at aphelion, it receives both substantially more insolation and less duration of winter (several days less because of the shorter orbit path length) than the SH winter. Damn good reason that global warming has been more pronounced in the NH. True or false?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 25, 2014 11:51 pm

One would think so, but the minute solar signal seems to be drowned in the noise.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 11:09 pm

So when the numbers were published that incoming was 363 w/m^2 and retained was 240 w/m^2, was that divided by 4 also, or was that only on the sun side? I’m curious to know what those numbers are now per the IPCC. Especially in light of how much more co2 has been put into the atmosphere. You are going to have a problem no matter what, that’s why it’s not published, n’est pas?

ossqss
October 25, 2014 6:59 pm

Interesting read . Thanks for that!
Strangely like a healing process reaction………
Could clouds be like platelets in some way?
Hummmmm

Mick In The Hills
October 25, 2014 6:59 pm

” I ask you why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature.”
Dunno, Willis, but THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
So no more pesky questions, ok?
(ps – I enjoyed your recent sea voyage log. I was staying on Vancouver Is at the same time, so I could really relate to the superb weather, etc. When can we enjoy your next travelogue?)

October 25, 2014 7:10 pm

“In this way, the system reacts to maintain the same temperature despite the changes in forcing. However, I’m happy to listen to alternate explanations and to consider opposing evidence”
I would suggest the reason is that the thermodynamics of convection, evaporation, adiabatic lapse rate/pressure/atmospheric mass/gravity dominate the troposphere and “short-circuit” most of the radiative forcing, as shown in fig 4 of this paper describing radiative-convective equilibrium in planetary atmospheres:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4ztu-bAVH4M/UxTWMT_c0iI/AAAAAAAAFzo/1vvqCmqWFBI/s1600/circuit+analogy.jpg
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/convection.pdf
also subsequently demonstrated by a paper in Nature by Robinson & Catling to apply to all planets with thick atmospheres in our solar system:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
one of several posts describing the Robinson & Catling paper at diggingintheclay.wordpress.com:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
i.e. convection dominates over radiative forcing in the troposphere until the atmosphere becomes too thin to sustain convection at P=0.1 bar, i.e. where the tropopause begins and radiative forcing takes over.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Hockey Schtick
October 25, 2014 7:25 pm

Above I cited this from an August 2014 post on the Hockey Schtick:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-finds-multiple-solar.html
The amplifying mechanisms it mentions are of course not all inclusive.
Thanks.

george e. smith
Reply to  Hockey Schtick
October 25, 2014 8:23 pm

Tell your author of that paper to not bother applying to me for a job as a circuit engineer.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 25, 2014 8:39 pm

It’s simply an explanatory analogy to radiative-convective equilibrium, from an astrophysicist, and not an electronic engineering paper obviously. Care to enlighten what is wrong with the simple analogy, I.e. If Rc < Rt wouldn't Rc "short-circuit" Rt?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  george e. smith
October 25, 2014 10:03 pm

It’s close enough for climate science.

1sky1
Reply to  Hockey Schtick
October 27, 2014 1:19 pm

Getting wannabe climate scientists to recognize that moist convection outstrips not only radiation, but all other mechanisms combined in transferring energy from surface to the troposphere remains one of the great challenges of blog discussion.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
October 28, 2014 4:50 pm

The dominance of moist convection over other mechanisms of heat transfer
from the surface is well-known among energy-budget experimentalists. In
all but the driest, coldest environments, measurements usually show that
the ratio of sensible-to-latent heat transfer (the Bowen ratio) is <1. A
serviceable introduction to actual surface energy budgets is provided by
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/321_Lecture_14.pdf.
The K&T cartoon tends to obscure these empirical facts by showing large
oppositely directed radiative fluxes, indicative of radiative EXCHANGE at
high surface temperature, rather than actual heat TRANSFER in the system.
In fact, even by K&T's account, the NET radiative transfer is quite small
(63W/m^2) and appreciably less than that attributed to moist convection.
Serious physical treatises (e.g., Peixoto and Oort) do not indulge in such
misleading presentations, which have led many into grossly distorted notions
of the importance of radiative transfer in affecting surface temperatures.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
October 29, 2014 4:19 pm

Huh??? FYI, thermal-energy transfer is always UNIDIRECTIONAL, from warmer to colder body. It necessarily takes into account radiative fluxes in ALL directions. Unlike those locally variable, intensive fluxes, it is a conservative, extensive metric. Only someone bereft of any scientific scientific sense of the term “heat transfer” would indulge in the face-saving pretense of “changing the goal posts.”

Trick
Reply to  1sky1
October 29, 2014 5:05 pm

1sky1 4:19pm: “FYI, thermal-energy transfer is always UNIDIRECTIONAL, from warmer to colder body.”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck – from his experiments radiative energy transfers bidirectional meaning both ways between bodies such as atm., earth L&O and deep space sink:
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Page 9, paragraph 7 here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
******
4:50pm: “In fact, even by K&T’s account, the NET radiative transfer is quite small (63W/m^2) and appreciably less than that attributed to moist convection.”
The net from bidirectional radiative is appreciably GREATER appropriately compared to net of moist convection bidirectional which is 0 W/m^2 (80 up evapo-transp. – 80 down rain) in the famous cartoon. The 80 down is a component of the 333 shown.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
October 30, 2014 3:59 pm

It’s a matter of understanding proper scientific usage. Radiative emissions
from any parcel of matter above 0K are indeed omnidirectional. But the heat
transfer–the NET vector of energy fluxes between juxtaposed parcels–is
always unidirectional, from warmer to colder. It is to the latter, not to
directional radiative intensities per se, that conservation laws apply.
Thus in K&T’s cartoon, the insolation of 161W/m^2 absorbed by the surface is
closely balanced by the sum of moist convection (97W/m^2) and an outgoing
radiative transfer of 63W/m^2. Clearly, much greater radiative transfer
could not be sustained by available insolation, which is the sole source of
energy considered here. Conversely, any oppositely directed radiative fluxes
yielding an outgoing NET of 64W/m^2 from the surface would algebraically
balance the insolation.
Not even K&T, however, indulge in the fanciful notion that moist convection
is is somehow balanced thermally by falling rain. It’s only the masses of
evaporation and precipitation–not their thermal energy content–that balance on
climatic time-scales. There is no such component in their backradiation figure.

Trick
Reply to  1sky1
October 30, 2014 4:59 pm

1sky1 3:59pm: Ok omnidirectional if you will. In a hemisphere of directions away from a positive radii surface. 1st law applies to the omnidirections in accounting energy transfers to/from an object, the net being the end result producing a stable T in that object or changing T if unbalanced energy transfer, not stable.
In the cartoon global moist convection including thermals is balanced 97 up (LH energy transfer up at expense of L&O surface energy) and 97 down (release of LH & downdrafts at expense of atm. energy in 333) balanced over the approx. 4 years observed, no net change in 1st law energy transfer accounting to the reasonable accuracy available from study of these global processes.
The surface insolation 161 is roughly in balance omnidirectional over the 4years with 160 net outgoing omnidirectional (your net 63+97=160) with ~1 net absorbed (after round off) for politics. And lengthy blog discussions.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
October 31, 2014 4:17 pm

There’s still much confusion evident in your claim that a 97W/m^2 downward transfer occurs due to “release of LH and downdrafts.” This is simply algebraic conjecture without any basis in physics. And it’s senseless to speak of “omnidirectional balance” with insolation when the actual heat transfer is either zero or has a distinct direction, which in the case of climate is from from thermalized surface through the atmosphere to space.

Trick
Reply to  1sky1
October 31, 2014 4:45 pm

1sky1 4:17pm – Don’t understand what you mean by “omnidirectional balance” as I didn’t write that and omnidirectional is your word. The radiation leaves the surface in a hemisphere of directions. The science is well founded by tens of different authors. Many different earth energy budget papers. The 333 all-sky emission to surface bath has 4 components, reasonably explained in the papers.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
November 1, 2014 12:25 pm

I wrote of omnidirectional emissions from an arbitrary parcel of matter. You wrote: “The surface insolation 161 is roughly in balance omnidirectional…” Can’t make any sense of that. Nor does the assertion that “The science is well founded…” make any sense in relation to a supposed downward component of heat transfer that ostensibly cancels the transfer via moist convection. I fear your confusing mass transfer with heat transfer and kinetic energy with potential. In any event, the 333W/m^2 backradiation in the cartoon is a highly tenuous, model-based figure, which varies widely from author to author.

FAH
October 25, 2014 7:20 pm

How does the IPCC TSI annual change of 22% correspond to the annual variation of the so called solar constant between 1414 and 1323 perihelion to aphelion? That is a swing of about 90 W/m2.
I also want to echo several of the comments that I suspect the variation of the spectral composition may need to be taken into greater account. I think this could be summarized by pointing out that
Not all Watts are equal. (apologies to the site owner)

David A
Reply to  FAH
October 26, 2014 4:21 am

Indeed, not all watts are equal due to energy residence time. See my post up-thread here for more detail if interested. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/25/changes-in-total-solar-irradiance/#comment-1771661

David Riser
October 25, 2014 7:27 pm

So, if I read this right, your point is that the earths orbit creates a 22W/M-squared change based on our distance from the sun. Which is vastly greater than the variation of TSI or any component of it. If this is true then your cloud based negative feedback system is most likely correct, or we would have frozen or fried a long time ago.
Would you suppose that the issue then is not too much energy (earth seems to handle that fine) but what about if the incoming energy is insufficient to maintain current temps, could that be a driver to the occasional abrupt cold shift. Since I am reasonably sure that no one disregards the Ice Ages.
Anyhow, I have to agree Willis, you continue to make a sound argument.

Richard G
Reply to  David Riser
October 25, 2014 11:43 pm

To me that is the simplest and most likely explanation. I believe the ITCZ reacts quickly to changes in TSI while everything else is lagging.

Vic Titious
October 25, 2014 7:28 pm

Willis, is there also a breakdown of monthly variation in spectrum? As Milodon noted above, the uv spectrum is much more energetic. Perhaps an increase in UV proportion compensates for lowered TSI.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Vic Titious
October 25, 2014 7:54 pm

Yes there are monthly data, but SORCE & SUSIM show some differences:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-014-0535-5
Here’s the big picture:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/sorces-solar-spectral-surprise-uv-declined-tsi-constant/
With good commentary by Leif, aka Dr. Svalgaard, the Sun King.

thingadonta
October 25, 2014 7:32 pm

“where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation..”
I agree that the climate system is somewhat buffered from external forcings …”the system reacts to maintain the same temperature despite the changes in forcing.”
I would add that the thermal lag of the climate system is VERY significant, here is one example, maximum ice extent in some Greenland areas occurs around March 22, a full 3 months after the summer solstice, and well after the surrounding air temperature has reached maximum. Who knows what deep ocean currents do to incoming heat.

Reply to  thingadonta
October 25, 2014 7:48 pm

I’ve heard that the deep ocean hides incoming heat.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  thingadonta
October 25, 2014 7:48 pm

“maximum ice extent in some Greenland areas occurs around March 22, a full 3 months after the summer solstice, and well after the surrounding air temperature has reached maximum”
I don’t think that makes any sense. You must mean Antarctica not Greenland.
[Maximum solar radiation is the first week in January at 1410 watts/m^2.
Minimum southern ice extents varies a bit, about Feb 22 on average, as you noted.
Maximum northern (Arctic) ice extents occurs a bit later, about March 22 – April 5.
equal solar exposure occurs on the equinox at ar 22 each year., regardless of solar insolation.
Maximum Arctic solar exposure (not solar insolation!) occurs on June 22.)
Minimum solar radiation is much later at July 15 – 20 at about 1320 watts/m^2)
Equal solar exposure occurs again on September 22.
Minimum Arctic extents happems about the same time (Sept 15 – 26) each year.
maximum Antarctic sea ice extents occurs shortly thereafter between Sept 22 and Oct 6 each year. .mod]

eyesonu
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 9:18 am

Mod, thank you.

eyesonu
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 26, 2014 9:45 am

It may be a good topic for a lead post to cover your insertion above. It was not really clear to me prior to your addition and may help put into perspective (at least for any new to the discussion of climate) the magnitude of any difference in TSI.

Roger
October 25, 2014 7:33 pm

Systems that are stable (and our climate has been stable for millions of years) contain negative feedback. How else could they remain stable. Is it credible that we could have lasted this long without a mechanism (like clouds reflecting light) providing negative feeddack? If a “tipping point” existed, wouldn’t something have pushed us past it already?

milodonharlani
Reply to  Roger
October 25, 2014 7:44 pm

I agree that negative feedbacks must dominate in a homeostatic system such as the earth’s climate. However for 2.6 million years its climate has fluctuated within a broad range around ten degrees C or more from glacial to interglacial phases. That’s stable, but with wide swings on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Before that, there have been even wider swings between Ice House (as now) & Hot House conditions.

A. Smith
October 25, 2014 7:35 pm

http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-atmosphere-shrinking.htm CO2 is blamed for everything. Hot cold….doesn’t matter. Don’t you forget it. Truth is…. Your TSI is missing CME.

A. Smith
Reply to  A. Smith
October 25, 2014 7:49 pm

Someone please tell me why the dst index can no longer crack -150

October 25, 2014 7:49 pm

“Rapid solar irradiance variations with larger amplitude are superimposed on the 11‐year cycles; decreases on time scales of days to weeks can be as large as 4.6 W m−2.”
Greg Kopp and Judith L. Lean, A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance, 2011
URL:
http://chicagowilderness.org/members/downloads/Strategic/February%2011_CCTF_solar_irradiance.pdf
My comment on Kopp & Lean:
To put this in context, Loeb et al.(2012) cite 0.5 Wm-2 as the radiative imbalance stored in the world ocean.
Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens, Observed changes in top-of-the- radiation and upper-ocean heating within uncertainty Nature Geoscience, 2012 .
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
Variations in solar irradiance were reported in greater detail in 2010 with suggestive indications of regional differences in downward and upward radiative flux.
Pamela E. Mlynczak, G. L. Smith and P. W. Stackhouse Jr. Interannual variations of surface radiation budget, 22nd Conference on Climate Variability and Change, 2010.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/163815.pdf

milodonharlani
Reply to  Fred Colbourne
October 25, 2014 7:57 pm

Reliance on TSI alone in the GCMs is, sad to say, not even the worst assumption behind the GIGO models which the CACA Team imagine to be good enough for policy makers to dismantle civilization.

David Riser
October 25, 2014 8:09 pm

It is interesting that some scientist insist they are measuring all outgoing radiation, even though there are two giant holes where the satellites can not measure, namely the poles. If basic ocean atmospheric theory is right, then heat gets transported to the poles in vast amounts to be radiated into space. In many ways ocean science is only possible to understand because we assume that the ocean has been around long enough to achieve equilibrium. So energy in by definition has to equal energy out for the total system. Trying to measure most of the earth and all the incoming energy, by definition is not going to be equal. I would say we should do a better job of measuring but in reality, there are many more important things to spend money on!

george e. smith
October 25, 2014 8:13 pm

“”””……Figure 1. Variations in TSI. The upper panel (red) shows the actual measured TSI. …..”
I think that I read here that this is variations in TSI , and I believe you stated that means Total Solar Irradiance, and I also read the above excerpted annotation, that the red shows the actual measured TSI, which I take to mean that these numbers are taken from an actual radiometer instrument, rather than derived from some model formula.
Now I actually have such a radiometer of sorts; not as sophisticated, as NASA satellite borne instruments, and calibrated to read in a different set of units, so I have to apply a conversion factor, to get W/m^2.
Also, I have to measure at sea level, so I lose in the atmosphere transmission.
And never ever have I got a reading as low as 330 to 350 W/m^2.
So I would really like to see an actual photograph of an actual radiometer instrument readout that reads numbers like those red ones.
Numbers derived from a climate model, are NOT “actual measured numbers”.

David Riser
Reply to  george e. smith
October 25, 2014 8:25 pm

Your post brings up the other problem, the TSI being discussed is the average for the earth. The spot directly in line with the sun is about 1360. Half the earth is at 0. The side facing the sun goes from very small to a maximum of 1360 or so. Averages, means etc are useless for models because they create strange behavior in the model. To be accurate the model has to actually get relatively accurate numbers. I can’t imagine that any good modeler would actually use an average like that. So mostly the idea of an Average TSI is not a very good way to talk about TSI related to Climate. Particularly if Willis’s Hypothesis is true. What makes his Hypothesis so powerful is that the clouds would be moderating a 1360 W/MSquared signal. So small variations in cloud cover would have a huge change in energy into the system. In practice this is demonstrated by the strange cap to surface ocean temperatures in the tropics. So your correct, it is highly unlikely that you would ever get a reading as low as 330-350 in the middle of the day.

Robert B
Reply to  David Riser
October 25, 2014 10:04 pm

a^4+b^4 doesn’t equal (a+b)^4
Being a bit more serious – could it be that the difference in albedo during the summer months at the poles is enough to negate the difference (as well as a little lag in response)?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 8:09 pm

For a^4+b^4 = (a+b)^4, there are uncountably infinite number of solutions for a when b is 0, and vice versa!

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 11:01 pm

Well Willis, I don’t believe I’m wrong at all.
“”””…Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). …”””
See it says TSI is the “total” amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It doesn’t say it is the “average” value over the earth.
And let’s all just ignore, like good scientists, that it is not energy at all, but the instantaneous areal density of POWER; the instantaneous rate at which solar energy arrives at earth orbit. Power is not an average of anything, it is a differential instantaneous quantity. The “average” power delivered by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, is almost unmeasurable. But that city did not respond to that average power, it reacted to the instantaneous power in real time, and was completely destroyed.
The earth also responds to the instantaneous power from the sun in real time, and it has a value of about 1362 +/- 45 W/m^2 over the course of a yearly orbit of the sun. And those are the numbers that are reported from the several satellites that continuously measure it.
You don’t have to explain to me about dividing by four. That is a necessary fiction of a model, that thinks the earth responds to averages. And nobody ever measured an average; it is a computed number from a model.
No matter how long you wait, you can never boil an egg on a sidewalk that receives a continuous “tsi” input of 340 W/m^2.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 27, 2014 1:27 pm

Willis Eschenbach
October 27, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Finally, are there times when an average can mislead us? Most certainly, particularly averages of intensive quantities. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fond of averages. I use them with caution.
But TSI is an extensive quantity, so perhaps you could give us a real-world example of where using a global 24/7 TSI average, when discussing the global situation, has actually led us to a false conclusion that would have been avoided using the observational data.

I’ll give you a quick one: The so-called Arctic death spiral falls on its face if you don’t use “global averages and average albedos and average solar exposure times over average months.”
Analyze the solar radiation absorbed and reflected from Arctic sea ice and from open ocean water through a clear atmosphere at the latitude of the edge of the measured sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic for every day of the year and for every hour of every day. For seven month’s of the year, more heat energy is lost from the open Arctic ocean compared to an ice-covered Arctic than is gained by the “darker albedo” of the open Arctic Ocean. Less Arctic sea ice, more energy losses seven months of the year.
But, every month of the year, more energy is reflected from the ever-expanding Antarctic sea ice than was absorbed by its formerly open surface. The difference becomes particularly striking when you realize that the lowest measured albedo of Arctic sea ice occurs at the same time of the year as the lowest TOA radiation values. But when Antarctic sea ice is exposed to continuous sunlight – while it is NOT at its minimum extents yet! – it is receiving 92 watts/sec MORE solar radiation than the Arctic sea ice was up north under its partial sunlight. Look at both at March 22: Exactly equal sunlight hours, but the Arctic sea ice edge is at its maximum extents at latitude 70 – 71 north. The Antarctic sea ice is expanding from its minimum, but is also at latitude 67.5 south. Both receive about the same energy, right?
Now look at the other equinox: The Antarctic sea ice is near maximum at latitude 58-59 south, but the Arctic sea cie is at its yearly minimum of 3 – 4 Mkm^2 at latitude 78 – 79 – 80 north. Sure, the two areas receive the same hours of sunlight. But each square meter of Antarctic sea ice receives five times the solar energy the Arctic sea ice receives!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 27, 2014 11:48 pm

All frequencies? How did they measure the microwave energy? And at the other end ultra high UV and x rays? Or did they measure it at all? No where is the energy flux explained or the spectrum isolated. You do know why c4 plants start to change when the earth shifts in the fall. I know .. the atmosphere filters out a certain frequency 770 nanometers. Wait is that infrared?? Did they actually measure the frequency of microwave radiation that water responds to? WHOA call the CAGW people co2 is going to cause plants to stop blooming in the spring. So many averages!!! The IPCC averaged the spectrum response, (if they did that) then they averaged the totals… and then averaged the averages… I don’t think they did much science, I think they are guessing to prove a point.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 28, 2014 12:16 am

rishrac October 27, 2014 at 11:48 pm
All frequencies? … Or did they measure it at all?

This is one the most persistent misconceptions on this topic. YES we measure ALL frequencies by the simplest of methods: letting raw sunlight fall into the sensor and measuring how much the sensor heats up [actually the sensor is kept at a constant temperature and the electric current needed to heat the sensor to keep it at a constant temperature is a measure of the energy received by the sensor – but this is a detail]

Mike Wryley
October 25, 2014 8:25 pm

Most amplifiers I would consider useful have an input, an output, and some kind power requirement. Just where would this TSI amplifier get its power from ?

milodonharlani
Reply to  Mike Wryley
October 25, 2014 8:29 pm
Mike Wryley
Reply to  milodonharlani
October 26, 2014 1:03 pm

The TSI both the input and the power supply ?
BS, someone has concocted a clever sounding phrase and built a fable around it

Joel O'Bryan
October 25, 2014 9:07 pm

W-
If you XY plotted your 3rd (difference) graph’s data vs. the SSN record since 2000, then you’d probably have an R^2 of about 0.9. That graph is just another proxy for the 11 year solar (last half of 23, first half of 24) cycle. And we’ve gone over that many times here at WUWT, ad nauseum, on the full historical SSN vs temp anomalies, etc.
Meanwhile KC is getting spanked by SF, dangit!!!
Cheers,
Joel

Paul Westhaver
October 25, 2014 9:33 pm

…Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature….
Actually…
…Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI [influence] some [unknown] mechanism, and these small changes in TSI [contribute] to an observable difference in temperature….

bones
October 25, 2014 9:59 pm

I just did a quick run through the thermal lag effects to be expected due to the oceans. All else being equal, about 160/240 of that 11 w/m^2 oscillation amplitude ought to be absorbed by the oceans. Earthly surface temperatures aren’t going anywhere without the ocean surfaces going along. The result of the calculation is about a 0.2 C temperature oscillation amplitude repeating yearly with a normal seaonal lag. My guess is that cloud and wind pattern variations would smear that out into something much smaller yet.

bones
October 25, 2014 10:04 pm

Willis, Thanks for asking a very pertinent question. Very astute! Clearly there must be a very strong negative feedback somewhere or those ocean temperature variations would stick out like a sore thumb.

Robert B
October 25, 2014 10:10 pm

There is this interesting plot http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/relationship-of-sea-level-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-along-the-equator/ (that for me makes the satellite data look suspicious) that shows there is a large effect of changing ocean currents on global temperature and everything else is insignificant.

October 25, 2014 10:18 pm

My question is, if the tiny eleven-year changes in TSI of a quarter of a W/m2 cause an observable change in the temperature, then where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth? That annual change is a thousand times the size of the eleven-year TSI change. Where is the effect of that 22 W/m2 change?

At the risk of stating the obvious and of asking a really silly question, why are there two peaks and one trough every 12 months in the seasonal component of TSI shown in fig1? If it is a “global 24/7 average” with global being the operative word, shouldn’t there be two peaks and two troughs in 12 months?
If the answer is yes, then the hemispherical changes would cancel each other.
If there is a “real” global annual change in TSI it should be occurring every three months (Equinox, solstice, equinox, solstice).
My apologise Willis, if I’ve been impertinent.
I did struggle to understand what you meant.
cheers,
Scott

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
October 25, 2014 10:32 pm

There is one peak [on Jan. 4th] and one trough [on June 4th] each year as is clear from Willis’s graph.

Vic Titious
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 25, 2014 11:07 pm

So Svalgaard, the peak in Willis’s graph coinciding closely with NH winter, which also coincides closely with perihelion, means that NH winters are both shorter and receive more insolation than SH winters. Does this not mean that the solar variation portion of global warming would necessarily be more pronounced in the NH?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 2:11 am

Thank you for entertaining a fool! I was mixing up the word seasonal and thinking of axis tilt and not perihelion and aphelion!
cheers,
Scott

Bair Polaire
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
October 26, 2014 12:36 am

Only even year dates are given, the odd year dates are omitted. There is only one peak and one trough every 12 months – as is should be.

October 25, 2014 10:33 pm

TSI reconstructions completed by solar scientists show between 1.5 W/m2 and 2 W/m2 and 3.5 W/m2 of TSI increases just between 1900 and 1950, and between 2.5 W/m2 and 3 W/m2 and 4.5 W/m2 of TSI increases since the 1600s/1700s:
———————————————-
http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Scafetta-fig-1.png
———————————————
But the real solar forcing comes in shortwave, especially from variations in clouds and aerosol depth that allow more or less solar radiation to penetrate the Earth’s oceans. These changes in albedo dwarf the radiative forcing power of CO2.
Here’s what the IPCC says about the total amount of radiative forcing in W/m2 contributed by human activity (mostly burning fossil fuels) from the years 1750-2005:
————————————————-
“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.”
————————————————-
So, according to the IPCC, the total amount of radiative forcing contributed by humans to the energy flux balance has been just 1.6 W/m2 during the 256 years between 1750 and 2005. The IPCC authors also wrote this about how climate change occurs:
————————————————
“Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents. All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes.” —IPCC AR4
————————————————
Of course, (3) is where the 1.6 W/m2 of anthropogenic RF comes into play. The changes in surface incident solar radiation (2) are elicited primarily by changes in clouds and aerosols (albedo). Simply put, more cloudiness and aerosol depth means less sunlight penetrates to the Earth’s surface, or dimming. Less cloudiness and aerosol depth means more sunlight reaches the Earth’s surface, called brightening.
There is a well documented record of global brightening and global dimming trends during the 20th century. And this record clearly shows a correlation with temperature, and a much, much stronger radiative forcing (W/m2) influence relative to the anthropogenic influence. During the 1980s to 2000s alone, albedo changes (brightening) contributed between 2.5 and 10 W/m2 of radiative forcing, which directly corresponds to the warming that took place during this period. This easily dwarfs the radiative forcing strength of the anthropogenic influence alleged by the IPCC (0.3 W/m2 per decade between 1951 and 2011).
——————————
Below are just some of the many papers that document the global brightening and dimming trends of the 20th century, including the dimming that led to flat to cooler temperatures during the 1950s-1980s, and the brightening that led to the warmer temperatures in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
—————————————
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
—————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021877/abstract
Radiative forcing in both the short and long-wave lengths reaching the Earth’s surface accounted for more than 80% of the inter-annual variations in the mean yearly temperatures measured at Potsdam, Germany during the last 120 years [1893-2012]. Three-quarters of the increase in the long-wave flux was due to changes in the water content of the lower atmosphere; the remainder [25%] was attributed to increases in CO2 and other anthropogenic, radiatively active gases. Over the period radiative forcing in the short-wave flux [solar forcing] slightly exceeded [0.76 W/m2 per decade] that in the long wave [0.64 W/m2 per decade].
[The total long term radiative forcing for the Sun was 9.12 W/m2 for the 120-year period. The total long term radiative forcing from CO2 was 1.92 W/m2 for the 120-year period.]
—————-
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00482.1?journalCode=clim
Surface incident solar radiation G determines our climate and environment, and has been widely observed with a single pyranometer since the late 1950s. Such observations have suggested a widespread decrease between the 1950s and 1980s (global dimming), that is, at a rate of −3.5 W m−2 decade−1 (or −2% decade−1) from 1960 to 1990. Since the early 1990s, the diffuse and direct components of G have been measured independently, and a more accurate G has been calculated by summing these two measurements. Data from this summation method suggest that surface incident solar radition increased at a rate of 6.6 W m−2decade−1 (3.6% decade−1) from 1992 to 2002 (brightening) at selected sites.
—————-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014007456
Total global solar shortwave (G) irradiation and sunshine duration were recorded at nine Spanish stations located in the Iberian Peninsula. Averaged series (using the nine locations) showed a statistically significant decrease in annual G [global dimming] from 1950 to the mid 1980s (−1.7%dc−1) [-8.5 W/m2] together with a significant increase [global brightening] from the mid 1980s to 2011 (1.6%dc−1) [+8 W/m2].
—————–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011290/abstract
The decadal trend shown in the 5-year running mean indicates a period of rapid increase [solar radiation reaching the surface/brightening] starting in late 1930s and continuing to early 1950s with a change of 10 W m2. The dimming trend from the early 1950s to the late 1980s shows a decrease of 13 W m2. The subsequent increase starting in late 1980s is about 10 W m 2 by 2005. These changes are not confined to a small number of stations in western Europe, but shared by more than 400 other sites where global irradiance has been continuously observed for more than 40 years.
—————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015396/abstract
We find distinct patterns of dimming and brightening in the aerosol optical depth and thus clear-sky downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) in all analyzed subregions. The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m−2 per decade [8.5 W m−2 total], in line with observations).
——————
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year [3.04 W/m-2 total].
——————
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface [between 1979 and 2011].
——————
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
Literature estimates for the overall SSR decline during dimming (1950s to 1980] range from 3 to 9 W m−2, and from 1 to 4 W m−2 for the partial recovery during subsequent brightening [1980s to 2000] (Stanhill and Moreshet 1992; Liepert et al. 1994; Abakumova et al. 1996; Gilgen et al. 1998; Stanhill and Cohen 2001; Alpert et al. 2005; Kvalevag and Myhre 2007; Kim and Ramanathan 2008; Wild 2009).
——————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4107/abstract
The annual sunshine duration mean time series shows a decrease from the early 1960s to the late 1970s [in Iran], in line with the widespread dimming of surface solar radiation observed during this period. By the early 1980s, there is an increase in sunshine through the end of the 20th century, aligning with a well-known and well-documented brightening period.

Victor Frank
October 25, 2014 10:54 pm

TSI does not tell the whole story. UV and X-ray energy is deposited directly to the atmosphere, the shorter wavelength to the ionosphere, the longer wavelengths additionally to the stratosphere {ozone}. Most of the sun’s radiation is at visual wavelengths for which the atmosphere is mostly transparent). That part of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected by clouds reaches the surface of the Earth where some is reflected {albedo} and the rest heats the surface, resulting eventually heating the troposphere (conduction, convection and latent heat). Radiation of heat takes place all the time, in the infrared part of the spectrum, but it is not as efficient a transmitter of heat.as the modes previously mentioned.
Over the course of the solar sunspot cycle, the free electron densities in the ionosphere may vary by a factor of 1.5 or greater, Temperatures and densities (at given heights) go up resulting in increased drag on satellites.
How much coupling is there between the upper layers and the lower troposphere?

george e. smith
Reply to  Victor Frank
October 26, 2014 11:12 pm

Well when I was in school, the best measured value of TSI was 1353 W/m^2, not 1366.5 as in your fictional reconstruction.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 26, 2014 11:17 pm

Science progresses. The current value is 1361 W/m^2 which is the energy per unit time [second] impinging normally on a unit area [square meter]

ren
October 25, 2014 11:24 pm

Exists at the poles (polar vortex). It is obvious.

October 25, 2014 11:29 pm

“The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings.” This statement is certainly true and applies to CO2 ‘forcing’ as well as TSI. At present all we can do is measure temperatures on various parts of the Earth and record the results. There are no working models of any sort for either CO2 or TSI ‘forcing’..At present the record is unwavering and it looks like clouds are still doing their job. Thanks Water.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
October 26, 2014 12:48 am

I presented a paper titled “Power Spectral Analysis of Total & Net Radiation” at a symposium on Earth’s Near Space Environment, 18-21 February 1975, held at the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi and the same was published in Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, 6: 60-66 [1977]. In this study I observed the Total Solar radiation and net radiation intensities show sunspot cycle (10.5 years) and its multiples [21 & 42 years]. Solar flares follow the Sunspot cycle. At the same symposium I presented a paper titled “Effect of Solar Flares on Lower Tropospheric Temperature & Pressure”, which was published in Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, 6: 44-50 [1977]. I observed that the effect of solar flare is observed within 24 hr of the flare outburst only. —– but this variation shows a considerable relation to the general circulation pattern [high pressure or low pressure systems] over the region in different seasons. This paper was one of the 15 papers identified as research of unusual interest from the entire literature published around the world up to around 1975 by SCOSTEP [Scientific Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics] under the Academy of Sciences of USA [abstract volumes were published in 1977].
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

richard verney
October 26, 2014 12:49 am

Willis
You State:
“where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth? That annual change is a thousand times the size of the eleven-year TSI change. Where is the effect of that 22 W/m2 change?
To get an idea of the predicted effect of this variation in TSI, using IPCC figures this TSI change of 22 W/m2 is about the same change in forcing that we would get from six doublings of CO2 … that is to say, CO2 going from the current level (400 ppmv) to the extraordinary level of 25,600 ppmv.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why not ask the other obvious question: namely given that we know that an annual variation of 22W/m2 which according to the IPCC, if they are correct, is the equivalent to some 6 doublings of CO2 leads to annual variation of just a few degrees C (ie., the difference between average GLOBAL temperatures when the Northern Hemisphere experiences its summer, and the average GLOBAL temperature when the Northern Hemishpere experiences its winter), what does this suggest about climate sensitivity to a change in forcing of just 3.7 W/m2 additional forcing?
Now I know that there are claims of CO2 residency times and lags etc which some would argue are such that one cannot make such a simple comparison.
But then again, it is those very same issues (which is predominantly the lag in heating up the oceans) that appear to make your question, regarding the effect in annual variation of TSI, equally invalid for considering the long term effects of changes in forcings running noy for months but for tens of years.

A C Osborn
Reply to  richard verney
October 26, 2014 3:44 am

Richard, the equator has a fairly constant insolation and very little temp changes, but in the NH we get about a 22 degree C change in Average Temp in the UK, it is much higher further North, ie way over 40 degrees C in Russia etc.
What is the change in Insolation between Summer and Winter in the UK region.
The larger the disparity between the equator and the poles the quicker the energy will be moved out to space from the poles.
So the average TSI does not tell the whole story of our climate, has anyone mapped the insolation over the whole of the Earth’s surface?
Also concentrating on onlyTSI ignores the Solar Wind/Cosmic Rays and any Magnetic Coupling between the Sun and the Planets.

Frank
Reply to  richard verney
October 28, 2014 2:15 pm

Richard: 22 W/m2 is only equivalent to 6 doublings of CO2 after equilibrium is reached. That is why they call it EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity. Below I calculated that it takes more that 36 years to for an 18 W/m2 forcing to warm the atmosphere and mixed layer. Long before then, Planck feedback and transport of heat below the mixed layer will slow the actual warming rate. From a practical perspective, the forcing is oscillating much faster than the planet’s thermal inertia (heat capacity) can respond, so it has negligible effect.
It also turns out that mean global temperature is highest (+1.5 degK above average) during summer in the NH – when solar radiation is lowest! See my full comments below.

richard verney
October 26, 2014 1:05 am

CORRECTION
Further to my post at 12:49 am, the concluding part should have rad:
“equally invalid for considering the long term effects of changes in forcings running not for months but for a few years.”

David A
Reply to  richard verney
October 26, 2014 11:49 am

Richard, you do understand that the sign for GAT in the SH summer when the earth is closest to the Sun is negative. The GAT response to plus 90 watt per M sq is cooling.

sophocles
October 26, 2014 1:18 am

Vic Titious wrote:
October 25, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Given that the NH winter is at aphelion, …
=================================================================
Wrong.
NH winter is at perihelion, along with SH summer. (Jan 4th 2014)
NH summer, along with SH winter is at aphelion. (July 3rd 2014)

verbascose
October 26, 2014 1:54 am

It should be obvious that all this is largely caused by thermal inertia and nothing else. Just consider the diurnal cycle: depending on the latitude of your location, there is a dramatic “forcing” of up to 1360 W/m^2 (at the equator) from dawn till noon, but the temperature response is also just 10°C or so. Likewise, the diurnal response is much less on or near the sea compared with dry places in the center of continents (e.g., the Sahara desert). Obviously, it’s the heat capacity of water causing the differences. Climate models easily capture these cycles, because the physics are quite simple. However, if one considers models as evil (as this blog usually does), one is left with useless speculations.

Mike M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 10:36 am

Verbascose if right. Thermal inertia (heat capacity) does not stop temperature changes, it damps them. And time scale matters, if the sun disappears for a few hours, the temperature change is much smaller than if it disappears for a few months.
Thermal inertia is much greater over water than land since convection can transfer heat deep into a body of water.
The heat capacity of the mixed layer of the ocean is something like 13 W-yr/m^2/K. So the seasonal change of 3.8 W/m^2 (see note) produces only a modest annual swing in mean global temperature. But a sustained change of 3.7 W/m^2 will produce, over time, a much larger change in temperature.
Note: I have corrected Eschebach’s error in units and accounted for the Earth’s albedo. I consistently use m^2 of the Earth’s surface, the value of 22 W/m^2 is for m^2 normal to the solar flux. There is a factor of 4 difference (the difference between the area of a circle and the area of a sphere with the same radius. And about 30% of solar radiation is reflected.

Mike M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 10:53 am

Oops. I owe Eschenbach an apology; he did include the factor of four. So corrected for albedo, the seasonal change is 15 W/m2.
Mike M.

verbascose
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 2:15 pm

Well, you compare a forcing over a century or so with the insolation changes over just one year, and I just do the same with your annual insolation changes: I compare it with a forcing over a much shorter time span. And it turns out that the time *does* matter a lot: thermal inertia *do* dampen the swings. That’s why the diurnal swings are somewhere in the same ballpark as those during the annual cycle, despite being caused by a dramatically higher forcing.
The prime cause is, as Mike M pointed out already, heat capacity. You have to take it into account and do the maths before making any claim.

Brian R
October 26, 2014 2:00 am

It would be interesting to see, if available, a histogram of various wavelengths over time. Then one could see if there was any correlation with the various wavelengths and temperature over time. To limit ones view to TSI is narrow minded.

October 26, 2014 2:19 am

if the tiny eleven-year changes in TSI of a quarter of a W/m2 cause an observable change in the temperature, then where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth? That annual change is a thousand times the size of the eleven-year TSI change.

22 W/m2 is approximately one hundred times a quarter of a W/m2, not a thousand times
/ Jan
[Thanks, Jan. Fixed. -w]

Andrew
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 26, 2014 4:44 am

Quite so.
Did the rest of the calcs assume 22W (correctly) or 1000x (incorrectly)?

October 26, 2014 2:24 am

Looking at estimated global mean temperatures by month for the 20thC, the NCDC finds on average a 3.8C temperature difference between January and July. A jolt of this magnitude can be expected every year, year after year, and yet we have seen no tipping points, no mass extinctions, no etc etc. This is a genuine change in external forcing at the TOA. Work back to get an estimate of climate sensitivity on the scale of months.
Source: NVDC reports. e.g. for the last complete yer, 2013:
January 2013: ‘The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since records began in 1880, at 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F).’ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/1
July 2013: ‘The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2013 was the sixth highest on record, at 0.61°C (1.10°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).’
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7
Although we are closer to the sun in January than in July, the extensive land area of the northern hemisphere makes the northern summer have the warmest global mean temps.

October 26, 2014 2:30 am

according to the IPCC, using their central value of 3°C warming per doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2 additional forcing), this change in forcing should be accompanied by a change in temperature of no less than 18°C (32°F).
Now, I can accept that this would be somewhat reduced because of the thermal lag of the climate system. But the transient (immediate) climate response to increased forcing is said to be on the order of 2°C per doubling of CO2. So this still should result in a warming of 12°C (22°F)

When talking about the size of the transient climate response one has to relate it to a timeframe. The shorter timeframe you use, the lower transient climate response you will get. The annual changes in TSI is a much shorter timeframe than the IPCC use when the transient climate response is calculated.
When estimating the transient climate response to 2°C the scenario used by IPCC is the immediate measured response when CO2 increases with 1% annually. That means that it takes approximately 70 years to double the level. This means that most of the effect of a doubling has been going on for decades when the transient response is measured.
The 2°C is therefore not an immediate response to an immediate change in forcing, it is and immediate response to a gradual change in forcing. If you want to measure the effect of annual TSI variations on climate you need to know the transient climate response to a change in forcing in less than a year, and that is much smaller.
I have never seen a transient climate response on a sub annual timeframe estimated anywhere, but it would indeed be interesting to see it.
/Jan

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 26, 2014 2:38 am

seems spot on to me

David A
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 26, 2014 4:45 am

True, but the GAT atmospheric observed response to this immense change in TSI, which is about 90 W/m2 at the TOA, is to cool. I think a better formation of Willis question is to ask does the earth gain or lose energy during perihelion? Clearly the atmosphere loses energy, but how much is entering the oceans?

October 26, 2014 2:35 am

If the annual variation is that large in W/m2, we can surely get a value for the response delay, and then look for the same, more attenuated, signal of longer term changes in irradiance?

October 26, 2014 3:12 am

Your analysis leaves out the bicentennial component of the TSI. when both the 11 year cycle and the bicentennial component are both taken into account then it is clear that the decline of the TSI will lead to a new ice age. The decline is not compensated by a decrease in the thermal energy emitted into space from the earth. See work of Dr H Abdussamatov of Polkovo Observatory St Petersburg http://www.ccsenet.org Applied Physics Research Vol 4 No1 feb 2012 This is on my blog 12 March 2013 http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk

beng
Reply to  Terri Jackson
October 26, 2014 8:13 am

Ice-ages occur from regional (Milankovitch) solar changes, not overall TSI changes.

October 26, 2014 3:49 am

Terri Jackson says “Your analysis leaves out the bicentennial component of the TSI. when both the 11 year cycle and the bicentennial component are both taken into account then it is clear that the decline of the TSI will lead to a new ice age. ”
In addition to a cycle of 208 years which has recently turned downwards, there is a 2300 year cycle which is still on the increase for a long time to come. No ice age yet.

Scottish Sceptic
October 26, 2014 3:56 am

I just assumed this this was either so small as to have no effect or it was hidden by their adjustments to the temperature data.
If as you say it is the equivalent of going from 400 ppmv to the extraordinary level of 25,600 ppmv, it appears to be unequivocal proof of what I have been saying which is that the feedback effects are overwhelmingly negative for increases in CO2.
The best estimate of the direct effect of CO2 is 0.6 for a doubling of CO2 by Hermann Harde (uniquely using the latest spectral data for HITRAN).
I was suggesting modest feedbacks so a likely actual warming of 0.4C/ doubling. I think your figures suggest an even higher level of feedbacks so I’d now suggest 0.2-0.3 / doubling.
In other words, an order of magnitude less than the IPCC “unequivocal” predictions.

October 26, 2014 4:41 am

“I say this lack of an effect of the TSI changes is because the climate system responds to the current conditions. The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings. Instead, it reacts, it responds, it evolves and varies based on the instantaneous local situations everywhere. In particular, when it is cold we get less tropical clouds, and that increases the energy entering the system.” I think the Wiilis’ arguments are correct. The global temperature has its maximum in Jul and its minimum in Jan. The earth is nearest to the sun in Dec. This seasonal effect is mainly caused by the unequal distribution of land and oceans on both hemispheres. The TSI changes are a small correction to the difference between the extremes of the global temperatures.

beng
October 26, 2014 4:44 am

Thanks, Willis.

MikeB
October 26, 2014 4:46 am

…why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature

Well, I can’t give a good mathematical answer to that either but I can offer some interesting facts to speculate on.
Surprisingly, global mean temperatures are higher when the Earth is farthest from the Sun! This occurs in July and coincides with the Northern Hemisphere(NH) summer. Because land masses warm more readily than oceans (and the NH has more land mass) the world is actually warmer, even though it is receiving 22 W/m2 less energy from the Sun.
Furthermore, because most land is in the NH, CO2 levels decrease in the NH spring (photosynthesis) and are at their highest in the NH winter.

Reply to  MikeB
October 26, 2014 4:51 am

The NCDC estimates a mean global temperature difference, averaged over the 20thC, of 3.8C between January and July.

Dodgy Geezer
October 26, 2014 4:58 am

… I ask you why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature. …
System lag is greater than 6 months?

John Finn
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 26, 2014 5:28 am

System lag is greater than 6 months?

But is it? If we look at individual locations we note they are warmer in the summer (and cooler in the winter) with a lag of about 6 weeks or so between maximum (minimum) insolation.
Is it worth looking at the annual temperature cycle of locations “close to the equator” to see if they reflect, not only the seasonal cycle, but also the annual variation in solar energy.

Bill Illis
October 26, 2014 5:49 am

The North Atlantic sea surface temperature does vary by an effective radiating value of 26 W/m2 over the seasonal cycle (+/-.13 W/m2).
Its just radiating at an effective value of 411 W/m2 in early April and 437 W/m2 in early September versus the solar insolation average of 240 W/m2 in the area (by chance, the north Atlantic on average receives exactly the global solar insolation value).
The average climatology in degrees C of the North Atlantic defined by the AMO region by month.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.climo.data
So, it is 170 W/m2 higher than the solar insolation value due to the greenhouse effect and it is affected by the northern hemisphere solar insolation seasonal cycle (versus the global insolation cycle) and it is lagged about 80 days behind the peak solar insolation cycle on June 21.
Thus, there is the greenhouse effect to take into account and the long lags (slow drawdowns and slow accumulations of joules over time that matter exhibits) and then different distribution of that matter in the hemispheres (oceans versus land versus ice which all have different joule absorption/drawdown rates) .
No answer but a description of where the answer lays.

October 26, 2014 5:53 am

The model used by Dan Pangburn is very easy to understand and gives convincing results. He uses the method used by control engineers, which I understand well as I have been dealing with control engineering for decades and been a lecturer in the University of Iceland where I thought control theory for several years. (Text book Ogata). I also have a fair understanding of thermodynamics having worked in the geothermal field for decades.
It is wrong to compare the TSI and atmospheric/sea temperture directely. That does not work. The better method is to compare the time integral of TSI with the temperature trend, but the best and correct method is to use a model similar to the one used by Dan which uses the time integral of TSI as well as the radiation dissipation to space.
Dan Pangburn, who has a MSc degree in mechanical engineering, used his good knowledge of thermodynamics and control theory to make his model that is described here at Hockey Schtick http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html
His model is very convincing. The result is as expected.
Image:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hZs bryXH5c/Uo_Qzo1q3OI/AAAAAAAAAKM/VS6yWWq1wj4/s400/Slide1.JPG

October 26, 2014 6:12 am

My comments seem to be trapped in a queue somewhere, so there is a chance this one will be a repeat of an earlier one yet to be liberated. Or, it might just join it in limbo.
There is about a 4C shift in global mean surface temperature every year as we orbit the sun. This is a response to a genuine change in external forcing at the top of the atmosphere.
Here are some results for the last complete year, 2013, in January and July from the NCDC:
January 2013: ‘The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since records began in 1880, at 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F).’ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/1
July 2013: ‘The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2013 was the sixth highest on record, at 0.61°C (1.10°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).’
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7

David Riser
Reply to  John Shade
October 26, 2014 12:31 pm

Except the direction is wrong. So its not the sun’s forcing. We are closer to the sun in January than July!

Reply to  David Riser
October 26, 2014 3:19 pm

What a difference the land makes!

David A
Reply to  David Riser
October 27, 2014 3:20 am

“What a difference the land makes!”
and or, what a difference the oceans make. plus 90 watts per m-sq entering the oceans. TSI which strikes the land is instantly re-emitted to the atmosphere. TSI which penetrates below the ocean surface is lost to the atmosphere , some of it for just a bit, some of it for decades, some for longer. So the real question to be answered is does the earth gain or lose energy at this time.

October 26, 2014 6:56 am

How come no one ever steps back and looks at the big picture? There is a hot layer just below the surface of the Ocean (heated by the Sun of course). Heat flux from this area is primarily by conduction (360˚) This area and the corresponding ocean has a huge thermal mass…. This thermal mass quite effectively dampens and often eliminates temperature changes from daily 8000w changes in solar radiation.
To think that a few watts of radiation that penetrate deeper into the ocean than average can make a measurable change to the surface temperature is, how shall I put it? Odd?

Scute
October 26, 2014 6:59 am

Paul Westhaver on 25th Oct at 9:33 says:
…Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature….
Actually…
…Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI [influence] some [unknown] mechanism, and these small changes in TSI [contribute] to an observable difference in temperature….
Paul, thanks for clearing that up. I’ll go further…
There’s much confusion that results from the use of the word ‘amplified’. Although it might be a useful analogy in very general terms, it is really only moderation of the existing TSI input via attenuation that can have any hypothetical effect.
In other words, the hypothetical moderating mechanism is to do with the attenuation of TSI from some slightly higher value that it would have had in the absence of that mechanism. If the mechanism diminishes in its effectiveness for some reason, it will moderate/attenuate TSI to a lesser degree. This lesser attenuation will result in TSI increasing somewhat, though still under the influence of moderation- that is where the word ‘amplification’ is introduced erroneously. It clearly can’t be amplified using some additional outside energy source, that is, a power source in addition to the Sun.
This is why Mike Wryley (Oct 25th at 8:25 pm) asked a perfectly reasonable question regarding the fact that all amplifiers need an external power source so where did this amplifier’s source come from? But there is no amplifier, just a (hypothesised) attenuator. That attenuator just happens to mimic the behaviour of an amplifier when it begins to lose its moderating capacity and allows the TSI input to rise.
I think the word ‘amplified’ and any of its derivatives should not be used when discussing this purported moderating mechanism. I’ve seen it used in several discussions including David Evans’ solar notch filter. I’m not sure in which cases it is used carelessly and in which cases it is used with intent to obfuscate the issue and make the hypothetical moderating mechanism appear to defy the laws of thermodynamics. It certainly can sound that way in some carefully constructed contexts.
I admit that even my use of the word, ‘attenuated’ could cause confusion because it suggests ‘absorption’ of TSI when I really mean partial ‘blocking’ via any hypothetical means (including increased reflectance via enhanced albedo- the opposite of absorption!).
Any suggestions for a clear unambiguous term to describe the moderation/attenuation effect as opposed to the spurious ‘amplification’ effect? If we settle on an unambiguous term for it we can move the discussion on from semantics that confuse us to the actual discussion of whether the mechanism exists or not.

October 26, 2014 7:18 am

Our Sun is pretty old already, it is like a man at the 50s or so, so it might have caughing problems, we need to know that our star is pretty sedentary, it moves only aorund the center of our galaxy.
Anyway, until it will live, it will give us tons of free energy every second.
The issue is only with us because our technologies are not yet developed enough to harvest this energy in an efficient mode, we only try to convert the sunshine into DC which is not good for our electrical grids and we use Inverters and solar batteries to store the clean energy produced.
All these devices which are connected together lose energy between them and because either way solar panels are not yet very efficient, we have access to only a small part of the energy sent by our old Sun.
I read on: http://www.alternative-energies.net/solar-arrays-along-highways-in-minnesota/
that for example in Minnesota, the government will build solar arrays along the state highway and that is a perfect choice for any U.S. state.

Parakoch
October 26, 2014 7:33 am

This annual change in TSI should result in winters being warmer in the NH than in the SH (and conversely summers being cooler in the NH than in the SH). However, there is an offsetting effect due to the fact that the NH has more land mass, which cools the NH winters, and warms the NH summers… Though luck.

rogerknights
October 26, 2014 7:41 am

My Request—if you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. This allows us all to understand just what you think is incorrect.

Anthony–these words of Willis’s deserve to be in your site rules. (If they aren’t there already.)

Nigel Harris
October 26, 2014 7:52 am

Any impact of the regular annual variation in TSI would show up as a regular seasonal change in temperature. It would therefore be eliminated from the temperature anomaly records, so no point in looking for it there.
Although the variation in TSI from perihelion to aphelion is order of 100 times larger than the variation in TSI from top to bottom of the 11 year solar cycle, it is also many times less than the annual variation in TSI that occurs at an average location on the globe. At polar locations TSI falls to zero in winter and approaches 1361 W/m2 in the summer. At most latitudes the variation is less than this (and not at all at the equator). I don’t have immediate access to the answer, nor the time to figure out the calculations myself, but because of changing day length, the difference between peak summer TSI and minimum winter TSI at non-tropical locations must be far greater than the annual variation in solar radiation reaching the Earth.
So any impact on temperature of annual variation in TSI, for most locations would be swamped by the far larger signal arising from the seasons and the tilt of the earth’s axis.
If I had to look for the signature of the annual TSI variation in the earth’s temperature records, I’d say, firstly there’s no point looking at anomaly figures at all. It is to be found, if at all, in absolute monthly or daily temperature records. Second, at most latitudes, the seasonal day length variation will swamp it entirely. So I’d look for a small annual variation in equatorial temperature records, with a peak at or soon after January. Or, more subtly, a difference in the seasonal temperature patterns of the NH and SH regions. SH temperatures should be more highly seasonal than NH temperatures because of the coincidence of the seasonal and orbital signals. Obviously this effect would be easily obscured by the different land vs ocean areas in NH and SH, so you’d have to look at land only and ocean only temperatures to detect this effect.
I don’t have time to do the work now, so I don’t know if the signal can be detected. But I think you’d have to look pretty hard to find it in temperature records, and you won’t find it at all if you start with anomalies.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
October 26, 2014 8:28 am

The NCDC reports a mean global average surface temperature for July of 15.8C in the 20th C, and 12.0C for January. See links given earlier.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
October 26, 2014 12:56 pm

I found for the equatorial temperatures in 2014: Global: 26.3°C (Jan) and 25.9 °C (Jul), land only: 25.9 °C (Jan) and 25.0 °C (Jul), oceans only: 26.4 °C (Jan) and 26.1 °C (Jul). So the difference is about 0.6 °C.

dynam01
October 26, 2014 8:06 am

Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
“The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings.”

Cold in Wisconsin
October 26, 2014 9:04 am

Where are the error estimates in the original data above? When discussing changes of 0.25 W/m2 how does that compare to measurement error?

Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
October 26, 2014 11:19 am

The measurement error is 0.002 W/m2

Gary Pearse
October 26, 2014 9:24 am

“….where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth? That annual change is a thousand times the size of the eleven-year TSI change.”
Willis, a little foggy this morning but isn’t 0.2W/m^2, 1/100th of 22W/m^2, not 1/1000th?

October 26, 2014 10:21 am

From Willis
In this way, the system reacts to maintain the same temperature despite the changes in forcing.
Which is proven FALSE by looking at the historical climate record and seeing all the many large abrupt climate changes that have taken place. Stability hardly being the case.
I go by the data , and the data does not support the climate system maintains the same temperatures when changes in forcing take place.

October 26, 2014 10:23 am

Why should there be a correlation between Berkeley Temperature Anomaly and Leif’s historical TSI if 11-year solar variations have no relationship with earths temperature?comment image
The mechanism that is always overlooked is orbital influence on both Solar variations and planetary temperature variations.comment image
And this overlooked orbital influence also correlates well with variations in cosmic radiation.comment image
And higher resolution of cosmic rays show a clear 11-year solar variation.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 26, 2014 1:18 pm

Willis,
Thanks for your suggestion for detailed (and correct) Legends, I’ll make a note for future comments, for the question (solved, it was not Leif’s TSI) and point being made I thought a visual representation of the data and a quick description was sufficient, given that the timing of each component shows an increase and decrease accurately representative of the data used.
The black line in the middle graph is a plot of orbital observations taken every 10 years from a astronomical model based on ephemerides DE102, which is one of two important components that vary with solar observations, (before Leif jumps in at this point with a disagreement, I have worked out and corrected Rudolf Wolf’s equations).

Reply to  Sparks
October 26, 2014 12:42 pm

What you label ‘Svalgaard Historical TSI’ is not what I consider to be correct TSI. Please do not put my name to something I do not endorse or produce.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 1:06 pm

Leif,
My sincere apologies, this was from a excel file labeled “historical_TSI” which I downloaded from a related WUWT post at some point, the Berkeley Temperature anomaly is from a file named “Revised-Group-Numbers” which is yours. The mix-up occurred while working between data sets.. an honest mistake, I’ll immediately amend the reference.
I’ve just noticed it myself as soon as Willis pointed it out.

October 26, 2014 10:28 am

During the approximately 30 year period in which TSI has been measured, it hasn’t varied significantly. Neither have global mean temperatures nor Earth’s overall climate. Good proxies for past TSI, Mean Temperature and Global Climate are very challenging to determine because of our limited understanding of the direct effects of TSI, Mean Temperature and Global Climate on the natural world.
All that said, Leif and others like him are doing fantastic work and discovering important information… Even if it is just looking at statistical static for the blink of an eye in the history of the universe.
(Yes. My background is in geology.)

October 26, 2014 10:32 am

Below is the reason why people have so much trouble in solar/climate relationships. They can’t see the forest through the trees.
As this decade goes by the solar/climate connection will become much clearer. As I have said many factors can obscure this connection when the sun is not in either an extreme active state or an extreme inactive state.
This is why so many get confused when it comes to the solar/climate connection and convince themselves that it does not exist. They are looking for climate silver bullets and not understanding the complexity of the climatic system.
Let me try again here is my previous post with some additions explaining what I mean.
I want to add this, thresholds, lag times, the initial state of the climate(how close to glacial/interglacial conditions climate is( ice dynamic/state of thermohaline circulation phase or AMOC), land/ocean arrangements(altitude of land), earth magnetic field strength , phase of Milankovitch Cycles ,random terrestrial events ,concentrations of galactic cosmic rays within 5 to 10 light years of earth due to super nova or lack of for example, the fact that the climate is non linear is why many times the solar/climate correlation becomes obscured, and why GIVEN solar variability(with associated primary and secondary effects) will not result in the same GIVEN climate response.
What is needed is for the sun to enter extreme quiet conditions or active conditions to give a more clear cut solar/climate connection which I outlined in my previous post.

David A
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
October 26, 2014 10:07 pm

I have observed that no one climate factor appears to have a consistent tell in the climate. Willis, as an example, has done posts on the inconsistency of volcanic eruptions to have their purported cooling affect. The most consistent climate influence I have seen on a short term basis is ESNO phenomena noted in multiple posts by Bob Tisdale. This link shows the close correlation of GAT with the AMO..comment image
As the oceans contain far more energy then the atmosphere, it is not surprising that they drive GAT. (The tail does not wag the dog) Yet oceans cycles are poorly understood and not yet predictable, but I consider it likely that the sun, in conjunction with jet streams and cloud cover , drives the ocean uptake of solar energy.
The solar cycles may well impact these three key areas. Even a small increase in solar activity could over time have a large input into the world’s oceans. Potential cloud and jet stream affects would greatly amplify this.
The annual example of the earth’s atmosphere cooling during a period of plus 90 watts per m insolation, is indicative of both, how an obvious input does not have an obvious affect, (ie, more insolation = cooler atmosphere) and how potent the ocean influence is. I do not know the residence time of this extra energy entering the vast SH oceans, but clearly it is lost to the atmosphere for a time. I have suggested that perhaps the best question to ask about this is, “Does the earth (land, oceans and atmosphere) as a whole gain or lose energy during this period of peak insolation?” So far as I know, no one has answered this.

Reply to  David A
October 26, 2014 10:11 pm

Even a small increase in solar activity could over time have a large input into the world’s oceans
If the sun went totally quiet [no solar activity at all forever], the temperature would indeed fall by 0.03 degrees.

David A
Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 2:16 am

I do not think you are serious; why are you funning my comment?

Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 2:24 am

No, I am very serious. We know today what TSI is when there are no sunspots [as in 2008-2009], namely 1360.6 W/m2, which is 0..6 W/m2 less than the average TSI, so delta T is easily calculated to be 0.03 degrees.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 8:24 am

Leif,
Can you show your work in calculating the .03 degrees?

Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 10:53 am

S = aT^4
dS = 4aT^3 dT
dS/S = 4 dT/T
dT/T = dS/S / 4
dT/T = 0.6/1362 / 4 = 0.00011
dT = 0.00011 * 288 K = 0.03
does that make sense?

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 2:08 pm

>> does that make sense?
No, you should take a course in thermodynamics.
Analogy: A large rainstorm drenches the upper great lakes region for a certain period of time. You’re asked to calculate the effect on water levels in the 5 great lakes. Instead, you calculate the flow through the St Lawrence Seaway.

Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 2:18 pm

I’m sorry that you do not understand the basics of radiation physics, but my calculation is just the standard way this is done. Study this http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf and learn a bit of physics.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 7:53 am

I understand the basics of radiation physics. I got an A in Electromagnetism. However, you got the answer wrong because you failed to understand the problem. My analogy should have given you a clue, but if 7 years hasn’t been enough to convince you to stop twisting science to serve your political agenda, than nothing I say now will sway you. For others, there is no time element involved in his solution. He confuses power with energy. If the storm lasted for 1 day or 6 long rainy months, his answer is the same. This is proof that a PhD means very little. People with bachelors and masters can run rings around most PhDs. In fact, even people without degrees would realize that his answer is completely wrong. There is NO physical law that says that any planet needs to be in radiative balance. That is AGW junk science. Only an idiot would calculate the average temperature at the top of the thermosphere ASSUMING that the earth was losing heat as fast it was being gained, and assuming that thermodynamics is irrelevant. He calculated the increased flow rate going out the St Lawrence (assuming that it was all coming out that way) as if that’s going to help the people in the upper great lakes region know how high the water level was going to get. Like David A said “I do not think you are serious”. He’s serious, but it’s not about science.

Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 8:00 am

VikingExplorer October 28, 2014 at 7:53 am
if 7 years hasn’t been enough to convince you to stop twisting science to serve your political agenda…
I think you just showed your colors here. So, no further discussion makes sense.
There is NO physical law that says that any planet needs to be in radiative balance
Over long enough time, it must be in radiative balance.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 8:14 am

>> Over long enough time, it must be in radiative balance.
You reference a fictional non physical law. No planet is in radiative balance. If it were, it would be dumb luck. Planets have a temperature because they have gravity. They will always radiate out energy because of that temperature. You foolishly reverse cause and effect. They are quite happy to slowly gain or slowly lose energy for eons. Earth is exothermic.

Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 8:18 am

Planets have a temperature because they have gravity.
So, what temperature would our planet have [due to gravity] if you took the Sun away? Show your calculation.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 9:01 am

Jupiter receives only 50 W/m2. Despite this, although it’s a chilly -171F at 1 bar, it’s a toasty 152F just a little ways down (@10bars). I’m waiting for you to provide support for your implication that there is some physical law that requires planets to be in radiative balance. How long has Jupiter been around? How long has it been WAY out of radiative balance? Why hasn’t the temperature dropped?
>> Show your calculation
I had professors like you in college. Ask them a question, and they would say “I’ll get back to you on that” or in your case “no further discussion makes sense”. I’m not your grad student. You failed the test. As my specialty was Power, I really can’t respect someone who confuses power with energy. It’s too basic an error.
Face it, like most planets, Earth is exothermic and always has been. Why hasn’t Earth’s temperature dropped to get back into balance? The answer is that it’s working on it, but the sun may go super nova before that, who knows. So, to solve a problem of the here and now, you made an assumption that may become true eons from now. F for the answer, F for trying, since this was explained to you back in 2007, and in all that time, you never checked your premises, or made any effort to seek the truth.

Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 9:17 am

A planet surface receives heat from two sources: the Sun [and a heated atmosphere] from above and the interior from below. For the planet we care about [the Earth], the former source is more than 5000 times larger than the latter, so the latter can be ignored on time scales we care about. So, again, what would the temperature be if you took the Sun away? To answer this should be easy for someone with an A in radiative physics, so show us your expertise.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Silly Danish fellow: If it stopped raining in the great lakes region, what would happen to the water level of Lake Ontario?
It’s like waiting for Gadot while you provide an actual physical law to support your implication that planets must be in radiative balance, or that thermodynamics is a figment of my imagination.
“[Thermodynamics] holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation”. -Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
You need to collapse in deepest humiliation… You failed the test. You didn’t even get the course correct that I got an A in, let alone understand the difference between power and energy. I’m done schooling you.

David A
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
October 27, 2014 3:41 am

Oh , thanks, I see that by “no solar activity at all forever” you mean no CHANGE in solar activity forever.
I think that the climate is likely not so simple, and many areas we poorly understand, and thus cannot reasonably predict in the future, such as cloud formations and movement of jet stream, may relate to disparate changes in solar activity.
Also I think that the amount of change any one input can have is related much more directly to it individual intensity, or energy level, not to it total energy level. By this I mean that; say ten small flame size heating elements of say only 90 degrees heat, will not heat a large pot of water, no matter how insulated, beyond 90 degrees, as which point the conductive flow between the pot and the 90 degree heating elements will balance. However combine all ten heating elements energy into one intense flame, far hotter but no more total heat or energ, and you can boil the water in a properly insulated pot.
The T that the pot can rise to is determined by the residence time of the energy within the pot, and by the vibrational intensity of the source, not by the total energy output of the source.

Reply to  David A
October 27, 2014 4:08 am

No, I mean that solar activity has gone away, no sunspots, no flares, no CMEs, no nothing.
So no changes in solar activity. Just no solar activity.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  David A
October 28, 2014 7:58 am

Agree David A. Time is important, Energy is important.

October 26, 2014 11:00 am

From Willis: But the system has been stable to within ±1% for the last ten thousand years, hardly a trivial time span … during which time we’ve seen large changes in forcing. In addition, it’s been stable to within ± 0.1% over the last century.
To me, that absolutely shouts the existence of a strong governing mechanism. Thinking that such a ± 0.1% stability occurs without a governor is just wishful thinking.
But how about the previous 100 of thousands of years? Where was this governor then? Did it just suddenly appear out of the thin air some 10000 years ago?
Reason why the climate has been relatively stable the past 10000 years or so goes back to my previous post which is the initial state of the climate (the ice dynamic ) is not there.
As I have said in my previous post given forcing is not going to result in given climate change and I list many reasons why. Nevertheless it is there and it will return just as it did when previous relatively stable inter- glacial periods came to an end.

October 26, 2014 11:39 am

The ratio of maximum to minimum global TSI is about 1.069. Seasonal variations in parts of the world that have seasons have much more, often 2-5. Yet, their temperatures mostly fluctuate by 10-50 degrees C, instead of much wider swings for equilibrium with TSI and zero feedback.
Something else: The cited transient climate sensitivity of 2 degrees C per 2xCO2 indicates positive feedback. The amount of time it takes this positive feedback to do its thing is not zero. The surface albedo feedback certainly takes time.
I was under the impression that transient climate sensitivity was not a figure of immediate temperature change, but of temperature change after the feedbacks had time to respond to everything except the lag of warming of the ocean below the top layer (top 50 meters?). This sounds to me like a few years. The alternative to transient climate sensitivity is equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is an even greater figure, and it is for temperature changes that take decades to complete.
Not that I am arguing that the climate sensitivity is indeed 2 degrees C per 2xCO2 for transient and even higher for equilibrium. Since a significant part of the warming from 1970 to now seems to have come from a natural cycle, and in the downside of this cycle the global temperature seems to have had a (noncherrypicked) flat linear trend since sometime in 2001, I think the equilibrium climate sensitivity is something like 1.25 degrees C per 2xCO2.

Bart
October 26, 2014 11:39 am

“My question is, if the tiny eleven-year changes in TSI of a quarter of a W/m2 cause an observable change in the temperature, then where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth?”
Low pass filtering via thermal time constants attenuates higher frequency inputs, and lets lower frequency components pass through.

Massimo PORZIO
Reply to  Bart
October 26, 2014 1:49 pm

I absolutely agree.

October 26, 2014 12:14 pm

I’m a little disappointed here. Willis et al. know where to find the data and how to work it with statistical methods. I’m looking for a graph that shows TSI variation over a year against global temperatures over a year. Sparks writing October 26, 2014 at 10:23 am put up some relevant charts that do appear to show a fairly rapid response in temperatures to TSI variation.

Reply to  oldfossil
October 26, 2014 1:33 pm

Note: The historical TSI record is not Leif’s nor does he endorse it.

October 26, 2014 12:37 pm

forget the 22 w change, what happens when the sun goes down.. thats a 1361 w change.. we should be plunged to the depths of chilly when TSI goes to zero.
Sensitivity is pretty simple dT/dW
this metric is a “diagnostic” metric. And the most important question to ask is over what timescale. because the response of the system is dominated by inertia. we dont freeze when the sun goes down.
so, you have to understand that sensitivity changes with the time window you select.
Transient sensitivity is defined as the system response to a constantly increasing change in forcing. Specially a 1% increase in C02 ( or its equivalent forcing) over a 70 year period. That’s why, for example, Nic Lewis selects a window of say 100 years to estimate sensitivity.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 26, 2014 12:49 pm

Steven Mosher October 26, 2014 at 12:37 pm:
small changes integrated over long periods can have accumulated effects. Natural frequencies interacting with lag times / buffers can bounce all over the place until they stabilize over time. We use pulse width modulation in control circuits all the time. I can tell you that a small change magnitude will add up over time. As well, Calculus can show you the same thing.

Bart
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 26, 2014 1:05 pm

My point above. That is why long term solar forcing can have a significant effect, while shorter term variation can fail to manifest.
Please tell me, where do you see any evidence at all of significant sensitivity to rising CO2? Temperatures have been dominated by a ~0.75 degC/century trend plus a ~60 year periodic component for over 100 years, well before CO2 could have initiated them. You take those out, and there is very little left that could be from CO2.

David A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 26, 2014 10:10 pm

To expect the same climate result from an equal in watts forcing is to be entirely ignorant of the residence times of disparate w/l energy entering the earth’s land, atmosphere, and ocean system. Not all watts are equal.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 27, 2014 6:53 pm

Mosher writes “And the most important question to ask is over what timescale. because the response of the system is dominated by inertia.”
But this is an arm wave. If feedbacks didn’t regulate energy flows then it would still be possible to measure the changes in global energy over the year. Its pretty damned obvious regionally at the poles for example where the change is much larger (and due to the inclination of the earth)

October 26, 2014 1:20 pm

Willis Eschenbach / 14 hours ago October 25, 2014:
In addition, again according to the IPCC, using their central value of 3°C warming per doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2 additional forcing), this change in forcing should be accompanied by a change in temperature of no less than 18°C (32°F).
Now, I can accept that this would be somewhat reduced because of the thermal lag of the climate system. But the transient (immediate) climate response to increased forcing is said to be on the order of 2°C per doubling of CO2. So this still should result in a warming of 12°C (22°F) … and we see nothing of the sort
”.
———————-
If one harbors past remnants of a nurtured religious belief (aka: God is real, …… CO2 causes global warming) then said “remnant” will always be prompting them to question “What if it is true?”, …… thus seriously jeopardizing their argument.
It is of my opinion that IF a 400 ppm increase (doubling) in atmospheric CO2 will produce a “3°C warming of the near-surface atmosphere” ….. then I see no reason why a 400 ppm increase in H20 vapor would not do likewise because they are like “2 peas in pod” with pretty much identical physical properties pertaining to the absorption/emission of IR energy.
HA, …. so a 400 ppm increase in CO2 causes a “change in temperature of no less than 18°C (32°F)”, …….. but a 12,000 ppm increase in H2O vapor has no affect whatsoever on the temperature.
A simple constructed, physically performed, experiment, would prove the “truth” or “falsity” of said CO2 caused warming ….. but it appears no one is willing to perform/execute said experiment and publish their results.
Maybe a few IR images (photographs) of the noon or night time near-surface air when vastly different H2O vapor ppm quantities are present would prove that H2O vapor does cause changes in the air temperature,
Just because it ‘works’ on paper …. doesn’t prove it will ‘work’ in practice”.

Nigel Harris
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 26, 2014 1:44 pm

Who is claiming that an increase in H2O vapor has no affect [sic] whatsoever on the temperature?
Part of the 3C warming of the near-surface temperature that a doubling in atmospheric CO2 will produce is the effect of increased water vapor (which the atmosphere will hold more of if it is warmer). Without that positive feedback, the warming for a doubling of CO2 would create a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 and the warming would be only about 1C.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Nigel Harris
October 26, 2014 1:52 pm

A doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm will not produce 3 degrees C of warming. That’s a fantasy cooked up by IPCC, which has already been falsified by Mother Nature.
Although earth has warmed since c. 1700, there is no evidence showing a concomitant increase in water vapor. Nor, even if there were, any radiative effect of more H2O would be more than balanced out by the evaporative cooling & cloud effects, among other feedbacks. A net positive feedback from water vapor is only assumed in the GCMs. There is no observational basis for this assumption.
Net feedbacks to increased CO2 are likely to be negative, but even if positive & negative feedbacks just cancel each other out, that would leave a decidedly non-catastrophic one degree C by c. AD 2100, or whenever the planet might reach equilibrium at 560 ppm.
Meanwhile, the increased CO2 would be highly beneficial to plants & the planet in general.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
October 27, 2014 6:57 am

@ Nigel Harris: October 26, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Who is claiming that an increase in H2O vapor has no affect [sic] whatsoever on the temperature?
————–
You are …. by claiming that the H2O vapor only has an after-affect (positive feedback) …. if and only when there is CO2 present.
And just why did you totally ignore my factually accurate statement that …. atmospheric CO2 and H20 vapor have pretty much identical physical properties pertaining to the absorption/emission of IR (heat) energy? The primary difference is, …. anything associated with “absorptions/emissions” that you claim the CO2 molecule is capable of doing, …. the H2O vapor molecule is twice (2X) as good at doing it. To wit:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) — Specific Heat Capacity – 0.844 kJ/kg K
Water vapor — (H2O) — Specific Heat Capacity – 1.930 kJ/kg K
The H2O molecule can absorb more than 2X the quantity of thermal (heat) energy than the CO2 molecule can absorb.
Therefore, if one claims that a 400 ppm increase in CO2 will cause a “warming” of 1C …. then they also have to claim that a 400 ppm increase in H2O vapor will cause a “warming” of 1C …. because it is twice (2X) as good at doing it. And when the H2O vapor (humidity) increases by, say, 16,000 ppm on a July afternoon then it should cause a “warming” of 40C (104F), ….. which is utterly preposterous to say the least, …… thus also negating the “warming” claim about CO2. And that FACT is easily verified by a simple “greenhouse” experiment.

John West
October 26, 2014 1:34 pm

”I say this lack of an effect of the TSI changes is because the climate system responds to the current conditions. The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings. Instead, it reacts, it responds, it evolves and varies based on the instantaneous local situations everywhere. In particular, when it is cold we get less tropical clouds, and that increases the energy entering the system. And similarly, when it is warm we get more tropical clouds, cutting out huge amounts of incoming energy by reflecting it back to space. In this way, the system reacts to maintain the same temperature despite the changes in forcing.”
Well stated and compelling. However, from a purely thermodynamic point of view the internal energy of a system equals the incoming energy minus the outgoing energy thus the “forcing” approach may yet prove to have some merit. Besides the objection your hypothesis raises this approach also has the problem of measuring/estimating the internal energy of a huge system that can be quite difficult to accomplish indeed (perhaps impossible) especially considering temperature is at best an incomplete measure of internal energy.
”Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature.”
Perhaps, but lots of folks like myself merely wish for the components of TSI to be separated for evaluation in GCM’s and the like. Basically any “forcings” diagram should not merely have one entry for the sun and its tiny TSI variation but at a minimum three entries (UV, Vis, IR) with their respective variation. UV or Vis for example is not interchangeable with IR on a watt = watt basis. Shine as many watts of IR on air or on plants as you want but you’ll not form one dram of ozone or produce one iota of sugar whereas UV and Vis will. They have different characteristics therefore they should be evaluated as individual components.
”according to the IPCC, using their central value of 3°C warming per doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2 additional forcing)”
Incorrect. Supposedly, the 3.7 W/m2 increase induces feedbacks which results in about a 20 W/m2 increase which results in a 3 °C increase.

Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
“If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.” — Gavin Schmidt

Of course, your question still stands: ” My question is, if the tiny eleven-year changes in TSI of a quarter of a W/m2 cause an observable change in the temperature, then where is the effect of the ~ 22 W/m2 annual variation in the amount of sun hitting the earth?”
It’s right there in Joe Bastardi’s post:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image003.png
We also have to consider Milankovitch cycles here. Not only does the amount of energy matter, and IMO it’s characteristics, but also WHERE it is introduced into the system. The Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere absorb energy differently. Right now the NH is getting less energy in its summer than the SH receives in its summer yet still gets hotter. The SH is much better at absorbing and redistributing the energy than the NH since it is mostly ocean.
Until we understand a lot more than we do I don’t think we can rule out variations in the Sun as a source of climate variation.

ferdberple
October 26, 2014 2:21 pm

The problem I see in claiming that the change in TSI is too small to affect climate is that it doesn’t explain radio propagation.
No doubt there are other amateur radio operators on this site who can confirm what radio enthusiasts have known for years. radio propagation varies hugely depending on solar activity, day to day, month to moth and year to year. Especially in something like the 15-20 meter bands,
What radio propagation is measuring is the ionization of the upper atmosphere caused by the sun, and this does of course vary quite a bit from day to night..
However, due to the near constant TSI, ionization levels should remain almost constant month to month and year to year – BUT THEY DO NOT. They vary widely, very much in sync and magnitude with sunspot activity.
Which suggest strongly that TSI is not telling the whole story.
A similar question arises when one considers the number of sunspots. Why do they vary so widely during the solar cycle. If TSI tells the whole story, why don’t we see only a 1 part in 1000 change in sunspot numbers if TSI only varies 1 part in 1000?

Reply to  ferdberple
October 26, 2014 5:24 pm

The radio connection is simply explained by the solar cycle variation of solar EUV that determines the ionization of the upper atmosphere. In fact, the electron density is simply proportional to the square root of the EUV flux [the Chapman equation] as explained in http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf The magnetic field varies a lot and determines how much the EUV varies and how much the TSI varies [on top of the very large constant background that is due simply to the Sun being so hot].
As the magnetic background network never goes away there is still significant ionization during solar minima.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 26, 2014 7:04 pm

Extreme ultraviolent radiation (EUV) below 121 nm is an ionizing radiation completely absorbed by the atmosphere and responsible for the ionizing F layer region in the 90 to 200 mile region of the ionosphere mainly responsible for long distance (shortwave radio) communications. As ferdberple states, there are very significant differences from the top to the bottom of the 11 year sun spot cycles. The maximum usable frequency (MUF) refracted by the F layer various over a frequency of at least 14 MHz to over 30 MHz (20 meters to 10 meters amateur radio bands) from sunspot peak to sunspot trough based on east-west paths such as the US to Europe.
Here’s what makes this interesting/ This is also a similar change in the MUF that occurs during the 24 hour cycle during most of the sunspot cycle.. I do not know the w/m2 differences of EUV radiation during the 11 year sunspot cycle or how sensitive the F layer is to quantitative differences in EUV radiation, but the similarity of the 24 hour cycle (which includes many hours of zero EUV radiation) with the 11 year cycle suggests a much greater change in EUV than for TSI.
The above illustrates the hypothesis that greater changes in some frequency bands of TSI than TSI itself have observable effects and may contribute to cycles of climate.

Reply to  Doug Allen
October 26, 2014 7:16 pm

TSI changes over a solar cycle from 1360.6 W/m2 [min] to 1361.8 [max], while EUV changes from 0.0057 to 0.0070 W/m2, so even though that change is large in percentage it is negligible in terms of energy. Since the change in temperature due to the solar cycle change of 1.2 W/m2 in TSI is lost in the noise [it is of order 0.07 K] it is hard to see that that the change of 0.0013 W/m2 of EUV [which is already contained within the 1.2 W/m2 of TSI] should have any effect.

gymnosperm
October 26, 2014 3:37 pm

Insolation varies only about .18% or about 5 W/m2 over the entire 413kyr cycle of eccentricity. We live at a particularly concentric phase of this cycle so our seasonal variations should be subdued. If the seasonal sub cycle is really four times the total cycle variation now, one shivers to think what it might be at maximum eccentricity.

October 26, 2014 3:45 pm

If you look at the predicted temperature changes in IPCC graphs they don’t predict 3C change per doubling of CO2. What they predict is a doubling of temperature rise per 140ppm rise in CO2. So from 280ppm to 420ppm we get at 1C rise followed by another 2C as we reach 560ppm. Follow their own logic and the next rise is 4C more at 700ppm, 8C at 840ppm, etc, etc. It was the first thing that made me skeptical of their claims.

jlurtz
October 26, 2014 4:07 pm

Don’t get trapped by Solar Maximums. The area under the curve over time is what we need to analyze. When a Solar Cycle is 10 years that is 11% more energy than in a 11 year cycle, in terms of total energy [assuming equal area under the curve].
The amplification factor is the absorption of EUV by the Ozone layer. The Ozone layer acts as a “heat trapping blanket”. More EUV thicker blanket more heat retention.
When the Solar EUV is less than 110 SFU [average] lets look at the Ocean temperatures [delayed by three years].
Check out
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/NH.html
Note: that the temperatures as reported by
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Correspond to an increase in the Ozone!!

Khwarizmi
October 26, 2014 4:52 pm

=========
“Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an observable difference in some aspect of the temperature.”
=========
Not amplified: attenuated.
2000 years of reconstructed solar activity vs 2000 years of reconstructed temperature:
http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-u5h_fU342a0/VE1oGT9uHJI/AAAAAAAAAhs/2EO1dY0Hl9Y/s800/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
You don’t need to understand the mechanism to see that the relationship holds.
If you can’t see the relationship, you don’t need a mechanism.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 26, 2014 8:10 pm

When you’re finished with the wikki-spam, can you provide something interesting?

October 26, 2014 6:45 pm

Khwarizmi,
You forgot the sarcasm /tag

stevefitzpatrick
October 26, 2014 7:16 pm

Hi Willis,
I think the lack of apparent response to the orbital variation in solar intensity (~22 W/M^2) is mainly related to geography. The rate of warming and cooling is much greater for land than for water, and the northern hemisphere has much more land than the southern. So the warming in the southern hemisphere in summer is less than it would be if land were more uniformly distributed between hemispheres. At the same time (the northern winter) temperatures can fall faster because the land can cool much faster than the ocean. And this situation reverses in the northern summer, where land warms fairly quickly, in spite of the lower solar intensity than during the southern summer. Because of the geographical influences, I don’t think you can easily relate global average temperature variation during the year (and sensitivity to radiative forcing) to orbitally driven change in solar intensity.

gymnosperm
October 26, 2014 7:23 pm

How is it that you take two extremely regular, in phase, time series (TSI and the “Seasonal Component”), subtract ne from the other (data minus seasonal component) and get an extremely funky variably delayed June December/July January decomposition?
The rises seem generally more abrupt than the falls, not generally what one expects from maximum insolation over the southern hemisphere in summer where the strongly buffering ocean should soften everything.
Maybe the major axis of the ellipse is ultimately less important than the relative fatness of the minor axis in eccentricity?

TimTheToolMan
October 26, 2014 7:57 pm

Willis writes “I say this lack of an effect of the TSI changes is because the climate system responds to the current conditions. The climate system is not some inanimate object that is simply pushed around by external forcings. Instead, it reacts, it responds, it evolves and varies based on the instantaneous local situations everywhere.”
Exactly. And this is why looking at TSI which is known to be small, is not the whole picture. As an example, UV varies much more and therefore impacts on ozone which in turn has other impacts throughout the atmosphere.
As you rightly point out, Its the feedbacks that determine energy flows and you cant get that from simply looking at the amount of energy that makes it to the ground. Looking at any single aspect of the atmosphere and thinking it is a “cause” is going to be misleading.

Ferronium
October 26, 2014 8:07 pm

Assuming this variation in TSI is measured for the northern hemisphere then an inverse TSI will be measured in the southern hemisphere – TSI high in northern summer while low in southern winter and vice versa.
If you observe the graph here http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225 you will see the difference in the Perth average temp. summer (peak) to winter (low) varies by 13.2C

Reply to  Ferronium
October 26, 2014 8:41 pm

No, TSI is the same all over the Earth.

October 26, 2014 9:04 pm

lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 at 7:16 pm
“TSI changes over a solar cycle from 1360.6 W/m2 [min] to 1361.8 [max], while EUV changes from 0.0057 to 0.0070 W/m2, so even though that change is large in percentage it is negligible in terms of energy. Since the change in temperature due to the solar cycle change of 1.2 W/m2 in TSI is lost in the noise [it is of order 0.07 K] it is hard to see that that the change of 0.0013 W/m2 of EUV [which is already contained within the 1.2 W/m2 of TSI] should have any effect.”
Time is important, “1360.6 W/m2 [min]” is still less than “1361.8 [max]”.
If TSI is at “1360.6 W/m2 [min]” for a longer period of time than “1361.8 [max]” over the same period, then the TSI equates to less overall power. Is this correct?
Therefor TSI at “1361.8 [max]” for a longer period of time than “1360.6 W/m2 [min]” over the same period, will then equate to more overall power.
You always seem to leave out the relativistic in-favor of a statistic.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Sparks
October 26, 2014 9:07 pm

Leif systematically leaves out anything that interferes with his belief system and the alterations to observed reality that he and his fellow Team cronies are trying to ram down the throat of real solar scientists at public expense.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 26, 2014 9:12 pm

One has to go where the data leads, regardless of if one likes it or not. Don’t you agree?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 26, 2014 9:30 pm

I do. To what I object is changing the data to suit your agenda. Or agendum.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 26, 2014 9:34 pm

If the data can be shown to be wrong and many solar physicists agree on that, the data should be corrected so that non-experts will not use the wrong data in their analysis and reach wrong conclusions. Don’t you agree on this, too?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 26, 2014 9:52 pm

If the data can be shown wrong, the it doesn’t matter how many solar physicists agree. Science isn’t up for vote. It’s always possible to beat into submission scientists who don’t agree with the party line.
To what I most object however is that, even after making arguably justified adjustments, government-supported scientists then promulgate conclusions not supported by their own changes to observed data.
If the political environment in the US changes, then we might finally enjoy the opportunity to evaluate the validity of adjustments and the conclusions supposedly based thereupon, leading to recommendations for policy makers.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 26, 2014 10:01 pm

It is always important to obtain general agreement on a conclusion, so a vote is vital. It simply means that many experts [from several countries] have examined the evidence and have been convinced of its validity or importance. In that sense it is no different from a trial by jury.
Which ‘government-supported scientists’ do you have in mind and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?
We do not need a change of political environment to evaluate the evidence. Every scientist worth her salt can do that regardless of politics. Try it yourself: http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf

Reply to  Sparks
October 26, 2014 9:11 pm

Since the 1361.8 is at the time of solar max and the 1360.6 is at the time of solar min, on average over a solar cycle the mean power is about 1361.2 which equates to less power than 1361.8. The max and the min take about the same time. So time is not all that important.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 9:54 pm

Leif says:
“One has to go where the data leads, regardless of if one likes it or not. Don’t you agree?”
Apparently, all one has to do is leave out the relativistic in-favor of a statistic.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 10:03 pm

the relativistic in-favor of a statistic
I have no idea what you are referring to. Have you?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 7:34 am

lsvalgaard: October 26, 2014 at 9:11 pm
So time is not all that important.
————-
Time is important iffen the solar max power of 1361.8 will produce a severe “Sunburning” of the skin …. whereas the solar mean power of 1360.6 will only produce a light “Suntanning” of the skin, ……. RIGHT?

David A
Reply to  Sparks
October 27, 2014 3:49 am

Sparks, you may wish to see my comment here… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/25/changes-in-total-solar-irradiance/#comment-1772325 which is cogent to your comment. Both residence time of energy, and the vibration intensity of said energy are very important. “There are only two way to change the temperature of a system in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system.

October 26, 2014 10:28 pm

Leif,
It refers to where I said.
“You always seem to leave out the relativistic in-favor of a statistic.”
Which you replied with.
“…on average over a solar cycle the mean power is about…
… So time is not all that important.”

Reply to  Sparks
October 26, 2014 10:30 pm

That still doesn’t make any sense. Try to speak English…

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 10:46 pm

Just out of curiosity Leif, I’m still very curious of your opinion about the period around 1790 to 1810.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 26, 2014 11:01 pm

The period 1790-1810 had very sparse data and is therefore poorly known.
Here is a plot of some of the reconstructions:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
Here is the data collected by three researchers:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
Don’t agree very well.
My own best guess can be seen on slides 6 and 29 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
We are still working on getting a better handle on those early data.

October 26, 2014 11:31 pm

Thanks Leif,
Did the solar polar field rotation slow down around this time?

Reply to  Sparks
October 26, 2014 11:34 pm

I’m not quite sure what you mean. The solar polar field does not rotate, the sun does. Perhaps you mean ‘reverse’? In that case I’m reasonably sure [on theoretical grounds] that it did

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 12:28 am

I am including polarity, [on theoretical grounds]… As both polarities rotate around either hemisphere, during the period between 1790-1810 they were moving slow resulting in prolonged solar activity.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 12:33 am

No, that is not how the dynamo works. And your phrase ‘both polarities rotate around either hemisphere’ is murky. Try to explain what you mean. And I don’t know what ‘theoretical ground’ you are referring to. I really can’t help you if you persist in muddled expressions. Be specific.

October 27, 2014 12:43 am

The early sunspot observations suggest that a solar cycle was lost in 1793-1800.
Solar activity formula (pre 1800) helps resolve the old mystery
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle4a.htm
see paper by Usoskin et al: http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/700/2/L154/fulltext/apjl_700_2_154.text.html

Reply to  vukcevic
October 27, 2014 12:48 am

The general opinion is that there was no lost cycle, just a ‘pulse’ of activity [which happens often]

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:33 am

Just?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:35 am

An old Greek philosopher said something like:
Facts are the foundation of knowledge, opinions disregard both.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:35 am

I have no idea what you are talking about. Try to be specific and clear.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:35 am

yes, just, or merely if you like

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:39 am

Vuk, you have no facts, so stop wasting our time.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 2:17 am

Vuk, the conclusion of one of the papers you linked to:
“Taken together, the evidence from these various tests strongly suggests that no cycle was missed and that the official sunspot cycle numbering and parameters are correct”
And then there is the record by the great Vuk himself showing that no cycle was missed:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/graph1.gif
So, again, stop wasting our time.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 3:11 am

As you have been known to fudge your plots, here is the original one:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-19.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 4:11 am

The replacement gives a long perspective of the future solar activity, while the older one does not, and beside it has the old JPL orbital numbers which need updating.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 4:18 am

As I said, you have no facts and there is no knowledge content. And critical analysis by Solanki et al. shows that there was no lost cycle, so, again, stop wasting our time on this.

October 27, 2014 1:04 am

If the recorded activity during that period was removed because it didn’t fit a theory who would ever know?

Reply to  Sparks
October 27, 2014 1:08 am

We know they were not, because the original records still exist. Go to http://www.leif.org/EOS/ and look for files beginning with ‘Wolf-‘

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:25 am

Leif,
Does the original records show there was prolonged activity that lasted for over15 years?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:37 am

yes, you can read it yourself, see e.g. Wolf-I.pdf

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 1:51 am

The original records show there was a sunspot cycle at that time. I have already shown you Wolf’s rendition of the record. Here it is again
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
Later it was revised down by Wolfer and Hoyt & Schatten, so the net result is uncertain.

October 27, 2014 1:32 am

Leif,
What period did that happen in again?

Reply to  Sparks
October 27, 2014 1:39 am

Don’t know what you are talking about.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 2:15 am

Leif, what does “Wolf 1882” mean? your graph is about 1798-1811, that’s 71 years from 1811 to 1882. there is no way you can modify a record 71 years later and call it legit. and that was just your first one.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 2:21 am

‘Wolf 1882’ means that that Wolf made an updated list in that year. The record was not modified, just being part of the final list as of 1882. However the record was modified in 1902 by Wolfer and in 1996 by Hoyt & Schatten. You see, new data come to light and the historical record must be modified accordingly.

October 27, 2014 2:46 am

Are the original observations still available?

Reply to  Sparks
October 27, 2014 2:55 am

Of course. They are all in the Wolf-papers I linked to in http://www.leif.org/EOS/ and in the references given there plus in the Group Sunspot Number records given by Hoyt & Schatten http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/group/

RACookPE1978
Editor
October 27, 2014 3:05 am

Leif:
Doctor, this summer, you strongly objected to Dr Bason’s approximation of the year’s solar insolation at top-of-atmosphere, and you were gracious enough to provide me a link to 13 years of solar TOA measurements (2001 – 2014).
Dr Bason set TSI =1362 watts/m^2 then used

=TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((DOY-3)/365))))

(Above for “units” in Day-of-Year and cosine in Excel’s radians.)
Three questions, please. Well, four actually.

One.

If we again use Excel’s format, the following curve fits your data within 1/2 watt/m^2 every Day-of-Year (DOY)
=1362.36+46.142*(COS(0.0167299*(DOY)+0.03150896))
Do you accept that equation as a valid approximation for TOA solar radiation over a year’s period?
Two.
When I plot those 13 years of solar radiation against day-=of-year, I see a variation in each day’s measured radiation from 2001 until now of +/- 1.5 watt/m^2.
Over a 13 year period, any given day, say Feb 5, will vary from every preceeding or following Feb 5 by over 1.5 watts/m^2. Your data is measured of course, but is it measuring the variation in TSI each day, and calculating TOA? Or is it measuring this daily variation in TOA values, and back calculating TSI?
Three.

Date 	DofY	        TOA_Rad.
5-Jan	 5	        1408
21-Mar	 81	        1371
21-Jun	 173	        1317
5-July   187	        1316
22-Sept	 266	        1352
21-Dec	 356	        1406

If the above curve is valid for your data, the true TOA variation over an average year (maximum Jan 5, minimum July 5) is 1408 – 1316 = [92] /watts/m^2, correct?
Four.
For our other readers, can you repeat the link to the SORCE data you provided this summer?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 27, 2014 3:21 am

SORCE link http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Note that this is Version 16, which differs slightly from previous data series.
The maximum value on Jan 4, 2008 was 1407.46 and the minimum value for July 4 was 1316.21 for a difference of 91.25
The formulae are only approximate.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 27, 2014 3:23 am

1408-1316 = 92, not 94

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 6:34 am

Thank you.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 27, 2014 3:28 am

TSI is measured every 100 seconds, then averaged into daily values.

Khwarizmi
October 27, 2014 4:14 am

Sparks,
You posted twice to berate me for using wikipedia as a source of data showing the correlation between solar activity and temperatures over the past 2000 years.
But there’s nothing wrong with the data on the LIA page at wiki. If you had a problem with it, you could explain what the problem is instead of attacking the source.
Would you rather a hatchet job from NASA?

The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

October 27, 2014 4:17 am

Dr. Svalgaard @ vukcevic
As you have been known to fudge your plots…
I may do my own, nobody would object if you do your own too, it is your privilege to do so.
Fudging plots of historic records that belong to whole humanity is another matter.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 27, 2014 4:35 am

There is a difference between fudging and correcting. The historical record is well served by being revisited http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf as also Hoyt & Schatten tried to do.
Here is the critical analysis of the ‘lost cycle’ by Krivova et al http://www.leif.org/EOS/j143-Lost-Cycle.pdf
“All the above arguments taken together provide very strong support for the proposal that cycle 4 was a single sunspot cycle and that no cycle has been lost.”
So, again, stop wasting our time.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 27, 2014 4:56 am

By all means design a ‘Svalgaard’ sunspot series as you see fit.
Last thing the history needs is another attempt to ‘correct’ it, regardless of what Hoyt, Schatten or Svalgaard may think.