As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming. According to data from NASA’s Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots. Here is the view today from the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite:

Today at Cape Canaveral, SpaceX launched a new sensor to the International Space Station named TSIS-1. Its mission: to measure the dimming of the sun’s irradiance. It will replace the aging SORCE spacecraft. NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum, NASA satellites are tracking a decline in total solar irradiance (TSI).
Across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the sun’s output has dropped nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum of 2012-2014. This plot shows the TSI since 1978 as observed from nine previous satellites:
In the top plot, we drew the daily average of measured points in red (so there are a lot of points, 14187 to be precise). On the left is a red vertical bar showing a 0.3% change in TSI. The black curve is the average of TSI over each year. The dashed horizontal line shows the minimum value of year-averaged TSI data. The vertical black bar shows the 0.09% variation we see in that average. The bottom plot shows the annual sunspot number from the SIDC in Belgium in blue. Source: NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission Blog.
What do we learn from these plots? First, TSI does change! That’s why we stopped calling it the solar constant. Second, as the sunspot number increases, so does TSI. But the converse is also true. As the sunspot number decreases so does TSI. We have watched this happen for four sunspot cycles. This waxing and waning of TSI with sunspot number is understood as a combination of dark sunspots reducing TSI below the dashed line and long-lived magnetic features increasing TSI. SORCE has even observed flares in TSI.
Third, the horizontal dashed line is not an average, it is drawn at the lowest value in the year-averaged TSI data (that happened in 2009). When there are no sunspots the Sun’s brightness should be that of the hot, glowing object we always imagined it to be. We would expect TSI to be the same at every solar minimum. There is much discussion over whether the value of TSI at solar minimum is getting smaller with time, but it is not getting larger.
These data show us that the Sun is not getting brighter with time. The brightness does follow the sunspot cycle, but the level of solar activity has been decreasing the last 35 years. The value at minimum may be decreasing as well, although that is far more difficult to prove. Perhaps the upcoming solar minimum in 2020 will help answer that question.
The rise and fall of the sun’s luminosity is a natural part of the solar cycle. A change of 0.1% may not sound like much, but the sun deposits a lot of energy on the Earth, approximately 1,361 watts per square meter. Summed over the globe, a 0.1% variation in this quantity exceeds all of our planet’s other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined. A 2013 report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” spells out some of the ways the cyclic change in TSI can affect the chemistry of Earth’s upper atmosphere and possibly alter regional weather patterns, especially in the Pacific.
NASA’s current flagship satellite for measuring TSI, the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), is now more than six years beyond its prime-mission lifetime. TSIS-1 will take over for SORCE, extending the record of TSI measurements with unprecedented precision. It’s five-year mission will overlap a deep Solar Minimum expected in 2019-2020. TSIS-1 will therefore be able to observe the continued decline in the sun’s luminosity followed by a rebound as the next solar cycle picks up steam. Installing and checking out TSIS-1 will take some time; the first science data are expected in Feb. 2018.
In other news, as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases, influx of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) increase as has been observed by balloon measurements over California:
Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun. Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Now, however, the solar cycle is swinging toward Solar Minimum, allowing cosmic rays to return. Another reason could be the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation.
The radiation sensors onboard our helium balloons detect X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. These energies span the range of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.
The data points in the graph above correspond to the peak of the Reneger-Pfotzer maximum, which lies about 67,000 feet above central California. When cosmic rays crash into Earth’s atmosphere, they produce a spray of secondary particles that is most intense at the entrance to the stratosphere. Physicists Eric Reneger and Georg Pfotzer discovered the maximum using balloons in the 1930s and it is what we are measuring today.
NASA’s spaceweather.com website follows the progress of the sun on a regular basis. Our WUWT Solar Reference Page also has data updated daily.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Is this the result of man made global warming?
As a note the TSI was made of various instrumental data that has been combined.
Here what I found as original data up to 2014:
http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.jpg
The long term result was different in 2 papers, the PMOD and ACRIM.
PMOD what I suppose stays at the basis of the articles TSI is using a proxy to adjust the data.
Can somebody confirm this supposition?
I suppose even on the ACRIM composite too it would look like a downwards trend now, but with an inflection around 2008?
Here the take of official climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/acrim-vs-pmod/
As everything in climate science I am sceptical about climate scientists adjustments…
Me too….
Oops sorry, forgot to link to the ACRIM site from where the image is:
http://acrim.com/
Lars
my personal opinion is that TSI is a useless parameter
You are measuring something TOA.
You must be measuring at sea level to evaluate the heat coming through the atmosphere?
Rather use maximum T as a parameter to evaluate the net amount of heat arriving here.
If you want a global result, use
1) equal no. of stations NH and SH balanced to zero latitude
2) 70/30 @sea / inland
3) look at the change of speed of cooling/warming in K/annum
TSI is using a proxy to adjust the data. Can somebody confirm this supposition?
No, it is not true.
Thank you for the feedback!
Yes, I found the description here:
https://skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
“The major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a 2 year gap between ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II (tragically due to the Challenger space shuttle explosion). To fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in dramatically different ways. ”
I understand ACRIM used the data as is whilst:
“PMOD applies corrections to the HF data, which has many sudden jumps due to changes in the orientation of the spacecraft and to switch-offs”
As well as further controversy comments here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
That controversy is long dead. ACRIM was not correct.
Just after the Inquisition forced him to recant the heliocentric theory, Galileo muttered “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”). The meaning of the statement is clear; the Inquisition could force one man to deny the truth, but it couldn’t actually change the truth. Nature’s truths are always available for someone—anyone—to see. Man caused global warming is a religion based on faith not science. You must have faith in the “science based” man created Global Climate Models that were designed to validate the hypothesis that man is causing global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. If the models predict something at odds with the hypothesis government grant money is quickly cut off for that line of research. The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion has that as its dogma. Ignore the truth e.g. recent empirical data showing global cooling that does not fit the dogma… Send in the inquisition lock them up they blasphemed they dared to deny the faith. “Eppur si muove”
As all good stories, it is probably not true that Galileo said that. At least there is no evidence that he did. But I also like the story.
The modern version will be “Eppur si freddo”, “but its getting colder,” to be uttered over the coming years while alarming propaganda rains on us.
Ridiculous. We all know the sun has nothing to do with warming the earth. It’s magic CO2 that warms the earth. And it’s all man made. You silly scientists don’t know what you’re talking about. The science is already settled. You all should retire and become social justice warriors and do whatever you can rock stop Trump from destroying he earth. (snip) last sentence too inflammatory. Mod.
Snip I believe what you say, but this is not an appropriate place for comments such as this Mod
Was perusing Drudge Report and an article link brought me here. Nice to see these WUWT articles getting wider exposure!
iceagenow.com
Man’s overproduction of carbon dioxide with the internal combustion engine has far reaching and nearly incomprehensible effects, including dampening of the Sun’s thermonuclear reactivity and radiant energy.
It’s obviously due to Climate Change.
Nah, because they repealed net neutrality.
better start planning a Sunshine mission now…. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/
No one seems to want to discuss the thousands of variables that we haven’t even isolated (which is the reason we can’t discuss them) but they’re there. As the old saying goes, “The problem is that we don’t know what we don’t know.”
Al Gore finally has an excuse as to why there hasn’t been any global warming.
I judge the quality of articles and papers by their title, first sentence,
first paragraph, charts, and last paragraph, before deciding if I want to read
the whole thing.
The first sentence of this article seems whacky to me,
or maybe I am?
“As the sun gets successively more blank with each day … ”
Could anyone explain how something that is blank, can get more blank?
Shouldn’t it be blanker? This wasn’t in my English classes.
You’re right. Once you’re blank, you can’t get more blanker. Or blanker.
It’s like the oft abused and misused “unique”.
Perhaps they meant the blankety blank Sun….
After reading all the comments,
other than getting a headache,
I have come to one conclusion:
There are “slight” disagreements,
over what causes climate change.
In addition, if there is one thing I learned,
from 20 years of climate change reading,
and maybe there is only one thing,
it is that predictions of the future climate,
are impossible,
… and believe it or not,
it’s even tough to “predict” the past climate,
as those smarmy leftists keep adustin;
and re-adjustin’, and re-re-re adjustin’
the historical temperature data, at least the
surface data, so it seems to take,
about 20 years for the data to “settle down”,
meaning that today’s surface temperature data,
must age for about 20 years
before it can be used for real science,
sort of like aging wine, or cheese.
My climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Do you have a blog for non-blogers?
If I ever start a blog for bad jokes,
will you be available for some guest jokes?
Gee…If it isn’t a cosmic event, a most likely scenario in ridding the world of humanity are the countless mutating pathogens. What I find curious in all of this is that old experiment that is still on YouTube, showing how by merely observing, change takes place….I have enough on my plate to worry about without having to add an avalanche of “End of the World” troubles. I believe that the end comes when it is our individual time to die…to leave this world……….This is ultimately our “end of the World” time…..
As history has proven, nobody gets out alive.
Remind us again how “real” is AGW.
More and more scientists are ridding themselves of the AGW fiction that so many adopted just because the research funds were there. The Maunder Minimum is real and has occurred before and during that time solar radiation decreased to where an ice age of varying duration became the weather norm. It will become much more difficult to sell research that “proves” the ice caps and the permafrost are melting when London is once again holding winter carnival on the frozen Thames River.
No where in the article or the comments did I see solution to whatever the problem ends up being (cooling, warming or temperance) Taxes! You boneheads are doing the wrong thing by looking at facts and working angles, the point is to set a fear mongering foundation, humans are ruining everything, and then find a way to profit off of it. Work harder to get taxes into the equation, take away cars, take away travel, forced incarceration where folks eat soylent green and charge for it, do something to get us some more money and stop looking toward the sun as an issue, we can’t tax the sun….. yet.
The sun is being taxed, through inefficient sources of energy, they’re called “renewable forms of energy” extremely expensive, for something so abundant in the known universe!
So expensive, that not only do people have to make the choice whether to “eat or heat” they have to make that decision through so called global warming during freezing winters.
I suppose that all of this will be, again, blamed on SUV’s.
I suppose the debate will continue since we are going into a cold phase from AMO while the sun adds a small debated amount.
I am confident that the “Global Warming Pseudo-scientists” are hard at work coming up with a rationalization to “prove” that burning fossil fuels on Earth is directly responsible for Solar Sun Spot/Brightness decline.
It’s a damn good thing we have fake Glabal warming to offset this disturbing trend!
NASA (or any other fedgov agency) can make any statement they like — I’m not buying it. Fedgov has absolutely proven that they are *not* trustworthy and no longer represent our citizen’s best interest.
The sooner this criminal, racketeering cabal dies, the better.
Okay everyone. Let’s say, hypothetically…all of the scientists are correct. Why do we need this information IF….there is NOTHING any of us humanoids, living on the 3rd planet from the Sun, can do about it? I have been around almost 71 years, and each of those years has had 4 seasons. Every day for each of those years, the Sun has been where it is, and the Earth still turns on it’s axis. WHAT can anyone reading this, no matter how intelligent you are, or how many letters you use after your name…do about it? Other than SCARE the bejesus out of the easily convinced, undereducated AL GORE fans who blame ALL OF US for everything???
pretty nice 11 year cycle, don’t worry about your ice melting.