Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
When folks tell me that the sunspot-related changes in total solar irradiance make changes down here on the surface of our amazing planet, I suggest that they take a look at the numbers.
From peak to trough over the sunspot cycle, the top-of-atmosphere total solar irradiance varies by about 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m2) … which, when averaged over the entire surface of the earth gives a change of about 0.28 W/m2. This is less than a tenth of one percent variation in total incoming energy.
But in fact, it’s less than that. Only about half of the sunlight makes it to the surface, so we’re down to 0.14 W/m2 change from peak to trough, less than a twentieth of a percent.
Now, downwelling radiation at the surface of the earth averages about 500 W/m2 on a 24/7 average basis. And out of that, we’re supposed to believe that a variation on the order of a tenth of a W/m2 is going to make a difference …
“Ah, you don’t understand”, folks inform me, “Yes, TSI only changes by a tenth of a percent over a solar cycle. But extreme ultraviolet (EUV) varies as a percentage much, much more than that!” … and you know what?
They’re right …
… but they’re also wrong. Let me explain why.
To start with, here’s the breakdown of the strength of the solar radiation by wavelength.
Figure 1. Spectrally resolved top-of-atmosphere sunshine. X-axis units are nanometres (nm).
In the middle is the visible spectrum, from about 380 nm to about 750 nm. Longer wavelengths than that are called “near infrared”. Wavelengths shorter than that are ultraviolet (UV).
And way over on the left, at 10 – 24 nm wavelength between the vertical red lines, is the tiny amount of extreme ultraviolet (EUV).
So that is the first problem. Even though it varies on a percentage basis more than the TSI, the EUV represents such a small part of the sun’s energy that it cannot be even seen at this scale.
The second problem is that the variation in EUV is much, much smaller in absolute terms than the variation in TSI. In Figure 2 I’ve compared the variations in the middle of the EUV spectrum (18 nm) to the variations in the blue part of the visible spectrum (~500 nm).
Figure 2. Monthly variations in solar output, measured in the EUV (red/yellow line) and in the visible spectrum (blue line)
As you can see, the variations in the EUV are very small compared to the variations in the visible spectrum.
In fact, the only reason that the percentage variations in EUV are greater than the percentage variations in TSI is that changes in EUV start from almost zero … so even a tiny absolute change in EUV is a large percentage change in EUV.
For those reasons, I hold that looking at EUV to explain surface climate variations is a blind alley … but as always, YMMV …
Best to everyone on a warm and quiet night,
w.
AS ALWAYS: I politely ask that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING so that we can all understand the subject of your thoughts.
DATA: I’ve used the solar data recommended here for use in the CMIP6. Yes, I know it has manifold problems, I pointed some of them out here on WUWT, but none of them affect these results.
deleted
I too tend to see W/m^2 as too small of an analytical aperture to allow the best insight on how solar variations can affect Earth’s climate.
There’s more to life than W/m^2.
I don’t have my act together to argue the specifics, but I hope to get there eventually.
I don’t believe TSI is the key. It is something else that changes at the same time TSI changes. Maybe it is cosmic rays, we’ll see over the coming cycle as cycle 25 is now forecast to be as weak as 24 was. Last time we had two weak cycles in a row we did get significant climate cooling.
Willis, I know you love fishing. Here is an image from space clearly showing sediment plumes at an offshore wind farm.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/offshorewindlies?src=hashtag_click
This can’t be good for marine life…
Ignorant question here: What causes the sediment plumes? Agitation to the base of the turbine mount (from rotation-induced vibrations)? Or is it a byproduct of mounting these things in a zone of sea current, where disturbing the sea floor to create the base enables temporary plumes? Or something else?
Theyouk,
Tidal currents are at least part of the picture:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89063
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425714000224
I used this image of wind wake turbulence in an article I penned some time ago:
http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html
Tidal/ocean currents have the same effect on the platforms they use on the sea bed.
Agreed, john. But then windmills don’t seem to be good for any life …
w.
You forgot about cows Willis, they like the water pumped by windmills.
?776501
DD,
I’m pretty sure that you knew Willis was referring to electric power turbines, not water-pumping windmills.
John, unlike you, I cannot read Willis’ mind, but he did say “windmill” and not “wind turbine.” (but then, you know how he demands direct quotes)
DD,
That’s common usage. Wind-powered stock tank pumps aren’t technically mills, either.
From the context, it was obvious to what he referred, so no mind reading required. Just reading what came before his comment, which arose in the context of a discussion of wind turbine farms at sea. Did you really not read the comment to which Willis responded?
They don’t have “windmill farms” at sea Jonny-boi. So no, it was not obvious because the common term for what they install on wind farms (on or off shore) are wind turbines. Even you made this distinction in your first reply to me. ” electric power turbines , not water-pumping windmills.” (your words)
DD,
You’re wasting your own and everyone else’s time.
It was obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ that Willis was referring to wind turbines, since marine wind farms were the topic. Willis clearly referred to those on land as well, which massacre birds and bats in their tens of millions, at least.
And, as noted, wind-powered pumps aren’t “windmills”, either. They don’t grind grain.
Wait a minute there John, you called them ” water-pumping windmills” …….if they aren’t “windmills” why did you call them that?
LOL……..had to edit it hugh?…..too funny !!!
DD,
Why is it so hard for you to understand that “windmill” has become a generic term, so that your attack on Willis is meaningless and without merit.
Its original meaning was for grinding grain, but has come to be extended to any other use of wind power, whether pumping water or generating electricity.
That the company uses the term just means that the word has long since become standard in English, yet away from its original meaning.
I doubt that you’re really so dense as not to understand this, so must conclude that you’re just trolling, having nothing better to do.
Willis said “windmill”, he did not say “wind turbine.” More to the point, irrespective of what you call them Willis said: ” to be good for any life.” Now, I don’t give a hoot what you call them the word ANY in Willis’ post is wrong, because as you can see from the picture the COWS love them.
Obviously John you seem to lack even a tidbit of a sense of humor, and mistake a “joke” for “trolling”.
.
.
Sad.
The trolling is your continuing to make an issue of “windmill”, which is a standard English word long applied not just to actual mills, but to wind-powered pumps and now turbines. The first American “windmill” pump was so-called in 1854.
I live in the largest concentration of wind farms in the world, and we call the monstrosities “windmills”. To include those responsible for perpetrating the scam, which has made my friends and family rich off the federal subsidies.
My sense of humor requires that an attempted joke be funny to be humorous.
Your issue is with Willis, not me. He’s the one that said “windmill.” Go argue with him.
Oh, and by the way, look at the picture, the cows LOVE the windmill
Surely you have been making comments on “climate” sites long enough to know that using the term “windmill” when referring to wind turbines is going to be called out or treated like “troll bait.”
FYI John, look at the name of the company that makes those things: https://aermotorwindmill.com/
..
Funny how “windmill” is in the company’s name
Excerpted from above article, to wit:
To correctly measure the above stated “variance” in solar irradiance from peak to trough over the sunspot cycle, …… all said measurements must be made at a “point location” at the TOA that is situate at 90° perpendicular between the center of the earth and the center of the Sun.
And constant adjustments to the aforesaid “point location” measurements have to be made simply because of the “change-in-distance” between the earth and the Sun due to the earth’s elliptical orbital movement.
Anyway, why in the world would anyone want to measure the variance in solar irradiance at a “zenith point location” at the TOA ……… and then “average that “measurement” over the entire surface of the earth?
One half (1/2) the surface of the earth is always in darkness (no solar irradiance) ……. and any variance in solar irradiance that is measured at the TOA between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn has very little to no effect whatsoever on surface temperatures at higher latitudes and/or altitudes.
That’s a good question by Sam C C.
Why, indeed, would we “dilute” the intensity of this variance spontaneously over the entire surface of the Earth? Why would we assume that the effect caused by this variance would be only measured by this “dilution” factor, rather than by the exact intensity of the effect on a given point in a smaller area near where the variance effect hits?
Also, I’m thinking of Van Allen Belts, aurora, Birkeland currents — the whole plasma/electric/magnetic connection between Sun and Earth — I doubt that all this is figured out yet, let alone figuring out how small changes here might somehow be amplified into larger changes for the climate.
To alter a familiar phrase slightly, “Think cosmically, act locally.”
Thinking only watts/m^2, then, seems a bit near sighted. And averaging an already seemingly small effect — as though it occurs with the same value at every point on the globe simultaneously (night side/day side/high latitude/mid-latitude/low latitude) — seems arbitrary and unreal.
IMHO Averaging the various phenomena that may affect Earth’s temperature is like using the average temperature of bath water and then unknowingly placing the baby in a hot spot and wondering why you burned the baby. Surely many reading this have nearly burnt their feet while warming up the water while taking a bath. Hot spots and temperature differentials can cause and effect circulation in the atmosphere and ocean. Using averages in models will not demonstrate this effect.
Willis.
Do you have any data to suggest that DLR (downwelling longwave) has increased in line with global temperatures or in line with CO2?
As far as I am aware, if the primary feedback for temperature is CO2, then DLR needs to be increasing alongside CO2. If there is no increase in DLR, then there is no increase in greenhouse warming. (Because DLR is greenhouse warming). And in your article on Ceres and ARGO, your graph showed no increase in DLR.
Ergo, it is not CO2 that is causing the present increase in global temperature….
Ralph
CO2 causing increased DLR is one theory. But since there has been no significant increase in DLR, the new theory is that CO2 raises the emissions height; we then count down from there, using the lapse rate, to get a warmer surface temperature.
So now they’re using a pressure-dependent phenomenon, the lapse rate, to prove a radiative effect, and of course they can’t prove this is how it works.
Question: at point z in the atmosphere, which is the emissions height, if we add a small amount of IR radiative gas, wouldn’t that increase the rate of cooling? Why would adding a very small amount of IR radiative gas at that point cause decreased cooling?
If CO2 cooling inhibition throughout the troposphere is instead expanding the troposphere and thereby raising the emissions height, then aren’t we back to the DLR theory that posits a direct heating of the troposphere? Which we don’t see?
Don132
Willis, thank you for the essay.
Thanks Willis. Much needed. Solar variability is the illusion (or drug) of choice for many skeptics. However big solar influence may be, we have ice core and ocean sediment core records for 100 centuries of the Holocene that show that climate change produced by solar variability ( or any other form of natural or unforced variability) is modest compared with the warming projected by AOGCMs. We can legitimately hope that those models are wrong (and their projected consequences vastly exaggerated), but the likelihood of being saved by a coming LIA is negligible. And solar output could go up.
The UV where irradiance is significant (250-350? nm) does an increase and decrease about 5% associated with the solar cycle. THIS IS REAL. However, since that radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere, most of its effects (on ozone and winds) are confined to the upper atmosphere. The review article linked below covers the solar cycle linked changes that have been observed during the satellite era and proxy evidence from earlier periods.
http://scostep.apps01.yorku.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gray_etal_2009RG000282.pdf
Willis,
Some years ago, I have read a report that during a solar cycle, it is the “normal” UV which changes with about 10%, nothing was said about EUV. As that is a larger part in energy of the full spectrum, it can have more effect.
The effect mentioned in that report were:
– heating up of the ozone layer in the upper troposphere / lower stratosphere (about 1 K if my memory is right).
– which increases the equator-poles gradient at that level.
– which pushes the jet streams more polewards.
Jet streams are responsible for changes in cloudiness and rainfall, which should be visible in rain patterns over the solar cycles. Not necessary for global rainfall but in latitude bands if the jet streams shift in position.
I haven’t found the original report, but here is one that goes in the same direction:
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/icas/research-themes/atmospheric-chemistry-and-aerosols/groups/atmospheric-chemistry/research-highlights/impact-of-11-yr-solar-cycle-on-stratospheric-ozone/
They even mention up to 100% change in the UV range, be it that the instruments on board of satellites which measure UV in the stratosphere seems to have a lot of problems…
Ferdinand: See my link immediately for a review on this “normal UV” and the solar cycle. Some contradictory data about the size of the change in UV exists, but it is probably closer to the value you cite.
Thanks Frank!
Hadn’t seen your posting before mine was posted. Confirms my (rusty) memory:
More recently, analysis of the NCEP/National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalysis data set shows a response in both tropospheric zonally averaged temperature and winds in which the midlatitude jets are weaker and farther poleward in Smax years
Sadly, Frank, “reanalysis data” is nothing of the sort. It is not data of any kind, which is why they’ve named it that.
Instead, it is the output of a computer climate model. I’ve shown before that the output of such models is just a lagged linear transform of the input forcings.
And since the reanalysis climate model input includes the solar forcings, yes, you’ll find solar signals in the output of reanalysis climate models.
Finally, if you truly think that finding a solar signal in the output of a climate model which has been fed solar signals as input is significant regarding the real world … well, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn that is a wonderful deal …
Best regards,
w.
Willis: Thanks for the reply. Sorry I missed responding for so long. As I’m sure you know, re-analyses are the output from a climate model CONSTRAINED to agree with all of the observations that are available, especially the output from several hundred radiosondes launched twice daily and with the data recorded by satellites like CERES. In theory, the output consists of observations in some grid cells twice daily, many observations near the surface, and some constraints from the total radiation received by CERES from a column of grid cells. The biggest problem with re-analysis is that the amount, quality, and consistency of the observations has gradually evolved, making changes over multiple decades less reliable. When did we start collecting reliable data on the UV channel of SWR and start using it in re-analyses?
Are the changes attributed to the solar cycle in reanalyses of the upper atmosphere big enough to be trusted? Only an expert can pass judgment on that. The article I cited was a review, which criticized the quality of some records. I understand that the data showing that UV varies far more TSI during the solar is sound. This must produce changes in ozone and ozone is responsible for the 50 K rise in temperature with altitude in the lower stratosphere. So there is plenty of opportunity for sizable changes in the stratosphere, but no obvious mechanism by which those changes can reach the surface.
So, my best guess is that there are changes, but probably none that climate skeptics should pay attention to. If you could abstract CERES data from an O3 channel, however …
Frank
So your claim is that “constraining” a climate model to kinda sorta agree with some (not all) of the observations available somehow magically makes the model more than a lagged linear transform of the inputs?
As one of the few folks who have actually programmed computers for over half a century, I find that idea charmingly simplistic. Here’s Pat Frank on the subject:
Best regards,
w.
Willis: Pat Frank’s comments are the usual BS of saying that because a model isn’t perfect, it can’t be useful. “All models are wrong, some are useful.” As I’m sure you know, radiosonde data and the other “real-time” data used in re-analysis forms the basis for weather forecast models. Those models are reasonably accurate for a few days, and re-initialized with new data every 12 hours. With only twelve hours between being constrained by new data, re-analyses should be fairly close to reality most of the time. And different re-analyses use different models to predict evolution of weather. Finding the same phenomena in more that one re-analysis helps. Different re-analysis groups are competing to provide the most accurate recreation of weather and correct known biases.
Re-analysis showed the existence of the QBO long before “unconstrained” AOGCMs were able to reproduce that phenomena. AOGCMs today can’t replicate the Madden-Julian oscillation, but it is certainly present in reanalyses. We have a very poor idea of where a hurricane will be a week from now, or whether and El Nino will develop next winter until after spring. That doesn’t mean that re-analyses don’t provide a very accurate picture of these phenomena. AOGCMs produce hurricanes without “seeding” and downscaling, but weather prediction models do a decent job predicting what will happen over the next day or two.
There is no doubt that the amount of data being used to constrain re-analyses has grown tremendously. So reanalysis from the 1970’s might reflect the biases of the model more than reanalysis in the 2010’s. If you are looking for a change from the 1970s to the 2010s, then that change could be due to the gradual reduction of model bias in re-analysis due to more data constraining the output. If one is looking at the difference in average wind in January in a particular location in the lower stratosphere during the last two solar maxima and minima, that difference could be real – especially if it is large and consistent with other data. Authors and peer reviewers need to be skeptical (and frequently aren’t skeptical enough) of what the find in a re-analysis, especially if it is small. Authors of review articles like the one I cited need to (and did) warn non-specialists about the weaknesses of some of the raw data being analyzed. And the climate alarmist publicity machine probably has little interest in distorting research on the solar cycle.
Willis, you are looking at the wrong place, “changes down here on the surface of our amazing planet”. The energy is in the atmosphere during Solar Maximum and is dissipated during Solar Minimum. The energy is stored as a expansion of the atmosphere – the atmosphere puffs up due to the stored energy. The amount of energy is small, but the thermal inertia of the atmosphere is small. However, the added energy causes the atmosphere to mix better and reduces the temperature extremes that we are seeing now. Cooling occurs when the atmosphere has hot areas due the 4th power of the absolute temperature in the radiation equation.
Great theory, zero evidence.
Sorry,
w.
“Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from short-wave ultraviolet rays between 240 and 160 nm. Oxygen starts to absorb weakly at 240 nm in the Herzberg bands, but most of the oxygen is dissociated by absorption in the strong Schumann–Runge bands between 200 and 160 nm where ozone does not absorb. While shorter wavelength light, extending to even the X-Ray limit, is energetic enough to dissociate molecular oxygen, there is relatively little of it, and, the strong solar emission at Lyman-alpha, 121 nm, falls at a point where molecular oxygen absorption is a minimum.”
Mg II index data
The Mg II data are derived from GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present). All three data sets as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data are available (see links below). In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
UV-C, which is very harmful to all living things, is entirely screened out by a combination of dioxygen ( about 200 nm) by around 35 kilometres (115,000 ft) altitude. The ozone layer (which absorbs from about 200 nm to 310 nm with a maximal absorption at about 250 nm) is very effective at screening out UV-B; for radiation with a wavelength of 290 nm, the intensity at the top of the atmosphere is 350 million times stronger than at the Earth’s surface.
Well noting that in some systems a small change can have a bigger effect – but other the greater point – I thought when the sun is quiet it affects solar winds and the magnetosphere which causes more cosmic rays and other high energy particles to hit earth causing changes in cloud cover.
Read this article posted by the GWPF – it’s a bit long, but shows a remarkable similarity between the uber-sleazy academic tactics of the radical feminists and the radical climate alarmists.
It appears that the pink slime is similar to the green slime in blatant misconduct and lack-of-ethics .
See also: Alinsky’s “Rules of Radicals” – aka “Any lie is OK if it serves the cause.”
Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
Allan, I read that this morning. Totally disgusting to delete a paper that has been formally published. PC should never control science.
I agree with you Andy – but as bitter experience has taught us, the climate alarmists re not interested in science OR the environment – theirs is a far-left political objective – to ruin the economy and take control, like they have done in over 100 countries around the world – see Venezuela and Zimbabwe for prime examples.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and some use aliases for fear of retaliation.
I suggest it is time for all those who have been cowed into submission by the bullying of global warming alarmists to grow a pair and stand strong for your convictions.
Despite increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been little or no global warming for almost 20 years. Climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing CO2.
The global warming crisis does not exist, except in the fevered minds of its minions.
Best personal regards, Allan
Reference:
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
by Patrick Moore (1994)
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
Alan, a depressing article, but it fits with my thoughts on the fall of the once great universities. Oxford and Harvard are not exceptions. I’ve been wondering where my grandson should go to college. First, the social sciences have been everywhere corrupted even at the time I studied in the 1950s.
Interestingly, the corruption is of the same kind we see today in climate science and clisci has an unholy alliance with the now pure activist humanities. Free enterprise and democracy are to blame for all the ills of society. The difference is that today they have identified the шнутемаи as the underlying cause. So the humanities are off limits for a wouldbe scholar. I’ve been thinking Czech Republic or Russia for science, engineering, and the like.
My own engineering association is getting full of this ecowarrior/diversity/neomarxy, sensitivity training social claptrap. I was informed that I was to become a life member with no more annual dues (I’m 80 and still actively working). This was taken up by a young engineer who charged that this was age discrimination! I countered that no one was being barred from getting older and serving honorably so there was no discrimination. Nevertheless they wrote me and said their (moronic) legal counsel advised withdrawing the honor.
.
Wow Allan,
What a story is that! Real science flushed into the drain…
I agree Ferdinand, and nice to hear from you. Hope you are well.
I have NO opinion on the validity of this paper – it is outside my areas of expertise.
I object to the execrable conduct of the miscreants involved in killing this paper and burying it – these people have identified themselves as scoundrels – human slime – and their covert misconduct has been properly exposed by the author for all to see – these academic scum have disgraced themselves for all time.
I do observe that gender studies has become a minefield of politically correct hysteria and hostility, not unlike climate science, where the tendency is to shout down one’s opponent rather than talking with hem (Hem is my new gender-correct word, combining Him and Her – the singular version of Them – let’s see if it catches on in PC-NewSpeak 🙂 ).
EUV range has traditionally been defined as 124 nm to 10 nm.
How can a change of the percentage of CO2 of all the GHG, when accounting for the effectiveness of each, that is less than the percentage change of TSI caused by some other factors, like a change of UV, or a combination of factors such as UV and radio wave energy, have greater effect on global temperature than this larger change?
As I have commented before, the energy from UV through IR is a very, very, small part of the Total spectrum of energy emitted by the Sun when considering the energy emitted from Gamma rays through the longest radio waves. The typical display is shown logarithmically which distorts the width of the spectrum. My 5th-grade teacher told me that a very small number multiplied by a massively large number is a big number. I can tune my Ham radio to any signal at random and receive a signal greater than 2 or 3 microvolts with an un-tuned length of wire less than ten feet long. There are multi-millions of radio frequencies. The energy is hitting the Earth and doing something. The Sun’s EME spectrum is greater than a power of twenty in width. Visible light and near IR are less than 1/100th of that and CO2 affects only a small portion of that, and that is further blocked by H2O. There is a chart of the EME spectrum that is not displayed using a power of ten compression on the internet. This chart is huge.
Then there are the other effects of the Sun heating the earth – Like Gravity effects. Where are these in the AGW studies? And the gravity heating from other planets.
FTA: From peak to trough over the sunspot cycle, the top-of-atmosphere total solar irradiance varies by about 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m2) … which, when averaged over the entire surface of the earth gives a change of about 0.28 W/m2. This is less than a tenth of one percent variation in total incoming energy.
That’s not how it works. It’s the area of the curve over a characteristic time span that matters. The impact is smoothed by processes operating with characteristic time constants, and with something as immense as the Earth, those time constants can be very long, indeed.
For example, here is the SSN data smoothed by a 1st order lag filter with a 100 year time constant. In the latter half of the 20th century, it peaked at a 90/80 ratio compared to the previous peak in the mid-to-late 19th century.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
Sorry, Bartemis, but that is using the deprecated version of sunspots. You can get the modern versions from SILSO below.
w.
dailyspots http://sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_d_tot_V2.0.txt
monthlyspots http://sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt
yearlyspots http://sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
groupspots http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/GroupNumber/GNbb2_y.txt
Willis wrote:
Sorry, Bartemis, but that is using the deprecated version of sunspots. You can get the modern versions from SILSO below.””
Does it make much difference? Is it material?
Is not the new version of sunspots just the opinion of a few (generally respected) scientists?
Yes, it makes a lot of difference. Yes it is material. No, it’s not just the opinion of a few scientists.
w.
How about instead of plugging your ears and chanting “nah, nah, nah”, you actually take the data, whichever one strikes your fancy, put it through a long term lag filter, and verify for yourself the increase in solar forcing that occurs in the latter 20th century?
Bartemis, how about you do it rather than demanding that others do your work for you?
I ask in part because I don’t know what it is you are calling a “long term lag filter” …
w.
Aw, what the heck. If I wait for Bartemis it may be a long wait. I took what I would use as a long term lag filter and applied it to the modern annual sunspot record. Here are the results …
I’m sorry, Bartemis, but I’m not seeing the “increase in solar forcing” that you claim “occurs in the latter 20th century”.
Here is the code I used to create the graphs …
# set up variables. "tsyearlyspots" is the yearly sunspot data tau=36 lambda=1 alpha=exp(-1/tau);alpha newdata=ts(rep(0,length(tsyearlyspots)), start=start(tsyearlyspots), frequency = 1) # create empty time series # step through lagging for (i in 3:length(tsyearlyspots)){ newdata[i]=newdata[i-1] + (tsyearlyspots[i]-tsyearlyspots[i-1])* (1-alpha)*lambda + (newdata[i-1]-newdata[i-2])*alpha } plot(newdata,ylab="Sunspots",xlab="Year",type="n") # set up plot blackline(newdata,frontcol = "red") # plot lagged spots title(main=paste0("Lagged Annual Sunspots", "\ntau = ",tau," years"), cex.main=.9,line=.8) # add titlePlease don’t bother telling me this is wrong unless you are willing to point out in the code exactly where you think I went off the rails …
w.
Why did you stop at 16 when I clearly went to 100?
I went through all this with Leif on a previous board. I redid the filtering with every data set he suggested. They all come out pretty much the same.
The bottom line is the peaks are essentially meaningless. What matters is the area under the curve.
Hi Bart – Your statement is what I recall, but my recollection is far from perfect.
Can you kindly reference the previous subject url?
I wish I could, Allan. I searched for it, but cannot remember the specific thread, and could not find it.
Willis,
Also congratulations on the fine title.
My interactions with UV principally involve sun tanning and sun burning. I have had second-degree burns on my shoulders, arms, and forehead, but luckily no third-degree burns, which I understand are possible. Also, sun burns raise my temperature about a degree F. Naively then, I find it hard to believe that an increase in UV at the surface, day after day for long periods, can produce no warming. On the other hand, with 3/4 of the Earth surface covered in water, and with UV penetrating deeply (warming a large mass of water slightly), there might be nothing more than a slight increase in water vapor, LWIR absorption, cloud cover, and speed of hydrological cycle. I doubt that the effects of an increase in UV can be accurately modeled.
This, of course, is incidental to your nice article.
Concerning UV exposure raising your body temperature – Surely, you realize your body raises its temperature in response to UV damage, by increasing its metabolic rate, in order to hasten its healing? The extra heating does not come from received UV, but from the food you eat.
SR
Steve Reddish: Surely, you realize your body raises its temperature in response to UV damage, by increasing its metabolic rate, in order to hasten its healing?
Oh yes. It is a most indirect effect of the energy transfer into the tissues. Possibly the fever is monotonically related to the damage, hence to the absorption: either intensity of the fever, its duration, or the intensity times the duration, or some other attribute of fevers.
On the other hand, a very small increase in UV reaching the oceans, over a long time period, should result in a small warming of the oceans, and thus a noticeable warming of the atmosphere.
No doubt, but the temperature change may be extremely small, given the total mass of water to be warmed.
On the other hand, a very small increase in UV reaching the oceans, over a long time period, should result in a small warming of the oceans, and thus a noticeable warming of the atmosphere.
Sunlight drives ocean, ocean drives atmosphere. Also note sunlight drives land surface, land surface drives atmosphere.
SR
I too am intrigued by the idea that the changes in solar UV fluxes has effects on atmospheric ozone and thus on weather systems, and why it asn’t been further developed. After all, this is the point of having complex climate models. Much of it sounds entirely plausible, but Willis is correct to always ask “where is the evidence”.
But that also puts him closer to the Steve Mosher attitude of “Ha Ha. I’ve got the funding and the (useless) models to argue my case, whereas you have no model and no funding. So I win.”
Michael,
A lot of work has been done on the effects of ozone on weather and climate, but not enough. It has been relatively ignored, as not fitting the ruling paradigm that CO2 is the control knob on climate, such that little else matters much.
From 2004:
http://theozonehole.com/climate.htm
Mee Too! Anything humans can’t control is ignored by the modelers as incapable of generating large flows of money for their benefit. And since humans can’t even control the weather, we have here a phenomenal emptiness into which we are made to cast our tithes.
Sunspot activity – UV – equatorial elctrojet- tropical storms distribution – equatorial weather patterns change -meridional polar jet excursions – climate change
Dotted white lines mark regions where rising tides of hot air indirectly create the bright, dense zones in the bands, the bright plasma pairs are areas with lots of thunderstorm activity, in this case were located over Africa, Indonesia and costal region of South America.
p.s.
EQUATORIAL ELECTROJET
This region creates the plasma bands above it when high-altitude winds of subtropical jet stream blow plasma across the Earth’s magnetic field -NASA.
Willis
Agree on the eUV magnitudes. For published explicit eUV data see:
Beckmann, M., Václavík, T., Manceur, A.M., Šprtová, L., von Wehrden, H., Welk, E. and Cord, A.F., 2014. gl UV: a global UV‐B radiation data set for macroecological studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(4), pp.372-383.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/2041-210X.12168
39 citations
For the official UNEP statement on ozone changing climate see:
DOI: 10.1039/C6PP90004F (Perspective) Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2016, 15, 141-174
Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: progress report, 2015
United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel†
Received 6th January 2016 , Accepted 6th January 2016 First published on 28th January 2016
3.10 Ozone depletion is changing the global climate (wind patterns, temperature, and precipitation) across the globe with consequences for agriculture, ecosystems, and human health
“These ozone-related changes are manifested at the Earth’s surface in the Southern Hemisphere during summer (December–February) and in the Northern Hemisphere in spring (April–May),29,31,177,189,225–229 with widespread implications for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, human health and food security, some of which are detailed below.”
“4 Aquatic ecosystems: the effects of solar UV radiation and interactions with climate change”
“5 Biogeochemical cycles: the effects of solar UV radiation and interactions with climate change” etc.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/pp/c6pp90004f
Now which is the cause and which the effect? To what probability? And how can it be tested?
I have read many of your posts where you argue that something is too little and could have no effect. But sometimes little things have huge effects we would not expect.
For example .3 ppm of copper in my 30,000 gallon swimming pool absolutely keeps the pool pristine. .3 ppm of copper kills all the bacteria and algae.
And trace minerals are necessary for life, copper being one of the ones necessary to sustain human life. And too much copper is just as deadly for humans as it is for bacteria and algae.
So I always take your “too little” arguments with a grain of copper.
davidgmills: For example .3 ppm of copper in my 30,000 gallon swimming pool absolutely keeps the pool pristine. .3 ppm of copper kills all the bacteria and algae.
The point of the post is not that increased UV will have no effect, but that will most likely have no measurable effect on the global mean temperature. As with my sun burn anecdote, doubling UV might significantly increase my sun burn risk without having a measurable effect on the temperatures of the beach sand and ocean surface.
I read a conjecture once that the increased UV (from chlorofluorcarbon pollution) would increase the rate of genetic defects of near-surface dwelling krill. Maybe, but that isn’t going to show up in changes in the ocean temperatures.
It is really amazing, that the guys supporting climate effect due to Sun’s variation still do not get it, that that is a dead end, or a silly dud at this point in time to consider.
It is so amazing to see that there is no difference when it comes to the Sun’s effect in climate, according to their approach, whether it is addressed due to a variation or no variation at all.
In the end is the same premise, about the Sun’s effect in climate, whether variation or no variation at all considered. Same. Null climatic effect whatsoever.
And still no difference actually whether there is a Sun’s variation or not there….same silly thing.
Same outcome whether variation or not.
The negative part of variation does not negate the positive part of variation….more to it, even it hypothetically claimed as the negative part negating the positive part of the variation, then the effect is completely irrelevant to climate….the power of that signal will be even below of the Enso signal strength….really insignificant.
Oh well keep going that way, if you pleased with it…still sillier than the premise of AGW hypothesis.
cheers
Whiten tell us what has caused all of the climatic variations?
Salvatore.
My above comment that you replying to, clearly states my position in what has not, and can not be considered as a cause of climate, or the climatic variation.
At least you being too kind not using climate change as a term. 🙂
It is irrelevant while I care to tell you or not what has or what causes climate variation.
Unless at least you actually at some point ready to accept that the Sun or its variation is not it… clearly and with no doubt at all.
As otherwise in any case I will be wasting my time and your’s too for nothing.
cheers
fine
Sorry but your post is not at all clear to me.
You simply keep repeating there is no difference – the only claim I can see is your statement that “The negative part of variation does not negate the positive part of variation” which by your logic would say there IS a difference.
MarkMcD
“The negative part of variation does not negate the positive part of variation” which by your logic would say there IS a difference.
——–
Yes Mark that is the idea.
If you think carefully, there being a difference due to the positive part
not negated by the negative part, it means that there will be no difference whether there is or not a variation there to consider.
Still the Sun’s effect will be positive in a cumulative mode.
In both cases there will be a Sun’s effect in climate over time…regardless of the variation…if considering that the Sun effects climate.
Some how I think you still will not understand the point made.
Also the power of El Nino-La Nina pump will really reduce the difference of power of the variation versus no variation of the Sun, so over time both more or less will have the same effect in climate.
cheers
The only problem is ENSO is connected to the sun solar activity. The sun drives the climate.
Hello again Salvatore.
If you read this reply of mine and care to engage with it, please let me propose that we do try to fairly engage.
First let me say that according to my position regarding your overall position, at some point I ended up to think and consider you as the “guy who gets it”.
Maybe me simply ending there, at such a point, in that conclusion, due to an assumption….
But what I am trying a say here is that, I thought and maybe simply assumed that you got the point…. that the TSI potential of the Sun, whether considered as per it’s base value or as per the variation value in top of it, still fails, according to the data, as there is no any “hot spot” to support it…in the data.
Technically and otherwise the lack of the “hot spot” debunks and falsifies the Sun’s effect in climate due to the TSI.
So please tell me if my thinking on that regard is simply an assumption, and a wrong one, when it comes in addressing your latest position in that case.
It will be interesting for me to engage further with you in this aspect…but only if you clarify.
Saying that Sun is connected with Earths functioning and mechanisms, does not much help by default, when attempted to be used as a default base used to propagate that the Sun drives climate….To cheap of an approach.
Please give it a thought.
cheers
You are right on Mark.
Wouldn’t the dramatic change in solar wind during the solar cycle have a greater impact for affecting temperature change than a small delta in solar irradiance — at least in the upper atmosphere? Disclaimer: I am not an expert in this field, nor do I pretend to be.
The article should mention the different intensity. A small quantity UV will burn your skin in minutes whereas IR or visible is fine all day long.
Macha,
That’s why blogs have comments sections. Many have pointed out in comments that UV is ionizing radiation, unlike visible and IR light.
This makes UV qualitatively different from the rest of the solar spectrum (except the minor X- and gamma-rays). So that it doesn’t matter how small a portion of TSI UV might be. What matters is that it can make and break ozone, among other physical and chemical effects.
Plus, it also does contribute to warming the oceans, in this case with visible and IR light. And it’s a “greenhouse gas”. So UV and its O3 product affect climate in a whole range of ways.
Many have pointed out in comments that UV is ionizing radiation, unlike visible and IR light.
Only true for UV below 124nm, i.e. EUV.
Phil,
It doesn’t matter what you consider the threshold. The salient fact is that some portion of the UV spectrum is qualitatively different from other bands.
But I must beg to differ, since wavelengths about double your cited value still make and break ozone, which is produced, as you must know, by splitting O2 and ionizing its atoms, so that they might form O3.
And the UV of longer, non-ionizing wavelengths affects climate through various pathways, such as warming the upper ocean.
It doesn’t matter what you consider the threshold. The salient fact is that some portion of the UV spectrum is qualitatively different from other bands.
It’e the US Federal Communications Commission’s definition not mine.
But I must beg to differ, since wavelengths about double your cited value still make and break ozone, which is produced, as you must know, by splitting O2 and ionizing its atoms, so that they might form O3.
Yes I do know how ozone is produced, it’s via dissociation, not ionization!
Phil,
A distinction without a difference. High energy UV is ionizing. It also, at somewhat lower energy, is still able to make ozone.
Splitting an O2 molecule produces oxygen ions, which are then free to form O3.
The fact is that high energy UV makes ozone, by whatever process. That’s what matters.
The share of TSI, or the precise chemical or physical process doesn’t matter. What is important is that high energy UV does what lower energy EM radiation from the sun can’t.
This should be obvious.
High energy UV is ionizing. It also, at somewhat lower energy, is still able to make ozone.
Splitting an O2 molecule produces oxygen ions, which are then free to form O3.
No it doesn’t, the production of ozone is by oxygen atoms not ions, which require less energy.
The fact is that high energy UV makes ozone, by whatever process. That’s what matters.
EUV, which is the subject of this post, does not produce ozone, it produces oxygen ions which is why it’s termed ionizing radiation.
What is obvious is that you don’t understand the photochemistry involved.
Phil – why are you arguing that UV has no impact on ozone? At least, that appears to be what you are arguing.
Do try to keep up Bart, it’s EUV.
Phil,
I do understand that the oxygen ions recombine to form ozone, so you’re quibbling about a distinction without a difference.
That’s your problem, you don’t understand the chemistry. Oxygen ions do not recombine to form ozone!
I’ve always doubted the TSI cause – from the start it’s been clear that while TSI provides a better match to the record than CO2 changes, it’s nowhere near good enough to explain what goes on.
What MIGHT be good enough is that TSI is only one indicator of solar activity. The dual magnetic fluxes that drive the cycle strength in the Sun are a MUCH better match for our climate changes.
Zharkova et al have out several papers on the ‘heartbeat’ of the Sun and they’ve pushed the match back 3 millennia.
And now we appear to have a triple whammy coming our way. The Sun is going to sleep for several decades just as the Earth’s mag field is dropping precipitously AND the solar system is moving into a nice clear patch between interstellar fluff and the lo9cal supernova cloud.
GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) counts are at an all-time high and seem to be heading higher so if we add in Svensmark’s and CERN’s CLOUD experiments it would seem we are in for an extended cold spell, at least as deep as the LIA. (Little Ice Age)
GCRs up 18% since Dec 2014.
See
http://spaceweather.com/images2018/30jul18/stratosphere_california_strip.png