Link to climate forcing by the sun found by the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction)

Our resident solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard sends word of this paper:

Climate responses to SATIRE and SIM-based spectral solar forcing in a 3D atmosphere-ocean coupled GCM

Abstract

We apply two reconstructed spectral solar forcing scenarios, one SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) based, the other the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) modeled, as inputs to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GCMAM (Global Climate Middle Atmosphere Model) to examine climate responses on decadal to centennial time scales, focusing on quantifying the difference of climate response between the two solar forcing scenarios. We run the GCMAM for about 400 years with present day trace gas and aerosol for the two solar forcing inputs. We find that the SIM-based solar forcing induces much larger long-term response and 11-year variation in global averaged stratospheric temperature and column ozone. We find significant decreasing trends of planetary albedo for both forcing scenarios in the 400-year model runs. However the mechanisms for the decrease are very different. For SATIRE solar forcing, the decreasing trend of planetary albedo is associated with changes in cloud cover. For SIM-based solar forcing, without significant change in cloud cover on centennial and longer time scales, the apparent decreasing trend of planetary albedo is mainly due to out-of-phase variation in shortwave radiative forcing proxy (downwelling flux for wavelength >330 nm) and total solar irradiance (TSI). From the Maunder Minimum to present, global averaged annual mean surface air temperature has a response of ~0.1 °C to SATIRE solar forcing compared to ~0.04 °C to SIM-based solar forcing. For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. However, the global surface air temperature response to 11-year SIM-based solar forcing is insignificant and inconsistent with observation-based evidence.

(a) Simulated global averaged annual mean temperature variations (thinner lines) for SATIRE spectral solar forcing and the responses extracted from the regression analysis of the modeled data (thicker lines) for different altitudes. Correlation coefficients between modeled variation and response from regression analysis are indicated. (b) Simulated global averaged annual mean temperature variations (thinner lines) for SIM-based spectral solar forcing and the responses extracted from the regression analysis of the modeled data (thicker lines) for different altitudes. Correlation coefficients between modeled variation and response from regression analysis are indicated.

Advertisements

351 thoughts on “Link to climate forcing by the sun found by the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction)

  1. I couldn’t understand anything in this post, but I’m sure its important. :)

    • The abstract is too short, link to the actual article. It is very interesting.

      • Dr. S referred this paper. I wonder what is HIS opinion of (a) “The Paper”. and (b) “The science.”

        G

    • They ran two different models for notional 400-year periods. The models are incapable of remaining accurate for more than 4 days, let alone 400 years. This means that the results simply reflect the assumptions that went into the models in the first place. Both runs assumed that the sun had little effect on climate, so that is how the results came out. For SIM, there was an assumption that cloud cover did not change, but for SATIRE clouds were allowed to change. SIM produced a lower forecast change than SATIRE. Both runs are rubbish, because the methods used are rubbish, the assumptions used are rubbish, and because the models don’t can’t and won’t reproduce past climate.

      From the Maunder Minimum to present, global averaged annual mean surface air temperature has a response of ~0.1 °C to SATIRE solar forcing compared to ~0.04 °C to SIM-based solar forcing.“. They published on 19 April – that’s 18 days late.

      • results simply reflect the assumptions that went into the models in the first place.
        What is your evidence for you assuming that?
        Have you studied their code?

      • “results simply reflect the assumptions that went into the models in the first place.
        What is your evidence for you assuming that?
        Have you studied their code?”

        Unless they used AI neural net programming and allowed the AI to discover all input variables on its own, then the models merely reflect assumptions about how climate should behave. That’s all models are – simulations based on an understanding of how climate works – if that understanding is wrong, so is the simulation.

        Garbage in. Garbage out.

      • then the models merely reflect assumptions about how climate should behave.
        The models reflect our knowledge of how the climate should behave.

      • I’m not a crack modeler but I have done some very simple modeling in the past. It’s my understanding that the results of ANY model HAVE to, by their very nature, reflect the assumptions in the code. They can’t do anything else because there is no free will involved in computer code.

      • “I’m not a crack modeler but I have done some very simple modeling in the past. It’s my understanding that the results of ANY model HAVE to, by their very nature, reflect the assumptions in the code. They can’t do anything else because there is no free will involved in computer code.”

        I built a model of how long it would take me to walk to the store.

        D= R*T

        DIstance equals rate times Time

        There are assumptions built into this.

        1. That physics works and continues to work
        2. That I walk at a constant rate.

        ALL models ALL PHYSICS is based on ASSUMPTIONS. There is no branch of knowledge that does NOT rely on assumptions. Ironicly you assume the presence of assumptions is some kind of flaw.
        Bad assumption.

        If A, then B
        A,
        Therefor B.

        This logic in code, relies on assumptions. Assumptions that logic is correct. Assumptions that my code works as designed, that the system works as speced, etc

      • Good one Mike, When I saw models and GISS I thought it would be nonsense. Then look at who recommended the article= someone who is opposed to any ideas of variation of specific radiation affecting clouds and getting to the earths surface. There are sun cycles and while there is some evidence of potential changes on earth there is no definite evidence to say that the sun cycles do not affect the earth

      • Leif Svalgaard here demonstrates his fundamental misconception / lack of understanding as far as the scientific or applicable role of models are concerned:

        He states that models reflect our “knowledge of how climate should behave”. “Should”?. That coming from any one, titular professor or amateur scientist, scientifically speaking is garbage – ergo GIGO.

        Models are meant to TEST against as comprehensive as possible verifiable empirical data what we think we know about any given S&T / R&D question. Models are NOT tested nor actionable until backed up by verifiable empirical data.

        By way of an everyday example: as an industry first, the FAA authorized Boeing to develop and test fly the 777 based solely on models, only and only after not only Boeing but also Airbus Industries had demonstrated beyond dispute that the computer modelling in actual engineering fact was capable of re-producing known and anticipated flight characteristics and demonstrating above all required safety requirements.

        NO model of any kind relating to earth’s climate comes even close to meeting those criteria – we are orders of magnitude away.

        The very notion of models “reflecting our knowledge” about any “should” of any kind is garbled thinking.

        Not worthy of any self respecting solar physicist.

      • Models are NOT tested nor actionable until backed up by verifiable empirical data.
        As the papers said:
        “The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. ”
        so is backed up with empirical data…

      • “This logic in code, relies on assumptions. Assumptions that logic is correct.”

        The code in the model is known to be incorrect, as the models run hot. Therefore the assumptions are incorrect. The code in models is known to misuse the Schwarzschild equation by assuming the emissivity of CO2 is unity, when in fact it is a small fraction of unity.

        Fix the model, then input solar variation.

      • “The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. ”

        The key phrase in that statement is “… similar to recent multi-model estimates…” There have been several papers describing how the models are tuned to match the observations for what ever period they have selected which in itself seems to be a moving target. In order to tune those models each contains many adjustable parameters that are first set according to someones estimate of effect followed by tweaking each until they (hopefully) get a close match to their selected time period. Even after all this tweaking rarely does even the best of the ensemble come close to observations over any even short time period, e.g, more than one or two decades.

      • “similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. ”
        The key phrase in that statement is “… similar to recent multi-model estimates”

        No, the key phrase is “comparable to the observational-based evidence”

      • >>
        lsvalgaard
        May 6, 2017 at 5:37 pm

        results simply reflect the assumptions that went into the models in the first place.
        What is your evidence for you assuming that?
        Have you studied their code?
        <<

        There was a paper in Science about ten years ago (I’ve been trying to find it again) that discusses the long-term (millions and billions of years) computer simulation of our planetary Solar System using first principles. Either the planets would slowly spiral inward and eventually crash into the Sun or slowly spiral outward until they escaped entirely. This sensitivity to initial conditions is a primary characteristic of a chaotic system. They way they got around this problem was to add a damping factor.

        The physics of planetary motion is far simpler than climate. Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic system. You can’t run a complex, chaotic system very long without deviation from previous runs. If the code is simulating climate, then it’s chaotic. How many damping factors do they need to make it behave?

        Jim

      • Mosher writes

        I built a model of how long it would take me to walk to the store.

        This is the wrong kind of model comparison to understand GCMs, Steve.

        You’ve contemplated a model that doesn’t “step”. It doesn’t build on its previous state over millions of states. CFD modelling a wing doesn’t step and build on previous states either. Well perhaps in a highly focused, well understood and defined, small scale, short time framed way. Understanding this difference is fundamentally critical to understanding why the current GCMs are doomed to failure.

      • Leif writes

        The models reflect our knowledge of how the climate should behave.

        Perhaps you could describe our “knowledge” of how clouds work? And how they work as the most important feedback mechanism in the models? And what that means in terms of the GCM’s projections?

        Your opinions would be welcomed.

      • Leif’s opinion is

        We still have a long way to go…

        And as opinions go, that’s a brief non-committal one.

        Perhaps you have an opinion on what impact our “knowledge” of clouds has in the CGMs as far as projection goes? Not hindcasting…projection…to be clear.

  2. Agree with Benedict. Maybe Leif can take us by the hand on this. I’d like to understand it.

    • I have suggested before that, for those of us who struggle to count on our fingers, it would be very helpful to have versions of these articles that spell out the main points, and the support for them, in simple terms.

      • Dude, this is long term, big number stuff!
        Ya gotta count on yer toes, too, for these sorts of dealios.
        No wonder you are a-strugglin’!

      • Does this SATIRE model have TSI at approximately 1362 Wm^-2, as is observed, or does it have
        342 Wm^-2 as KT imagines it should be ??

        Just asking.

        G

      • The day that one of these models or modelers get a result that is unexpected, unanticipated, and unpredicted by those involved in the modelling is the day I am on the edge of my seat taking it very seriously.
        Until that day, it is just more of the same.
        11 years, 400 years…whats the dif?
        Meh.

  3. I think this post is saying that SATIRE is more accurate in actual measurement than SIM in detailing solar forcing over the 11 year solar cycle.

    What is the different UV output in either observation or model?

    • Um ! Please Sir. I always thought that if you had SEEN one photon, you had SEEN them all .

      I mean why on EARTH would it matter what the photon energy was; energy is energy after all ? Why would the wavelength matter ?

      When they get here they find that it is cooler here than the sun, so they stay here; all of them, well except for the ones that get reflected out into space; from albedo.
      So this paper is going to try and convince us that it makes a hill of beans difference to us just what color the photons are and what their individual Temperature is; it’s all HEAT (noun) after all so why should we care.

      Why do we care what the color Temperature of the sun is; or any other star that is out there.

      So the sun looks orangy yellow to me, and it is supposed to be 5772 kelvin Temperature.

      So what is the Temperature of say a GREEN star; how would we measure that ??

      Come to think of that; I don’t remember ever seeing a GREEN star; and I know I’m not color blind.

      The sun is supposed to be 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium, and almost nothing else.

      So I would think that 75% of the sunlight is Hydrogen lines, and 25% is Helium lines.

      Why would it be anything else; like say some Uranium lines ??

      Somehow, I don’t think this picture is correct. Every time I look at a graph plot of the sunlight spectrum, it looks so damn close to an almost perfect Black Body Radiation spectrum, at 5772 kelvin Temperature.

      I don’t see ANY Hydrogen lines or Helium lines, or Uranium for that matter.

      How could the sun, which is generally assumed to be not solid, nor liquid, be emitting black body radiation. Climate scientists tell us that gases don’t emit black body like radiation, because they are gases. Well unless they are GHGs which do have spectral emission or absorption lines, but I guess they don’t have BB radiation either.

      Well I believe near the surface the sun’s “atmosphere ” that is all Hydrogen and Helium, is mostly a neutral plasma, and presumably that plasma is emitting Hydrogen ion and Helium ion spectral lines, but if you have plasma ions capturing free electrons, then that is supposed to give you a continuum spectrum tacked onto the end of the Hydrogen or Helium atomic spectral lines.

      So how come what we get on earth looks like electromagnetic radiation energy from a solid black body at 5772 K Temperature, instead of a bunch of atomic Hydrogen and Helium spectral lines, along with their ionized plasma continuum spectra.

      And with all of that Black Body Radiation energy, where the heck is all the HEAT (noun) and LIGHT (noun) that we are supposed to get from the sun.

      Does anybody out there know the name of one of those green stars and what Temperature they are ??

      g & G

      • It matters a great deal in the real world. You are describing a different simpler thing, which is a total energy balance on a black body. In the real world, different frequencies interact with our planet differently. One example: If you shine 0 UV on human skin, it will not tan and will reflect light. There are myriads of other effects. Point made?

        There are numerous theories, hypotheses and facts related to frequencies and their direct and indirect affect on the world. That is why it matters.

      • [quote]So how come what we get on earth looks like electromagnetic radiation energy from a solid black body at 5772 K Temperature, instead of a bunch of atomic Hydrogen and Helium spectral lines, along with their ionized plasma continuum spectra.[/quote]
        Maaaagic!

        Wait, no…

        Aliens!

        ;)

      • Hi George! As you note, the Sun is made up of a hot gas, not liquid or solid, although the mean density is close to that of liquid water at the Earth’s surface. The gas, however, is a plasma, made up of free electrons and ions (mainly protons). The charged particles collide with photons, exchanging energy and momentum (see Compton scattering). In the presence of an electric field due to positive ions or other electrons, the moving electrons are accelerated (changing speed and/or direction), and an accelerated charge emits photons. Since the mean free path of photons is so small in the Sun’s interior, the photons cannot escape to outer space in straight lines until the density suddenly drops at the photosphere where the atoms run out, so essentially the photosphere emits 5778 K Planck black body radiation, and the Solar spectrum is a continuous spectrum with all frequencies, mainly in the visible and near infrared red (IR). Dark Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum are due to net absorption at resonant atomic frequencies by cooler gas atoms or ions in the Sun’s thinner outer atmosphere. BTW, visible photons from the Sun are absorbed by the solid and liquid surface of the Earth, which warms up and emits far infrared photons in a Planck black body spectrum at 288 K on average. Only resonant frequencies in bands for greenhouse gases like CO2, water vapor, methane and ozone are absorbed on the way out to space, warming the troposphere, thus explaining the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This molecular band absorption spectrum, analogous to the Fraunhofer line absorption spectrum, is NOT an emission spectrum (ask any competent chemist), so the literature explanation invoking emission from the troposphere is all wrong. Electrically neutral N2, O2 and Ar molecules which make up the bulk of the troposphere cannot and do not emit any significant far infrared radiation to outer space, since they do not have changing electric dipole moments. It is the far infrared photons emitted by the hard deck surface of the Earth, minus those absorbed by greenhouse gases, that provide the signal observed by IR sensors in satellite or balloon spectrometers. Hope this helps.

      • Hi George – Nice rant! You ask “Why would the wavelength matter ?“. Well, there is at least one way in which wavelength matters. The ocean absorbs different wavelengths differently. Some wavelengths such as IR (Infra-Red) stop in the ocean skin while others such as visible light penetrate to greater depth. The ones that penetrate to greater depth are more effective at warming the ocean. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/ : “IR and solar radiation do differ in their ability to warm the ocean. A Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.“.

      • Hi, George… :)

        Re: UV and its atmospheric chemistry relevance

        Perhaps, you missed my comment about this article in 2014…
        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_gr08900n.pdf

        So! Here ya go (a selection from my summary of Gray, et al.) :)

        Gray et al. 2010
        Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White, 2010: Solar influence on climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.

        Abstract
        (full pdf of paper is available at link above)

        Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of
        1) solar variability,
        2) solar-terrestrial interactions and the
        3) mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas.

        ***
        2) Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated timescales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided.

        3) Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles.

        4) Finally, the contribution of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.

        Introduction

        1) UV – Ozone

        … UV … has a relatively large 11 year SC variation, as shown in Figure 3 (bottom). Variations of up to 6% are present near 200 nm where oxygen dissociation and ozone production occur and up to 4% in the region 240–320 nm where absorption by stratospheric ozone is prevalent. [Gray, et. al., at 4]

        2) UV – Ozone

        At stratospheric heights Figure 3 shows a variation of ∼6% at UV wavelengths over the SC. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. … The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating… [Haigh, 1994; see also Gray et al., 2009].’ [Id. at 5]

        ***

        3) UV — Measurement

        Work at present is aimed at improving our knowledge of the short UV wavelengths, which is required for accurate modeling of irradiance absorption in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere (see Figure 3). Improvements made to date suggest that UV irradiance during the Maunder Minimum was lower by as much as a factor of 2 … . However, this work is still in its infancy. The model estimates match observed spectra between 400 and 1300 nm very well but begin to fail below 220 nm… . [Id. at 9]

        ***

        Ozone is the main gas involved in radiative heating of the stratosphere. Solar‐induced variations in ozone can therefore directly affect the radiative balance of the stratosphere with indirect effects on circulation. Solar‐induced ozone variations are possible through[:]
        (1) … UV spectral solar irradiance, … modifies the ozone [Id. at 12] production rate through photolysis of molecular oxygen, primarily in the middle to upper stratosphere at low latitudes [Haigh, 1994]
        [;]

        ***

        In the upper stratosphere where solar UV variations directly affect ozone production rates, a statistically significant response of 2% – 4% is evident. … The density‐weighted height integral of ozone at each latitude gives the “total column” ozone, and a clear decadal oscillation in phase with the 11 year solar cycle is evident in both satellite data … The ozone response in the lower stratosphere is believed to be the main cause of the total column ozone signal because of the high number densities at those levels. [Id.]

        ***

        Stratospheric  Tropospheric UV – Ozone Feedback Mechanism

        … by imposing idealized ozone changes taken from simple 2‐D chemistry models … demonstrated that the SC signal extended down into the troposphere, primarily at subtropical latitudes… [Id. at 27] However, they did not reproduce other features, such as the observed poleward and downward propagation of the signal at polar latitudes [Matthes et al., 2003] or the secondary maximum in the equatorial lower stratosphere (20–30 km). There is general consensus that this latter feature results from transport processes… .

        More recent improved models … simulat[e] an improved vertical structure of the annual mean ozone signal in the tropics, … However, it is still not clear to which factor (SSTs, time‐varying solar cycle, or inclusion of a QBO) the improvements can be ascribed. … despite these general improvements, there are many details that are not reproduced by models. Further studies, including fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere models with interactive chemistry, will be required to improve the simulated ozone signal and distinguish between the various influences. [Id. at 27-28]

        11) Stratosphere – Troposphere Coupling Mechanisms

        … Much work is still required to fully characterize the nature of these complicated interactions and hence to verify these mechanisms. … Although details of the mechanisms involved are still not fully established, it is becoming increasingly clear that the top‐down mechanism whereby UV heating of the stratosphere indirectly influences the troposphere through dynamical coupling is viable and may help to explain observed regional signals in the troposphere. [Id. at 32]

        ***

        This (UV) is sort of off topic, but it is IMPORTANT to remember… So, there ya go.

        Hope that was helpful,

        George…

      • Sorry rogertaguchi.

        Not everybody catches on that ….. g ….. is a very tongue in cheek guy, while ….. G …..

        Is very damn serious about stuff.

        As I’m sure you are well aware, there ARE NO Green Stars.

        There is NO Black Body radiator at any Temperature that is GREEN which just goes to show that color (and LIGHT) is ALL in your head; well in your retina and brain anyway. It is NOT an intrinsic property of Electro-magnetic radiation.

        Dr. Svalgaard tells us that the solar plasma is essentially neutral, which makes sense if it started out as Hydrogen with equal positive and negative charges; But when a Proton, or Deuteron or Helium nucleus captures an electron from the mixed in electron cloud, that electron arrives with a totally unknown electron energy in the center of mass space of the two colliding particles, and it eventually lands in some Hydrogen or Deuterium, or Helium atomic energy level so it emits a photon of completely unknown frequency (in a continuum spectrum that is appended to the various neutral Hydrogen or Helium atomic line spectra series.

        But as you note, while the ions exist, they are all rushing around from collision to collision and so must emit EM radiant energy while accelerating, so the ions in the plasma, both + and – charges are very efficient in emitting ….. THERMAL ….. radiation with a Planck spectrum depending on the Temperature.

        And as for N2, O2, and Ar in the earth atmosphere, while in free flight they may have a zero electric dipole moment, and hence not emit dipole radiation, but during collisions ( a Temperature effect) those colliding molecules distort, and then they do have a non zero electric dipole moment, so they can radiate Thermal radiation. Also there can be non zero quadrupole or hexadecapole moments which are also radiating antennas.

        If you are not convinced that diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 as well as monoatomic ones like AR get their electric charge distribution distorted, while in collisions, just consider that the equal but opposite charged nucleus and electron cloud have a mass ratio of typically 3750 (p/e + n/e) so the kinetic energy is overwhelmingly concentrated in the nucleus, so the accelerations of the nucleus can never keep up with the accelerations of the electrons; hence they must physically separate from their free flight configurations.

        So diatomic gases at a temperature higher than zero K do emit thermal radiation. But since there is nowhere near enough of them in the atmosphere to absorb all the radiation passing through the atmosphere, the atmospheric gases cannot be considered a black body, and as a gray body they are so pitifully pale as to be almost transparent.

        So BB, NO, but Thermal, YES. They do radiate a thermal Planck spectrum.

        G (not g)

      • Just for the other pedants out there besides myself, yes the electron energy of a captured electron in a plasma has to involve a minimum energy equal to the ionization energy of the Hydrogen, Deuterium, or Helium atom, so that defines the cutoff frequency of the thermal Planck spectrum and the end of the Hydrogen or Deuterium or Helium (or once ionized) Helium (He-) line spectrum series such as Lyman series etc.

        I believe it is also correct to say that the frequencies of those atomic lines are not affected at all by the solar 5772 K Temperature ….. EXCEPT ….. that they do have their lines broadened compared to the intrinsic line width, by (a) Doppler broadening due to the motion of the source due to Temperature, and also the mean time between collisions depends on the mean time between collisions, usually referred to as Pressure broadening.

        The central intrinsic line frequency apparently is quite Temperature independent.

        If the Intrinsic spectral line frequencies of atomic spectral lines were Temperature dependent, we wouldn’t have any damn idea at all, what sort of atom emitted any particular photon that we get from outer space, as they would be all over the map.

        They do get red shifted. and blue shifted due to source motion, sometimes drastically, but since there is a whole characteristic series of them, that are all magically related to each other the Astronomer sleuths are able to figure out the puzzle.

        G

  4. So it looks like there is not much real variance in illumination during the solar cycle as far as can be measured. Unless a .12 degree C variation has some sort of chaotic effect, it does seem that the solar variations do not have a large effect on climate.

    • Hard to say, now someone needs to rerun these variables into the GCMs with their assumed positive vapor feedbacks and see what happens.

      • With water vapor positive feedbacks, the model outputs likely blow-up, that is running far too hot. This non-realistic output as sub-grid scale convection is not modeled, and only parametrized based on modeller bias, and would require extensive “tuning” mini-runs to get those parameters for the model outputs to stay in-bounds (reasonable).

    • Only if you ignore the storage effect in the oceans and heterogeneous effects from the source over longer periods of grouped cycles up and down. Other than that it is small. But then we are in an era of ignoring long run cycles and stacked cycles. BTW there would be no quantum physics if there were no wave amplification and wave merger.

    • “it does seem that the solar variations do not have a large effect on climate”

      As a laymen, 0.12C does seem insignificant until you align the Marauder Minimum to the mini ice age. Then the slow increase in TSI to present warmer temperatures. Matches the temperature record better than the CO2 record does. If I were a betting man, I would be more concerned about another Marauder Minimum as the Sun continues it’s downward trend.

      • JPL knew that the warming in the eighties and the nineties was occurring through out the solar system, yet the the Gorabal warming people were telling it was CO2 no the sun, yet every-time someone looks a what the sun does and is doing it a better fit than CO2, of course after NASA and NOAA get done with the land-base and ocean temperature God only knows

    • rogertaguchi May
      Two comments due to increased gravity and mass the mean density would be highly unlikely to be anywhere near that of water?

      The earth does not have a simple surface to emit from, it has a multi layer surface due to the atmosphere which means you need to conceive of it exiting from the TOA.
      The earth does not emit at 288k.
      It emits at 255k ie it is -18c
      A bit like your explanation for the sun really.
      The surface layer on average emits at 288 because the air over it has heated up to this temperature. But it emits into GHG atmosphere and goes through a lot of steps before the radiation that goes to space is released (mainly from said atmosphere)
      You forget that the outgoing energy is equal to the incoming energy.
      A lot of that energy is reflected back out as SW and some IR (otherwise we would heat up more)
      What is left heats the earth’s atmosphere 67 and surface 168 W/m-2.
      The outgoing energy has to equal the incoming and it does this TOA at a temp of 255k
      The infra red emitted to space is a combination of the GHG emitting upwards and that that has escaped from the surface.

    • “it does seem that the solar variations do not have a large effect on climate.”
      So, what does cause the trend lines on every proxy and unaltered time sequence of observed temperature data have all those jaggedy lines, instead of nice straight smooth curves that match up exactly with the Milankovich cycles?
      Why this:

      Or this:

      No one knows.
      And we do not know what is unknown.

      • Mosher, the Little Ice Age is one of those hickups. Four hundred years is not “nothing.” It was sufficient to cause the abandonment of villages in Europe to advancing glaciers, the abandonment of Greenland by the Norse, and similar events globally:

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11769-013-0591-z

        You’ll not that the last ACC event (the LIA) is mentioned as being 0.4 KYA – four hundred years ago. Menicholas asks what causes these shorter term weather fluctuations that cannot be accounted for with Milankovich cycles. When he says we don’t know he is precisely correct. If it isn’t the sun, and certainly can’t be anthropogenic CO2, then what?

  5. From the paper:
    “From Maunder Minimum to the recent solar minima (1900–2005), TSI increases by 0.72 W m−2. In the modern solar maximum period (1900–2005), the TSI 11-year cycle variability is about 0.83 W m−2.”

    Yeah, I’m a little confused with the paper myself. This appears to be the only place they define what years they are referring to by saying “From Maunder Minimum” but 1900 is long after the end of the Maunder, and all of their model runs went to 1600.

  6. It appears that SATIRE is better than SIM:

    The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. However, the global surface air temperature response to 11-year SIM-based solar forcing is insignificant and inconsistent with observation-based evidence.

    When I was growing up, the Sun was responsible for all weather and ostensibly the climate. Now it seems that the Sun is responsible for neither, and it takes four hundred year GCM runs to find any hint of an effect.

    Jim

    • Don’t be dense. The question is how changes in the sun affect the earth, not whether the sun affects the earth. This paper says that one reconstruction of solar irradiance may be better than another in studying how changes in the sun affects (and has affected) the earth.

      Frankly, I don’t understand why this paper among so many was posted to WUWT, because it says absolutely nothing of popular interest.

      • Frankly, I don’t understand why this paper among so many was posted …

        Perhaps it’s intended to debunk the theory that global warming is caused by sunspots.

      • So do you think that the effect of acidic ocean on the sex life of sponges in the Mediterranean Sea , is a subject of popular interest ??

        Are we all just a bunch of preverts here at WUWT ??

        g

      • >>
        Don’t be dense.
        <<

        The nice thing about density in science is that stupid ideas will bounce off easier and less stupid ideas have longer staying power.

        Jim

      • There was this girl i knew, and I always told her she was my density…but she had a much lower percentage of body fat than me, and than most other people on the planet…
        So she did not believe me.

  7. Color me unimpressed. Two different ways to measure one sun produce very different climate model results. So neither can be ‘right’. More playing with models that have already been proven wrong via the lack of a modeled tropical troposphere hotspot and their growing divergence from observed temperatures. See Christy’s recent written congressional testimony for details.

    • “More playing with models that have already been proven wrong via the lack of a modeled tropical troposphere hotspot and their growing divergence from observed temperatures.”

      I think that is the heart of this whole matter: If you compare your results to a bogus computer model, what have you learned about the real world? Answer: Nothing.

    • “Color me unimpressed. Two different ways to measure one sun produce very different climate model results.”

      You missed the part where ONE was better match to observations.

      color me unimpressed with you reading compreshension.

      See my Ebook. Why Rud is a nut.

      • “better match to observations.”
        Some people would think they key word here is “match”
        I see the word “better”, and think that better is not best, and it is certainly not the same thing as saying that same sentence without any qualifiers in it.
        Now, regarding reading comprehension, what part of the sentiment and thought expressed by saying that “neither can be ‘right'”, is contradicted by expressing some weaselly thought about one being “better”, Mr. Mosh?

  8. There is significant take away from this.
    a. we have two models we like, we are willing to see how it responds to observational data, so we dropped in the SIM and the SATIRE data into each model
    b. They act differently in a significant way! (repeat: my model is right, my model is right..)
    c. Sim has a much longer response time
    d. Both after albedo but in a fundementaly theoretical different way! One via cloud cover, one via out-of-phase shortwave radiation.

    Conclusion. A. These model represent the world differently. Hence putting these two into an ‘ensemble average’ as is very popular is wildly wrong. No average between different concepts will be correct. It is one or another or neither not an average.
    B. We don’t understand albedo, which is really an error amount far beyond what C02 is claimed hence it is not possible to ‘see any effect of C02,” let alone a ‘fingerprint of man’.

    e. Global surface air temp response int the SATIRE input model claimed .12C which they say they like and see; however, SIM provides none of that.

    Conclusion: Depending on the model inputs, again, variation in responses by the models are way beyond any claim accuracy, and behave in a fundamentally different fashion. Hence, they know not what really happens EVEN WRT guessing surface air temps!

    • we have two models we like
      No, there is only one model GCMAM. They run the same model with two different solar output data, the TSI [represented by the SATIRE model which is just a fit to the TSI data] and the SIM [which is the notion that the variation of the UV is in anti-phase with the solar cycle]. With either data set the influence is very small [in the noise]. The general opinion today is that the SIM data is not correct and is colored by instrumental noise.

  9. The main point is that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degree, so is there, but is not the reason for the ten times larger long-term variation that is observed. It doesn’t really matter if the TSI or the SIM data is used, the difference between them is in the noise.

    • What if it is a combination of many things happening at the same time ? Would there not be an amplified effect ?

      • If you have your right foot on the accelerator, and your left foot on the brake, would there be an amplified effect ??

        If so, which effect would get amplified ??

        g

      • “so no wonder the solar influence has been so small :-) ”
        Indeed, that’s why we are on the end of every solar discussion and we knew it before this study. I wonder why all these guys dispute it over and over again when there is a “new” paper out that confirms “Newton”. I’m waiting for “Einstein”! :-)

      • ” If we do not know something, will not our bestest ever guesses suffice until we do?”

    • First off Leif thanks for the paper link. Still reading it.

      “The main point is that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degree” …

      Is an assumption treating all solar cycles and their individual influence as equal, when they’re not.

      Over a solar cycle, OHC either accumulates under high enough TSI or depletes under too low TSI.

      The net change in SST/OHC over a cycle depends entirely on cycle TSI magnitude and duration.

      My own solar-climate research is largely in accordance with Dr. David Stockwell’s solar supersensitivity and accumulation theory, which is based on long term heat accumulation from higher solar irradiance during the stronger modern maximum cycles.

      Dr. Stockwell determined a lag from TSI of around 3 years, which match SST observations, interestingly, also match the findings of the SATIRE model runs. From this post’s abstract:

      “For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario.”

      I have no idea what’s in the GISS GCMAM or whether I’d agree with it’s basic assumptions or methods. That it’s from GISS gives me pause – it’s probably suped-up on CO2 ‘science’.

      ***

      The cause of the “pause” is low TSI since 2003:

      • Is an assumption treating all solar cycles and their individual influence as equal, when they’re not.
        No it is not. The model uses the actual sizes and TSI of each individual cycle as input.

      • Is that number intended as a net change? Average change? What is it?

        Are you saying +/- 0.1?

        What is your margin of error? 0.1? 0.2? 0.3?

        How do you know such things!?

        You can completely obscure the truth of solar supersensitivity and accumulation by your selection(s).

        For example, look at the SSTs during SC20-24 here:

        The net drop in SST for each cycle, solar cycle min-min, eyeballed off the graphic:

        SC20 -0.05
        SC21 +0.3
        SC22 +0.2
        SC23 nc
        SC24 inc

        SC23 added +0.25 up to the maximum through 2004/5, until dropping off into the 2008 minimum, back to where it started.

        From scrutinizing the SSTs we can see no solar cycle temperature swing exceeded 0.6, min-max.

        Strong cycles 21, 23, & 23 boosted SSTs until 2004; boosted again via the SC24 09/10 & 15/16 ENSOs, following the 3 year lag rule as well.

      • s that number intended as a net change? Average change? What is it?
        Don’t play dumb.
        It is, obviously, the average effect of solar variability from solar cycle minimum to solar cycle maximum.

      • Obviously the person playing dumb here is the one who didn’t notice and failed to comment on the real variation in net solar warming/cooling, shown by SC20-24 to be at least -0.05 to +0.3.

        0.1 ha!

        Ha!

        HA!

        How am I supposed to take you seriously when you won’t acknowledge the full range of TSI variation or temperature influence?

      • 1W?

        The stated maximum range of >1W in annual variation (not year to year) in SORCE since 2003 would slip by anyone as the limit if they were unaware of the fact that the TSI range before SORCE during SC21 & 22 was ~1.5W.

        Sunspot numbers were higher, solar flux was higher, and TSI was higher. Refer to Virgo TSI for comparison.

        TSI was higher during the SC21 & 22 maximums than the SC23 maximum.

        That extra ~0.5W difference was very instrumental in boosting SSTs.

      • Of course, the variation is in direct proportion to the sunspot number, some cycles are higher, some are lower. So TSI since cycles 21 has been decreasing and temperatures have been rising, again showing that TSI [and EUV and magnetic field] has very little to do with the temperatures. This is all well-known and not controversial [see e.g. Schrijver et al., http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf ]

      • Leif, the 1W/m² forcing change from solar out transforms ( due to a revolving sphere in 1 AU distance) to 0.25 W/m² forcing change at the top of the atmosphere over the 11 years cycle. For comparison: the antropogene forcing since 1880 is +2.7W!

    • lsvalgaard
      May 6, 2017 at 8:48 am

      If I am not wrong with understanding this….is still too little and too low when compared to the effect of the CO2 emission scenarios impact in the GCMs, far less forcing when compared to the CO2 concentration impact…….in the GCMs….
      No much to consider there, in this aspect, when considering CO2 scenarios and teir impact as a forcing in the models……..

      Maybe I do not understand this, as per this point….but that’s what seems so far as a way to contemplate it…..

      cheers

    • Thanks for your considered opinion. You don’t often tell us what you really think, and some of us do care what you really believe (think) about some of these matters.

      G

      PS, I have no disagreement with anything you just said, and for good measure, I don’t really know much about it anyway; so I’m glad that you do.

    • The main point is that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degree

      The main point is that this is its influence in the world imagined by the GISS model. Which we know that it fails to replicate our real world in a million ways. This may just be reason 1,000,001 to not trust the model.

  10. The good part about the paper is that it depends heavily on the observations from the SORCE satellite, which provided the data for reducing the TSI from 1365 to 1361 W/m^2, and also seems to show that

    “the SIM VIS and near-IR spectral irradiances have out-of-phase trends with UV and TSI trends in the descending phase of solar cycle 23, and the variation in UV spectral irradiance is about 4–6 times as large as expected from the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) empirical model that has in-phase trends for all wavelengths (Lean 2000).”

    This sounds like a huge effect to me, but the authors go on to state that only 97% of the total irradiance is covered by SORCE so the SIM results are uncertain and in fact multiple studies are referenced that come to rather opposite conclusions on the ultimate effects. (Note to alarmists: a case when 97% is not conclusive!)

    The bad part then comes from using a GCM with multiple simplifying assumptions–so many that one can very confidently state that all conclusions must be so highly uncertain as to be little more than guesses. At least the authors are pretty good about listing all the many sources of error–about two pages, during which the reader goes from mild curiosity to complete skepticism about the value of the enterprise.

    Question–Did Leif give his own opinion about the article? It seems to find a significant solar effect for the SATIRE reconstruction (but not the SIM data). One would think Leif would not care for this conclusion.

    • The SATIRE data result in a solar influence of 0.12 degrees, which is in the ballpark of what one would expect and which is ten times smaller than the observed long-term variation. Again what one would expect. One can always spin a tiny effect into a huge one, but saying “see, there really is an effect” [and suppress that it is tiny]. My current opinion on this is here: http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf

      • There is NO influence of solar Schwabe-cycles on GMST, if you expect such an impact: make a wavelet and look for the power at 11 years periodicity: you’ll find nothing at all in HadCRUT4, GISS or whatever you choose. IF there is a mechanism of solar influence on climate: it’s only possible on longer timescales and IMO this study doesen’t consider this aspect. So it can’t make us wonder that they find only noise. Because there IS only noise!

      • Sorry, the link to the full doesen’t work ( overtime, overload from readers here??) and IMO they use a model that would response also to Schwabe-cycles in the same amplitude as long time variations of solar output. It’s so?

      • and IMO they use a model that would response also to Schwabe-cycles in the same amplitude as long time variations of solar output. It’s so?
        The long-term variations are just so many Schwabe cycles following each other. There is nothing else at play. Solar output is determined by the magnetic field, i.e. by the Schwabe cycle.

      • “The long-term variations are just so many Schwabe cycles following each other. “

        Nonsense. A Schwabe cycle is not a regular, repeatable oscillation. There are long term variations.

        “There is nothing else at play.”

        There assuredly is. The entire system consists of solar irradiance and Earthly response, with lunar and solar tidal effects playing a significant role in that Earthly response. The Earthly response also is cyclical, and the modulation of solar cycles and response cycles produces a response which has the frequencies displaced via modulation.

        It is very foolish to imagine that the response to solar radiation must manifest solely at the frequencies of the solar excitation. There is no requirement for a linear response.

      • A Schwabe cycle is not a regular, repeatable oscillation. There are long term variations
        Sure, some cycles are large, some are small, but on a whole they all return to the same output at the minima between the cycles and as far as we can see [for the last 275 years] that level is constant without any long-term variation.

      • Gain is frequency dependent, and typically low pass, meaning the gain is generally higher, generally by orders of magnitude, at low frequency than at high. It is entirely possible for a small variation in the average behavior to dominate the response.

      • Only is there is a long-term trend, but since the Sun returns to the same level at every sunspot minimum there is no long-term trend and then the average varies much less than the individual values.

      • My speedometer returns to the same level every time I reach a destination. That does not indicate that I never leave my parking spot.

    • “The long-term variations are just so many Schwabe cycles following each other. There is nothing else at play. Solar output is determined by the magnetic field, i.e. by the Schwabe cycle.”
      Of course the solar output is nothing else than each other following Schwabe-cycles. And we know that those have no influence on GMST as the wavelet shows. The result: The variations of solar output have no impact on the GMST. Why more studies confirming what we know??

      • Newton I only check when an object falls accidentally to the ground… the task: how to measure the hight of a house with a thermometer and a watch? Solution: I let go the thermometer and listen to the bang when it falls to debris on the ground and measure the time in between! This is a joke and shows IMO the triviality of this kind of studies. There is no use to check Newton laws because in it’s frontiers we flew to the moon and arrived! The level of Einstein ( v near c) we didn’t arrive in climate research and this kind of studies won’t help us to step up to this. It’s IMO a waste of time and funding.

  11. I see Leif made his comments while I was asking the question. True that the effect is about 0.12 C, but that is very close to the amplitude of the 60-year sine wave fit to the observed data from 1880 on. Of course, 60 years is not 11 years either.

    • “Of course, 60 years is not 11 years either.”

      But, if you modulate an 11 year signal with a 9.3 year one, you get harmonics at 5 years and 60 years.

      It’s not a linear response. There are cycles combining with and modulating one another. It happens that 9.3 years is the time period associated with the magnitude of the planetary wobble induced by lunar and solar tidal forcing.

      I’m not saying this is what is happening. I am simply pointing out that the response is not necessarily linear, and the absence of a significant 11 year component in the temperature record is not sufficient evidence to conclude that solar variations have no net effect.

    • Do you suppose it was an accident, or a coincidence?
      I suppose it reflects the thoughts of whoever came up with the acronym.

  12. A luminous photosphere of energy radiates from our sun in all directions out across the cosmos. When that sphere expands to the average orbital distance to the earth its dispersed luminous surface radiates a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2 (S-B BB 390 K). But the earth does not orbit in a nice average circle, but in an ellipse with perihelion being closer and aphelion being farther. So how much difference does that make?

    At perihelion (closer) the power flux is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion (farther) the power flux is 1,323 W/m^2. The total annual range/change/fluctuation is 92 W/m^2. Yes, 92 W/m^2.

    According to IPCC AR5 the radiative forcing added to the atmosphere by the CO2 increase in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 is 2 W/m^2. Yes, 2 W/m^2. IPCC’S worst^4 case scenario is RCP 8.5, 8.5 W/m^2.

    So if an annual 92 W/m^2 fluctuation does not cause catastrophic climatic consequences what possible reason have we to believe that 2 W/m^2 or even 8.5 will?

    The annual ToA ISR fluctuation because of the tilted oblique incidence at 40 N is 670 W/m^2. From that we get summer and winter. Who’s afraid of 2 W/m^ or for that matter, 8.5 W/m^2?

    (A sphere of radius r has 4 times the area as a disc of radius r. 1,368 / 4 = 342 W/m^2. That’s exactly where that number originates! It’s the planar ISR spread evenly over the entire ToA sphere. That’s not even close to how the earth actually heats and cools.)

    (You can sort out the columns.)

    Sun Radius 696,000 km
    Sun Spherical Area 6.087E+12 km^2
    Luminosity 3.847E+26 W
    Power flux 6.320E+07 W/m^2
    S-B σ 5.670E-08 W/m^2 – K^4
    Surface Temp. 5,778.00 K

    Orbital Radius Average 1.4960E+08 km
    Orbital Spherical Area 2.8124E+17 km^2
    Power Flux S-B BB calc’d 1,368 W/m^2
    Power Flux Measured +/-? 1,368 W/m^2

    Earth radius 6,371.00 km
    Earth cross sectional area 1.2752E+08 km^2
    Power 1.7443E+17 W
    Earth spherical area 5.1006E+14 m^2
    Spherical power flux 342 W/m^2

    • Nickolas, thanks for that.

      When you perform the ‘averaging’ calculation, is that based on the total heat gained during a year around the ellipse, or is it a simple average of the maximum and minimum values? Same for average orbital radius. Is that factored for time?

      Your power fluxes calculated and measured match so I wonder how you got that match, and whether the measured flux is the annual total divided by 365.24 or …?

      Where do these ‘averages’ come from?

      Thanks

      • When I try to copy paste from your questions WUWT locks up, has to refresh and loses my reply. (web master)

        “…based on total heat…” Not certain what you mean by this, but probably no.

        The calculations are based on physical geometry, luminosity, temperature, etc from Wiki sources and 8th grade math. BTW all of those numbers are inter-related by S-B BB 1.0 emissivity and no sun/earth dT^4.

        I would say these are not averages or cumulative, but instantaneous.

        A watt is a power unit not an energy unit, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. So to get the total energy over a year: 1,368 (or as orbit dictates) * cross sectional area, m^2 * 8,760 h/y * 3.4 Btu/h / W = x.xxx E?? Btu / y, however that all works out.

        But a ball evenly warmed in a bucket of warm poo is not how the earth actually heats and cools.

        The earth is constantly losing heat perpendicular through the atmosphere, both day and night, per Q = U * A * dT. U is a complex combination of conduction, convection, latent and radiative resistive heat processes. Winds, clouds, Hadley cells, Rossby waves, etc. (Heat is a thermal process.) U = 1/cond R + 1/conv R + 1/latent R + 1/radiative R. It’s a BSME (that’s me, too) HVAC problem no different from the insulated walls of a house or woolen lap blanket.

        The cumulative loss through the atmosphere must be balanced by the solar input on the lit side. If more leaves than enters, the earth cools, if less leaves than enters, the earth warms.

        Solar, Btu/h = day time loss, Btu/h +night time loss, Btu/h.

        http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

        http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

        http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong

      • I recognized the wiki-dness in Nicholas’ source.

        NASA gives 5772 Kelvin solar effective Temperature (BB).

        I prefer NASA to wiki.

        And I presume the sun is not isotropic; solar flares, and EMPs and all of that stuff.

        G

      • Lief’s TSI values match a 1362 Watt/m^2, not the 1368 referenced.

        Over a 365 day year, Radiation at TOA = 1362.36+46.142*(COS(0.0167299*(DOY)+0.03150896))
        This agrees with Lief’s published values within a half-watt./m^2.
        (COS in Excel format for DOY from 1-365)

      • Here are the results using NASA’s numbers.

        https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html

        Sun Radius 695,700 km
        Sun Spherical Area 6.082E+12 km^2
        Luminosity 3.828E+26 W
        Power flux 6.294E+07 W/m^2
        S-B σ 5.670E-08 W/m^2 – K^4
        Surface Temp. 5,772.10 K

        Two points:
        1) The sun is treated as a perfect S-B BB, i.e. emissivity 1.0.

        2) The radiation is uni-directional, there is no “back” radiation from the earth at the orbital distance. In the equation Q = σ * ε * (Tsun^4 – Tearth^4) Tearth^4 is zero. Tsun^4 uses 5,772 K. Earth would use S-B BB at 240 W/m^2 or 255 K, -18 C. However, the actual temperature (How do you even define/measure temperature with no molecules?) at 100 km is about -90 C or 183 K which requires a outward radiative emissivity of 0.26.

        Unlike the ACS and Pierrehumbert layers model Q = σ * ε * A * (Tearth surface^4 – Tsomewhere in the troposphere^4). Surface is 1.5 m above the ground NOT the ground itself.

        Two kinds of physics: one for the sun/earth and something completely different for the earth/atmos.

        https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/

        The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m2); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m2).

        https://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/?section=136

        The Sun’s illumination is the ultimate energy source for the Earth’s biosphere, and the ultimate driving force for atmospheric, and oceanic circulations. The Sun is a variable star as one can see from sunspots recorded back to Galileo’s time in the early 1600s. Satellite observations over the past three decades show that the sunspot activity is associated with changes in solar output energy. The total solar irradiance (TSI), improperly called “solar constant” until a few years ago, has been found to change about 0.1% in an 11-year solar sunspot activity. The current most accurate TSI values from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment ( SORCE ) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m2 during the 2008 solar minimum as compared to previous estimates of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W/m2 established in the 1990s.

        https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

        Orbital Radius Average 1.4960E+08 km
        Orbital Spherical Area 2.8124E+17 km^2
        Power Flux S-B BB 1,361 W/m^2
        Power Flux Measured 1,361 – 1,365 W/m^2

        Earth radius 6,371.00 km
        Earth cross sectional area 1.2752E+08 km^2
        Power 1.7357E+17 W
        Earth spherical area 5.1006E+14 m^2
        Spherical power flux 340 W/m^2

        (342-340)/340 = 0.59%

        https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/

        The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m2); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m2).

        https://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/?section=136

        The Sun’s illumination is the ultimate energy source for the Earth’s biosphere, and the ultimate driving force for atmospheric, and oceanic circulations. The Sun is a variable star as one can see from sunspots recorded back to Galileo’s time in the early 1600s. Satellite observations over the past three decades show that the sunspot activity is associated with changes in solar output energy. The total solar irradiance (TSI), improperly called “solar constant” until a few years ago, has been found to change about 0.1% in an 11-year solar sunspot activity. The current most accurate TSI values from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment ( SORCE ) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m2 during the 2008 solar minimum as compared to previous estimates of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W/m2 established in the 1990s.

        http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/LWS_GEMS/3/graph_1.htm -93 C at 95 km

      • Experiment ( SORCE ) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m2 during the 2008 solar minimum as compared to previous estimates of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W/m2 established in the 1990s
        The high values were due to design flaws in the sensors. Not a real change.

      • “””””…..
        RACookPE1978

        May 6, 2017 at 1:38 pm

        Lief’s TSI values match a 1362 Watt/m^2, not the 1368 referenced. …..”””””

        I used to use the 1368 number myself, obtained by squinting at the satellite graphs from several satellites, and over at max three about 11 year cycles. Well actually, I believe I used 1366.

        But then one day here at WUWT, there was a news item that NASNOAA had announced a new number namely the 1362, so I figured since it was a NASANOAA released number it was good enough for me, so I use 1362 myself now, and I also use the NASA sourced 5772 K mean effective solar Temperature.

        If you see the 5778 K number, you know that it is wiki sourced, or a whole bunch of cut and paste wiki copycats that try to palm themselves off as authoritative science sites.

        I found about a half dozen of those while checking at wiki which Nicholas suggested was his source. I just wanted to see what fluff they had to say.

        You wouldn’t believe how many of them said the sun center was 27 million degrees.

        Turns out they were using deg. F

        Who the hell uses Deg. F for science reports ??

        G

    • And the earth is currently in a fairly circular orbit at this point in time regarding the Milankovitch Cycles as compared to the depth of an ice age. Every watt matters.

      Today a difference of only about 3 percent occurs between aphelion (farthest point) and perihelion (closest point). This 3 percent difference in distance means that Earth experiences a 6 percent increase in received solar energy in January than in July. This 6 percent range of variability is not always the case, however. When the Earth’s orbit is most elliptical the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be in the range of 20 to 30 percent more than at aphelion. Most certainly these continually altering amounts of received solar energy around the globe result in prominent changes in the Earth’s climate and glacial regimes. At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.

  13. The main point is that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degree

    It is not possible to model the climatic influence of solar variability if said influence is not properly understood. It is the same as saying that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is 3°K/doubling when the feedbacks are essentially unknown. For example cloud cover changes.

    Already the ozone variability in the stratosphere during the 11 year Schwabe solar cycle is 30 times the variability of TSI (3% versus 0.1%). It is clear that the climate system is capable of amplifying the solar signal and produce disproportionate changes. By looking only at TSI changes one is likely to miss the effects, no matter how important. But that is the best way of not finding what one doesn’t want to find.

    • Ozone changes regularly from geomagnetic activity. The study here may not have taken that into account.

      A 2016 paper related the cross polar cap potential to ozone and pressure changes that bring cold air down into the lower altitudes that spreads into low latitiudes, ie, polar vortex lobes or outbreaks, that bring a long chill wherever it happens depending on the season.

      My guess is the authors focused on solar radiation warming/cooling, neglecting solar particle effects.

      • “My guess is the authors focused on solar radiation warming/cooling, neglecting solar particle effects.”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^
        Thank you

  14. Fred from Ottawa May 6, 2017 at 10:23 am
    ———————-
    Yes I think it does, miss. From the intro to the linked paper of this topic.

    1. Introduction

    …To truly understand solar variations and their influence on Earth’s climate, one needs to know, in addition to TSI, also how the spectral solar irradiance (SSI) varies, since the SSI input at different wavelengths plays different roles in the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system. The UV (UltraViolet) spectrum is responsible for heating the stratosphere and stratospheric ozone formation. The VIS (VISible) and near-IR (near-InfraRed) radiation are the major direct energy source to heat the troposphere and ocean. However, the variation of SSI with solar activity is relatively less accurately monitored as compared to the spectrally integrated TSI.

    Also…

    (a) SATIRE modeled in-phase SSI variations for UV1 (λ < 330 nm), UV2 (330 < λ < 400 nm), visible (400 < λ 330 nm), and TSI relative to year 1660; (b) similar to (a) but for SIM-based irradiance variations. Note that for the same TSI variations, the amplitude of SIM-based UV (λ < 330 nm) irradiance variation is about four times as large as that for SATIRE modeled SSI, SIM-based visible irradiance varies out-of-phase with the UV irradiance, the SIM-based solar forcing proxy is out-of-phase with TSI. From Maunder Minimum to the recent solar minima (1900–2005), TSI increases by 0.72 W m−2. In the modern solar maximum period (1900–2005), the TSI 11-year cycle variability is about 0.83 W m−2.

  15. lsvalgaard May 6, 2017 at 8:48 am

    The main point is that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degree ,,,

    Leif, with all respect, this kind of fuzzy statement is damaging to the entire field. It appears you’re talking about reality, but you’re not. The true statement is:

    The main point is that the MODELED solar influence ON A FREAKING TINKERTOY MODEL OF UNCERTAIN ACCURACY AND PRECISION is of the order of 0.1 degree ,,,

    Leaving out that little detail is how the modelers and the models have gained such primacy … to me, the fact that some model or other does something or other is MEANINGLESS. The models have not been subjected to anything like the amount of V&V (Validation & Verification) that we apply to the elevators in a high-rise building. There has never been any kind of proof that their solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations even converge.

    Color me totally unimpressed by this study of how a model earth reacts to modeled changes in a model sun. Not interested.

    Best to you and yours,

    w.

    • The observed variation [not modeled] is of the order of 0.1 degree. BTW, the models also predict that. As they said:
      “The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence

      • Touche ! and almost brief enough to use as a titter or whatever.

        What they said is often more correct than what five talking heads at a table tell us they think we heard what was said !

        G

      • It could be that the solar influence is small but it could also be that the GIS model underestimates solar influence.

        You say the observations evidence matches, but the observational record is much shorter than 400 years.

      • Willis is so right, and the situation is so depressing. The model has built into it the assumption that the solar changes have little effect. There is no need to actually run the model, Blind Freddy can see from the input assumptions what the result will be. The models bear absolutely no relation to reality, as witness the models’ abject inability to reproduce the MWP, the LIA, the 20th century, or any past climate.

      • Two different aspects to this issue:

        1. TSI (or EUV — F10.7 radio proxy magnetic solar influence — see Dr. S.’s linked pdf above (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/06/link-to-climate-forcing-by-the-sun-found-by-the-satire/comment-page-1/#comment-2495459 ) — the basal level is very steady) is as Dr. S. says, varies little, providing climate homestasis.

        2. The “solar influence” via variation within TSI, e.g., of UV via atmospheric chemistry/ozone/cloud mechanism (especially when you consider the GCM’s inadequate ocean-cloud, etc. coupling modelling), is NOT modelled accurately by the GCMs at all.

        — TSI as a whole varies too little to drive climate shifts.
        — “Solar influence,” per se, is very likely NOT adequately modelled by GCMs.

        That Dr. S. says that UV-causation is, as of now (see Gray, et al. — linked here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/06/link-to-climate-forcing-by-the-sun-found-by-the-satire/comment-page-1/#comment-2495726 )

        “not proven,” does not mean Dr. S. is saying it will NEVER be proven (and he had, in 2014, a fairly favorable opinion of Gray, et al. (2010)).

        Also, just for FYI (for new readers) I recall that Dr. S. has said that the CO2-climate driver causation is also NOT proven and not appearing likely to be proven.

        ***

        That said…

        good for you guys (ALL of you above and below? — haven’t read that far yet)
        to boldly remind us all that GCM’s, overall, are
        UNFIT FOR PURPOSE/UNSKILLED……
        iow junk (vis a vis climate sensitivity to CO2).

      • Edit: 2. The “solar influence” …. is NOT likely modelled accurately ….

      • Here you go, Dr Svalgaard… This again is Dr Spencer’s graph of temperature change from min to max. Detrended, smoothed three years to cancel out el ninos/la ninas, and with pinatubo removed. And guess where i got this graph from — believe it or not, it was one of Willis’ posts(!)

      • The ‘year #’ is not quite right. The phase [year number] in a solar cycle is usually counted from minimum, which would be year #4 on your graphs.

      • “—TSI as a whole varies too little to drive climate shifts.”

        Hi Ms. M., true… but that must mean that there is some other forcing mechanism along with tsi that is doing the heavy lifting to cause a .1C difference from solar min to solar max. (Dr Spencer’s graph [above] contains two large el ninos which occur at solar minimums, so the number may actually be closer to .2C) If the sun can do that much warming in half a decade, then is it a stretch to think that the sun couldn’t do a whole lot more warming given a longer period of time? (IOW, what would the temperature data tell us if the solar max didn’t fade into a solar min?)…

      • some other forcing mechanism along with tsi that is doing the heavy lifting to cause a .1C difference from solar min to solar max.
        Actually TSI alone is enough. The estimated effect from TSI alone is 0.07C. Close enough to “the order of 0.1C”.

      • then is it a stretch to think that the sun couldn’t do a whole lot more warming given a longer period of time
        No, it is not a stretch because the sun returns to the same low activity state every 11 years or so.

      • Dr Sv., my dim recollection is that spencer was critiquing a paper that began its data with ’59, so that’s where he started his graph. (so he was relegated to that) At any rate, it well illustrates your point. Too many peops don’t realize that the solar cycle IS represented in the temperature record. (not knowing that basic fact is like playing chess and not knowing how a pawn moves)…

      • Svalgaard, what i’m talking about is the average tsi above the maunder minimum tsi being sustained for centuries. If we get .1C in five or six years, then why is it a stretch to think that a long term average tsi increase (of 1 watt per meter squared) would keep temperatures rising more than .1C?

      • Also, if it turns out that the number is really .2C instead of .1C (ignoring major el ninos altogether), then that would be THREE TIMES your .07C…

      • Hi, Arthur (at 6:33pm),

        I’m glad Dr. Svalgaard answered (in addition to his having vastly more knowledge than I!), for my statement was, I can see, a bit off topic. I was talking about TSI and climate shifts, i.e., the “climate change” assertion by the AGWers. You were more accurately speaking to the posted paper’s subject.

        And, now, since I don’t need to answer you….

        Bye — for — now!

        Janice

      • Leif – They have assumed that impact of solar variation on climate is limited to the direct effects of variation in TSI. We all know that TSI varies by very small amounts, and that these very small variations are not enough in isolation to have directly caused the climate variations of the past. We also know that the climate models are incapable of reproducing any past climate. We can therefore deduce that the major factor or factors driving climate are unknown. We do know that the factors are very real because the climate changed, we just don’t know what the the factors are. The models are therefore also based on the assumption that these very real factors do not exist.
        But there is a bit more to it than that. By assuming that the sun’s effect on climate is limited to the direct effect of TSI, (a) they are assuming that there is no other solar activity that affects climate, (b) they are assuming that climate responds linearly to solar activity, and (c) they are assuming that there are no indirect effects. In (a) they are assuming that variations in things like UV and solar wind and CME frequency anything else that you can think of related to the sun have no effect. In (b) they are ignoring the IPCC statement that Earth’s climate is non-linear. This means that they are ignoring the possibility that the sun’s effect might change in different conditions. In (c) they are being disgracefully biased and unscientific because in all of their models they have used bogus supposed indirect effects of CO2 to multiply ECS by nearly 3, while denying the possibility that there are any indirect effects of solar variation.
        I’ve probably missed a few things, but I think that is enough to answer your question.

      • (a) they are assuming that there is no other solar activity that affects climate, (b) they are assuming that climate responds linearly to solar activity, and (c) they are assuming that there are no indirect effects.
        They are not assuming anything. How do you know that what they assume, if anything? You don’t.
        (a) All solar activity measures follows the variation of TSI, but TSI is where the energy is, so is a good parameter to use. (b) All processes are linear when the changes are small. And (c) to model or explain something you can’t use unspecified and unknown effects.
        What the model does is to use the observed solar activity, apply it to our atmosphere according to the physics we know to see what the effect might be. What they find is comparable to what we actually observe.

      • “our atmosphere according to the physics we know”
        But…limited by the available computational power to a certain (very large) cell size, and also limited by our knowledge of the actual and correct input values of various parameters of the atmosphere for each and every one of those cells.
        So it is not particularly precisely true that we model the atmosphere according to all of the physic we know.
        Our knowledge of physics is a great deal more complete and precise than what we know about what is happening in each of those modelled cells, and our knowledge of the atmosphere is more than sufficient to know that important details are being left out of the computations entirely due to the size of the cells being so large…far larger than some very key processes that occur every second of every day.
        And each and every one of these errors and approximations and left out details is multiplied by all of the other errors and approximations and left out details, for every second of every day, and then projected forward for long stretches of time…years and decades and now multiple centuries?
        One thing we know about any area of knowledge is that when errors are multiplied, the result quickly approaches meaninglessness.

      • limited by the available computational power to a certain (very large) cell size, and also limited by our knowledge of the actual and correct input values of various parameters of the atmosphere for each and every one of those cells.
        That is a different issue from the [false] claim that the desired outcome has been built into the model to begin with.

      • ” Willis is so right, and the situation is so depressing. The model has built into it the assumption that the solar changes have little effect. ”

        1. Neither you nor willis provide any evidence for this. Read the code.
        2. The code captures all we know about the physics. If there is missing physics your job is to
        A. Show that this physics is missing.
        B. Insert the missing physics.
        C. Demonstrate the physics you added improved the simulation.

        The simple fact is this.

        A. They took two solar records
        B. They compare those records to temperature observations. ..
        C. They use both records in simulations.

        In both B & C..one solar record proved superior.
        Case closed unless you actually DO BETTER SCIENCE YOURSELF.

        Unless you can do better science yourself your comments on a blog amount to nothing. Your question ing of science amounts to nothing. Your doubt and ignorance amount to nothing.

      • For a long time I would have said I was certain that a quiet sun would lead to cooling of the earth, and that solar activity was at the very least a primary cause of colder periods during the last thousand years, and therefore solar activity level was probably a large factor during other periods and at other scales.
        I am now not at all certain this is the case.
        I find I am not more or less agnostic on the question…doubts raised by you and others have led me to reconsider.
        But, such cooler periods did occur, on various time scales, so obviously something caused and is causing these shifts.
        The way the models have been parameterized, it seems only CO2 can have a very large impact…the model basically makes it the temperature control knob of the atmosphere.
        I do not believe this to be the case…at all.
        I am less certain of the role of solar activity, but I am like many others here elsewhere in being unwilling to rule it out as a cause of cooling.

        But leaving that aside, what bothers me about this description of the way the models work…that they are a representation of what is known about physics…is that people who are smart and educated, but know very little of nothing about the physical sciences or physical geography or about solar physics, hear this explanation and it closes their ears and their mind to any other information, any other facts, the precise details and limitations of just what the models are, and what they do, and thus of how reliable the predictions/projections made by these models are.
        In the minds of many people, the models are physics…they are “science”, and anyone who disputes the basic conclusions of CAGW are therefore science den!ers, flat-earthers, oil company sh!lls…etc.
        It is not true…the models may be the best we can do right now, but that is not saying much…because they do not match up with reality and are too crude for the purpose they are being used for…to determine the direction of our industrial society and economy, and to do so in many real ways that have a very negative impact on very many actual lives.
        There is of course a lot more too it than that, such as why we should believe that a somewhat less cold planet is an imminent catastrophe, or why the benefits of higher CO2 are not just ignored but flat-out lied about, just to name a few specifics.
        But besides for all of that…come on…lets not pretend that many if not most or all of the people involved in creating these models do not have a predetermined idea of CO2 caused global warming and/or what must be done to prevent it.
        Any who do share this outlook are not part of the club…they have been disinvited from participating.

      • The way the models have been parameterized, it seems only CO2 can have a very large impact…the model basically makes it the temperature control knob of the atmosphere.
        [sigh]. If you read the abstract, you’ll find that CO2 has been held constant in the model, so why keep bringing up the CO2 straw man?

      • I should have said at the get go…I am not specifically criticizing this paper, but the models themselves.
        CO2 is left unchanged, and so the models project that very little will change with regard to small changes in the output of the sun.
        That does not seem very surprising to me.
        The models by all accounts hold the climate regimes of the earth to be very stable without changes in CO2.
        There do seem to be valid questions about the role of changes in UV that are far larger than the (apparent) changes in TSI, the role of cosmic rays, dust, etc.
        And then the things we just do not know at the present time.

        My faith in the models and the modelers (not you, Dr. Svalgaard) would be different if not for their strenuous and consistent efforts for many years to try and convince everyone that the climate regimes of the earth have been very stable for the past few thousand years, for example.

      • But CO2 levels (and SO2 levels either for that matter) have not been “constant” the past 150 years.

        So any models (of the sun itself, of solar output affecting “climate”, or of temperature effects of some part of the sun’s emissions affecting climate MUST use the actual CO2 and SO2 levels present for each year in the past.

        We are not (in these studies) projecting CO2 levels into the future. If some part of a changing solar output is slowing (changing ?) the sun’s effect on earth’s global average temperature differences due to a change in cCO2, then we need to look at it.

        We are now at a peak in the combined 66 year short cycle and 900 year long cycle. On top of that, man’s release of CO2 has probably added another 0.1 to 0.2 to the short cycle peak. Studies of man’s CO2 influence need to remove natural cycles – regardless of what caused them.

      • So any models (of the sun itself, of solar output affecting “climate”, or of temperature effects of some part of the sun’s emissions affecting climate MUST use the actual CO2 and SO2 levels present for each year in the past.
        The beauty of a model based on physics [even if poorly understood] is that it can be used to answer ‘what-if’ questions: what happens if we hold variable X fixed and only vary variable Y? That should tell us how important Y is by itself.

      • Was the CET not adjusted some time ago, and the original data discarded?
        So we do not even know how much stock we can put into that data set.

      • Steven Mosher – You say “Neither you nor willis provide any evidence for [The model has built into it the assumption that the solar changes have little effect].”. Well, Leif Svalgaard https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/06/link-to-climate-forcing-by-the-sun-found-by-the-satire/#comment-2496175 has confirmed that my comment https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/06/link-to-climate-forcing-by-the-sun-found-by-the-satire/#comment-2496168 was correct. Leif says: “(a) All solar activity measures follows the variation of TSI, but TSI is where the energy is, so is a good parameter to use. (b) All processes are linear when the changes are small. And (c) to model or explain something you can’t use unspecified and unknown effects.“. Leif’s (a), (b), (c) confirm my (a), (b), (c) respectively. In particular, wrt your comment, we all know that TSI varies little so Leif’s “(a) All solar activity measures follows the variation of TSI, but TSI is where the energy is, so is a good parameter to use” confirms that “The model has built into it the assumption that the solar changes have little effect“.

        The very simple fact is that by looking at nothing other than direct TSI, the modellers have made very significant assumptions, one of which is that there are no indirect effects. Coming from a team that have concocted some highly dubious indirect effects for CO2, such as a “cloud feedback” that appears to be far too large and to have the wrong sign, this is stunningly unscientific and totally unacceptable. Especially as there are tested hypotheses out there that indicate that solar variation does have indirect effects.

      • Especially as there are tested hypotheses out there that indicate that solar variation does have indirect effects.
        And what might they be?

    • The main point is that the MODELED solar influence ON A FREAKING TINKERTOY MODEL OF UNCERTAIN ACCURACY AND PRECISION is of the order of 0.1 degree

      +1.
      The model says that the influence should be small The influence has been demonstrated to be small.

      • A symbol is missing in my comment, confused with a tag. I should have used “!=” instead of “”

    • “””””….. lsvalgaard

      May 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm …..”””””

      The very roughly 1 Wm^-2 P-P variation in TSI from satellite observations, as a fraction of the latest 1362 Wm^-2 NASANOAA blessed number will if assumed to cause a BLACK Body computed change in the Temperature of the earth’s climate regions, will result pretty much exactly with the 70 mK change you mentioned.

      I’m not saying, ergo that’s how it all works, but as you suggest, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for anyone to ponder some other significant effect, changing things much.

      I always use your 70mK number as it fits with my seat of the pants calculations very well.

      G

    • Crap…I sure wish this site had a preview pane or a edit window…sorry for the typos and a few missing/extra words.

  16. Fred from Ottawa May 6, 2017 at 10:23 am
    Does this “study” miss the possible contributions from the more energetic and variable extreme UV (10 – 120 nm)?
    ———————————————–
    Though they state that <330nm is less accurately measured, they also show that SIM is four times larger than SATIRE ..

    Note that for the same TSI variations, the amplitude of SIM-based UV (λ < 330 nm) irradiance variation is about four times as large as that for SATIRE modeled SSI, SIM-based visible irradiance varies out-of-phase with the UV irradiance, the SIM-based solar forcing proxy is out-of-phase with TSI.

      • lsvalgaard May 6, 2017 at 12:06 pm
        the SIM-based solar forcing proxy is out-of-phase with TSI
        The current consensus is that the SIM data is not correct.
        —————————————————–
        According to “Variation of EUV Matches that of the Solar Magnetic Field and the Implication for Climate Research”
        pg. 61 Source/TIM data is good until 2009. Then looses it on rise to Solar Cycle 24 max…

        This paper is to 2005? And why call it SIM instead of TIM?


        (a) SATIRE modeled in-phase SSI variations for UV1 (λ < 330 nm), UV2 (330 < λ < 400 nm), visible (400 < λ 330 nm), and TSI relative to year 1660; (b) similar to (a) but for SIM-based irradiance variations. Note that for the same TSI variations, the amplitude of SIM-based UV (λ < 330 nm) irradiance variation is about four times as large as that for SATIRE modeled SSI, SIM-based visible irradiance varies out-of-phase with the UV irradiance, the SIM-based solar forcing proxy is out-of-phase with TSI. From Maunder Minimum to the recent solar minima (1900–2005), TSI increases by 0.72 W m−2. In the modern solar maximum period (1900–2005), the TSI 11-year cycle variability is about 0.83 W m−2.

      • It is called SIM because it is based on measuring the solar output at many wavelengths [i.e. its spectrum], while TSI is measuring the Total output of the whole spectrum.

  17. Many people believe that solar cycles influence our climate but the mechanism is elusive. Svensmark’s cosmic ray proposal is still under investigation. Others point out that there is no correlation between solar activity and global temperature. One could say the same about carbon dioxide apart from Henry’s law, but I’m not convinced that Nature’s strategies always lend themselves to such relationships. The flowering of plants, for example, depends on temperature, but mainly because the controlling gene switches off when the ambient temperature drops below a certain value.

    Rather than look for a correlation that may not exist, consider the most obvious way to change global temperature. Cloud cover springs to mind. What affects cloud cover? According to the UK Met Office, clouds are made of tiny droplets of water or ice crystals that condense or settle on dust particles in the atmosphere.

    To find our solar induced clouds, a good place to start is extraterrestrial cosmic or meteor dust. It seems there is a lot of the stuff. About 40,000 tonnes arrive in our atmosphere every year. There are no data on how much arrives at the high end of the range when, for example a meter shower is visiting. Cosmic dust is about 1 micron in size, exactly the right dimension to seed cloud formation and the right size to scatter (reflect) sunlight. NASA has attributed noctilucent cloud formation to these dust particles. Some will point out that 40,000 tonnes is not much by weight, but it is a lot of 1 micron particles. It is thought that these particles remain in the atmosphere for at least 3 months. When they fall to earth, the iron rich ones entering our oceans can catalyse phytoplankton growth which extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    A study of radar determined meteor rates in Canada and New Zealand gave an inverse relationship with solar activity as measured by sunspot number. (Ellyett, C. (1977), Solar influence on meteor rates and atmospheric density variations at meteor heights, J. Geophys. Res., 82(10), 1455–1462,doi:10.1029/JA082i010p01455.).
    This suggests that the solar wind or magnetic field can influence these high velocity particles.

    It was realised by NASA that atmospheric aerosols were not effectively constant as assumed, but are variable and have negative radiative forcing. (Science. 2011 Aug 12;333(6044):866-70. doi: 10.1126/science.1206027. Epub 2011 Jul 21.The persistently variable “background” stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change. mSolomon S1, Daniel JS, Neely RR 3rd, Vernier JP, Dutton EG, Thomason LW.) They could not find earthly reasons for these high atmospheric levels that had a real cooling effect.

    Summary – A simple mind experiment followed by a brief literature search shows that cosmic dust enters our atmosphere, modulated by the solar cycle, with more dust when the sun is quiet, and has a triple affect on climate via sunlight scattering, cloud formation and atmospheric CO2 reduction. This produces a significant negative radiative forcing.

    There is little known about the quantities of dust that arrive and how variable they can be. I’m not proposing that this is a major climate influence. It does appear to make a small contribution alongside other solar modulated effects such as cosmic rays. Perhaps the solar influence on climate is a cumulation of small effects.

    • Schrodinger’s Cat, I Thought these papers may interest you .

      FORCING OF CLIMATE VARIATIONS BY MeV-GeV PARTICLES?
      Brian A. Tinsley,
      Center for Space Science, University of Texas at Dallas,
      MS F022, Box 830688, Richardson, TX 75083-0688
      There are three time scales for correlation of MeV-GeV particles (galactic
      and solar) with changes in the sun, and with weather and climate:
      A. DECADAL/INTERANNUAL (with 11 and 22 year solar cycles and QBO),
      B. CENTURY SCALE (with Maunder minimurn etc.),
      C. DAY TO DAY (with coronal mass ejections, solar wind sector structure etc.)
      Day to day correlations arc not understandable in tern of total solar irradianct
      or W changes; but are understandable as solar windtparticle forcing. If solar
      windtparticle forcing can produce short tern weather responses, it could also
      produce decadal and longer term climate responses. A possible chain of amplifying
      and coupling mechanisms involves: stratospheric ionization, electric fields and
      chemistry; aerosol nucleation; sublimation, freezing and condensation nuclei; cloud
      microphysics and particle size distributions; winter storm intensification; and
      changes in circulation.
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910003177.pdf
      https://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf

  18. Schrodinger’s Cat May 6, 2017 at 11:40 am

    To find our solar induced clouds, a good place to start is extraterrestrial cosmic or meteor dust. It seems there is a lot of the stuff. About 40,000 tonnes arrive in our atmosphere every year. There are no data on how much arrives at the high end of the range when, for example a meter shower is visiting. Cosmic dust is about 1 micron in size, exactly the right dimension to seed cloud formation and the right size to scatter (reflect) sunlight. NASA has attributed noctilucent cloud formation to these dust particles. Some will point out that 40,000 tonnes is not much by weight, but it is a lot of 1 micron particles. It is thought that these particles remain in the atmosphere for at least 3 months. When they fall to earth, the iron rich ones entering our oceans can catalyse phytoplankton growth which extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    —————————
    Good point, was wondering about this earlier in the week myself.

    …”””Ligustri’s 2 x 10 minute exposure with a 4-inch telescope reveals the comet’s green nucleus and its double tail. The longer of the two is the filamentary ion tail, made of gas carried directly away from the sun by the solar wind. The shorter protuberance is the bright dust tail, made of dusty-rocky grains sprinkled like crumbs along the comet’s orbit. Comet Johnson’s nucleus is green because it contains diatomic carbon (C2) a substance that glows with a verdant hue in the near vacuum of space.

    This comet is not visible to the naked eye, but as it approaches Earth for a 0.81 AU close encounter in early June, it is brightening to ~6th magnitude, making it an easy target for backyard telescopes. Northern hemisphere observers are favored in early May, when the comet dwells in the constellation Hercules; in late May and June, Comet Johnson races toward southern skies, where observers south of the equator can watch the comet continue its journey toward the sun…”””
    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=04&month=05&year=2017

    ..””This week Earth is passing through a broad stream of debris from Halley’s Comet, source of the annual eta Aquarid meteor shower. Specks of ancient dust from the comet are disintegrating in Earth’s atmosphere producing a drizzle of shooting stars…””
    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=04&month=05&year=2017

      • Yes a great picture. And happy to hear that the green glow is from C2 spectra.

        There are NO GREEN stars. No black body at any Temperature looks green, so the color is ALL in your head as any black body will emit EM radiation in the 530 nm region which does look green to humans. If they aren’t color blind)

        We have no earthly ide what 530 nm EM radiation looks like to a Humboldt squid, or an Ornithorhyncus.

        G

      • I do not even “know” if what I “see” when I look at a rainbow is the same thing you see when you look at a rainbow.
        And synesthesia is only part of the reason.

  19. The paper discusses two 400 year runs of the same model changing only the spectral distribution for the calculated TSI levels derived from the sunspot cycle records. That is, various weightings of the UV, Visible, and IR frequencies that make up the TSI. The models fix the atmospheric composition levels to current levels.
    -The results demonstrate that the spectral composition matters, with differences in the 11 years cycle range of response as well as the residual trend.
    – The different spectral distributions resulted in different mechanisms within the model having greater levels of influence of the results.
    – The models demonstrated a three year lag in response to the input; an indication of the thermal capacitance parameters used in the model.

  20. A link to solar forcing? No, no, no! That CAN’T be true. Everyone knows that a trace gas is the one-and-only, all-powerful driver of climate in the universe.

  21. Such a basic, unsophisticated analysis. The entire system consists of solar irradiance and Earthly response, with lunar and solar tidal effects playing a significant role in that Earthly response. The Earthly response also is cyclical, and the modulation of solar cycles and response cycles produces a response which has the frequencies displaced via modulation.

    It is very foolish to imagine that the response to solar radiation must manifest solely at the frequencies of the solar excitation. There is no requirement for a linear response.

    • physical responses on earth are what i am interested in.particularly in the oceans. the effect of uv light on plankton in particular. plankton are negatively effected by uv light .there were suggestions in a paper around 2010 that phytoplankton levels in the ocean had dropped around 40% since 2050.this corresponds with an increase in uv light from the same period. that is a huge biomass no longer using visible light for photosynthesis . that visible light is then warming the oceans .

      if phytoplankton numbers did drop by that amount it would suggest plankton numbers overall would drop by a similar amount as phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain.
      food for thought, for me at least.

  22. “The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence“

    Just so I’m clear on the concept…..would that observational-based evidence be on the one that the past was cooled…..or the one the present was warmed?

      • given the adjustments to the historical temperature record, whether justified or not, i think latitude is highlighting the fact that number would constantly be changing ?

  23. Looking at the big picture, I’m wondering how much good it would have done people in 1617 to have known the temperature in 2017, even if it was exactly right.

    So much will change in 400 years, we have no idea what the world will be like then, or what people would desire, or what will be important to them.

  24. The main point then is the fact that this is the temperature change that we see during the period of investigation from the little ice age up to today, the problem is we did not see any of the little ice age period and the data has been altered to reflect our view of the way they were not accurate, perhaps the temperature will change going forward in a way that is unexpected.

    • Perhaps it will…and then things will get REALLY interesting, huh?
      I am not hoping for any substantial global cooling, but there is one reason to hope for exactly that…to put an end to the notions that the science is settled, that CAGW is a fact, that natural variations are insignificant compared to the climate effect of a few molecules per 10,000 more of CO2…that we are all doomed if we do not deindustrialize.

  25. A question that arises is will we ever get to a point where the temperature data that we are taking today is accurate enough that it does not need large adjustments going forward , it seems to me that now we have started doing this we are going to find ever more reasons to change the data in future, and while greater accuracy may be claimed it can still favour one view of time series of data over another unfairly.

    • You get the same answer for solar using un adjusted data.

      Never forget this.

      SST represents 70 % of the record. SST is Cooled!!!!! By adjustments. Land temps or 30% of the data is Slightly warmed…and only warmed in a few places..The usa and Australia. .

    • Hear that Don…it does not matter.
      The adjustments have no effect…that is why they make them I suppose.
      “Never forget this” sounds a lot lie “The science is settled”…IOW, words to ignore, spoken by someone with an agenda and a vested interested in convincing you about a predetermined set of facts.

  26. Leif Svalgaard, I read

    “For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
    ________________________________________

    11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,

    ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.
    ________________________________________

    feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.

    Cheers – Hans

    • 11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,
      ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.

      Where you go wrong is that the 11-year response is cyclic: 0.12C up and 0.12C down, so over 11 years the net response is zero. Over 22 years it is zero. Over 99 years it is zero, over 999 years it is zero…etc

    • “Cyclic” + “Cyclic” = double Cyclic

      is not implied in

      “For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
      _________________________________________

      Thanks anyway for responding.

      Cheers – Hans

  27. So what You should have said is

    “For

    the 1st

    11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about

    0.12 °C,”

    and “for the following

    2nd

    11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about

    – 0.12 °C,”

    equalling them damn cycles

    one another out.

    Cheers – Hans

    • No, that is not what happens.
      This is how it works: in cycle 1 the temperature response increases from 0 at minimum to 0.12 at maximum 5 years later, then falls to 0 at the next minimum 6 years later, then rises in cycle 2 from 0 to 0.12 at the next maximum 5 years later, then falls to 0 at the minimum 6 years later, then rises in cycle 3 from 0 to 0.12 etc…

  28. Don’t lie to me:

    “Where you go wrong is that the 11-year response is cyclic: 0.12C up and 0.12C down,”

    is not your your original citation – your original citation is

    “For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
    _________________________________________

    Can you explain ?

    • In every cycle of 11 years the temperature response rises 0.12 degrees at maximum, then falls back to 0 at the end of the cycle, then it all repeats in the next cycle. Not difficult to explain. If you still have problems then think of a year here on Earth: the temperature rises from winter to a high in the summer, then falls again at the next winter, and repeats in the next year.

      • Leif, ‘falling back to 0’ doesn’t wipe out the before 0.12.
        But I don’t want to argue with you – I accept your ‘it’s not the sun’ !

  29. In the end, Leif Svalgaard is our hero for he’s originally right:

    “For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
    ________________________________________

    11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,

    ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.
    ________________________________________

    Cheers – Hans

  30. Abstract

    “We apply two reconstructed spectral solar forcing scenarios, one SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) based, the other the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) modeled, as inputs to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GCMAM (Global Climate Middle Atmosphere Model) to examine climate responses on decadal to centennial time scales, focusing on quantifying the difference of climate response between the two solar forcing scenarios. We run the GCMAM for about 400 years with present day trace gas and aerosol for the two solar forcing inputs. We find that the SIM-based solar forcing induces much larger long-term response and 11-year variation in global averaged stratospheric temperature and column ozone. We find significant decreasing trends of planetary albedo for both forcing scenarios in the 400-year model runs.”
    _________________________________________

    Anyone here wanting getting related to the above – raise their hands.

    Others – wait, smile.

    Regards – Hans

  31. Translation of all of the above for those who perceive the conversation is over their heads:
    Some people are experts, some are not, and their fields of expertise overlap to varying degrees or not at all.
    Some people have very strong opinions, and some have opinions that are less strong.
    Opinions are not facts.
    Computer models are not based facts, but on the way the models are designed.
    So the information they give is not factual data, but the best guess of some people, some of whom have strong opinions about a lot of stuff.
    So, the information gleaned by these models are not facts, but opinions.
    And model runs are not experiments, except to the degree that a thought experiment based on opinion is an experiment.
    Some people believe that their expertise makes their opinions very valuable information.
    Other disagree.

  32. I am with Leif Isvalgaard on this one! He is right!! I think that it is very likely that variations in the level of TSI do not directly produce significant changes in the Earth’s mean temperature over the Holocene period. However, something that is synchronized with long-term changes in the general level of solar activity does. I think that it is the long-term variations in the atmospheric tides that are responsible. These lunar tidal variations are linked long-term changes in the level of solar activity and, in addition, they influence the rate at which the Earth’s atmosphere warms and cools. However, the lunar influence is of the order of <= 0.7 degrees C, about six times larger than that caused by TSI.

    Watch this space.

      • The irony of the situation is that I show that the atmospheric lunar tides have an effect using software that was developed by a man whose name almost matches your – i.e. the Alcyon Lunar Ephemeris – developed by Steve Moshier. Is he any relation to you?

    • astroclimateconnection
      May 7, 2017 at 6:44 am

      You see, you lose the “plot”, your “plot”, when you mention and rely on the term “Holocene” when trying to regard climate, climate data and climate change……That term really has no any proper or considerable or acceptable bearing for what supposed or considered to have……. but never the less, very effective and at times works wonders though, through the “population” of climate puppets…

      The only thing that the term “Holocene” propagates is the clarity of the vision of human stupidity and human megalomania…..nothing else…..

      ANY DOUBTS ABOUT IT!?
      Just subject it to simple questioning……”When it starts and when supposed to end?”……and then compare the answers to such question, to the answers of the same question when climate change and proper climate periods like interglacials and glacials periods considered and subjected to such a questions…..

      Let see what you come up with……..Oh you may very well, come up with a conclusion of a very probable very intentional and a very “devious” default mentally forced AGW……..Something similar to the recipes coming out of the Lewandowsky kitchen……..

      cheers

  33. I only have one question. The paper says the model runs result in an 11 year solar induced temp change of 0.12C, which is comparable to other models on temp, as well as “observational data”

    Just where do I find this observational data that measures the contribution of the sun to climate on an 11 year cycle?

    • You can look at several records. Adjusted or unsdjusted.

      Take your pick. ..The sun has little influence..

      • Really? Name one! All the temp metrics I’ve seen, raw and adjusted are for global temperature. I’ve never seen one that observes the change in temp associated with the sun. Such attribution is never measured. As such, that is how the climate science folks get away with attributing the change in temp to CO2.

        So again, where is that observational data that measures the impact of solar on global temp.

      • I’ve never seen one that observes the change in temp associated with the sun
        That you have never seen one, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Try to look for it. Google is your friend.

  34. Here is an interesting thought experiment. Let’s say that CO2 has been substantially (half or all) the cause of the industrial period warming. Now let’s say that in opposition it was the Sun. How much change in the Sun would there have to be under clear sky and cloudy sky conditions to bring about that same increase in temperature?

    My hunch is that it will cause us to wonder how only the anthropogenic portion of total atmospheric CO2 can be such a powerful yet tiny substance.

    It would also make us understand that only something huge can be responsible. If not the huge Sun nore tiny anthropogenic CO2, then what? Look for something very large that has already demonstrated the ability to naturally send temperatures into up and down trends.

    • One thing that people here is forgetting [or don’t want to know] is that for the model runs of this paper, CO2 and atmospheric trace gases in general were held constant, so CO2 does not come into play here, no matter what the assumptions about sensitivity are.

      • Understood. I agree with the paper as it matches the mechanism and the math behind it. That it does match leaves both anthropogenic CO2 as a direct driver, and the Sun, in the dust. The driver must be something else.

        CO2 models depend on amplification factors, as do unsubstantiated Solar mechanisms. This paper, when used to create a model that forces the Sun’s parameters to change enough to cause the warming would shock the Solar faithful. And would call into question that a fraction of total atmospheric CO2 would somehow be able to out perform a modeled direct solar driver.

      • Pamela Gray
        May 7, 2017 at 9:04 am

        But, Pamela, still, it shows to a degree that the models in question are not so bad in their basics and essential, as in this case do and are confirmed by observations……..:-)

        cheers

      • CO2 was held constant in the model used, and the models in question are not only running too hot but they are highly susceptible to being blind to confounding factors.

        The CO2 models only speak to, and poorly to an a priori anthropogenic assumption that has been sexed up with additional amplifiers to match that assumption. This is exactly the research design Achilles heel that confounding factors often attach themselves to. The only way to avoid it is to perform due diligence in ruling out ALL other factors, and especially intrinsic ones. That is the true null hypothesis. That intrinsic natural drivers are at work. And the biggest one, one that already demonstrates the ability to drive short and longer term trends is the most poorly understood and barely researched.

        Hell we know more and have explored more about our moon, and Mars than we have our oceans. I dare say we are further along understanding how the Sun works than our own ocean and atmosphere.

      • lsvalgaard
        May 7, 2017 at 8:27 am

        Yes, Leif, in the aspect of this model runs what you said could hold, but only up to some point…….if the models that did these runs are so “good” when their results seem to match ok the observation, then the CO2 held constant will not come to play there, unless till the lag time ~ reached, which in nature consist as an ~800 years lag, in a steady long trend.

        wondering what such model runs could produce after a 800 years simulation in such a condition of CO2 held constant…….!

        hopefully for the sake of AGW, such simulation would not produce a CO2 variation spiking far and above of 20-30 ppm, when the artificial CO2 scenario held as a minimal constant, ~0 emissions over time..

        cheers

  35. Let’s be clear what this analysis indicates. It indicates that if the response of the Earth to solar forcing is what they imagine it to be, then solar forcing has little impact.

    That’s all it says. It is not comprehensive. It does not rule out a significant impact from solar forcing.

    • It indicates that if the response of the Earth to solar forcing is what they imagine it to be, then solar forcing has little impact.
      No, it says that if we apply what we know about the physics of the atmosphere, then the solar forcing has little impact, in accordance with the observational evidence.

      • “No…”

        Yes… You and Bart just said the exact same thing, just using different language (with the exception of that little bit at the end there about the “observational evidence”)…

      • Ha! Bart, you beat me to it(!)

        Svalgaard, by “observational evidence”, do you mean the .12C per cycle? (and if so, do we really expect that to tell us anything about the long term influence of the sun?)

      • I would like to add something to this that I presented in WUWT comments some years ago, and still believe is portentous. The Hockey Schtick blog was kind enough to record it for posterity here.

        Temperature depends fundamentally on ocean mixing, and ocean mixing depends significantly on the tides. Lunar and solar tidal forces team up to produce a wobble of the Earth’s axis which traces out an elliptical cone with a period of 18.6 years.

        The period of the magnitude of the deviation is 9.3 years:

        Sunspots have a nominal cycle period of 11 years, but in fact, are split into short term components at 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years.

        http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/ssn2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=63

        Modulation of 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years with a 9.3 year mixing period produces short term periods of 4.8, 5, and 5.2 years, as well as long term ones at 132, 67, and 44 years, with the dominant modes at 5 and 67 years, though some splitting of the lines is to be expected. These numbers are not particularly precise, and the position of the harmonics is sensitive to small errors, but it is sufficient, I think, to demonstrate what is going on here.

        A PSD of HADCRUT global data since 1900 is plotted against inverse frequency below:

        The higher period portion of the plot lacks resolution because of the relatively short record of data, and we expect to see a smearing out of the 67, and 44 year components, with the peak occurring near the mean of 56 years, and indeed, that is what we see. We also expect a grouping of peaks at or near 5 years, and indeed, that is what we see.

        So, in sum, I believe this is evidence of significant solar forcing. The investigation under discussion assumed a simple, linear model, and they did not find anything. I believe they were not looking in the right place.

      • Those peaks are just harmonics and sub-harmonics of the basic 11-yr cycle caused by its asymmetry. And regardless, there is no observational evidence of more than 0.1 degree.

      • (better yet, Dr Svalgaard, it’s good that you entirely agree with Bart… ☺)

      • lsvalgaard@ May 7, 2017 at 4:47 pm

        “Those peaks are just harmonics and sub-harmonics of the basic 11-yr cycle caused by its asymmetry.”

        No. In the first place, the PSD shown above is of the HADCRUT4 temperature series, not the SSN data. It is there that the ~5 year and ~60 year quasi-periodicities manifest.

        In the second place, you cannot get a sub-harmonic from asymmetry. The fundamental harmonic is at 11 years. A memoryless nonlinearity induces harmonics at 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, 11/5, and so on, years. Review Fourier Series for more info.

        Observational evidence indicates there exists a ~60 year periodicity with 0.4 degC peak-to-peak variation. It is what is responsible for the accelerated global mean temperature (GMT) from 1910-1940, and from 1970-2000, and the deceleration 1940-1970, and 2000-present.

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.8

        It was that latest acceleration 1970-2000 that led to the entire AGW panic, and the latest deceleration that deflated it in the “pause” era to date. Once the transient El Nino/PDO blip dissipates, we are in store for a sustained decline from the downcycle of the ~65 year component.

        There is nothing outlandish about this. Ocean temperatures are what count for the long term. Ocean mixing is largely produced by the tides. Beat the ~9.3 year tidal mode against the ~11 year solar cycle, and you get the ~5 year and ~60 year patterns that are observed. This is evidence that solar variation is a major temperature driver.

      • The 5-yr harmonic peak is due to asymmetry. Subharmonics come from forced oscillations of weakly nonlinear systems. The side-peaks just below and just above the 11-yr peak are due to amplitude modulation bya 100-yr long-term variation. Nothing to do with the moon. And none of this show solar control of anything. All of this is well-known and not controversial.

      • Bartemis might learn something from
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
        “This study has found evidence for long-term modulation of the solar cycle over periods of 28 to 450 years. At this stage there is no indication if any of the modulation periodicities are real or if they just represent a Fourier fit to a random variation. It can be noted though that a period of around 100 years, which matches the well-known Gleissberg cycle [9], does seem to be persistent in the data. ”
        and
        “the longer periods in the modified yearly sunspot data from 1700 to 2011 are all subharmonics of the main 11-year periodicity. It is worth noting though that subharmonics in the frequency spectrum would suggest a non-linear mechanism, possibly with chaotic instability [14].”

      • “The 5-yr harmonic peak is due to asymmetry.”

        Then, we are seeing a 5 year impact on Earthly temperatures from solar forcing?

        Yet, there is no 11 year impact. Is that what you are saying?

        How do you explain the notion that solar forcing is significant at the 2X harmonic, but not at the fundamental?

        Look again, Leif. This is a temperature PSD. Of globally averaged temperature anomaly. On the Earth.

      • How do you explain the notion that solar forcing is significant at the 2X harmonic, but not at the fundamental?
        Simplest explanation is that the ‘significance’ is a fluke.
        Here are some more such flukes: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

        And, BTW, many people claim there is a very weak [marginal] 11-yr signal in the temperature series, as we would expect from the 11-yr variation of TSI [and all the other solar parameters].

      • “…if we apply what we know about the physics of the atmosphere…”
        Once again, and not to be repetitive, but it is readily acknowledged by pretty much everyone that there are thing we know about the atmosphere that are left out of the models for various reasons.
        So it is more correct to qualify this statement with the caveat “…what we know about the physics of the atmosphere and can model…”
        Just sayin’.

      • Once again, and not to be repetitive, but it is readily acknowledged by pretty much everyone that there are thing we know about the atmosphere that are left out of the models for various reasons.

        Who is ‘pretty much everybody”?
        What is left out is what we estimate is not of importance.
        You might earn something by studying
        https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/ModelDescription/
        before you make categorical statements

      • “Simplest explanation is that the ‘significance’ is a fluke.”

        The 9.3 year tidal period is there. The ~11 year cycle is there. These would produce a ~5 year and ~60 year periodicity when modulated together, and they do appear in the temperature data.

        You say this is a fluke. I say it is unlikely.

        “And, BTW, many people claim there is a very weak [marginal] 11-yr signal in the temperature series, as we would expect from the 11-yr variation of TSI [and all the other solar parameters].”

        I see no indication of any significant 11 year variation in HADCRUT4. Here is a bigger plot that can be seen more easily:

      • You say this is a fluke. I say it is unlikely.
        If you don’t know anything, everything is possible or likely.
        Power spectra are not very good if the signal is not stationary. Or have long-term trends.

      • Mine is, of course, rather better than yours. But, your detrended figure is not terribly far off from mine.

      • Leif says:
        “If you don’t know anything, everything is possible or likely.”

        So, what do you truly know, Leif ?
        Tell me one thing.

        [???? .mod]

  36. OT, but…
    Any early word on what the trend chart will show when updated for April?
    Was the sunspot number up or down over March?

    Thanks in advance.
    There have been spots, but they sure look small and isolated for this point in the cycle, and the trend continues to be well below even the updated projection shown in red.
    What does this mean for the next cycle, in terms of strength and length?

    http://www.solarham.net/data/14day.wmv

  37. As always, Dr Svalgaard returns to the assertion that extremely small changes in TSI have extremely small changes in earth’s climate. He is probably right, provided the mechanism he has in mind is one of radiative warming.

    What about the solar signal, whether magnetic field, plasma, microwave, UV or whatever, as a modulating signal with influence on processes that can interact with the earth’s climate via atmospheric chemistry, extraterrestrial matter such as dust or cosmic rays?

    My second paragraph presumably takes the argument outside of Dr Svalgaard’s expertise but I would still welcome his opinion on this possibility.

    My third point is that the anecdotal relationship, if there is such a thing, between solar activity and climate appears to relate to clusters of cycles of like levels of SSN and not the amplitude alone or a single cycle. It seems to be a cumulative or sustained or high frequency of activity (or non-activity) that is important rather than the characteristics of a single cycle.

    As always, the debate about solar influences gets shut down because TSI is effectively constant or because there is no correlation with climate. Can Dr Svalgaard advise us of the consequences of a switching solar magnetic field on the earth. What changes as far as the earth is concerned?

    • Svalgaard advise us of the consequences of a switching solar magnetic field on the earth. What changes as far as the earth is concerned?
      The energy involved is so minute except for great magnetic storms, but those are very rare, so no measurable effect above the noise.

      • Hi Dr. S., is the “Lightning discharge energy,” above in your graph terrestrial or ionospheric?

        The You tube video below talks about the rapid discharge of electrical energy into the ionosphere analogous to lightening in the atmosphere.

        FM16 Press Conference: New research on the ionosphere, our interface to space

      • Hi Dr. S., is the “Lightning discharge energy,” above in your graph terrestrial or ionospheric?
        Terrestrial, of course. The ‘auroral emission” and “airglow emission” are ionospheric.

        Note the interesting tidbit that “infrared radiation from the full moon” delivers almost as much energy as all other sources combined with the exception of TSI and Heat Flux from the Earth’s interior.

      • “Note the interesting tidbit that “infrared radiation from the full moon” delivers almost as much energy as all other sources combined with the exception of TSI and Heat Flux from the Earth’s interior.”

        Having heard this before some time ago on another thread on this site, I still find it more than a little startling.
        Counterintuitive to say the least.
        The general impression is that everything that could matter is well known and quantified…and yet we still cannot say what caused the large natural variations in the historical records, or why the models have not gotten the past few decades right.

      • Any complicated non-linear system has internal, chaotic natural variations that are hard to model. Ocean circulation is one example of input to the model that we don’t have a good handle on. It is not ‘left out’, just ‘not well known’ in the past. The same used to be the case for the solar input. Luckily, this is now improving [if we can get the climate people to use our improved values].

        The past few decades have seen a sharp decline in solar activity, yet, temperatures have soared. Not very good for solar enthusiasts, who have to invent various excuses …[lags, integrals, notches, you name it…]

      • The figure for lunar tides is off by over two orders of magnitude.

        The energy loss from lunar tides can be estimated by the rate of lunar recession, which is about 3.8 cm/year. An approximate equation for energy loss is

        dE/dt := -0.5*mass_moon*omega_Moon*omega_Earth*R*dR/dt

        To make things easy, I will use solar days instead of sidereal days. This works out to approximately

        dE/dt := -0.5 * 7.3e22 kg * 2pi/(30*86400) rad/sec * 2pi/86400 rad/sec * 360e6 meters * 0.038 meters / (365.25*86400 sec) := -3 TW

        The Earth’s surface is some 511e12 meters^2, so this works out to about 3/511 = 0.006 W/m^2.

      • The figure for lunar tides is off by over two orders of magnitude.
        Argue with these people
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc160018-Where-Does-Earth-Gets-Its-Energy.pdf
        Section 2.10
        “Platzman (1991) performed an energy balance study of the lunar atmospheric tide by incorporating the three factors of the ocean, body, and load tides, characterized by barometric pressure data from Haurwitz & Cowley (1969) and satellite altimeter data of sea-tide dissipation and sea-tide elevation from NASA’s Geodetic Satellite (Geosat) (Cartwright & Ray, 1990). The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). Annually averaged results showed that the lunar atmospheric tidal dissipation was on the order of 10 GW and maintained almost entirely by the ocean tide (Platzman 1991). This value corresponds to 1.96 · 10^5 W/m^2 when averaged at Earth’s surface.”

      • What can I say? I gave you the formula. It is easily derived, and the value for the rate of lunar recession is well established.

      • Bart: I’ll give you hint: the mass of the atmosphere is only 1/275 of the oceans, so the M2 tide has to be divided by 275, so goes from 3 TW to 10 GW.

      • Thanks for the reply Dr. S.
        But the presentation goes on to say that the electrical discharge is; “hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke.”
        And is responsible for the Airglow emission.
        Something is wrong here then in comparing the 2, terrestrial and ionospheric electric discharge???
        A hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke………

      • Than ONE lightening stroke.
        But there are 50 strokes every second.
        But still, the airglow total is 0.0036 W/m2 vs. all the lightening strokes 0.0005 W/m2.
        In either case negligible. Further more the airglow is 100 km up and doesn’t impact the troposphere where we live.

      • “Bart: I’ll give you hint: the mass of the atmosphere is only 1/275 of the oceans, so the M2 tide has to be divided by 275, so goes from 3 TW to 10 GW.”

        You just can’t bear it when I am right, can you?

      • And you are wrong about this. Wrong by a factor of 275.
        The energy from lunar tides that heats the atmosphere in 17 million times smaller than the solar energy heating the atmosphere. Another comparison: the energy form lunar tides heating the atmosphere is comparable to the integrated energy of starlight and the Cosmic Microwave Background.

      • lsvalgaard May 8, 2017 at 7:53 am
        Than ONE lightening stroke.
        But there are 50 strokes every second.
        But still, the airglow total is 0.0036 W/m2 vs. all the lightening strokes 0.0005 W/m2.
        In either case negligible. Further more the airglow is 100 km up and doesn’t impact the troposphere where we live.
        —————————————————–
        You really should watch the video Dr. S. It starts at 7 min. in where he starts explaining, “hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke.”
        Isn’t that ionospheric electric discharge also connected to and driving the Equatorial Electro Jet? Yes it is…I believe it is what is observed. Something wrong with your graph…

        The ionosphere…
        At this time of year, last week, the radio station I listen to in GRB, is affected by the ionosphere. Instead of pointing my antenna North I point either straight up or South. While travelling in the North at this time of year I have found that a Suring station signal goes East and comes in through my Green Bay stations call letters 88.1.

      • driving the Equatorial Electro Jet? Yes it is…I believe it is what is observed.
        The jet is 100 km up. Has no effect on climate or weather.
        You are confusing ‘discharge’ with ‘current’. There is a steady electric current at all times in the ionosphere E-region. Not a ‘discharge’. You can learn more here:
        http://www.leif.org/research/w6yx-Talk.pdf

      • “The energy from lunar tides that heats the atmosphere in 17 million times smaller than the solar energy heating the atmosphere.”

        As I showed, the rate of energy loss is 3 TW. Your handwaving does not change that. It is 0.004% of net solar input. That is a factor of 25K, not 17M.

        I’m not going to argue about it anymore, because however you slice it, it is small. But, I am not filled with confidence about the other figures in your reference.

      • I’m not going to argue about it anymore
        Typical loser statement. What you do dot understand is that only 1/275 of that goes into heating the atmosphere. You [apparent] refusal to study carefully the paper I linked to [and the ones it in turn references] is telling.

      • I am not filled with confidence about the other figures in your reference.
        Since you, obviously, don’t know what you are talking about, your ‘confidence’ is not worth much.
        The way to deal with lack of confidence is to read the paper and argue with the science for each point where you confidence fails you.

      • You are such a blowhard, Leif. Of course all the heat goes into an through the atmosphere. Where else could it go? It’s got to leave the system, or there is no lunar recession. So, unless you’ve discovered a wormhole in the oceans, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to come up with some other handwaving excuse.

      • As you refuse to take the paper into consideration [as it will prove you wrong, so your refusal is understandable], let me repeat here what it says:
        “The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). Annually averaged results showed that the lunar atmospheric tidal dissipation was on the order of 10 GW” .

      • I know what your paper claims. But, the lunar tides are dissipating 3 TW. If they are talking about some other effect under an ambiguous rubric, then they are missing something in their budget. So, it’s either wrong, or incomplete. Take your pick.

      • Where you go off the rail is that you [and they also as a first step] calculate the energy dissipated in the ocean, but that is not the same as the energy that heats the atmosphere. To get that, you have to take into account the effect the oceans have on the atmosphere. As a rough estimate one can use the fact that the mass of the atmosphere in 1/275 of the oceans. Platzman does it right with fancy modelling etc, but comes up with about the same factor of 1/275, so that the energy input from the lunar tides to the atmosphere is 10 GW and not 3 TW. To quote the paper:
        “The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). ”

        But since you don’t want to admit you were wrong, what does it matter what Platzman says.

      • One more time…

        The lunar tides are dissipating 3 TW. That is energy that flees to space. Between the oceans and space is the thing we call the atmosphere. There is no alternate route.

        If you want to claim that only 10 GW are dissipated by the atmosphere itself, go ahead. But, there is a much larger input term that is then not accounted for in the budget.

      • Last time:
        The 3 TW are not heating the atmosphere, especially not if they are fleeing to space…
        Only 10 GW is actually energy input to the atmosphere. You can’t read or understand English?

      • If they are passing through the atmosphere, they are heating it. They are just as much an input as the watts from sunlight.

      • The atmosphere is not heated measurably by an energy flux millions of times smaller [even if only tens of thousands of times smaller] than sunlight. The 3 TW warms the sea which in turn warms the atmosphere, it takes hundred of times less energy to heat air by one degree than to heat water by one degree. Again, you have no idea. People [like Platzman] who have researched this carefully agree on the 10 GW figure. End of discussion.

      • I have an idea: you are in a hole, and cannot help yourself. But, you really must stop digging.

        The figure is 3 TW on basic principles. It is missing from the budget.

      • No, you have no idea. The 3 TW warms to ocean, not the atmosphere. For that you have 10 GW. It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your mistaken view. It is still wrong.

    • Dr Sv, why is it an “excuse” to say that above average solar activity produces warming?

      • If you look at the right-hand edge of the graph you can see why. Solar activity since 1900 is on par with that from 1730-1800 [the orange curve], but the temperature is through the roof.

      • 70% of the planet is covered by water to an average depth of 6500′. The sun pours energy down on half of it 24/7 varying by seasonal inclinations and cloud cover changes. These variables along with ocean mixing currents and conveyors along with the longer term milankovitch variables are your climate thermostat. So, though the variability of the sun itself may be minor it is still the sun in the long run (plus of course the mostly unknown geothermal component). There, I’ve solved it. Unfortunately most of these climate regulators are unknowns other than the Milankovitch cycles. And don’t forget surface albedo when the ice begins to grow!

      • “Solar activity since 1900 is on par with that from 1730-1800 [the orange curve], but the temperature is through the roof.”

        This is simplistic. It is not just the peak that matters. The area under the curve also has an influence, as well as the degree to which the cycles interfere either constructively or destructively with Earthly modal responses.

      • Just saying something without any analysis is the hallmark of ‘drive-by’ comments. Anybody can see that the areas under the curve are the same [within the errors] in every one of the last three centuries. Here is another view:

      • “Anybody can see that the areas under the curve are the same [within the errors] in every one of the last three centuries.”

        So, it bumps along from very low to very high. Yeah, looks the same “within errors” to me, assuming the errors are very high.

      • The errors in the blue curve are small. The red curve [cosmic ray proxy] has larger errors. To first order there are no differences between the 18th, 19th, and 20th century.

      • So, we’re starting near zero, leaping up near 1000, diving back down to near 200, jumping back up again to about 700, diving down again to about 300, up again to near 800, back down to 400.

        These are not small changes.

      • These are not small changes
        Who said they were. But, again you don’t know what you are talking about. The modulation potential controls the modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays, causing them to vary by a few percent [=small changes].

      • “Who said they were.”

        You did.

        “The areas under the curve are about the same in every century.”

      • Let me explain… The rates of carbon growth, water vapor growth and the growth of ice melt all depend on a temperature above an equilibrium state temperature. (the further the departure from the equilibrium state, the faster the growth of all three) Temps 300 years ago were much closer to the equilibrium state than now. Hence less carbon growth, water vapor growth and ice melt. Therefor, these forcings would not have been nearly as much in the 1700s as they were in the 1900s (particularly the latter part of the 20th century)…

      • The rates of carbon growth, water vapor growth and the growth of ice melt all depend on a temperature above an equilibrium state temperature
        Not at all. There is no equilibrium state. The state at any time is determined by the inputs acting on the current state. There is no magic equilibrium state that the Earth knows to strive for.

      • There IS an equilibrium state temperature at which the carbon growth rate, the water vapor growth rate and the ice melt rate would be zero. (at present it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause) Also happens to be the point at which sea level rise is zero. This is easily demonstratable with graphs of the relationship between carbon growth rate and temperature, graphs of the rate of sea level rise, as well as the water vapor graphs (which i’ve been having a tough time locating of late). Assuming this is true, that might go a long way toward explaining why the twentieth century produced more warming than the 1700s. i’ll try to post those graphs as time permits…

      • What is the equilibrium temperature during a glaciation, which has been the normal state of the climate the last several million years?

      • Let me ask you this: do you dispute that there is a temperature at which sea level rise would be zero? (would that not be an equilibrium state temperature?)

      • But doesn’t the falling solar irradiance mean we are entering a new ice-a…. lol, jokes.
        TSI whack-a-mole continues.

      • afonzarelli
        May 8, 2017 at 10:43 pm

        Let me ask you this: do you dispute that there is a temperature at which sea level rise would be zero? (would that not be an equilibrium state temperature?)
        ————————-

        Hello afonzalli

        You have asked the above to Dr. Sv, as it seems…
        Allow me to forward some kind of answer that may GIVE YOU ANOTHER PROSPECT OR POINT OF VIEW ..

        No, that would not be the equilibrium state temperature, as per the above question, that will be some thing like the mean point of the temp in a temp variation, the same for sea level variation and ice content variation…. or vapor.
        The point of mean for temp variation sea level or ice content variation does not necessary mean a state of equilibrium when actually for the whole time these variations happen and continue there is a state of equilibrium to consider always throughout the whole scale of the variation….especially when the correlation
        of all this parameters never seem to fail, and very “tightly” maintained..and always seem to be at their mean and max – minimal points approximately at the same point in time….

        A mean point or an average of a range does not necessary in all cases project to a point of a balance or equilibrium in isolation….or to a special balance one as in this case of your attempt to.
        And the equilibrium in a continuous repeating variation is not stationary, and could be considered as been there during for the whole time….

        The Earth energy budget is always in equilibrium, even when can be feasibly contemplated that it is at its mean at the same time that climate is at it’s mean point…..The Earths mean temp, the point of half way from both extremes in temp variation….

        Even the balance and the equilibrium is not always stationary and permanently tight to a particular point in time, especially in a continuous varying system or function..generally speaking, not necessarily..

        So no, what you actually pointing at with your question is the mean point for the main varying climate parameters….

        Hopefully this is of some help for you…

        A side “tip”….from all I can see and understand, the main difference between the real climate (it’s continuous change) and the GCM simulations is that when in the real the climate is always in equilibrium even when in variation, the simulations can not produce and follow such equilibrium….GCM does not mean or stand for as Global Climate Models…….for some “weird” reason..:)

        cheers

      • O.K., Dr Svalgaard, not the prettiest graph in the world, but i suppose that it will do… Equilibrium state temperature is not a static thing. For example, let’s say that the pause lasts indefinitely and we’ll also say that sea levels are rising at 3 mm/ year. Over a long period of time the sea level rise would be less and less even though temps were to stay the same. Eventually sea level rise would stop altogether. Once we reach that point (of no sea level rise), then we would have reached a new equilibrium state. If after that point, temps were to rise again, the sea level rise would continue again relative to the new equilibrium state temperature…

        You can see in the above graph that the rate of change (of sea level) tracks temperature even going negative briefly around the turn of the century. Calculations with the carbon growth rate and temperature (the so called ‘derivative plot’) also show the growthrate going negative around the turn of the century. (it’s been a while since i’ve seen the water vapor plots; all i can say is that the rate of change, too, tracks temperature)…

      • Whiten, if i can wade through your gobbledygook (☺), i think we’re both on the same page. That’s why i added the caveat: “(AT PRESENT it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause)”. Hopefully this short, short comment won’t get swallowed by moderation…

      • afonzarelli
        May 9, 2017 at 9:14 pm

        Whiten, if i can wade through your gobbledygook (☺), i think we’re both on the same page. That’s why i added the caveat: “(AT PRESENT it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause)”. Hopefully this short, short comment won’t get swallowed by moderation…
        ———————————-
        Hello again afonzarelli.
        Thank you for the reply…..very interesting one…..

        Got to admit, you may be correct, we both seem to be on the same page, in principle, especially when considering your mentioning of the ” ~.7C below the temperature of the pause”……

        But if I have to consider it in detail, I must say one of us is reading the page backwards….especially when what you consider and address as growth in climate parameters in question, I do consider and address it as a variation….

        Again in this case too, your “caveat” points out to the climate mean point in regard to the mean of the climatic parameters you address….not actually pointing to any special equilibrium that must be moving towards a new special one………which at present shows if we considered it carefully, it may show to be a significant anomaly in the data, in the way that it stands, but still natural and well within the equilibrium of climate and natural climate change…… It is a condition persisting there for ~2000 years as an anomaly….no wondering why in AR5 report these clever guys try to pin it in Noah too.:)

        Not meaning to be mean but the moderation, if it had an effect on the length of this reply of yours that I am commenting now…..you should consider it as a positive…..:)

        Thanks for your comments and your replies.
        Honestly appreciated……..please do not mind much my expression in English…

        cheers

  38. Yet the world keeps jumping the shark into warm and cold periods ignoring the influence and wishes of men.I do believe that at least half of the output from the sun is of a type not recognised by science per sec. A change in the bit we do not monitor can alter our world in profound ways, all the planets in our system feel change when it happens. We are truly naive and locked in to how clever we are with our science, but we are only nibbling at the edges of how our universe really works. Predicting a warm or cool period with our limited knowledge is not easy but history gives us clues as to intervals when old Sol is rampant and when he is on sabbatical. These are about the only clues we have as our scientific knowledge is still kindergarten. I would implore those scientists looking at the sun to look deeper UV gives you sunburn and a suntan but there is more.

  39. Hi Dr. S.
    The study below on ionospheric electric discharge, used a constellation of global satellites called IRIDIUM, to map these rapid, explosive discharges of electric energy into the ionosphere.
    Unlike a terrestrial lightening which takes milli seconds to discharge, these ionospheric, solar storm related discharges take place over tens of minutes or HOURS.

    The discharge animation from observations, is for a 15 hour period. I started the video in the midst of the animation so that you might get a glimpse…

    FM16 Press Conference: New research on the ionosphere, our interface to space
    American Geophysical Union (AGU)

    • The study below on ionospheric electric discharge, used a constellation of global satellites called IRIDIUM, to map these rapid, explosive discharges of electric energy into the ionosphere
      You are confusing several issues here. Earlier you talked about airglow. That is an ongoing process, not explosive and not due to solar storms or the solar wind. Now you talk about electric ‘discharges’. It has always been the case that the interaction between the solar wind and the earth is bursty [better word than ‘discharges’]. All of this is no news [Birkeland talked about it more than a century ago] and has no effect on our climate, as the energy involved is so minute.

  40. Hi Dr. S.
    Electric ‘discharges,’ is more appropriate a term here, I think.
    It is more than currents flowing along earth’s magnetic field lines from solar wind interactions here.

    There is a build up of these currents with a corresponding rapid, explosive discharge occurring for lengthy time periods.

    Contributing to ionospheric heating.

    Where in the graph below describes this discharge phenomenum occurring regularly over the polar regions?
    Anywhere along the ionospheric currents system, whether polar or equatorial, these ‘discharges’ would be occurring. Maybe they could call it the “Ionospheric Dynamo Discharges into the lower regions of … the ionosphere.” And below, cause we know there are also ground currents coming from … solar discharges.

    Magnetic storm dissipation seems to general a term.

    http://www.leif.org/research/Where-Does-The-Atmosphere-Get-Its-Energy-From.png

  41. Some more information on how the Sun and Earth interact.
    “Earth is surrounded by a giant magnetic bubble called the magnetosphere. As it travels through space, a complex system of charged particles from the sun and magnetic structures piles up in front of it. Scientists wish to better understand this area in front of the bow shock, known as the foreshock, as it can help explain how energy from the rest of space makes its way past this boundary into the magnetosphere. Credit: Credit: NASA/GSFC”
    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/wind-slamswaves.html

    “A new paper printed on May 12, 2016, in Science provides the first observations from inside a magnetic reconnection event. The research shows that magnetic reconnection is dominated by the physics of electrons — thus providing crucial information about what powers this fundamental process in nature.”
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-directly-observes-fundamental-process-of-nature-for-1st-time

Comments are closed.