Steinhilber 2009

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Someone recommended that I look at the Steinhilber 2009 paper. I did. The data is here. My first-cut graphs are below. Discuss. For the reasons I talked about in my previous post, I gotta run.

estimated variance TSI steinhilber 2009

estimated variance TSI steinhilber 2009 closeupBest wishes to all, I’m outta here …


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 27, 2016 2:12 pm

TSI is known as 1361 W/m2, where does this 341 W/m2 value come from?

Francisco Fernandez
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 27, 2016 2:17 pm

If I understand your question correctly, 1361 W/m^2 is without considering what the atmosphere takes out by the time it reaches ground level

Francisco Fernandez
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 27, 2016 2:25 pm

Fe de erratas: I made a mistake, the 340 is the average over the whole planet.
From NASA’s Earth Observatory: “Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.”
Out of that, only about 48% reaches the surface of the earth, the rest is either absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back into space

michael hammer
Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 3:08 pm

1361 watts/sqM is the energy per square meter square on to the sun at the position of the Earth’s orbit. However the Earth is a sphere so the energy averaged over the surface must be multiplied by the cross sectional area of the sphere and divided by the surface area of the sphere and that works out to 1/4. However, what is important is not what energy radiates down onto the Earth but rather what energy is absorbed by the Earth and that is the TSI *(1-albedo). TSI may be only changing by about 0.3 watts/sqM but the albedo could be changing far more. Albedo is currently about 0.3 and the largest single cause of albedo is clouds (which reflect incoming energy back out to space). Assume clouds are responsible for say 60% of albedo, then they reflect 341*(0.6*0.3) watts/sqM back out to space = 61.4 watts/sqM. Warmists claim positive feedback from water vapour ie: a small rise in temperature increases evaporation which increases water vapour in the atmosphere and since water vapour is a green house gas that drives temperature up further. Without that positive feedback both sides agree that the impact of doubling CO2 is no more than 1C. However increased evaporation must be balanced by increased precipitation – more rain – and rain comes from low clouds so increased evaporation must lead to either more clouds or denser clouds – in both cases an increase in albedo.
Since the impact of green house gases is logarithmic with concentration, a significant fractional increase is necessary to have much impact. Assuming the link between rainfall and cloud mass is anywhere near linear, a 10% increase in water evaporation would lead to 10% increase in cloud mass which would reduce solar energy absorbed by earth by 6.1 watts/sqM. Compared that number with the claim of about 3 watts/sqM increase in retained energy due to doubling CO2 concentrations.
Obviously the situation is much more complex than the above extremely simplistic model, my point is only that the impact of clouds is very high and this is exactly the area where models perform worst. Unless clouds can be modelled accurately the model output are highly questionable.

Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 3:26 pm

of course, TSI is not what we can measure, but it is what we cant actually measure, what the earth absorbs.
Measurement bad, models good.
OKAY sure

Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 3:27 pm

Earth radius…………….6,371 km
Earth atmosphere………..15 km…………….…….W/m^2……..W
Disc Surface area, km^2…1.E+08 km^2………….1361……1.74.E+11
ToA Surface area, km^2…5.125.E+08 km^2……..341……1.75.E+11

Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 3:48 pm

The area of a disk is pi * r ^ 2
The area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r ^ 2

Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 3:54 pm

Thanks Michael… You are correct, obviously… I was aiming for a simple explanation.
The bottom line is that the energy density for solar can hardly suffice the energy requirements we have as a society. This even without taking into account the instability of the source.
As you correctly pointed out, clouds have a whole lot more influence in the GHG effect than CO2, but they also have a significant effect (although a different mechanism) on solar power generation.

Retired Engineer John
Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 27, 2016 5:45 pm

Something worth considering; the Earth’s atmosphere extends several miles above the surface and effectively increases the absorption area. This is especially important at solar maximum when there is about a 6 percent increase in the ultraviolet which is largely absorbed in the atmosphere.

Reply to  Francisco Fernandez
April 28, 2016 9:41 am

Thank you all, much appreciated!

Reply to  Hans Erren
April 27, 2016 3:12 pm

1,361 W/m^2 is what falls on what appears to the sun as a disc. The surface of a sphere of radius r is 4 times the surface of disc radius r. So 1,361 / 4 = 340.25 +/-.
All of this is W/m^2, a power flux. Watt is power, energy over time, not energy. Watt = 3.412 Btu/h or 3.6 kJ/h. Use English hours w/Btu and metric/SI hours with kJ.
So 340.25 +/- times surface area of ToA sphere/globe (almost the same – 15 km thick atmos compared to r of 6,500 km) (or 1,361 times surface of disc – same result) over 24 hours = a really bodacious number, E?? Btu or kJ. I have this on Excel, but will have to locate and prep.
Air heats up at 0.24 Btu/lb – F, water heats up at 1.0 Btu/lb – F, or if water evaps/cond, 1,000 Btu/lb.
Subject to peer or not R&C.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
April 27, 2016 3:59 pm

Bob A – Yes, I believe that is what I said, those are the equations I used.
BTW the Exxon posts discuss how the hydrologic cycle runs the climate. Albedo is also reflected by vegetation & there’s more of it now. See my post below.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
April 28, 2016 6:52 am

What about the atmosphere on the edges of the sphere wouldn’t the sun light have to pass through this area making this part of the atmosphere essentially much thicker.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 27, 2016 6:31 pm

NASA – Earth Facts
Volumetric mean radius (km) 6371.008
Bond albedo 0.306
Visual geometric albedo 0.367

michael hart
April 27, 2016 2:24 pm

I’m interested in why the lower limits of the error bars are so limited in range as compared to the upper limits.

Clay Marley
Reply to  michael hart
April 27, 2016 2:56 pm

And why is the range of uncertainty about the same today as it was in 1750? And why is it narrower around 1830?

charles nelson
Reply to  Clay Marley
April 27, 2016 3:43 pm

Because they make stuff up but are too dumb to spot the signs of their own fakery?

Steve Fraser
Reply to  michael hart
April 27, 2016 3:15 pm

Log scale of the effect, against a linear scale of irradiance.

Scottish Sceptic
April 27, 2016 2:28 pm


April 27, 2016 2:38 pm

Great !
The anti-science zealots hate 0 based graphs . Here’s one of mine that they say is just not scientific . Many have no comprehension why Kelvin is the only scale used in temperature physics .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
April 27, 2016 2:44 pm

I think you just called Edward Tufte an anti-science zealot. You should spend the money for one of his one day courses. I did.

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
April 27, 2016 2:57 pm

And whose obit has the gray ball with the red line?

Reply to  Ric Werme
April 27, 2016 4:01 pm

I see all those better figures are 0 based . Tufte has a lot of innovative displays mapping multiple dimensions in to a 2D image that kliks but can’t imagine he’s against 0 based graphs when that provides essential scale .
Ours . About 279 .
Have no idea what I was thinking when I made the gray body temp line red .

Evan Jones
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
April 27, 2016 3:30 pm

Sigh. The man doesn’t think we-all like anomaly graphs.

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
April 28, 2016 12:44 pm

Just for fun show us the graph with a range of 250 to 400K and ppm CO2.

Sidney Somes
April 27, 2016 3:10 pm

I think Willis Eschenbach has demeaned the forum by this non article. He thinks he is making a funny criticism, but his bias against Solar links to climate prevent any objectivity on his part. Thumbs down

Chic Bowdrie
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 27, 2016 3:32 pm

Willis, have you an opinion on the relative importance of TSI considering how much clouds affect albedo?

richard verney
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2016 5:44 pm

I do not accept that you have

said NOTHING about the study, neither praise nor criticism,

You are making a point in the first figure, and I am not suggesting that the point you make in your article is not a fair one..
However, it would be appropriate to include a figure for temperature over the same period on the Kelvin scale starting at 0K.
When temperature is plotted on that basis, it is essentially a flat line.
As we all know, people present data in a deliberate manner to make the point they wish to make. There is nothing scary about temperatures plotted on the Kelvin scale using )K as the base, hence the reason why warmists never present their data in that manner.

Chic Bowdrie
Reply to  Sidney Somes
April 27, 2016 3:28 pm

I like the point Michael Hammer made earlier, which is TSI variability has to be evaluated in light of the much greater uncertainty introduced by cloud variations. Perhaps Willis will weigh in and clear up the ambiguity.

Reply to  Sidney Somes
April 27, 2016 3:41 pm

Not sure it was meant to be funny… It just offers perspective. TSI varies very little. In order to really see the wiggles and waggles of where the expected values fall, you have to zoom in to to a vertical access scale that represents only 0.15%of the absolute value, which throws away a lot of graphical data in regards to how big the variance is.
This isn’t necessarily wrong, as long as you have a valid reason to do it. But to arbitrarily do it to see how a variable is moving +\-0.03% of the average value can reasonably be seen as “potential propaganda” to advance a specific idea that may or may not have merit. From that perspective, the comparison is an excellent way of reminding us to try and understand the full context of what is being presented before making a value judgement as to whether or not it has any significance.

April 27, 2016 3:29 pm

Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/- 8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.
One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2) perpetual loop w/o work, 3) cold to hot w/o work, 4) doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming. Of course Trenberth says they are wrong because their results are not confirmed by the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
April 27, 2016 9:48 pm

I’ve argued to no avail that due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that a colder object does not transfer heat to a warmer one.
All the CAGW people forget that the predictions are based on cold to hot w/o work. They also forget that the catastrophic conquences that were based on this math within a time frame, have long since passed. ” it could someday in the future… ” is pretty much their refrain.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  rishrac
April 28, 2016 7:19 am

All objects above 0 Kelvin radiate & transfer heat. An object at 3 degrees Kelvin is radiating photons. Placed next to an object at 300 degrees Kelvin it will still transfer energy. The photons don’t turn around and go home.

John West
Reply to  rishrac
April 28, 2016 8:05 am

“I’ve argued to no avail that due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that a colder object does not transfer heat to a warmer one.”
The reason you’ve argued to no avail is because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the NET transfer of energy is from warmer to cooler not that there’s no energy transfer. Wrap yourself in a blanket and I think you’ll find that even though the blanket is cooler than you, you’ll stay warmer. The blanket slows your cooling. Similarly, IR emitted from the atmosphere reduces the NET amout of energy radiated from the surface, thus slowing its cooling. There is no violation to the 2nd Law.

Reply to  John West
April 28, 2016 10:54 am

At 7000 feet it 90 F. At 14000 feet Pikes Peak tourist shop does a brisk business selling sweatshirts and long pants.
Your arguments comes out of a can. I’ve heard it before, and it’s still wrong. Did you go to workshop for climate change to convince the un educated how science really works? The proof that your argument is wrong is in your models. If CAGW were right, we wouldn’t be having the same conversation again 20 years later. If you were right and the proof was with you, I’d be arguing with you and not against. Even with adjustments favoring CAGW, you still can’t get the temperature above the lowest projected forecast. In fact, the temperature is below the lowest forecast if we had stopped producing co2 20 years ago. I mean zero emissions.
How do you think they came up with the models? Hocus-pocus? It’s based on errors. And this is just one of them.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  rishrac
April 28, 2016 11:44 am

I think we have been there before… Whatever the temperature, as long as it is above zero K, matter radiates energy in the form of photons and if a photon hits another object, no matter its temperature it is either reflected or absorbed. The receiving object doesn’t know what the temperature was of the sending object, as there is zero temperature information in that photon. Only energy.
As said by others, a hotter object will emit more and/or more energetic photons that a colder object. Thus the net energy transfer is from hot to cold, but that doesn’t imply that no energy is absorbed by the warmer object from a colder one.
I have made an interactive Excel sheet with two plates at different temperatures, where you can experiment with a lot of parameters like temperatures and heat input and look at the resulting heat fluxes. In all cases the colder plate transfers energy to the warmer one, without violating any law… See:
Please read the “readme” sheet first…
And think about the use of CO2 lasers: they may get hot, but still far below the temperature that is reached where their beam hits steel: high enough to melt that metal with a beam originating from an object which is maybe 1100°C cooler…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 28, 2016 1:10 pm

If the temperature is 110 F and you put on a coat, under no circumstances will you reach 111 F without an additional input of energy. Conversely, if it’s 20 F without additional input of energy, you will become 20 F.
In your laser example, the energy isn’t being created out of thin air. The energy is there to start with. Liberating it is not an example of the reaction being greater than one. That would be a wonderful thing if it were true. We could cascade the energy from an initial input until we can turn off the switch and have all the energy we would ever need. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. Now, as an energy source, I don’t know what the efficiency rating would be welding steel with a laser.
If in… if in the case energy is absorbed by a warmer on from a colder one, that would be awesome. Until you can show me how that would be possible, we’d have a perpetual machine. I can tell you that if you can do that in the tiniest of amounts, cascading it would be no problem at all. It’d be a boon for the world and you’d be the richest person on the planet.
So far the law stands, the arrow goes one way. I have yet to find one, just one, where the machine doesn’t die or there is a hidden input of energy.
Now at the quantum level, if you could being that up to this level, the world would be a very different place. But then without symmetric order, you might have discontinuity. You’d have events that would start in the middle and end just as suddenly. And certainly no continuity, no chain of command. It’d be an infinite collage of disorder. The basis of CAGW is wrong. It’s based on a quantum idea that doesn’t apply at this level of organization.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  rishrac
April 28, 2016 3:19 pm

I do agree with your first example, as that is what the law says. That doesn’t imply that warmer objects can’t receive energy from colder objects, that only implies that colder objects receive more energy from warmer objects than reverse, thus never a factor > 1. Still the net effect is that a warmer object in space will cool down much slower with a colder object near it than without. See the example I made…
Indeed you need a continuous supply of energy into a CO2 laser to cut or weld steel, but it is a clear example that colder or warmer is not the inhibiting factor for energy transfer, temperature is the factor that influences how much energy is transferred in either direction, in case of temperature as only radiation influence (unlike the laser which uses excitation of CO2).
Take another related example: CO2 is exchanged between the ocean’s surface and the atmosphere. Henry’s law says that for a fixed temperature there is a fixed ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface. That means that CO2 always flows from the higher pressure to the lower pressure, no matter if the higher pressure is in the atmosphere or in the water.
Does that mean that no individual CO2 molecule goes in reverse direction, against the pressure gradient? Not at all: lots of molecules go in the “wrong” direction. Al what happens is that more molecules go in the right direction than reverse. Only at (dynamic) equilibrium, as much CO2 molecules go in as out.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 29, 2016 12:17 pm

IR is not pressure determined. The refractive index does not allow a downdwelling.
There are so many side issues. Each one is exhausting. In the end the only thing that matters is that the models were built on this idea, and they’ve failed.
The science has to meet certain standards. One of which is prediction. The production of co2 hasn’t stagnated but increased. There is no harmonic between co2 and temperature at this level. Of the current temperature rise, co2 could be responsible for maybe at most 3%, I calculate. Or 0.02 C approximately. Some say I’m wrong and the number is much lower.
In orders of magnitudes, the energy from colder to warmer, is non existent. I would submit that there maybe other factors for the flow from colder to warmer. Ionic, molecular pumps, dampening fields, induced magnetic fields, and static electrical bonds to name a few. All on scales in the current order of things to make much of a difference. To sum up, colder to warmer just doesn’t happen. And the example you gave of pressure, there is energy associated with developing pressure.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  rishrac
April 30, 2016 1:41 am

In orders of magnitudes, the energy from colder to warmer, is non existent.
Do the calculation yourself: If you have an “ideal black body” plate of 1 m2 at 373 K in vacuum, the radiation loss at both sides of the plate is 1098 W/m2, thus cooling the plate to zero K in space without additional energy supply.
Add a second plate of 1m2 at 273 K adjacent to the first one at 1 mm distance, without touching it, and the loss of the first plate still is 1098 W/m2, but as the loss of the second plate to both sides is 315 W/m2, the first plate receives this 315 W/m2 as input and thus the net loss of the first plate is reduced to 783 W/m2 at the side of the second plate, thus reducing the cooling speed. The second plate meanwhile receives the 1098 W/m2 from the first plate and warms up, despite its radiation loss of total 630 W/m2 to both sides.
The order of magnitude of energy transfer, even for 100 K difference, is essentially the same and the impact of a colder object on a neighboring warmer object is not negligible.
Which doesn’t imply that CO2 has a huge effect: that is a matter of feedback’s which in real life are mostly negative (the full water cycle) and in the models mostly positive…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 30, 2016 11:24 am

It’s not called the 2nd law of wishful thinking. If there is transfer of energy from colder to warmer, then there are unaccounted forces. It’s the same with the bode formula, you have to add additional energy.
The models that climate science has issued via use of national supercomputers and the variations of mathematical variables all show consistent warming. The reality is different. To note, the median at which there is an expressed 95% certainty that a certain temperature will be reached is a concession. The real belief is that it would have been at the upper limit. The actual results is quite different. I truly believe that had it become half as warm as the predictions, it would be apparent. This particular kind of conversation would not be happening. And I would also not be a skeptic. So you have a choices: 1. The math is wrong. 2. The basic science of retained heat is wrong. 3. The past/or present temperatures are wrong. 4. The planet is capable of things we don’t have a full comprehension of. 5. Others forces dominate climate to a much larger extent, and we don’t know what they are.
Obviously the climate models and the assumptions are wrong. Some parts may be correct, but which ones? Taken together as a system they fail.
Extending impending disasters out beyond the bounds of the original parameters calls for a rework of how we comprehend how the system is designed.
If you are arguing that this particular science in AGW is correct, which part is wrong?

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
April 28, 2016 3:29 pm

I have a box, 60’ w by 60’ l by 8’ h with a surface area of 9,120 sq ft and 3” walls with R13 insulation. The inside temperature is 70 F, outside is 40 F. Per the equation Q = U * A * ΔT the heat flowing through the walls is about 28,000 Btu/h. If I add insulation (a blanket) and raise the R value to 19, 6” insulation, and – do not turn down – the furnace the inside temperature must rise to 88.5 F to move that 28,000 Btu/h through the thicker walls. This is all by conduction. The “back” radiation of the thicker insulation (blanket) does not reduce the net radiation from inside the box. A cold blanket does not warm me through some kind of magical “back” (cold to hot) radiation.
But what really happens is the thermostat reduces the furnace output to bring the heat flows back in balance. That’s how I save money on the heating bill. There is no thermostat on the sun, however, there is a thermostat on the climate, the hydrologic cycle, clouds, albedo, precipitation, etc. As noted in the posting above the 2 W/m^2 RF of CO2 is lost in the magnitude and uncertainties of the overall ToA power flux.
A net radiation between cold and hot occurs only in the magic unicorn world of theoretical S-B true black bodies. The real world is grey, altered by emissivity. As I noted in a posting earlier, CO2/GHG gases have approximately zero emissivity and zero grey body “back” radiation. The GHE in a real greenhouse is due the physical glass that traps convection, not radiation. GHE & blanket analogies are for simple minded amateurs.
“The Discovery of Global Warming” – Spencer R. Weart
Disagreement between the Warming of the Surface by the Downwelling Radiation Hypothesis and the Theory of the Electromagnetic Radiation Pressure. By Nasif Nahle Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet®. July 8, 2010

April 27, 2016 3:45 pm

TSI above is not a good correlation. Drops too late in 1800s and no sign of LIA just prior, though it doesn’t go far enough back.
I do wonder how TSI goes with El Ninos since we’ve recorded them, especially since around 1940 onward
just curious

April 27, 2016 3:52 pm

I think it is fair to say as things stand we still have do real idea if that small change in TSI can influence matters, it can be a catalyst for a non linear set of events that would be obviously impossible to extract statistically if the variable is missing because it is an unknown.
Well, impossible if we have no idea what we are looking for and no idea on what timescale either.
It’s well an truly in the unknown pile with a pin in it although there is definitely not anywhere near enough evidence to claim it a primary driver, it cant be ruled out, small changes can have big effects and if the change is non linear and sensitive to variables we dont know yet, then as I said, unknown folder, move on.

Science or Fiction
April 27, 2016 3:53 pm

One thing about that curve is that it starts in 1750. The Maunder minimum ended just before that – in 1715.
In the abstract it is stated:
“The resulting increase in solar-cycle averaged Total Solar Index from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) W/m2.”
The Total Solar Index must then have increased approximately 1 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum. Further, the cloud feedback effect, hypotesized by IPCC, is a feedback from warming and not directly from the anthropogenic forcing:comment image
I will make the assumption that 1 W/m2 will increase the surface temperature by 1 K (Please correct me). If we add the cloud feedback effect of approximately 0.6 W/m2*K to the increase in Total Solar Index from the Maunder minimum we should get about 1.6 W/m2 of increased surface warming from the time of the Maunder minimum.
That is a significant amount of extra effect warming the globe from preindustrial time (defined as 1750 by IPCC). And that extra effect should continue to warm the oceans for hundreds to thousands of years in accordance with united Nations climate panel IPCC:
“Owing to the long time scales in the deep ocean, full equilibrium is reached only after hundreds to thousands of years.” ref.: TFE.8 | Climate Targets and Stabilization
The ocean warming we see now – is that from CO2 or is a substantial part of it a natural temperature increase since the Maunder minimum?

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 27, 2016 4:05 pm

Ok – I see that this is flawed by a factor 4 by the reason explained above:
“However the Earth is a sphere so the energy averaged over the surface must be multiplied by the cross sectional area of the sphere and divided by the surface area of the sphere and that works out to 1/4.”

Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 27, 2016 4:12 pm

I will make the assumption that 1 W/m2 will increase the surface temperature by 1 K (Please correct me).
Based on Stefan-Boltzmann Law and assuming a constant flux over the whole sphere 24×7 of 1 w/m2 and a starting temperature of 15 C (288 K), temperature rise would be ~ 0.19 degrees.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 27, 2016 4:33 pm

per S-B
…………….. C K K^4 ε W/m^2
Surface 15 288 6.88E+09 0.95 370.6
LT CO2 -40 233 2.95E+09 0.000092 0.0
So “back” radiation is essentially zero.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 27, 2016 9:46 pm

Thanks for the correction. I made several mistakes mistakes above. I was off by at least a factor 4.

April 27, 2016 4:35 pm

Thanks for the reference, Willis.
A very interesting reconstruction of TSI for the last 9300 years. I can’t wait till they stretch it back to 20,000, and we can see the transition from glacial to interglacial.
I await your next graphs eagerly.

April 27, 2016 5:12 pm

Yes, the earth is a sphere, however, the “energy” from the sun is not hitting the Disc Surface area or the Sphere Surface area. The area affected is actually shaped like the letter “C” because the atmosphere has thickness and the energy is also bent by the atmosphere around the Earth. Just as the Observed sunrise is sooner and the sunset is latter, the atmosphere will be adsorbing energy during that time.
SUN Earth

Reply to  usurbrain
April 27, 2016 8:26 pm

How about the earth is a ball in a water bath. Heat is rising from the burner/sun heating the bottom of the ball. The top of the ball is immersed in the hot bath, but is losing heat since it is on the other side of the burner.
Where do any of these models account for bright day side and dark night side? +W/m^2 when the sun is shining, but where is the -W/m^2 when he sun is not shining? Are these all net, day side minus night side, power fluxes?

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
April 27, 2016 11:31 pm

Where do any of these models account for bright day side and dark night side?
Any? How about all? I challenge you to find a single model that doesn’t take the day/night cycle into account.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  usurbrain
April 28, 2016 1:22 pm

Yes, the atmosphere refracts and permits a little more than 50% of the Earth surface to “see” the sunlight. But, no, it does not absorb energy to a significant extent. The atmospheric temperature is pretty much constant above 10,000 feet, no matter where you are, day side or night side. This is established in such references as the “U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976.” It is much better to think that the atmosphere is heated by contact with the Earth surface (maybe primarily the oceans).

April 27, 2016 5:27 pm

really enjoyed reading these comments. thank you all.

April 27, 2016 6:24 pm

btw, the steinhilber and beer paper of 2013 is discussed here
it looks at the relationship between solar irradiance to solar activity and makes a long term forecast

Tom in BR
April 27, 2016 6:40 pm

Data ARE……

April 27, 2016 7:50 pm

Hmm, interesting stuff …
Thanks Willis, gave a good trip.

April 28, 2016 12:22 am

So is TSI driving ENSO, but obscured by other forcings and internal viability and non linear changes (some of which might be initiated by TSI but too small to detect. (cant detect a butterfly flapping it’s wings but you can detect the hurricane it eventually turns into). Out on a limb here, don’t stomp on my puny argument 🙂

Reply to  Mark
April 28, 2016 4:19 am

TSI is never going to match with temperature because it’s influence is not a physically controlling one but an energy input one, the climate system uses the energy to do work, so the contribution is non a linear one so contributions individually to not determine an outcome, total contribution does, and we have no idea what all contributions are, unknown unknowns aplenty I suspect
TSI reconstructions doesn’t do bad anyway against GISS until the 90s which is when hansen started “adjusting global records, that is also when Satellite records diverged from surface data.

April 28, 2016 12:28 am

There are three graphs in here
– top : tectonics peaks coincide with the GSN rising or the GSN peaks
– middle: 11 year change in the GSN, comparing rise and fall in two variables. Two exceptions are indicated by circles. Some + or – phase differences are due to fact that two bodies react to the natural input with a degree of variability in the delay.
– bottom: CET verification. During the 20th century warming since 1900 the AMOC has been gradually slowing down, the extent shown by the green line section
completing article for (non peer review !!) publishing, it will provide data used and detailed description of methods employed, enabling reproduction in its entirety.

April 28, 2016 2:26 am

There is a place in Australia called Echuca, most likely sitting on a huge deposits of iron at some depth.
It’s temperature record may be of some interest.

April 28, 2016 4:12 am

The usefulness of a zero bound graph to study small changes in variability:
TSI changes by 0.1%, while sunspots vary by 100%, yet nobody doubts that there is a relationship because there is a close temporal correlation between both changes. There is a hypothesis why TSI changes and sunspot changes correlate so well, but that hypothesis would not hold water if there wasn’t a close temporal correlation between both.
There is over 9000 years of data in Steinhilber et al., 2012 displaying interesting periodicities that could relate to climate changes. To make this mockery of analysis you shouldn’t have bothered. Thanks for nothing.

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2016 8:23 am

What affect does the change in the Sun’s magnetic flux and the Earths magnet flux during the periods of lower sunspot numbers do to the energy arriving on the earth surface.
Try this if you have an old CRT type color TV (Big heavy tube type – not LCD). Walk past the TV with a solid color or a color pattern with one of these small high strength magnets. I had one of those new shinny ones about the size of a nickle in my pocket as i walked up to the old TV to shut it off. The colors started swirling all over the place. I could see the effects of the magnet more than 3 feet away from the TV.
Changes in the lines of flux from the sun and the lines of flux around the Earth are going to have some effect on the energy hitting the earth. The magnet in my pocket, the magnetic on the neck of the CRT etc. bend, aim and direct the beam of electrons. Likewise, the photons carrying that heating energy from the Sun are also electro-magnetic energy and will be affected by these known changes in magnetic flux – which I see very little discussed about, and usually dismissed as BS. That magnet had no affect on a compass needle at that distance. It also had no affect on the sensor in my cell-phone. However, the changes in color were very obvious.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  usurbrain
April 28, 2016 1:25 pm

Nope. Not a chance. Photons have no electric charge and are unaffected by passage through magnetic fields. Unfortunately, this really is “settled science.”

John West
April 28, 2016 8:24 am

So, if we were making biscuits we might follow a simple recipe:
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup shortening
3/4 cup milk
This should make some pretty good biscuits.
However, what if we tried with this recipe:
2.0729 cups white powder
1/2 cup shortening
3/4 cup milk
Now, if we don’t get the constituents making up the white powder in just the right proportions we could end up with some pretty bad biscuits.
TSI doesn’t vary much but its constituents do and its constituents vary greatly in terms of how they interact with the Earth system. This may or may not end up being significant to climate variability but I don’t think it’s appropriate to dismiss “Solar Variation” based on TSI alone.

April 28, 2016 10:34 am

and finally the CET’s response to the TSI

Reply to  vukcevic
April 28, 2016 12:40 pm

so what are we talking, TSI charges up the oceans.. so maybe El Nino is like an occasional discharge of excess heat, a natural balance of the system.
or I am just rambling.. pay me no mind

Reply to  Mark
April 28, 2016 2:45 pm

we simply don’t know, we are still in a guessing stage.

April 28, 2016 1:28 pm

Looks like you stumped them Willis.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2016 4:47 am

Did you loan your “Crypto-Matic Posting Device” to Willis for the week end?
I get the point that TSI variation is negligible (estimated TSI at that as well)
but……………………………………………………. now what?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2016 8:39 am

Hardly, recorded as caught silly mid-off. Rain stopped play, covers on.

Reply to  AJB
April 29, 2016 9:28 am

Correction: Bad light 🙂

Science or Fiction
April 28, 2016 2:32 pm

I´m a bit surprised about the lack of critical thoughts about the Steinhilber 2009 paper.
This paper is among the papers IPCC base their conclusion that the solar variation is ignorable – as seen in the following figure showing the radiative forcing since preindustrial times.
In IPCC WGI.AR5 it is stated: Total Solar Irradiance Variations Since Preindustrial Time
“For the best estimate we use a recent TSI reconstruction by Krivova et al. (2010) between 1745 and 1973 and from 1974 to 2012 by Ball et al. (2012). The reconstruction is based on physical modeling of the evolution of solar surface magnetic flux, and its relationship with sunspot group number (before 1974) and sunspot umbra and penumbra and faculae afterwards. This provides a more detailed reconstruction than other models (see the time series in Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.3). The best estimate from our assessment of the most reliable TSI reconstruction gives a 7-year running mean RF between the minima of 1745 and 2008 of 0.05 W m–2. Our assessment of the range of RF from TSI changes is 0.0 to 0.10 W m–2 which covers several updated reconstructions using the same 7-year running mean past-to-present minima years (Wang et al., 2005; Steinhilber et al., 2009; Delaygue and Bard, 2011), see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.4. All reconstructions rely on indirect proxies that inherently do not give consistent results. There are relatively large discrepancies among the models (see Figure 8.11).With these considerations, we adopt this value and range for AR5.”
In the introduction to the Steinhilber 2009 paper it is stated:
“The Sun is the main driver of the Earth’s climate. There is growing evidence [e.g., Neff et al., 2001; Bond et al., 2001; Wanner et al., 2008] that many past climate changes coincide with changes in solar activity which may also change total solar irradiance (TSI). This raises questions about the Sun’s role in the climate in the past, present, and therefore even in the future. To answer these questions, the quantitative solar forcing has to be known not only for the present period of high solar activity, but also for periods when the Sun was very quiet, such as the Maunder Minimum (MM).”
The above statements seem to combine into something like: The sun is the main driver of the Earth´s climate but the estimated change in Total Solar Irradiance since the Maunder Minimum (in the little ice age) has insignificant influence on temperature.
This doesn´t seem logically consistent to me.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 28, 2016 3:00 pm

And the necessary consequence of the theory put forward by United Nations climate panel, as summarized in the figure above, is that mankind pulled the earth out of the little ice age – no natural radiative forcing agents could have done that – that´s great isn´t it – unwittingly brilliant by mankind.

April 28, 2016 3:02 pm

Attempted to post (3 or 4 times) a comment about the BBC’s most recent program devoted to the solar activity where it was suggested that sun caused the Little Ice Age and not a single mention of CO2.
It looks as the wordpress found some problem, it is possible that comments may appear at a later stage in which case only one could be left and the others deleted.

April 28, 2016 9:02 pm

Perhaps it would be helpful to see a plot of solar insolation as a function of latitude. Using a single average for TSI/dTSI over the entire globe could be misleading. Insolation varies by a significant amount from equator to pole, it would be interesting to see this coupled together with dTSI.

April 28, 2016 9:41 pm

Just thinking, the above regarding insolation as a function of latitude might be improved by finding the anomaly in total energy received, perhaps in kw-hr/m2/day. The plot that is the subject of this article might also benefit from adding a dimension of time, rather than instantaneous value.

April 29, 2016 5:37 am

BBC changing its climate change tune
– Sun affects climate change
– Maunder minimum caused Little Ice Change
– CO2 not mentioned once, but in passing ‘eliminate polluting’ power stations
– Fusion and solar are good sources of energy, no mention of wind or bio-fuels
– Anthropogenic warming (presumably is good) might compensate for a future ‘LIA type ‘ cooling.
– NASA’s Dr H appeared few times
– No CAGW views or experts appeared.
It is a small but important step away from relentless propaganda towards the reality.

Don Easterbrook
April 29, 2016 7:38 am

These graphs by themselves (regardless of what Steinhilber says about them) are illuminating. For one thing, they point out the importance of scale. Physicists have for years discounted solar causes of climate change because of the very small variation in TSI and the top graph seems to bear that out. But the lower, more detailed graph eerily tracks global climate very nicely. It follows the Dalton cooling, the ~1850 warming, the late 1800 to early 1900 cooling, the ~1915 to ~1950 warming, the 1950 to 1980 cooling, the ~1980 20 year warming, and post-2000 cooling. If TSI isn’t the cause of climate changes, why does it apparently follow the temperature curve so nicely (it isn’t exact, but shows the trends)? One could reason that although TSI isn’t causing climate change, it is affected by whatever the cause is in the same way as climate.
What makes things even more interesting are the trends of Berylium-10 and carbon-14 variations during this time. These two isotopes are produced in the upper atmosphere by nuclear reaction with incoming radiation and they also correlate reasonably well with global temperature. They suggest that during times of increased production, i.e., high incoming radiation, global climates cooled. Svensmark used this to postulate that during times of high incoming radiation, condensation around ions produced more clouds, which increased albedo and resulted in cooling.
Anyway, what I get out of the two graphs is that these graphs are in accord with the Svensmark concept. They don’t prove it, but certainly provide interesting food for thought.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 29, 2016 9:05 am

CET follows all ups and downs in the rate of change of the solar activity’s the longer term average. One exception is the second half of 1700s, the time of number of powerful Icelandic volcanic eruptions

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 6, 2016 6:59 am

Heh, disingenuous. Who, Willis?

Reply to  kim
May 8, 2016 1:24 am

No, Kid, that’s an ink blot.

Reply to  kim
May 8, 2016 3:23 am

There you are, posing for the cover photo of the teen glam mag with a big fat cigar in your mouth, and I’ve gotta wonder if it’s a cigar or not.
Go back to Richard Verney’s original comment. His point is that with your presentation of the data you are saying SOMETHING. You ignore that and make the fallacious argument that you could only be saying SOMETHING if you were praising or criticizing it.
That’s tricksie, Willis; it’s pea under the the thimble nonsense. It’s ingenious, and you’ve not addressed his point at all. Smells like dishonest discourse.
It’s disappointing, Willis, because in general, in the climate wars, you wield a pretty straight peashooter.

Reply to  kim
May 8, 2016 3:33 am

Bah, ‘smells like teen discourse’ woulda been better.

Reply to  kim
May 8, 2016 5:48 am

Richard had an adult point; you, not so much.

May 8, 2016 6:00 am

Heh, you are like the child in the corner screaming at the top of his lungs “I am not saying anything”, hence the cigar. You can work out ‘Ingenue’ by yourself, no more hints.

May 8, 2016 6:38 am

Hee, hee, I may agree with what you are not saying, but I’ll defend to the deaf your right to say nothing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights