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:
Figure 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.
What the Earth reacting to solar irradiance may look like:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/images/itcz.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
I had aphelion and perihelion reversed in my example, sorry. The ratio is still correct.
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.
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.
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?
http://astro.ic.ac.uk/research/solar-irradiance-variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#mediaviewer/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsolar.physics.montana.edu%2FSVECSE2008%2Fpdf%2Fwoods_svecse.pdf&ei=-2NMVNqQIZC6iQLUnYGAAg&usg=AFQjCNEaTydUjU_L7OZVEQQiFMs6d4wztQ&sig2=fWv8W2dRw_LNIx8SlK_obQ&bvm=bv.77880786,d.cGE
Page 4 in the last link compares variation in TSI with UV.
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
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
Spoken as a true believer. Nothing can rock your boat.
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.
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
Milodonharlani:
You had best pay attention to Leif, who only wants to remedy your crackpot theories. We all wish to help, you see.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mario Lento October 26, 2014 at 1:44 am
Mario, please do come up with the link, because I have no recollection of you writing a dozen posts before I responded … and it does change by only a fraction of a percent.
I know that the EUV changes AS A PERCENTAGE more than does the TSI, and have known that for years. However, what you and milodon never have seemed to have noticed is that is simply because the TSI varies so little in both energy and percentage terms.
AS A PERCENTAGE, the EUV, as you point out, varies about 10 times more than the TSI. Which sounds impressive until you realize that the TSI itself only varies peak-to-peak by about one part in 1,360, which is about seven-HUNDREDTHS of a percent. So you are right that the EUV varies ten times as much as TSI AS A PERCENTAGE—which means it varies by a whopping seven-TENTHS of a percent … not even one percent.
AS ENERGY, the EUV only represents about 1% of the total energy of the TSI, or about 14 W/m2. A change of 0.7% in that is a change of about one-TENTH of a watt per square meter.
So the EUV is changing by about seven-tenths of a percent, or alternately about a tenth of a watt per square metre, over the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Regarding those changes, you say:
No, we don’t agree at all. Whether we look at seven-tenths of a percent, or one tenth of a watt per square metre, neither one is a “substantial” change unless you are using some bizarre meaning of “substantial”.
But clearly, you believe that fraction of a percent|watt makes some huge difference in the earth’s climate … if so, perhaps you could show us the evidence for your belief.
And while you are at it, as I show above, the TSI varies by 22 W/m2 over the course of the year. This means that the EUV is varying as well, by about the same amount (as a percentage). If EUV is so critical, where is the evidence for your claimed effect from that huge variation in EUV?
Best regards,
w.
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.
Ulrich,
A number of studies have found a correlation between solar eruptions & solar wind speed & the NAO & the ENSO. To cite but a few.
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.issibern.ch%2Fteams%2Finterplanetarydisturb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FAsenovski_03_2014.pdf&ei=FXpNVJTcDtH6oQSerIHACw&usg=AFQjCNFRsOQtVJbZiK_8MHWiZbcFDLeTuQ&sig2=m8j6RL2KQ5AxGQ7hlpM3kA&bvm=bv.77880786,d.cGU
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/full
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SunGe…8…97A
(Available in a .pdf if this link doesn’t work.)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228574599_Solar_wind_electric_field_modulation_of_the_NAO_A_correlation_analysis_in_the_lower_atmosphere
Thanks for noticing & commenting upon that correlation between a climatic phenomenon & solar activity.
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
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.
“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/
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.
Michael Wassil October 25, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Thanks, Michael. See Leif’s (lsvalgaard) response above. We have lots of information about TSI from a number of platforms.
In addition, the main graph in the link you cited is a Wikipedia graph from an anonymous poster, with absolutely no information about the source of the information … Michael, I strongly and emphatically recommend against using Wikipedia for ANYTHING involving climate, including solar. There is more misinformation there than anyone could possibly sort out, and the provenance of the graphics is often non-existent, as in this case.
Finally, even assuming the graph were correct, all that would mean is that the sun is not radiating like a theoretical black-body … a theoretical black-body which is all at one single precise unchanging temperature all over the surface, a black-body that is not losing energy via ejections of mass from the surface and via a varying electromagnetic field, a black-body that is not varying over an 11-year cycle with different frequencies showing different variations, a black-body that is all rotating at the same speed …
Yes, the sun doesn’t radiate like a theoretical blackbody… so what? Did you really expect the immensely complex sun to behave exactly like a single-temperature theoretical black body?
Regards,
w.
You are wrong.
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
Willis, where does your 22w/m2 annual variation come from?
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).
Orbital insolation changes balance out over the entire planet.
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.
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.
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?
One would think so, but the minute solar signal seems to be drowned in the noise.
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?
Interesting read . Thanks for that!
Strangely like a healing process reaction………
Could clouds be like platelets in some way?
Hummmmm
” 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?)
“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.
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.
Tell your author of that paper to not bother applying to me for a job as a circuit engineer.
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?
It’s close enough for climate science.
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 October 27, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Citation? The Kiehl/Trenberth budget has it as follows;
and the CERES data basically agrees, giving the following figures:
Total of sensible and latent heat loss (moist convection) = 109 W/m2 (K/T says 97 W/m2)
Upwelling radiation 398 W/m2 (K/T says 396 W/m2)
In other words, both of them say that radiation is the largest way that the surface loses energy, with moist convection coming in second and sensible heat loss (dry convection) third largest.
Regards,
w.
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.
Oooh, 1sky1, now you are changing the goal posts, no points for that.
You originally discussed:
Now you want to change that entirely, and you want to include transferring energy TO the surface FROM the troposphere.
Sorry, I don’t play those kind of games. If you wanted to discuss transfers from the atmosphere to the surface, you should have said so.
Better luck next time, but don’t expect to get an answer from me next time. Your kind of BS doesn’t fly on my planet, you just wasted my time entirely. Don’t worry … won’t happen again.
w.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
The 22 W/m2 is your ~90 W/m2 divided by four to give us a global 24/7 average. Your number is correct, but it’s for the instantaneous TSI, and in general forcings are calculated on a global 24/7 average basis..
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
I’ve heard that the deep ocean hides incoming heat.
“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]
Mod, thank you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Someone please tell me why the dst index can no longer crack -150
“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
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.
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!
“”””……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”.
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.
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)?
George, as David said, the 340 W/m2 are a global 24/7 average. If you only take measurements during the day you will assuredly get higher numbers most of the time.
Your assumption that this means that the scientists are using models, or that they are not using instruments to do the measurements, is simply wrong.
Regards,
w.
For a^4+b^4 = (a+b)^4, there are uncountably infinite number of solutions for a when b is 0, and vice versa!
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.
george e. smith October 26, 2014 at 11:01 pm
george, please re-read what I said. I said:
Note what I said was wrong.
As to whether we should use averages or not, averages are used all the time in science. Despite that, you say:
“Necessary fiction of a model”? george, averages and other calculated quantities are used in nearly every walk of life, and for a good reason—they increase our knowledge about what’s going on. Knowing whether the median family income is going up or going down is an important piece of information, despite the fact that nobody ever measured a median.
In particular, in climate science we have both intermittent downwelling radiation from the sun, and continuous downwelling radiation from the GHGs in the atmosphere … how do you propose to compare their global effects, or prepare a global energy budget, without using averages?
Yes, you are correct that “nobody ever measured an average” … but so what? The fact that averages are calculated from measurements doesn’t make them useless, we use them daily in all kinds of real-world situations, along with a host of other calculated quantities (e.g. standard deviations, medians, ranges) that are also calculated from measurements. If you say that the temperature measured in a certain spot varied by 13.6° over a given time period, that’s not measured either, it’s calculated just like averages and standard deviations … again, so what? It still tells us something we didn’t know about the physical situation.
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.
w.
PS—You say:
True, and I understand the issue you are raising … but that’s a horrible example. You can never boil an egg on a sidewalk, period. Go try it sometimes, set a pot of water out on a sidewalk and report back to us on how long it takes to boil.
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!
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.
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]
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 ?
From the sun, ie solar irradiance.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/another-solar-to-climate-amplification-mechanism-found/
The TSI both the input and the power supply ?
BS, someone has concocted a clever sounding phrase and built a fable around it
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
…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….
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.
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.
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.
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
There is one peak [on Jan. 4th] and one trough [on June 4th] each year as is clear from Willis’s graph.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
Exists at the poles (polar vortex). It is obvious.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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)
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.
verbascose October 26, 2014 at 1:54 am
Since this is an annual variation, why would the changes over one day be relevant?
In any case, in many locations the daily temperature swings are 20°C, and the summer to winter swings are even larger … why doesn’t “thermal inertia” stop those swings?
w.
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.
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.
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.
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.
22 W/m2 is approximately one hundred times a quarter of a W/m2, not a thousand times
/ Jan
[Thanks, Jan. Fixed. -w]
Quite so.
Did the rest of the calcs assume 22W (correctly) or 1000x (incorrectly)?
22W/m2 (correctly)
w.
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.
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
seems spot on to me
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?
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?
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
Ice-ages occur from regional (Milankovitch) solar changes, not overall TSI changes.
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.
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.
“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.
Thanks, Willis.
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.
The NCDC estimates a mean global temperature difference, averaged over the 20thC, of 3.8C between January and July.
… 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?
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.
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.
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
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
Except the direction is wrong. So its not the sun’s forcing. We are closer to the sun in January than July!
What a difference the land makes!
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Anthony–these words of Willis’s deserve to be in your site rules. (If they aren’t there already.)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
The measurement error is 0.002 W/m2
Hockey Schtick October 25, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Thanks for that, Hockey. The problems with that circuit are that it doesn’t capture the controls on the system, and it doesn’t even consider the tropical albedo variations.
So rather than the input being some fixed value “i”, in fact the input is
i = TSI * (1 – albedo)
But tropical albedo, as I have shown elsewhere, is some function of temperature f(T), and the two are positively correlated.
So the input “i” is actually
i = TSI * (1 – f(T))
Now, other things being equal, the temperature T is in some sense positively correlated with i, the total solar energy hitting the planet.
T = g(i)
This leaves us with the overall equation:
i = TSI * (1 – f( g(i) ))
The important thing to note about this equation is that providing that
• temperature (T) and tropical albedo are positively correlated (which they are), and
• temperature and incoming surface solar are positively correlated (which they are),
the system will increase in temperature up to a certain point, and the temperature will then stabilize at that point. It is inherently stable, since as temperature goes up, incoming solar goes down. The system will stabilize where the lines cross.
This stability is actually enhanced by the remainder of the circuit which you show above. This is because (as I’ve also shown elsewhere) the parasitic losses (which are part of Rc) as a percentage of surface input also increase with temperature.
So your circuit only captures part of the dynamical system. The part it captures is correct … it’s just missing a lot of interconnections.
Many thanks, there’s much to be learned from such electrical analogues,
w.
“….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?
Yep, someone else also noted that above and I fixed it. It’s one of the beauties of writing for the web—it’s the world’s best error-detection method.
Thanks for the notification in any case, my theory is “Perfect is good enough.” So I’m always happy to have my errors pointed out … well, “happy” is over-egging the cake, nobody likes to be wrong, but it’s immensely helpful to have people checking my work.
Appreciated,
w.
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.
Certainly catastrophic events can cause perturbation. 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.
w.
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?
The mechanism that is always overlooked is orbital influence on both Solar variations and planetary temperature variations.
And this overlooked orbital influence also correlates well with variations in cosmic radiation.
And higher resolution of cosmic rays show a clear 11-year solar variation.
Sparks, I appreciate the effort but unfortunately graphs without sources, without legends, and without statistical analysis are just scientific porn … what is the actual correlation between Berkeley Earth monthly and TSI monthly? What is the statistical significance of that correlation? What is your source for “Leif’s historical TSI”? What is the black line in the middle graph? Etc., etc. …
w.
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).
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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..
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.
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.
I do not think you are serious; why are you funning my comment?
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.
Leif,
Can you show your work in calculating the .03 degrees?
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?
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agree David A. Time is important, Energy is important.
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.
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.
“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.
I absolutely agree.
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.
Note: The historical TSI record is not Leif’s nor does he endorse it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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”.
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.
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.
@ 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.
”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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
=========
“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.
When you’re finished with the wikki-spam, can you provide something interesting?
Khwarizmi,
You forgot the sarcasm /tag
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.
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?
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.
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
No, TSI is the same all over the Earth.
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.
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.
One has to go where the data leads, regardless of if one likes it or not. Don’t you agree?
I do. To what I object is changing the data to suit your agenda. Or agendum.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
the relativistic in-favor of a statistic
I have no idea what you are referring to. Have you?
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?
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.
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.”
That still doesn’t make any sense. Try to speak English…
Just out of curiosity Leif, I’m still very curious of your opinion about the period around 1790 to 1810.
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.
Thanks Leif,
Did the solar polar field rotation slow down around this time?
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
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.
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.
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
The general opinion is that there was no lost cycle, just a ‘pulse’ of activity [which happens often]
Just?
An old Greek philosopher said something like:
Facts are the foundation of knowledge, opinions disregard both.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Try to be specific and clear.
yes, just, or merely if you like
Vuk, you have no facts, so stop wasting our time.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=lost+sunspot+cycle+&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
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.
As you have been known to fudge your plots, here is the original one:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-19.png
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.
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.
If the recorded activity during that period was removed because it didn’t fit a theory who would ever know?
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-‘
Leif,
Does the original records show there was prolonged activity that lasted for over15 years?
yes, you can read it yourself, see e.g. Wolf-I.pdf
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.
Leif,
What period did that happen in again?
Don’t know what you are talking about.
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.
‘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.
Are the original observations still available?
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/
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
(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.
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?
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.
1408-1316 = 92, not 94
Thank you.
TSI is measured every 100 seconds, then averaged into daily values.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last thing the history needs is another attempt to ‘correct’ it
The historical record has been corrected several times, by Wolf himself, by Wolfer, by H&S, and by the modern solar community. Such correction is vital and necessary as new data and new insight develop. Of course, there will always be reactionary people for whom a correction may be an ‘inconvenient truth’. History shows that such ‘rearguard’ struggle eventually dies out and has little effect on the progress of science.
Most likely to be more than convenient for some, but not inconvenient in slightest for what I propose
“Even if Dr. S made all cycles exactly the same, providing the minima timings are not changed it would make little difference.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/solar-update-october-2014/#comment-1769890
Even if Dr. S made all cycles exactly the same, providing the minima timings are not changed it would make little difference
No scientist really cares what you think, but in this you have grossly misunderstood [deliberately?] the point. The issue is not if all maxima are the same [as they are not], but that the minima are at the same level. The timing is not important as far as the correction of the series is concerned.
Your ignorance about this is appalling, but of no importance as you point out. So, again, stop wasting our time.
When discussing climate change, and when you are trying to find their causes, many participants are looking for solutions in some models you set in your PC and expect the PC to teach them and tell them all a lot more than they know about uzriocima climate change.
All that is tossed around so far in the millions of pages of paper is not even close to what the true causes of climate change.
All this evidence, theories, sketches, monitoring of various phenomena in the sun and our planet, only minor effects were the main causes of these changes, which to date no one on the planet is not detected properly, in accordance with the laws of nature.
I see we have some interest in this crowd, too much and yet not proven anything properly. What it means. ? It is a simple proof that no one is on the right track. This path is the knowledge of natural law and respect for their power.
Here, here, and this is not the first time that many ask that they show me the way to go to present the true causes of these climate changes. But there is an underlying cause, I do not want to publish a solution without a contractual obligation with a powerful institution that can accomplish this very important task.
That’s how you only have on this site VUVT that you have no interest and do not be afraid of something, which forbids you to work without interest and pressure from some unknown factors, this enigma could be quickly resolved. I claim to possess the basic information of the true causes of climate change. None of you have to believe, or is it not enough to nowadays about it is not exactly proven anything and why no one looked back to listen to those who have not yet had the opportunity to give their opinion. I see from all the discussion about what it does and how you can see the same from what I would put forward, but you do not want to hear.
Explain why? I am available and I expect at least two words that either of you uttered about this my proposal.
Nikola
I claim to possess the basic information of the true causes of climate change
Lots of people make that claim
We are very fortunate to have an in house expert who alerts us to our ignorance, our arrogance, our simplicities, our muddleheadedness, our confirmation biases. Thanks Leif. The question remains. What forces and explains climate changes. Leif thinks TSI is a dead end, and we need to look elsewhere.
Richard Feynman once said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Leif, tell us about the areas of ignorance in your field that could possibly help explain changes in climate.
There seem to be many big holes in the understanding of climate, but many experts keep insisting its not in their area where the science is settled. Leif, I think your justified hard-nosed, critical thinking is undermined by other scientists who write about climate science in the arrogant, over-reaching way that you criticize here, and that includes some of your colleagues at Stanford.
One can content oneself building numerical minnow traps and then pointing out that they have caught no big fish. But the big fish are obviously out there: ice ages, mass extinctions, magnetic reversals…unconstrained. To catch one we need to get our of our comfort zones and build bigger traps, even at the risk of being hideously wrong a few times in the process. Tim Cullen is trying to do this.
When you do this you are hideously wrong almost all the time
There is a lot of ignorance, but I don’t think ignorance is any great help in explaining anything.
T
vukcevic
October 27, 2014 at 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.
What a joke the y don’t even know what they are correcting. I agree with you Vuk.
I might ad they can’t predict what is going to happen going forward either.
george e. smith October 26, 2014 at 11:01 pm
I’m sorry, but TSI is indeed energy. It is measured in watts, or watts per square metre, which is a measure of energy.
Power, on the other hand, is typically measured in watt-hours (or watt-seconds). It represents a certain amount of energy (in watts) expended over a duration of time (in hours or seconds).
Since TSI is given in watts, and not in watt-hours, it is clearly a measure of energy.
w.
Willis, don’t get trapped in this. Power is measured in Watts. Energy is measured in Watts times time. But, on the other hand, the satellites that measure TSI actually do measure the energy [over a 100 second period], then average all these measurements [e.g. over a day] and divide by the time to get a number that is independent of the measurement cadence. That number is a power. The distinction is immaterial as one can say that TSI is a measure of the average energy per unit time [second] and unit area [square meter], with no confusion.
Grrr … as usual when we disagree, Leif, you’re correct and I’m wrong. My apologies to george. TSI is indeed a measure of energy per unit time and unit area.
w.
And I agree with you. I’m not even sure that radiant “power” or power density, is actually measurable, except by collecting energy for a period of time.
When the cop gives you a speeding ticket at a “speed trap” he observes your travel for a certain time , but reports your calculated speed, not the distance. Radars and Lidars reduce the time and distance to very small values.
If someone wants to measure and integrate the incoming solar energy at a fixed spot for 24 hours, and report that number as average solar energy input, that’s ok with me.
That doesn’t alter the fact that the pi.r^2 projected area of the earth hemisphere facing the sun is receiving about 1362 +/- 45 W/m^2 of solar power continuously, and not 25% of that value.
The former number can actually warm the surface enough to be uncomfortably hot. The latter one can’t. So the difference in viewpoint results in a real difference in the weather, and eventually climate.
If that does not matter to anyone, so be it.
That doesn’t alter the fact that the pi.r^2 projected area of the earth hemisphere facing the sun is receiving about 1362 +/- 45 W/m^2 of solar power continuously, and not 25% of that value
That is irrelevant for the energy budget. What matters is what actually reaches the round, rotating Earth, not the projected area, which is the 25%
No, you cannot use the “flat earth” model “average sunshine, average albedo, average model” It is no more accurate today in a university classroom or political forum setting energy policy than it was when Magellan’s fleet circled the globe.
Look at today, Day-of-Year = 300 at noon.
Radiation TOA = 1379.
The edge of the Arctic sea ice is at (roughly) latitude 76.
At noon, the edge of the Arctic sea ice receives 1 watt/second!
The edge of the Antarctic sea ice at lattiude 60 south is receiving 732 watts/sec.
It is fresh sea ice, and is busy reflecting 602 watts/sec back into space. (130 watts are absorbed.)
If that Antarctic sea ice were open ocean – as it were just a few years ago, it would have absorbed 700 watts/sec and would have reflected 32 into space.
More than the lecture’s 340 average isn’t it?
RACookPE1978 October 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm
No, you cannot use the “flat earth” model…There is no solar radiation at all shining on the Arctic sea ice – even at noon.
That is why we use the “round earth” reality, and divide by four, as we must. There should be no need to discuss this anymore than to discuss whether the Earth is, in fact, round.
So I take it that the total solar energy reaching the round earth in one second (average for a year) is 25% of TSI x PI.r^2 or 1362 x (PI.r^2)/4 joule approximately. That is 25% of the total energy intercepted by the projected area of the earth hemisphere facing the sun. There is always half facing the sun, or in daylight if you wish. (r of course is the earth mean spherical radius)
I believe this is what you just said (in effect, though not in these words)
So I take it that the total solar energy reaching the round earth in one second (average for a year) is 25% of TSI x PI.r^2
No, it is TSI x PI x r^2 [if you want to be complicated]. But the important quantity is how much reaches the real surface integrated over the whole globe, and that is the 25%. Why are we discussing this trivial and obvious point?
No sir. But I agree with you.
The earth is most definitely round, but it is not flat.
Let me make a little experiment: I construct a special sensor that is sensitive to the energy falling on it. It consists of a horizontal plate with an area of one square meter. Every time, a Watt hits the sensor, a small grain is released into a container below. Now I cover the whole Earth with my sensors. After a year, I collect all the grains from all the boxes and count them. I divide the total count by the number of boxes and by the number of seconds in a year. The number I get will be near 340.
For the nit-pickers out there I can clarify the phrase Every time, a Watt hits the sensor, etc… to read ‘whenever the sensor has collected one joule of energy, it releases the grain and resets the meter, ready for the next Joule’.
Yes sir.
your analogy is perfectly correct: If the earth were a flat plate in space with no atmosphere.
Your receiver would work as described (as intended!) … Unless you wanted to actually calculate a heat loss or heat gain due to solar radiation. then your “flat plate” tips. The bits fall on it (maybe, but they slide off of the tray as it itself slides off oof the cart and onto the floor.)
no, I am not convinced of anything by the earlier lecture – It merely approximates averages and by doing so promulgates the simplified exaggerations of the CAGW dogma further. Up to latitude 45? A flat plate earth almost works – as long as you assume there is no difference in heat transfer between a tropical or temperate day and night.
i will admit, the University of Texas lecture did at least not make the mistake that Notre Dame did on its mid-term climate exam by assuming the Arctic sea ice was “lost in space” exposed to the average yearly TSI..
Above latitude 45? A flat plate earth is dead wrong.
A flat plate earth works … Until you try to add the atmospheric attenuation (which varies with latitude – and varies much much more significantly than the simple “cosine of latitude” approximation!.)
And you vary the latitude of the edge of sea ice – which changes day-by-day at different rates than the top-of-atmosphere radiation varies.
And you vary the albedo of Arctic sea ice as a function of day-of-year. Sea ice albedo drops significantly as a function of the day-of-year over the summer months (Curry, 2001) from a January – March high of 0.83 down to a mid-July low of 0.43, then rises slowly back towards its mid-winter high.
And you vary the albedo of the open ocean by solar elevation angle and by wind speed.
And you vary the evaporation rate by wind speed, air temperature, and sea water temperature – all of which vary by day-of-year.
And you vary the longwave radiation heat losses from the Arctic or Antarctic seas.
Now, what good is a flat plate earth? Well, it makes the arithmetic simple enough to force an incorrect value for all of the rest of their yearly average equations …..
Well Willis, my point was not about picking nits, or mud wrestling with other pigs, or to dispute what point you are trying to achieve in the sense of looking for a TSI variation signature. It’s very clear that the roughly 90 W /m^2 peak to peak variation in TSI over the yearly orbit should result, and demonstrably does result in changes in weather / climate from place to place on earth and from month to month throughout the year.
Leif has pointed out many times that the much smaller 0.1 % roughly change over the 11 year solar cycle does not have much if any impact on earth climate.
My problem is that the earth reacts with incoming solar radiation, in real time, and that means there are observable; and quite measurable changes that can be observed in from fractional seconds, to minutes or hours, every day.
Well a PV solar panel, will start producing an electric current within milliseconds, of the sun rising high enough to illuminate it , even at oblique angles. My skin reacts in less than five seconds, and records a feeling of warmth, whenever I step out of the shadow into the sunlight. The tar sealed road in front of my house, will be quite hot in less than an hour. And it will cool almost equally rapidly as soon as the sun sets or is shadowed from it.
The various “severe” weather manifestations, are all a consequence of the real time value of the amount of radiant energy reaching the location at the time. The earth does virtually nothing of note, as a consequence of the 24 hour integrated total solar joules, that a particular spot on earth receives, or as a result of small changes in that value.
If people want to do all those integrations just to get a value for a quantity that has almost no effect, that is fine with me. There’s a lot more statisticians than there are working Physicists. Some persons apparently are shocked to learn that working physicists even exist.
So I’ll let the statisticians make up numbers, and then try to attach importance to them.
I’ll go find some fellow pigs to get down in the mud with.
RaCook:
your analogy is perfectly correct: If the earth were a flat plate in space with no atmosphere.
Your receiver would work as described (as intended!) … Unless you wanted to actually calculate a heat loss or heat gain due to solar radiation.
All those complications are subsumed into the entity I called ‘a’ and in the use of the real average temperature 288K. And the whole point was to use the real earth, not a flat plate. You have not thought this through, obviously. And in any case, your comment is just vacuous hand wringing. No, numbers, no equations, no estimates, no nothing. But at least now you know what my view is, and why.
Thank you for the pleasure of your reply, though I disagree with it.
We will go through each specific number the next few days. Each number, each constant for a given latitude, or each equation for a value over a year’s period, is sourced back to one or more published papers based on measured values from the Arctic. There are no approximations, other than a spherical earth topped with a round Arctic sea ice cover.
Ultimately, I want to answer the question: Is Arctic Amplification (The so-called “Arctic Death Spiral”) actually a rel phenomenon? How much heat energy is actually gained (or lost) to the water when a square meter of the Arctic Ocean sea ice melts, or when an extra 1 million square kilometers around the Antarctic freezes?
If Antarctic sea ice expands to record levels (but nobody issues a press release), is that more or less important to the planet’s heat balance than the loss of Arctic sea ice?
If the Arctic sea ice continues melting from today’s levels, is more heat gained into the Arctic ocean, or more heat lost from the Arctic Ocean? Does that answer depend on day-of-year?
Or is the much-hyped “loss of Arctic sea ice” merely an exaggerated result of the “flat earth” averages and approximations you revealed in the UT lecture notes linked above?
George, your point is well taken, and clearly not trivial. Averaging often serves to hide more then it informs.
I find the fact that plus 90 w/m Sq. hitting the earth results in an atmospheric cooling double all the claimed warming since the little ice age, fascinating. I think the most cogent question that I hope Willis would ask and consider is, “Does the earth gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?” Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans. How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time. Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased insolation? Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle? Does some relevant quantity of this energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?
“””””…..
David A
October 27, 2014 at 11:35 pm
George, your point is well taken, and clearly not trivial. Averaging often serves to hide more then it informs……”””””
David, I don’t have ANY dispute, with what Willis is conveying in his post. My point of discontent, is with what the “climate modellers” seem to contend is important.
# 1 A sphere has a surface area of : 4.pi.r^2 everybody knows that.
# 2 A circle has an area of : 1.pi.r^2 everybody knows that.
# 3 The above circle is the “projected area” of the above sphere. everybody knows that.
I asserted that the total solar power striking the earth was simply TSI x the projected area.
That is TSI x pi.r^2
Leif said the projected area was irrelevant, or words to that effect, and the real total power was 25% of that.
He later did agree with the TSI x pi.r^2 Evidently he meant the total power spread over the spherical surface is 25% of this value.
I AGREE WITH THAT , and I always have.
But what the climate community including Dr. Kevin Trenberth, seem to assert, is that what matters to climate, and ergo, to weather, is the total surface “energy” budget, which is the total number of joule(s) striking the total earth surface, in a given time, which presumably would be in one mean solar day (24 hours) , and NOT the actual rate of arrival of that energy.
But as Dr. Svalgaard asserts, you can take the total energy that strikes the whole spherical earth, and average it per unit area (4.pi.r^2), and then also state that as an AVERAGE power density; which would of course come out to about TSI / 4 or 342 W/m^2, stated as an average rate of energy arrival.
I don’t disagree with any of that mathematics, and never have. Even the pigs agree with that mathematics.
My problem is I don’t get why the earth weather and climate respond to the average, and not to the real time physical quantity, which is what every other physical process does.
On average NOTHING HAPPENS. No heat flows anywhere on an isothermal 288 K spherical earth, with every place at the same temperature, giving and getting 342 W/m^2 average power in and out.
I would have ZERO expectation that ANY model based on earth average power or energy density , would, or could agree with the actual observed weather / climate we actually get on earth.
My problem is I don’t get why the earth weather and climate respond to the average, and not to the real time physical quantity, which is what every other physical process does.
The heating element of my electric stove respond to the average power of the alternating current that feeds it. Is it so hard to understand that the Earth’s climate also does that?
Leif:
Earth is not nearly as stable as your oven… But point well taken – and a good analogy of a simple system that is stable with a hysteresis based on the temperature control algorithm.
However – if the phase balance of the power changes, the temperature controller will still be able to achieve stasis – albeit the average power input will change considerably. So your analogy tweaked more precisely can be use loosely to follow the next point.
What is Earth’s thermostat? Some people think earth changes (reflects more or less) in response to phase changes that affect things that affect other things that affect… so on and so forth.
Just Sayin’ (most respectfully Leif.)
“””””…..
lsvalgaard
October 28, 2014 at 12:44 pm
My problem is I don’t get why the earth weather and climate respond to the average, and not to the real time physical quantity, which is what every other physical process does.
……..
The heating element of my electric stove respond to the average power of the alternating current that feeds it. Is it so hard to understand that the Earth’s climate also does that?
Well Leif, what you say is quite correct. BUT!!
In fact, the heating element of your electric stove, is responding to the instantaneous power being applied to it.
Most electric stove heating elements, have quite negligible inductance at 60 Hz power line frequencies, so a sinusoidal voltage applied to the element, will develop a strictly in phase sinusoidal current, that goes to zero, 120 times per second, when the voltage goes to zero, and at that time the applied power, and additional heat generated, also go to zero. And I would venture that the same would be true, if the line frequency was 60 kHz, instead of 60 Hz. I’d even buy the beer (or wine) if it didn’t do likewise at 1MHz, but I’m not so sure about 60 MHz.
Now the electric heater element on your range, is not unlike the filament in an incandescent light bulb, and those too, respond to the instantaneous power.
In fact it is quite trivial to show the 120 Hz light output variation from the light bulb due to the instantaneous response.
Now because of the thermal time constant of the bulb or stove element, the temperature rise above ambient, does not go to zero twice per cycle, but the dimming is quite visible.
Fluorescent tubes on the other hand, turn completely off at a 120 Hz rate (USA).
But I would like to have an explanation of how the hottest desert surfaces get to as much as 90 deg. C at times during the day, when irradiated with a constant 342 W/m^2 of solar spectrum radiant energy, and why the polar regions don’t do anything of the sort, with the exact same (average) irradiance all over the earth.
I have no problem with the idea of monitoring the total number of joule(s) received on a square meter of the earth surface over a 24 hour day. But having obtained that number by summation (integration), I see no point in converting that hard won number into a power rate, which implies a rate of arrival of that energy, and yields a rate, which is only correct for a miniscule fraction of the day. If it is an earth energy budget, leave the result in energy (density) units.
But I guess people spending taxpayer grant money, have to spend it on something, so practicing their arithmetic by calculating a host of meaningless statistics, serves that purpose.
George:
In fact, the heating element of your electric stove, is responding to the instantaneous power being applied to it.
But the temperature it achieves depends on the average power over the A/C cycle.
Viking:
You still have not shown us the temperature of the Earth calculated from gravity. Perhaps your A was not for gravity.
You win Leif.
I’ll let you explain to the readers, why the mean Temperature of the stove element is not the same if you feed it power from a DC voltage instead of the 60 Hz Ac , with the exact same average power supplied, in both cases.
Yes, and the question Willis asked applied to the GAT, which despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C, the opposite of the quick glance intuitive assumption.
The questions are many…
“Does the earth gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?
How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?
Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased insolation?
Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?
Does some relevant quantity of this energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?
etc.
I am not certain any of my questions were answered, alas.
George:
the goal was not to ‘win’ but to further your understanding. For average power you need to use the so-called rms power. This is nicely explained in
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/resistor/res_8.html
“The heating effect produced by an AC current with a maximum value of Imax is not the same as that of a DC current of the same value. To compare the AC heating effect to an equivalent DC the rms values must be used.” The rms is not the same as the linear average. If you have further insight to contribute, please do so.
>> You still have not shown us the temperature of the Earth calculated from gravity.
pV = nrT.
The ideal gas law has nothing to do with gravity. It also works inside the International Space Station [you can breathe]. Here you can learn more about the law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxUS1K7xu30
>> The ideal gas law has nothing to do with gravity
really? The atmospheric pressure at the surface is caused by the –weight– of the column of air above.
Really bad logic:
premise: there are multiple ways to create air pressure (hence, space station)
conclusion: gravity doesn’t cause air pressure.
Interesting side note: the temperature on Venus at an altitude where pressure is equal to 1 Earth atmosphere is pretty similar to Earth surface temperature.
Cut the Sun’s output in half. The weight of the atmosphere will not change significantly, but the temperature will most certainly, so gravity is not the controlling factor, sunlight is.
Agree that temperatures would drop, but it’s a gross error to ignore the effect of gravity along with the complex thermodynamics of land & sea.
Gravity has nothing to do with anything as the global weight of the atmosphere is very nearly constant. What matters is the Volume and Temperature. Those are the variables that vary [together].
“””””…..
lsvalgaard
October 28, 2014 at 10:57 pm
George:
the goal was not to ‘win’ but to further your understanding. For average power you need to use the so-called rms power. This is nicely explained in
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/resistor/res_8.html
“The heating effect produced by an AC current with a maximum value of Imax is not the same as that of a DC current of the same value. To compare the AC heating effect to an equivalent DC the rms values must be used.” The rms is not the same as the linear average. If you have further insight to contribute, please do so……”””””
Well with all due respect, Dr. Svalgaard, I would suggest you stick with a subject you are knowledgeable in, like Solar Physics, and leave the electrical engineering to those trained in that.
First off, I specifically said in my comparative example that the POWERS were the same in the DC and AC cases. I did not say the DC voltage and AC peak voltage were the same. For the conditions I said (equal powers), the DC Voltage (and DC current) would be approximately equal to the AC RMS voltage, and current respectively.
Sorry, but electrical power is already a squared quantity.
Either I^2.R, or V^2 / R, or I.V
So there is no such thing as RMS POWER. It is identical in value (if you calculate it) to the average power. There is of course RMS voltage and current. Nor is there such a thing as “peak to peak” power for an AC voltage or current. The power is identical at both the positive and negative peaks of current or voltage. Some fraudulent hi-fi amplifier peddlers often quote “peak to peak power”, and state a number that is eight times their “RMS” power. (= average power)
As to your stove element Temperature responding to average AC power; let us just change the frequency of the AC voltage to get a better insight.
I suggest a frequency of 11.574 micro hertz. That is one cycle in 24 hours, just like the solar input at a point on earth. I bet the Temperature does NOT respond to the average power. And it doesn’t at 60 Hz either. The 60 Hz AC driven element runs cooler (on average) than the DC driven one, for the exact same total electrical power input. The lower frequency one goes from really cold to really hot.
There is NO physical process, that can sense, observe, or measure the average value of ANY physical variable property. They ONLY respond to instantaneous values; sometimes in as little as an attosecond, or even much shorter. Most processes of our common experience, are too sluggish for us to detect their response to such short time phenomena. Thermal processes, are famous for being sluggish.
An average (value) is something that can ONLY be computed from a set of known data values. No physical process can remember indefinitely what previous instantaneous values were, even perhaps from just one second ago, so they cannot wait to accumulate past information to determine the average. Now we can obtain sequential values, or at least estimates of them, and then compute an average, but real physical systems cannot.
I’m not a quantum mechanic or cosmologist, but I hear tell, that lots of interesting things happened in the first 1E-43 (or is it 1E-34) seconds after the big bang; which was actually a very microscopic bang. I realize there is 9 orders of magnitude difference in those numbers, but I don’t know if that matters or not.
So one attosecond, is an eternity, in the life of the universe.
But Dr Svalgaard, you really should stop treating everyone as ignorant idiots. I have actually had practical hands on working experience, in electrical engineering and electronics, for about 70 years total, and had paid employment in those fields, and other physics disciplines, for taxpaying profit making commercial companies, as a Physicist for about 55 of those years.
My stuff was required to work, or I would get fired (never have been). Just got a new gig today that will buy the groceries and beer for a good while.
I wasn’t hiding in a tenured academic environment, publishing papers on subjects that nobody wanted to pay money out of their own pocket.
And if you think that is a barb pointed at you, it most assuredly is not. But maybe the 65% of USA Physics PhD graduates, who are never able to find a paying (commercial) customer for their expertise, should be asking if there is something more useful they can do, than live out the rest of their careers, as post doc fellows in some, often taxpayer funded institution.
Sorry if this offends anybody.
Maybe it wouldn’t if they had wrestled a few pigs down in the mud themselves.
And any of the above should be considered to be just my OPINION. I wouldn’t even dignify it as a conjecture. So just for amusement, like Dr. Roy Spencer’s three term polynomial fit.
In particular, nobody should rely on anything I claimed above (my opinion) in connection with any kind of life support system.
And no, I am not going to cite any textbooks, or peer reviewed papers, or refer to any experts in these fields, and it certainly is not any appeal to authority; I already just told you it is just my opinion. You won’t find any corroborative information in Wikipedia. It’s just my opinion, and you should not rely on it for any purpose.
It is at least good to see that you no longer have this problem:
george e. smith October 28, 2014 at 11:42 am
My problem is I don’t get why the earth weather and climate respond to the average, and not to the real time physical quantity, which is what every other physical process does.
Your various attempts to claim expertise don’t do much for me, sorry.
There is NO physical process, that can sense, observe, or measure the average value of ANY physical variable property.
If that is your opinion, I, for one, would never hire you to do any work for me.
>> Gravity has nothing to do with anything
GHG Theory was created to explain a so-called 33C delta-T. James Hansen has claimed and all AGW proponents agree that the difference between the temperature at Earth’s surface (15C) and the temperature with which Earth radiates to space (-18C) is due to the so called greenhouse effect.
However, a much simpler and more logical explanation is that the -18C reflects the average temperature of the top of the troposphere. That is the outward facing sphere where radiation becomes completely dominant. Below that, convection and conduction are the dominant forms or heat transfer.
The difference (33C) is easily explained by gravity. The higher the colder. Given -18C at the top of the troposphere, the surface can’t help but be warmer, as temperature must rise with increasing pressure.
As an EE, I can confirm George’s excellent explanation of RMS. I also agree with him that AGW proponents have constructed a very bad model of physical reality. This is essentially that Earth is a flat surface receiving a low constant value of solar radiation. This isn’t the thermodynamic reality. As George and others have been explaining, cooking a turkey for 3 hours at 325 F is not the same as cooking it for 9 hours at 108 F, even though the average per hour is the same.
Leif, I also concur with George that you should definitely stick with staring at the sun, and leave not only electrical engineering, but all other scientific areas to people a lot more qualified. The fundamental attributes of a scientist are curiosity and integrity. I explained some basic thermodynamics to you back in 2007, and you dismissed the whole science of thermodynamics out of hand. No one who rejects the most solid of the laws of science deserves any respect. A good scientist follows the evidence and analysis without any preconceived idea of what the answer needs to be. A good scientist tries to falsify his own hypotheses. What have you done to try to disprove AGW?
In the same vein, may I suggest you stick with EE. Your gravity idea is pure nonsense. Globally the pressure is constant, what varies is the Volume caused by changes in Temperature.
You’re knocking down a straw man, pretending that I’ve said that gravity causes temperature variation.
You’ve made the non-physical claim that the temperature of the earth is equal to incoming radiation, assuming a non existent law of science that says that planets must be in radiative balance. When asked to support this assertion, you say nothing. I provided the correct explanation which is that planets have temperature because they have gravity. The lower (in a gravity field), the hotter, is an incontrovertible fact of reality. That’s why planets like Jupiter are way hotter than one would expect if one stupidly assumed radiative balance.
As for temperature variation, that is obviously caused by complex thermodynamics resulting from a variety of factors, including an “AC” input signal from the sun. The difference between solar minimum and maximum is alone enough to explain all the temperature variation we’ve seen so far. However, since you’re a “science denier” when it comes to thermodynamics, you’ll never understand this.
OK, so now you disavow your earlier claim that climate change is caused by gravity. Fine with me.
>> disavow your earlier claim that climate change is caused by gravity
This is where integrity becomes important. Can you provide a quote where I said that climate change was caused by gravity?
The point was that you have a complete misconception of the system, where you simplistically stated that output = input, as though there was no system at all. You claimed that earth’s temperature was caused directly by the input radiation. That’s quite incorrect.
I gave you an analogy which would should have helped a curious critical thinker come to his senses. the analogy was that water in the great lakes was like the internal energy of a planet (core/crust/land/sea/air). Rain was like the sun shining down on us. The St Lawrence was like the thermosphere radiating out to space. A solar maximum is like a really bad rainstorm in the upper great lakes region. The average temperature of the system is like the water level. Second law says that water doesn’t flow up the Niagara river, just like the atmosphere doesn’t heat the land and sea.
I brought up gravity because AGW proponents like you distort physical reality for non scientific reasons. You assert patently false ideas like “earth’s temperature = input radiation T” and Venus is hot because of CO2. When the reality is that Venus has an atmospheric mass 93 times larger than Earth. The surface temperature of Venus is what it is because of the tremendous weight of the atmosphere (PV = nRT).
VikingExplorer October 28, 2014 at 8:14 am
Planets have a temperature because they have gravity.
But you are confusing the temperature with temperature change
The latter is controlled by the energy input. My calculation takes care of the former by calculating the change from 288K [regardless of what cause the 288K]. The whole discussion from the start was about the change of temperature due to a change of solar insolation.
george e. smith October 28, 2014 at 9:04 pm
I’ll let you explain to the readers, why the mean Temperature of the stove element is not the same if you feed it power from a DC voltage instead of the 60 Hz Ac , with the exact same average power supplied, in both cases.
I am a numbers man. To regain some of your credibility you should compute the difference in temperature.
“”””….
lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 at 1:40 pm
george e. smith October 28, 2014 at 9:04 pm
I’ll let you explain to the readers, why the mean Temperature of the stove element is not the same if you feed it power from a DC voltage instead of the 60 Hz Ac , with the exact same average power supplied, in both cases.
I am a numbers man. To regain some of your credibility you should compute the difference in temperature……”””””
I thought I never had any credibility.
If I make some reasonable simplifying assumptions, like a heater element made from Constantan, rather than Nichrome; so I can assume essentially, a Temperature independent resistance, then I can assume an ideal sinusoidal AC current.
So I need to set some realistic Temperature setting, and also assume a black body radiation cooling. (no pot on the stove, and negligible (thermal) conduction through the terminals). This should give me (after a transient time) a steady state heating / cooling cycle, with the element getting hotter around peak AC current, and cooler around zero current.
Assuming first order that the small Temperature excursion is sinusoidal, I can then calculate the non linear radiated power curve and integrate that to determine the total radiated energy, and the equivalent BB Temperature at that higher total radiated power level, to compare with the constant DC steady state Temperature.
Right now, I’m taking a breather from working for a paying customer, over at Moffet Field, but when I can get some time, maybe while I’m watching The WWF wrestling, I can figure that out for you.
But nice of you to imply, that they might actually be different.
For ANY steady state periodic Temperature excursion, because of the T^4 effect, the BB radiated energy over that period, is greater than the total energy radiated at the average Temperature of that periodic cycle, so with a given average input power to the element, the Temperature must be lower, than with no Temperature cyclic variation.
It’s a commonly occurring phenomenon. For an AT cut quartz crystal oscillator, which has a parabolic frequency versus Temperature curve, the consequence of any periodic steady state Temperature cycle, is that the oscillator always runs slow, compared to the zero Temperature change case. And in the case of a parabolic curve, the time lost during the cycle, is quite independent, of whether the nominal Temperature is at the exact zero TC Temperature, or whether it is offset from there (and in either direction).
I’m always willing to be educated, but I need to see some numbers.
>> Planets have a temperature because they have gravity. But you are confusing the temperature with temperature change
I think I understand you now. You have serious troubles with reading comprehension. You read “Planets have a temperature because they have gravity” as “climate change is caused by gravity”.
>> The latter is controlled by the energy input
Given your troubles with abstract and critical thinking, it’s not surprising that you still don’t understand how the analogy clearly shows that a change in input rain would first add water to Lake Superior. A % change in input would not cause the same % change in water level. And it would be insane to expect a % change in rain to cause the same % change in water flowing through the St Lawrence.
Without any understanding of control systems theory, you have grossly oversimplified the system to output = input. It’s totally incorrect and non-physical, but it’s your story and you’re obtusely sticking to it.
The cycle changes in TSI seem small in the metric given, watts per square meter but multiply that by the amount of square meters being affected and the fact that it is a constant for a period of 1 day upon a system in a form of equilibrium then look at the variance over the last 100 years.
The real interest is in the Modern Maximum and how its twin peaks affected cloud cover.
During the 1980’s/90’s there were entire wet seasons without the wet in Australia, Indonesia and India now this has not happened again since.
Then show us how it affected the cloud cover. Careful analysis does not show any correlation, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
Actually Sir, so far my examination of the paper indicates that due to many disparate factors we do not have the capacity to determine yet if such a correlation exists.
“Furthermore, although not in direct relation
to the solar-cloud studies, Brest et al. (1997) state that the
ISCCP data are not sensitive enough to detect small changes in
cloud cover over long timescales. As the total relative uncertainties
in radiance calibrations of this dataset are approximately
5% for visible and 2% for IR cloud retrievals (where absolute
uncertainties are <10% and <3% respectively
and
"Assuming a CR-cloud connection exists, there are various
factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection
of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies,
including: uncertainties, artefacts and measurement limitations
of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the
(likely low) amplitude of any solar-induced changes; the inability
of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the
inability to isolate solar-induced changes from natural climate
oscillations and periodicities.
Even without such limitations it is still possible that we may
be unable to detect a clear CR-cloud relationship for several
reasons.
Put simply the resolution capacity to measure and detect such changes may not allow us to determine the connection.. The paper also lists numerous studies the show some correlation evidence and postulate some mechanisms, but it effectively shows the limitations of our current technology.
So the jury appears to still be out.
David, you forgot [omitted] their conclusion: “. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”. People who enthusiastically make the claim that there is do not think the jury is out.
Thank you but I did omit that conclusion, as I consider that conclusion self evident; if you do not have the resolution necessary to determine postulated relationship, then robust evidence is , well not possible. And
you are correct that some wish to assume and protect their view point. We remember Einstein, setting the bar high, saying he did not wish to be right, he just wanted to know if he was or not. Perhaps the best most of us can honestly say is we do wish to be right, but our desire to know the truth exceeds our ego driven agenda. .
However many honest scientist have written papers postulation a relationship we lack the technical capacity to “robustly” determine, but having some interesting correlations warranting further research. It is, IMV, sad
that the CAGW agenda commanders funding that would be better spent in true research.
Willis Eschenbach October 27, 2014 at 12:26 pm
I’m afraid you’re letting George drag you down to his level (the old adage of wrestling with pigs comes to mind).
Watts are indeed a unit of power, and watt-hours etc. of energy. TSI, in watts per square meter, is technically a power flux density. So in this nit-picky point he is correct.
But in his larger points, he is not. People take averages of power all the time, and the resulting values are useful in many — but not all — contexts. For instance, you can integrate your household electrical power usage (in Watts) over time (to get Watt-hours), then divide by the time period to get your average electrical power use (in Watts again). That is a useful number for many purposes, but of course it does not tell you everything, such as your peak power rate.
I think Willis has the right explanation for why the variation in TSI across the seasons does not create a seasonal cycle in global temperature (that explanation being his thermostat hypothesis, where tropical water vapor feedback effects are substantially negative, to use the IPCC’s forcing-feedback framework), and I think he is right that this implies that human-scale variations in CO2 heat trapping will similarly have little effect on global temperature (as negative feedbacks dampen the already very modest CO2 forcings). I would just add that none of this means that indirect solar effects (whether by solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux, UV shift, or whatever) can’t be significant.
One key question in the realm of Willis’ thermostat theory is whether a decrease in water vapor condensation nuclei (the GCR-cloud theory) would alter the thermostat setting. If strong solar-magnetic activity causes condensation to occur less readily then it should take a bigger amount warming to create a given amount of cloud cooling offset (the top half of the thermostatic heat pump, where condensation both releases heat in the upper atmosphere and creates sun-blocking cloud cover), and prima facie this would seem to raise the thermostat set-point.
Another way that indirect solar effects could still have significant effects on climate, even if there is a strong thermostatic process (a negative water vapor feedback) is if the indirect solar forcing effect is really big, so that even dampened it is still substantial. An example there might be Stephen Wilde’s theory about IR-shift and solar-wind effects creating a meridional shift in the polar jets, where the correspondingly larger storm tracks could have a large effect on the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Water vapor damping would turn this into a modest effect on climate, and the effect would be highly randomized, but the warming to be accounted is not dramatic (certainly not post 1950, where the IPCC’s attribution claims are focused), so it may be a viable explanation.
Beyond the inter-glacial time frame strongly positively reinforcing ice and snow albedo feedbacks become dominant, as snow and ice descend to latitudes of ever greater geographic area. At current average temperatures the tropical negative feedback may be stronger, but the positive snow and ice feedback always has to be added in.
As there is no good evidence that the GCR-theory is operating it is not a key question what it does.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Alec.
The question of the GCR (galactic cosmic ray) theory is why I started my to-date fruitless search for an ~11-year cycle in … well … any surface climate record. I figured that whether it was caused by variations in sunspots, in TSI, in heliomagnetism, in solar wind, or in GCRs, they all had the same timing as the sunspots.
At the the time I came up with my “thunderstorm thermostat” hypothesis, the idea that emergent phenomena regulate the earths temperature, I speculated regarding what might cause slow drift in the temperature as follows:
So at the time, I figured that once I found the 11-year cycle, I could then figure out what was causing it. And given the number of claims of such evidence, I figured it would be an easy search. As you can see from my writing then, I thought I could find some such cycle in the clouds.
But to my surprise, I’ve never yet found a surface weather dataset, of clouds or anything else, that contains any statistically significant evidence of an eleven or a 22-year cycle. I’ve even asked people to point me to such a dataset, and no one has. Instead, they’ve pointed me at a study of tree rings of one tree in Chile, and the like …
Anyhow, that’s why I place little weight on GCR theories … I can’t find the evidence.
w.
Just today finished a 36 lecture Great Courses course on the Italian Renaissance in prep for a trip to Florence. In the last lecture there are hints at a comparison-
of early 16th century Italy with its wars, disillusionment with both humanism and the experiments with republican forms of government, fear of the future and of non-conforming ideas, and an increasingly authoritarian church (Index Librorum Prohibitorum and Inquisition which put Galileo under house arrest)
and a present state of increasing darkness, our 20th century wars, depression and genocide. I couldn’t help but think of how the optimisms of the Renaissance and of Enlightenment seem similarly extinguished by wars, emerging fundamentalisms, fears (and abuses) of government, fears of global warming/climate change and abuses of elite fear-mongering scientists and their followers which result in inquisition like denunciation of critics. Willis, the heretic, and lsvalgaard, the no nonsense scientist, seem in their own way to be trying to keep the barbarians at the gates, but I’m afraid they’re already in the academy.
Willis: You correctly note that the ellipticity of the earth’s orbit produces an annual cycle in TSI arriving AT the earth with an amplitude of 22 W/m2 that peaks in January. This happens to be the same time that the planet’s albedo is greatest. (The albedo over clear skies is greatest when snow cover is greatest, during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. The albedo of cloudy skies peaks at the same time.) So the amount of SWR absorbed by the planet isn’t 22 W/m2 greater in January than in July. However, the change in albedo accounts for perhaps 5 W/m2 of your 22 W/m2 cycle. For data see: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568
Both ECS and TCR assume that climate has decades to respond to a change in forcing. To calculate the warming expected from your shorter annual change in solar forcing, you need to know the heat capacity and total amount of material that is warming. The heat capacity is 157,000 kJ/m2/degK for the atmosphere and 50 m ocean mixed layer covering 70% of the surface. For every 1 W/m2 of heat going into this material, I calculate a warming rate of 0.017 degK/month (0.2 degK/y). The roughly 18 W/m2 forcing (post albedo) from the earth’s eccentric orbit could produce warming rate of 0.3 degK/month. The 12 degC of warming you expect from an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2 degC will take 36 years to develop at this rate due to thermal inertia (and this initial warming rate will slow down due to Planck feedback). The same inertia limits the cooling after a volcanic eruption.
The heat capacity of the air above land is only 10,400 kJ/m2/degK. Surface temperature above land would rise 15 times faster if all of the radiative forcing went into warming the air. In this case, one would observe a 0.26 degK/month rise for every 1 W/m2 change in radiative forcing. For this reason, the massive changes in solar radiation associated with seasonal changes in angle of incidence produce much faster warming in the center of continents (which are mostly in the Northern Hemisphere) than they do over the ocean. This causes the mean global surface temperature to be about 1.5 degK above average during summer in the northern hemisphere – when absorbed SWR is about 9 W/m2 less than average! (This 3 degC cycle is eliminated by taking temperature anomalies.)
The above PNAS paper (and earlier papers) discusses how the LWR emitted and the SWR reflected by the planet vary with this 3 degK annual cycle in measured surface temperature. The change in LWR emitted by the planet is less than expected for a blackbody (Planck feedback), indicating that the combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback is positive, but not big enough to double warming. The difference between cloudy and clear skies suggests that cloud feedback is not strongly positive nor strongly negative.
RACookPE1978 October 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Thanks for the example, RA. Actually the “Arctic death spiral”, as I understand it, refers to what is predicted by the climate models. It has little to do with averages.
I’m not clear what this means. Anyone with sense would use the most fine-grained data that we have. Unfortunately, for the Arctic we don’t have the luxury of data for every hour of every day. In fact, we don’t have much data period. So I use the CERES data, which is monthly averages by 1°x1° gridcell, which at the equator is about a hundred km (60 nautical miles) on each side, and smaller than that in the Arctic.
I fail to see why saying that the average albedo of a particular 1°x1° gridcell in June of 2003 was 0.31 perforce leads to erroneous conclusions. It represents the best measurements we have, and yes that gives it limitations … but it doesn’t lead to claims of a “death spiral”.
w.
Willis Eschenbach
October 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm Edit
replying to RACookPE1978 October 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm
…
No. The so-called Arctic death spiral can only be created with averages and approximations. Using actual hour-by-hour values shows it is (deliberate) false propaganda because the open Arctic water loses more heat than it gains most of the year. And, even on those few days in summer when the Arctic Ocean does gain heat energy from the sun, the Antarctic still reflects energy out into space from areas much closer to the equator.
…
Thank you for your reply – I have to get up at 05:00 to meet a truck at 6:15 to unload it for the dayshift crane at 07:00 so the electrician can begin hooking it up at 07:30 so the machinists can begin working at 09:30 … but will write more later.
Heat transfer at the ocean surface is instantaneous, and varies at every latitude, every day-of-year, and at every hour of the day.
Snow, sea ice albedo, axial declination, and top-of-atmosphere radiation depend on clear day-of-year functions that have been measured under relevant conditions. No guesses or approximations needed or desired.
Axial tilt and solar elevation angle are available for every day-of-year and hour-of-day. No guesses or approximations needed nor wanted.
Air mass depends on latitude and time-of-day and latitude and season (day-of-year) and atmospheric attenuation: The result flux at the sea surface has been measured at polar latitudes under clear sky conditions, and a limited number of cloudy sky conditions. No additional approximations needed nor wanted, unless mid-latitude attenuation is desired for other studies.
Open water albedo has been measured several times under clear and cloudy skies and under various wave conditions and wind speeds down to 10 degrees solar elevation angle. No approximations needed until solar elevation angle gets below 6 degrees. And, at that air mass between 1 and 6 degrees, so much energy has been lost into the atmosphere that what little remains is impressive only for how trivial it is.
2 meter air temperature, air pressure, wind speed, humidity, and dew point are available for several years for every hour of the day for every day-of-year at 76+ latitude at the Arctic water’s edge. It will have to be good enough. I was using Thule temperatures and data, but the DMUI said they had better data and got me a link.
Speaking of data, where’s the CERES data you used Willis?
Hi, Peter. The CERES data is all available at http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov
w.
Okay, but which data set? There are a lot, and none is labeled “TSI”. Did a bit of searching, couldn’t find anything that I would guess at that matched the timeframes in your graph above.
(why not just post it to dropbox, github, etc? Scientists are still stuck in the 90s when it comes to sharing data)
From the CERES data page, go to the “Order Data” , which takes you here. The TSI is part of the EBAF-TOA dataset, click on “Browse & Subset” for that dataset, which takes you here. The one you want is “Solar Flux”.
Best regards,
w.
“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.”
I didn’t read the comments so I don’t know if this has been mentioned already. It does. In fact, the change in temperature is greater than 12 C. In New York it’s around 30 C. Notice in your graph the TSI variation and seasonal component are almost the same. TSI variation is responsible for the seasons. But different parts of the world get different amounts of irradiance so the seasons are not global but regional.
Insolation changes due to obliquity are responsible for the seasons. Real TSI changes are too small. One must be careful to distinguish actual TSI changes from apparent TSI changes due to conditions of the Earth. As Leif once commented on changes in TSI: ” For the climate, TOA at the Earth is the proper measure. For study of the Sun, TSI at 1 AU is the proper measure. “
The Terra satellite is on the top of atmosphere. Its TSI measurements are TOA.
The Terra satellite has 98 degrees inclination. Its nearly in polar orbit. It doesn’t measure TSI at all latitudes and longitudes. It may not represent global average TSI.
For global TSI, the perihelion is around January 3 and the aphelion around July 4. The difference in TSI between perihelion and aphelion is around 22.7 W/m^2
Yes, and the question Willis asked applied to the GAT, which despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C, the opposite of the quick glance intuitive assumption.
The questions are many…
“Does the earth gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?
How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?
Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased insolation?
Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?
Does some relevant quantity of this energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?
etc.
I am not certain any of my questions were answered, alas.
“despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C”
Nope. January 3 is summer in SH. It warms by 30 C in South Pole.
“Does the earth gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
It probably gains but negative feedbacks can offset it or thermal inertia can delay the effect by months.
“Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?”
These are possible negative feedbacks.
“How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?”
Increased insolation theoretically should cause warming not cooling.
“Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased insolation?”
Yes, cloud cover is positively correlated to surface temperature in January and negatively correlated in July. These coincide with the perihelion and aphelion.
“Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?”
Theoretically possible. Must be checked with observations of humidity and precipitation.
“Does some relevant quantity of this energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?”
Certainly. This is happening since time immemorial and part of natural climate change.
Dr Strangeglove, thank you for your reply, but I think you confirmed my questions as valid and unanswered. Here they are in full, with my comments in ( )
Dr. Strangelove
October 28, 2014 at 11:33 pm
“despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C”
Nope. January 3 is summer in SH. It warms by 30 C in South Pole.
(What does this have to do with GAT? Global average Temperature. Note; this is global average atmospheric temperature, which is lower during this time of increased insolation.)
“Does the earth gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
It probably gains but negative feedbacks can offset it or thermal inertia can delay the effect by months.
(yes, and probably is my guess as well, but not an answer.)
“Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?”
These are possible negative feedbacks. (Yes,as my question implied, but again, no answer to the question)
“How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?”
Increased insolation theoretically should cause warming not cooling. (Not if the insolation enters below
the ocean surface, where “for a time” it is lost to the atmosphere.)
“Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased insolation?”
Yes, cloud cover is positively correlated to surface temperature in January and negatively correlated in July. These coincide with the perihelion and aphelion. (Yet global surface T drops Do you have access to NH and SH cloud cover changes during these two seasonal extremes? )
“Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?”
Theoretically possible. Must be checked with observations of humidity and precipitation. (would love to see the comparison)
“Does some relevant quantity of this energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?”
Certainly. This is happening since time immemorial and part of natural climate change. (yes, but does it correlate seasonal with insolations changes, and is the amount quantifiable?)
(In summary these basic questions associated with seasonal changes should be quantified and understood well, even by laymen, but instead we spend billions pursuing CAGW assumptions. This is sad in my view.)
“So I take it that the total solar energy reaching the round earth in one second (average for a year) is 25% of TSI x PI.r^2 or 1362 x (PI.r^2)/4 joule approximately”.
————
“No, it is TSI x PI x r^2 [if you want to be complicated]. But the important quantity is how much reaches the real surface integrated over the whole globe, and that is the 25%”.
============
OK, so the average yearly total solar energy reaching the round earth in one second is 1362 W/m^2.
And, 25% of the aforesaid 1362 W/m^2 average yearly total solar energy reaching the earth’s real surface in one second integrated over the whole globe is an average 360 W/m^2.
So, it’s an average 360 W/m^2, ….. so what?
Does that 360 W/m^2 “signature” show up in the Surface Temperature Record from 1880 to present? I don’t think so.
Does that 360 W/m^2 “signature” show up in any of the various “calculated” Surface Temperature proxy data or proxy graphs associated with the past 2,000 or 4,000 years? I don’t think so.
So, just what is the “value” of said “360 W/m^2” figure to resolving actual, factual “questions” associated with earth’s climate and/or Climate Science?
A nit-picking curious mind would like to know.
Does that 360 W/m^2 “signature” show up in the Surface Temperature Record from 1880 to present? I don’t think so.
Well, you may not think so, but Mother Nature has her own mind about this. If the input were much lower than the 342 W/m2, the temperature would be much lower. If the input were much higher, the temperature would be much higher.
“If the input were much lower than the 342 W/m2, the temperature would be much lower.”
——————
Don’t be talking silly to me. Your afore misstated number of “the 342 W/m2” is an abstract numerical figure which has no actual physical “quantity” associated with it …. and thus it should have been defined as being ….“the average 342 W/m2” ….. because “average” numerical values are the calculated median of a specific number set. Averages are like boats, …. they rise and fall with the “numerical” tide. And said “one (1) time” calculated average can not be employed or cited for “ever n’ ever” as being an actual, factual quantity to prove or justify another claim of “fact”.
Citing an “average” as a numerical fact of a physical quantity is “junk science”. So, …. “If …. a toad had wings” ….. was not a legitimate response to my nit-picking questions.
Anyway, here following is a “temperature proxy graph” containing seven (7) different “average temperature” proxies …. plus the calculated “average” (heavy black line) for said 7 proxy averages (an average of the 7 averages) ….. and thus I am curious as to how you are going to correlate and/or apply your above quoted comment to said graph …. or to the 2nd pictured temperature proxy graph, to wit:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg
Are those “higher” and “lower” temperatures the result of …. big changes in your specified “average solar irradiance” of 342 W/m2?
Probably so, …. but said “big changes” would be ….. “location specific” and therefore immeasurable. And much ado about nothing.
I think people should read “The Neglected Sun” by Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastion Luning.
Readers will be stunned by the contents of this book!
Willis asked: “why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature.
You could also ask why ocean doesn’t freeze every night when almost 1000 W/m2 of solar radiation stops.
It takes several centuries for a change radiative forcing to produce an EQUILIBRIUM change in temperature. Even TCR is calculated after a 70-year period of gradually increasing forcing. The earth has too much thermal inertia (the heat capacity of the atmosphere and mixed layer) to respond in a few months to a modest change in solar input. (22 W/m2 / 1463 W/m2 = 1.5% change).
You can find detailed calculations in my earlier comment. The linked paper uses the same CERES data you do.
The ocean doesn’t freeze overnight but air temperature cools by 5 C or more. That’s quite a lot. If global temperature cools that much, we will be in an ice age.
22 W/m^2 averaged over 6 months is 11 W/m^2 or 1.7 x 10^8 J/m^2 heat energy. The radiative forcing of doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 over a period of 75 years for TCR. That’s 8.7 x 10^9 J/m^2 or 50 times greater than the energy from solar insolation. Without feedbacks we expect around 1 C global warming due to CO2. Hence, the expected warming due to solar insolation is 1/50 or 0.02 C. This is within the range of observed monthly global temperature variability.
While the air 2 m above the land surface may cool 5 degC (or more) and the land surface may cool even more, I’ve read that the surface of the ocean (SST) cools about 0.5 degC at night in most places. This is because cold water sinks. As soon as the sun sets and evaporation and thermal emission continue, the top surface of the ocean cools and begins to sink, bringing warmer water to the surface. If I did my math correctly, a 500 W/m2 average difference between day and night is enough energy to change the temperature of 10 m of ocean by 0.5 degC in 12 hour.
It is too bad Willis (and so many others) embarrassingly forget that temperature is a form of energy while a radiative forcing is a power/unit area. The proper way to convert power/unit into a change temperature is to know the depth of the material being heated (giving power/unit volume), multiply by the time it is being heated (energy/unit volume) and divide by heat capacity (energy/unit volume/degK). ECS (degK/W/m2 or degK/doubling) is a shortcut for calculating how much warming will have taken place at EQUILIBRIUM when the material has warmed up (or cooled) enough so that the change in its thermal emission (Planck feedback) has balanced a radiative forcing. Willis’s question assumes that the planet can respond to a 22 W/m2 forcing with a 12 degC warming in several months. That is as idiotic as asking why the ocean doesn’t freeze every night: 1000 W/m2 change for a half day is about as much energy as 22 W/m2 for one month. However, even when one does the calculations correctly, all one gets is an initial rate of temperature change. As the material warms, its increased emission negates some of the forcing.
Frank, I’m quite certain that Willis knows a whole lot more about Temperature and energy than most people, and I’m sure he knows that Temperature is NOT a form of energy. But it IS a macro characteristic of a particular form of energy namely “heat” energy (noun)
Sorry George. When applying the law of conservation of energy, temperature IS internal energy. Heat capacity tells us how much energy a particular material has stored inside it at a particular temperature. A Watt (the W in W/m2) is energy per unit time (power).
If you put some water in your microwave oven, does its rated power (often 1000 W) determine how much warmer the water will get? Of course not. The amount of warming varies with the amount of water and the amount of time the microwave is heating – and its power!
Whatever Willis knows (Is he too embarrassed to respond?), he exposed at least temporary ignorance of physics when he asked at the end of this post: “why the annual forcing change of 22 W/m2 doesn’t seem to show a corresponding 12°C change in global temperature”. To convert a forcing into a temperature change, one needs to know how long the forcing is being applied (months), how much material is being warmed and what its heat capacity is. To convert power to energy (and eventually a change in temperature) you need to multiply by time! A 22 W/m2 forcing applied for only one month delivers less ENERGY (and therefore temperature change) than a 3.7 W/m2 forcing by 2XCO2 in one year!
Willis can’t use ECS or TCR to predict how much warming to expect from a forcing. The former assumes that warming has reached equilibrium, which takes centuries for our planet. TCR is the warming after 70 years from a gradual doubling of CO2.
This comment is written in hopes that Willis’s future posts (which are sometimes excellent) won’t confuse power, energy and temperature.
David: You raise a good point about my incorrect figure of 1.5%. Willis’s graph was labeled TSI, so I divided by 1463 W/m2 (instead of the correct value, about 1367 W/m2). The earth is about 3.5% closer to the sun in January than in July(152.10*10^6 km/147.09*10^6 km according to NASA’s planetary fact sheets). That should produce a peak to trough range of 7%. The same percentage can be applied to: a TSI of about 1367 W/m2 (to get 102 W/m2) or the global average solar irradiance of about 341 W/m2 (23.7 W/m2, similar to Willis’s estimate of 22 W/m2) or the post-albedo average of about 240 W/m2 (17 W/m2). Due to snow cover in the northern hemisphere, the earth’s albedo happens to be higher when the sun is closer and the range of the post-albedo cycle is about 5 W/m2 smaller than 17 W/m2 . To calculate a temperature change, Willis should be using difference between incoming and reflected SWR, both of which are available from CERES.
None of this changes the fact that it takes decades to approach and centuries to reach the equilibrium warming expected from a forcing. This forcing that changes seasonally. Seasonal changes are eliminated when temperature anomalies are calculated.
“22 W/m2 / 1463 W/m2 = 1.5% change). No 1463 W/m2 is the actual Insolation, not cut to 1/4 by global surface average and day night. The actual insolation increase is about 7 percent. Also the thermal inertia of the earth is not in the atmosphere, but in the oceans.
Willis asks, “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.”
+++++++
Because there is not a simple linear relationship. Huge lags and interactions have inertias. It’s not like a DC electrical circuit with a resistor. And it’s more complex than an RLC circuit with alternating current.
@frank October 31, 2014 at 12:54 pm:
++++++
Frank has is right, in the explanation he uses. The Lags, that I mentioned @[Mario Lento October 29, 2014 at 9:20 am], refer to the same thing – power over time and resulting temperature –“Rate” of power over time is energy.
Temperature change is far more complex than assuming constant pressure, volume and heat capacity! You know, PV=nRT. We really need to know what the energy in the system is. Is it accumulating? And where does it go and what can it do? In summary, heat in dry air has a lot less energy than heat in water or moist air (which has latent heat energy). So expecting a specific temperature of the planet based on power change depends on the where the energy goes, for how long and in what state the energy exists.
When Frank wrote, “A Watt (the W in W/m2) is energy per unit time (power).” I knew what he meant, though it is not correctly written. And no, I do not think Frank is confused. The Watt, is a measurement of Power. Energy is Power accumulated or integrated over time, often measured in kWhrs. But Frank’s explanation is in the text is correct.
VikingExplorer October 29, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Viking, you may not have been around a couple years ago when we went through all of this “gravity makes it warmer” nonsense with Hans Jelbring.
I wrote about it in a post back then called Perpetuum Mobile. More to the point, Dr. Robert Brown of Duke University provided a lovely proof that gravity couldn’t do what you think it can, called Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates.
Please read those posts, and in particular, think about the implications of Dr. Brown’s proof as regards your claims. At present you are way off of the rails, and it’s not doing your reputation any good.
w.
>> when we went through all of this “gravity makes it warmer” nonsense with Hans Jelbring. … Dr. Robert Brown of Duke University provided a lovely proof that gravity couldn’t do what you think it can
Willis, thank you for the link to this previous discussion, which I was not aware of. It was quite interesting and educational. To clarify my position, and my previous comments, I’m definitely not saying that the 2nd Law is ever violated, or that a gravity field is sufficient to maintain a DALR.
However, even Dr. Brown eventually said: “Personally, I think the DALR is caused by the greenhouse effect and gravity, working together to maintain the heat differentials that drive the troposphere”.
Why did he make this concession? It’s probably because the prevailing scientific theory is that stars and planets are formed by a gradual gravitational collapse of a cloud of matter. The compression caused by the collapse raises the temperature of that material. This explains why stars get hot enough to trigger a fusion reaction, and why the cores of planets like Earth and Jupiter are hot. Jupiter receives only 50 W/m2, but just a little way in, at 10 bars, it’s a toasty 152F. To be clear, I’m certainly not saying that gravity will maintain that temperature. As Dr. Brown said, when the compression has stabilized, energy starts radiating away into space. However, that process is very slow. Earth and Jupiter are exothermic, bleeding off energy for eons.
In short, I stand by my statement: Planets have a temperature because they have gravity
When Earth was being formed, material collapsed into a growing gravity well, resulting in higher temperatures. In fact, I’ve seen a simulation of one theory where a large planetoid crashes into earth, causing the entire planet to liquefy, and then eventually to stabilize to include a large moon. IOW, planets have a temperature because they have gravity.
>> I don’t think anyone has said that the TEMPERATURE of the earth is equal to incoming radiation.
Actually, AGW proponents make the incorrect assumption that the earth is in radiative balance. The reality is that earth is exothermic (out of balance) and energy generally flows from sun -> land/sea -> atmosphere -> space. If by some complex series of thermodynamic and/or physical transport interactions, warmer air ends up at the top of the troposphere, it will radiate more energy out. Otherwise, extra incoming energy could end up doing extra Work or heating an internal component.
>> IF, as you say, “planets have temperature because they have gravity”, what would be the temperature of the earth if there were no Sun?
The internal energy of the planet would slowly bleed off into space. The temperature of land & sea would slowly drop. People who incorrectly assume radiative balance think the temperature would be 0 K. This is clearly incorrect. The energy in the ocean alone is 290x the energy received from the sun per year. Assuming the same rate of bleed (which would actually drop), It would take 290 years for that energy to bleed off, but that is a tiny fraction of the energy in the crust and core.
Mostly good points by Viking Explorer.
One does need continuing insolation to allow mass and gravity to create a greenhouse effect indefinitely which is independent of GHGs.
The fact is that a parcel of gas which moves up or down within a gravitational field changes its temperature, pressure and volume without any thermodynamic interaction with surrounding molecules. That is what is meant by the term ‘adiabatic’.
You don’t even need a thermodynamic interaction between the gases and insolation because even a transparent atmosphere gains enough energy by conduction from below to cause adiabatic convective overturning to begin. All one needs is uneven heating below causing density differentials in the horizontal plane and that causes spontaneous overturning to begin.
That is the nub of the issue and it is the warming on descent that causes the mass induced greenhouse effect for any irradiated ball of gas affected by a gravitational field whether there is a solid surface beneath it or not.
That is what does not appear to have been taught or learned.
Everyone seems to assume that there ‘must’ be a thermodynamic relationship with surrounding molecules or insolation when a gas parcel moves up or down within a gravitational field but there isn’t any such thermodynamic relationship with surrounding molecules or insolation for an adiabatic process.
It is accepted that no process is completely adiabatic so in reality there will always be SOME thermodynamic interaction between the moving parcel and surrounding molecules or with insolation but that interaction is diabatic and not adiabatic.
The thing is that the nature of the adiabatic process is fundamental to atmospheric temperature (KE), energy content (KE+PE), circulation (climate zones and jet streams) and structure (lapse rates) but it is entirely missing from the radiative theory of gaseous atmospheres.
I have put the adiabatic process back into its proper place in my New Climate Model and, having done that, simple logic and observation causes the real scenario to fall into place in the manner that I have unsuccessfully attempted to describe here and elsewhere.
george e. smith October 29, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Suppose I look at my watch when I start driving my car. Exactly one measured hour later, I find that I have traveled exactly a measured sixty miles.
In other words, I have just MEASURED my AVERAGE speed as being sixty miles per hour.
w.
No Willis, you calculated it, by dividing the total distance MEASURED by the total time MEASURED.
I have no problem with you wanting to know such a result. But the cop will give you a ticket if his radar found you were doing 70 MPH at any time during that hour is the speed limit was 65 MPH. He is not impressed by your calculation that you averaged 60 MPH.
My car CALCULATES near instantaneous MPH, MPG, average MPH, average MPG, and distance to next required gas fill up. It is not capable of sensing any of those things. My average (moving) speed is 18.6 MPH. I never drive at 18.6 MPH, but I do drop below that number, when the traffic bunches up on the 65 MPH highway.
But Willis, as I said, those thoughts are just my opinion. I wouldn’t advise using them in a PhD oral presentation or thesis. My alma mater physics department still teaches in the electronics course that Ohm’s law says: E= I.R What Ohm really said was : R=Constant. E=I.R simply defines R.
And as for Leif’s RMS power, the incremental conversion of electricity into heat (noun) energy, gives dE = i^2.R.dt joule. If you sum that over a complete cycle and divide by the period (cycle time) that gives you the Mean Square (average power) quantity, and if you take the square Root of that result divided by R, is I (rms). But the average power is exactly what is calculated by this RMS process. The RMS label, only makes sense relative to the voltage or current.
Willis, I’m quite happy to have people compute averages, or running averages or any other statistical mathematical concepts or any other thing that amuses them.
That doesn’t change the simple fact that real physical systems have already responded in real time to whatever system variable changes have occurred. They don’t wait around for something interesting, like the average value, to suddenly come along. They aren’t even capable of recognizing it when it happens. There’s a classic argument by Galileo Galilei, that says the average value (or any other between the extremes) WILL come along; but the system will not know when.
And as an aside to the above. despite Dr. Svalgaard’s assertion above, I’ve never made any claims of expertise, about anything. I have referred anecdotally to experiences from my past. Call me a liar if you like; that ball is in your court.
Most of what I have posted at WUWT, has been simply my opinion about this or that. At times when I can point to some text reference, that readers can access, I have done so. I almost never refer to peer reviewed papers, since I don’t have free access to most of them, and I read almost none of them (mostly of no interest to me).
Readers are free to regard my posts as worth exactly what they paid for them. If they aren’t useful; so be it.
As for applying for a job with Dr. Svalgaard; why on earth would I? I’ve never applied for a job with anybody else, so why would I start now.
Frank October 30, 2014 at 7:56 am
While the air 2 m above the land surface may cool 5 degC (or more) and the land surface may cool even more, I’ve read that the surface of the ocean (SST) cools about 0.5 degC at night in most places. This is because cold water sinks. As soon as the sun sets and evaporation and thermal emission continue, the top surface of the ocean cools and begins to sink, bringing warmer water to the surface. If I did my math correctly, a 500 W/m2 average difference between day and night is enough energy to change the temperature of 10 m of ocean by 0.5 degC in 12 hour.
This seems to be an underestimate.
http://ghrsst-pp.metoffice.com/pages/sst_definitions/
To what extent do you think deviations from a laminar one dimensional model (of the sinking) would change your estimate ? Also, does evaporation shut down at some point during the night ?
Phil: See top paragraph of page 722 of http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
12 hours of 500 W/m2 sunlight delivers 21,600 kJ/m2 of energy. Assuming my calculations are correct, that is enough to heat the top 1 m of water about 5 degK, the top 10 m about 0.5 degK, etc. The depth the heat mixes into is the critical factor. Your reference does appear to make more sense than mine.
David A October 27, 2014 at 11:35 pm
The earth gains energy over that time, peaking in January
No, but it reduces it somewhat, on average by about 4 W/m2
Unknown, we don’t have sufficient data to figure that one.
Mmmm … dunno. I don’t have a global cloud dataset to hand.
Yes.
Presumably, but the amount is unknown.
w.
1sky1 October 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Thanks, 1sky1. If you’d used the “proper scientific usage” to start with, that is to say if you had used “heat transfer”, I would have agreed, and we could have avoided this misunderstanding.
But you didn’t say “heat transfer”, you didn’t say “NET” anything. Instead, your claim was:
Since you were talking about a transfer of energy and NOT a transfer of heat, and since the transfer was specified as the energy transferred from the surface to the troposphere, I naturally took that to mean the ~400 W/m2 of energy transferred from the surface to the troposphere.
However, now it is clear that you thought you were writing about the net radiative heat transfer … given that, next time you might focus on proper scientific usage, and you’ll stay out of this kind of misunderstanding.
In any case, the numbers for NET radiative heat heat transfer to/from the surface are:
Solar radiation into surface ≈ 170 W/m2
Longwave radiation into surface ≈ 330 W/m3
TOTAL INCOMING ≈ half a kilowatt per square metre
TOTAL OUTGOING ≈ 400 W/m2 upwelling longwave radiation
NET ≈ 100 W/m2 GAIN
All the best,
w.
Inasmuch as heat is thermal energy in the process of transfer, I would think
that, in the context of climate, the equivalence of the terms “transferring
energy” and “heat transfer” would be evident. The operative word in energy
budget sudies is transfer, which is always applied to EXTENSIVE measures of
energy.
It is K&T who sow much confusion by showing an INTENSIVE radiative exchange,
based on model-derived estimates of GAT, amidst a host of EXTENSIVE heat transfers. Furthermore, unlike insolation–which supplies a stream of energy to the climate system from OUTSIDE–backradiation is merely a manifestation of thermal storage WITHIN the system. There is no physical power source to sustain the indicated radiative fluxes, which constitute a recirculation of terrestrial radiation, scaled to correspond to estimated GAT. At altitude, the intensity of those directional fluxes would be quite different. System wide, backradiation is simply not on the same thermodynamic footing as insolation.
The upshot of this that the wattage of backradiation cannot be legitimately added to that of insolation to obtain bona fide heat flux balances on a planetary basis. Had Earth been truly gaining 100W/m^2 through radiative means, we all would have been fried billions of years ago. The actual “greenhouse effect” is far more complex than propagandistic cartoons portray.
VikingExplorer October 30, 2014 at 9:30 am Edit
Actually, what you said was:
When you were questioned on that, we got this:
Really? That’s your explanation?
I don’t think anyone has said that the TEMPERATURE of the earth is equal to incoming radiation. However, incoming radiation is in general quite close to outgoing radiation. Here’s the situation of the earth:
Note that once we remove the seasonal variation, the earth has not gone more than ± 0.5 W/m2 out of balance at any time during the record.
Yes, and I provided the proof by Dr. Robert Brown that your claim is nonsense. In addition, Leif asked you for your calculation of the temperature of the earth without the sun, viz:
In response, you ran away from the question so fast that your shoes were smoking … so I’ll ask it again.
IF, as you say, “planets have temperature because they have gravity”, what would be the temperature of the earth if there were no Sun?
w.
“IF, as you say, “planets have temperature because they have gravity”, what would be the temperature of the earth if there were no Sun?”
It would be better to state it thus:
Atmospheres around a planet have an energy content determined by mass, gravity and insolation and those three parameters determine the surface temperature.
One has to have insolation to lift the atmosphere off the surface in the first place and one has to have an enhanced surface temperature (above S-B) in order to continue to hold the mass of that atmosphere off the surface against the constant pull of gravity.
Conduction from surface to atmosphere is what causes atmospheric mass to lift off the surface and convection both up and down then ensues as a result of uneven surface heating placing air parcels of different densities next to one another in the horizontal plane.
That convection then varies as necessary to cancel out any radiative imbalances that may arise between the system as a whole and space.
Convection holds stable the balance between radiation and conduction for the system as a whole.
If one adds GHGs then energy leaks out to space from those GHGs and the energy returned to the surface in the descent phase of convection is reduced to below that taken up in the ascent phase.
That reduction is then offset by DWIR from the same GHGs for a zero net thermal effect on the surface.
Dr Brown’s ‘proof’ doesn’t work because he fails to factor in the conversion of KE to PE as one moves away from the surface and the reconversion of PE to KE as one moves back down again.
Molecules of a gas vibrate faster and become warmer (more KE at the expense of PE) when pressure is increased but vibrate slower and become cooler (more PE at the expense of KE) when pressure is reduced.
In space where pressure is lowest molecules vibrate hardly at all and reach a temperature of only 3K. In a star where pressure is highest molecules vibrate very fast and reach huge temperatures.
The result is that the decline in pressure with height around a planet always results in a lapse rate gradient and the conversion of KE to PE with height prevents the isothermal outcome.