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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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