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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.