Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

The sun's energy has decreased since the 1980s but the Earth keeps warming faster than before.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

TSI vs. T
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

 

The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C. Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.

Contribution to T, AR5 FigFAQ5.1

Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a) Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.

 

Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

Last updated on 2 April 2017 by Sarah. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further viewing

Related video from Peter Sinclair's "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" series:

Comments

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Comments 1151 to 1200 out of 1265:

  1. Just a small extension to MA Rodger's analysis of Dan Pangburn's 'model' @1149.  What I did was obtain the sunspot numbers and annual average TSI figures from SORCE for the years 1979-2013 (ie, the satellite record).  I calculated the equilibrium temperature response for each sunspot number as:

    T(eq) = 286.2*(S(i)/34)^0.25

    At that value, S(i) = 34 * (T(i)/286.2)^4, and hence S(i) - 34 * (T(i)/286.2)^4  = 0, ie, there is no temperature change using Pangburn's model.

    Using the equilibrium temperature for the sunspot number of a given year, and the forcing (=0.7*TSI/4) for each year from SORCE, I calculated the linear trend of temperature relative to forcing, a value which give the ECS.  It turns out to be 1447 +/- 194 K/Wm-2.

    This differs from MA Rodger's estimate because, his upper bound on the forcing massively overestimates the forcing differential.  In particular, in 1987 the sunspot number was 33.9, with an insolation of 238.19 W/m^2, a value that differs by only 0.015 W/m^2 from the average over the period.  Ergo Rodger's overestimated the forcing differential by a factor of 66.67.

  2. qikplay @1152.

    You may feel trawling SkS to identify posts to criticise is helpful but do pause a while. The BBC 'myth' addressed in the post here dates to 2004 and was written by David Whitehouse, a man suffering deep denial on AGW. Indeed, he has since been recruited by the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy). Whitehouse reports the work of Solanki which have been lost and forgotten by all but AGW deniers. And that is because the evidence, the data and graphs, demonstrates Solanki is plain wrong. You appear to reject the use of "competing graphs and data" as a way examining the unsupported fantasy of the likes of Solanki. How then would you suggest we examine his wild claims?

  3. The fundamental problem with this analysis lies in the measurements used. The author begins with a paleo record (Wang 2005), which provides an estimate of TSI based on theororetical reconstructions and concludes his argument with direct instrument measures of TSI using advanced orbital measures obtained over the period between 1978 and 2010.

    The paleo record clearly shows an upward trend in TSI. To counter the obvious conclusion reached from these measures, the author changes his reference to satellite observations, which show a locally declining trend. This is, without doubt, a choice biased by the author's ideology and his intention to refute a rising TSI either exists or is a significant factor in rising global temperature.

    In general, use of measures for either solar output (TSI) or surface temperature taken before the broad use of the telegraph should be discarded; these measures were taken by hand using uncalibrated instruments and communicated by horse drawn carriage and sailing ship. The are not accurate or precise to the levels claimed by the models based on them, which are defined in fractions of a Watt and degree Centigrade. It's frankly absurd to use these data. Reconstructions (Wang et. al.) are even more difficult to accept; the error of estimate exeeds the observed variation in the measured value.

    This is the root of the problem climateologists face when building models or presenting the results of them; they lack sufficient data. Climate change is a slow process that is detectable in very small changes. To be useful, measurements used must come from calibrated instruments with the accuracy and precision needed to build models capable of making predictions with error bars signigicantly smaller than +/- 1 degree centigrade. It is statistically impossible to use data such as those presented in this article to achieve that goal.

    Impossible. This is not an ideologically based argument; it is mathematical. The problem Climate Science faces isn't theoretical, it's based on measurement. Measurements with the necessary precision and accuracy simply are not available over the necessary time frame. There is no way to correct this problem.

  4. And it could be useful for hte author to explain why the data reductions presented (the models) were based on multiple liner regression? By all accounts (and I do mean all) thermodynamic systems have the signature characteristic ov being non-linear.

  5. Pfc Parts @1153:

    1)

    "The paleo record clearly shows an upward trend in TSI. To counter the obvious conclusion reached from these measures, the author changes his reference to satellite observations, which show a locally declining trend. This is, without doubt, a choice biased by the author's ideology and his intention to refute a rising TSI either exists or is a significant factor in rising global temperature."

    This is transparently false.  The sunspot number shows the same decline since 1979 (ie, since the commencement of satellite observations) as is to be found in the PMOD TSI index.

    2)

    "In general, use of measures for either solar output (TSI) or surface temperature taken before the broad use of the telegraph should be discarded; these measures were taken by hand using uncalibrated instruments and communicated by horse drawn carriage and sailing ship. The are not accurate or precise to the levels claimed by the models based on them, which are defined in fractions of a Watt and degree Centigrade. It's frankly absurd to use these data. Reconstructions (Wang et. al.) are even more difficult to accept; the error of estimate exeeds the observed variation in the measured value."

    Uncertainty of the mean of n independent variables equals the uncertainty of the measurement divided by the square root of the number of measurements.  Therefore if we have a number of observations with an uncertainty of 2 then we have uncertainties of (with number observations followed by uncertainty:

    2 0.71
    5 0.45
    10 0.32
    20 0.22
    100 0.10
    200 0.07
    1000 0.03
    2000 0.02
    10000 0.01

    As can be seen, uncertainty decreases rapidly with multiple measurements.  Ergo, the uncertainty in such things as global means surface temperature due to even quite large instrument errors is small.  Uncertainty due to coverage biases are a different matter but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of instruments or the means of communicating results.

    Clearly your mathematical argument does not hold water (which is itself no surprise as the scientists doing the reconstructions are themselve competent mathematicians).

    @1154, the linear regressions in question are not thermodynamic equations.  Ergo your "point" is a simple non sequitur.  

  6. Adding to the response to biocab at 03:45 AM on 13 September, 2007:

    In addition to the amplifying effect of water are three other very significant factors that keep water from swamping CO(2):

    1) The total water on the planet doesn't increase or decrease. Earth is an essentially closed system in terms of water, so this is why all water can do to increase warming is amplify some other factor that is changing. This is both logically trivial and utterly inescapable in big picture. The most severe amplification comes from increased ocean temperatures initially decreasing the solubility of CO(2) in the oceans to reduce their CO(2) sequestration, eventually followed by release of previously absorbed CO(2) in ocean water to increase atmoshperic CO(2) and accelerate the process past a tipping point of no return.

    2) Only water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Hardly any exists above 10 km altitude. CO(2) continues at 400 ppm all the way up to over 80 km. There is enough CO(2) above 10 km to be practically opaque to infrared at CO(2) spectral wavelenths. All but the 15 micron wavelength overlaps the spectral emissions of water vapor, absorbing and re-emitting them omnidirectionally, which includes back to earth, of course. The 15 micron wavelength comes from both the earth's surface, but more importantly, also from kinetic collisions that convert thermal energy in both non-greenhouse and greenhouse gases to radiant energy (IR) at all CO(2) and other greenhouse gas emissive wavelengths.

    3) This conversion of thermal energy in both greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases to radiant IR via kinetic excitation of CO(2) and other greenhouse gases is efficient, since the average lifetime of an excited CO(2) molecule (up to a few milliseconds) is much longer than the average time between collisions with non-greenhouse gases (~1 microsecond). The kinetic excitation of a greenhouse molecule is a field excitation phenomenon. The significant practical extent of the electric field of a greenhouse gas molecule is typically hundreds of times the size of the colliding non-greenhouse gas particles, so the easy target adds to the conversion efficiency.

    Therefore most of the energy radiated out into the perfect thermal insulator, space, from the upper atmosphere (just above the troposphere around 10 km and up) is radiated by CO(2) (~68%, with ~16% directly from the surface, and ~13% from water vapor, wth the small remainder by other greenhouse gases). This clearly implies that the upper atmosphere radiates just as much back down, making CO(2) the major factor returning radiant heat to earth from the upper atmosphere. Much of this reaches the atmosphere near the surface mediated by water vapor via the spectral signature in common with CO(2) and the earth's surface itself by conversion to thermal heat upon striking it.

    We can clearly deduce from the inevitably of omnidirectional radiation from CO(2) in the upper atmosphere that what goes out into space represents an equal amount going back toward earth. It's mediation by the other factors just referred to makes its very substantial contribution less obvious at the surface.

  7. I find this article intresting since it pre-dates post NASA's prediction in May of 2006 that the sun was about to go into a state of lower solar sunspot activity.

    Now just in July at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, Professor Valentina Zharkova presented an argument that due to the sinusodal period of the dynomo effects within two layers of the sun thgat have been quited accurately observed and predicted, will essentially cancel oneanother out by 2030 placing the sun in a lower state of inactivity than present and could very well spell another "mini ice age" Maunder Minimum event.   We shall soon see.

    Response:

    [TD] There are many things wrong with that news story about Zharkova you are relying on. Read the relevant SkS post and comment there, please.

  8. Climate change advocates have a tendancy to casually disregard the sun as an influence. This may be unreasonable given that the importance of the sun in virtually all of earth's natural processes *should* make it first port of call when trying to explain phenomena.

    However, sceptics do not need to provide a solar explanation for global warming. They only need to state that one could exist. Advocates of human climate change may then either rule the sun out completely out or provide support for their preferred explanation (human CO2) by independent means. The latter is obviously off-topic for the current article.

    The explaination given by scepticalscience.com does not rule out solar influences. All it does is cite one rather simplistic hypothetical mechanism for solar influence and then dismiss *that*. This could be called a straw man argument. It indicates a preference for putting words in the mouths of sceptics and then debunking *those* rather than listening to what sceptics are really saying.

    Do sceptics have a convincing mechanism for a solar explaination? Well, there are some *feasable* ones, but nothing really solid.

    So the status on this question is as follows: we can't say it *is* the sun and we can't say it *isn't*, either. Climate alarmists must *thouroughly* rule out the sun as a cause before making any argument along the lines of "warming must have the cause we say it does because there are no other viable causes".

  9. A.R.S.Says @ #1158 :

    Clearly you haven't read the educational material in this section.

    Please do so . . . and then you will see that your expressed ideas are completely without foundation.

    (btw, I must commend your sense of humour in choice of your nom-de-plume ~ the abbreviation is priceless.)

    Response:

    [JH] Inflamatory & off-topic. 

  10. Anyone who thinks the 'jury is still out' on whether cosmic rays can cause clouds hasnt seen a cloud chamber in aciton.

  11. matt sykes @1160, the actual quote from the advanced version of the OP is:

    "Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris et al. (2007) found

    "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record."

    So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover."

    (My emphasis)

    Your version is a rather blatant misrepresentation of the text.

    Despite that, I will bite.  Dana elsewhere says:

    "In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:
    1) Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
    2) The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
    3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
    1. Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
    2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
    3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
    4) Cloud cover on Earth must be declining"
    (My emphasis)

    The alternative to their growing "...sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)" is that they simply evaporate away to quickly due to their small volume and large surface area.  So, here is a cloud chamber in action:

     So, do the rapidly forming tracks then gradual dissipation indicate that the liquid droplets are growing through condensation, or just fading away?  How does just seeing this clould chamber in action make it obvious that they are growing through condensation rather than dissipating?

    And that, of course, is in a supersaturated solution - not normal atmospheric conditions.  So, yes, I think the jury is still out on whether or not cosmic rays can lead to the formation of clouds - and looking at cloud chambers does not resolve the issue.  Certainly, at least, if you actually look rather than bringing your prejudice to the table.

  12. limited selection set obfuscation and dulicity, it is UV class C radiation that is melting the ice, anyone can take a simple UV measurement and substantiate this reality. Why did UV class C suddenly start reaching the surface? the earths  high altitude ozone layer is dissolved by CFC and HFC contamination  only by oil refining unrestricted pollution since 1980 when the EPA was destroyed by reagan appointee james watt. So the only country with real air standards was compromised.

    Response:

    [PS] Welcome to Skeptical science. Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.

    Firstly, you appear to be offtopic. I think this would be better under  "its ozone". Use the search button in top left to find appropriate topics. Secondly, note the requirement to back claims. In particular, the claim that UV_C is melting ice caps is contrary to published science. The association of CFCs and HFC with oil refining is also unknown to me.

  13. For 220 ppmv man-made CO2 in Earth atmosphere, how much real energy does that amount of CO2 absorb from the Sun, or from 15 micro-meter wavelength IR radiated back from the Earth?  Doesn't 15 micro-meter IR radiation (that CO2 "strongly absorbs") correspond to a surface radiating at -80 deg.C? (Wein's radiation temp.equation).  That would be very, very low energy radiation absorbed by CO2.

    Response:

    [RH] Before just deleting this comment outright for being off-topic, how about we give you the opportunity to explain why you think this applies to the article you're commenting on? Which is: 
    "Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions."

    [PS] And perhaps have poster review their mathematics and understanding how the RTE works - a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial corresponds to 1.1C increase in surface temp before any feedbacks.

  14. cdbenny @1163, your question of topic on this thread, so I have answered it in a more appropriate thread.

  15. Why off-topic?  Doesn't CO2 absorb radiation originating from the sun?  Re-radiated from earth?  What wave-lengths does CO2 absorb?  A number of analyses state "CO2 strongly absorbs IR radiation at 15 micro-meter wavelenght."  Review math? do you not know Wein's eqn.: deg.K = 2897/15micro-meter wavelenth = 193deg.K, or neg.80deg.C.  (The sun radiates avg.abt 0.5micro-meter, so sun surface avg.abt 2897/0.5 = 5,800deg.K).  If CO2 absorbs 15 micro-meter radiation, that is very low energy; where is the energy analysis on CO2 absorbing IR radiation?

    Curtis @1164 :where is the 'approp thread' you answered 1163?

    Response:

    [PS] Try clicking on the link Tom provided and please read an article before deciding to comment on it. You might want to check your understanding of Wein's law in a text book.

  16. cdbenny @1165, the OP of this thread is about the myth that recent global warming has been primarilly due to increased solar radiation.  Your comments have no bearing on that topic.  Even the fig leaf that solar radiation is also absorbed by CO2 is shown to be irrelevant in that the intensity of solar radiation in the relevant portions of the spectrum are only 1.4% of the intensity of upward IR radiation from the surface at those same wave lengths.

    The final phrase of my preceding post was hyperlinked to the appropriate thread.  The link in plain text is

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=109&&n=1210#116071

    I will not address again your silly misunderstanding of Wein's Law.

  17. New user here. Just found this link being offered up by a denier running a blog called notrickszone.

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/16/impossible-to-ignore-in-2015-alone-massive-250-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-cast-doubt-on-climate-science/

    It purports to tout 250 studies from 2015 that deny AGW. Having reviewed these lists from deniers before, I'm uh, skeptical, that many of the studies say what is claimed of them.

  18. RockfordFile

    I just skimmed the first 20 or so papers. Most seemed to be straight science on details of climate. A focus on sun climate links at regional scales, high atlantic/arctic/greenland patterns, solar impacts on the stratosphere, projections of past and future solar activity etc. or simply exploring things like variability of the Indian Monsoon. Nothing challenging the basics of CO2's role, just exploring subordinate mechanisms.

    Except for 3 red flags:


    • The Soon and Connelly's paper,



    • One from Adelaide University :-( concluding "This heating then explains why the earth’s temperature record so closely tracks solar flare counts. Fundamentally then it is implied that the Earth’s climate is controlled by a non-conservation of energy process." - WTF!

    • A withdrawn paper. Claiming that Surface Air Temperatures for rocky planets can be predicted from just Top of Atmosphere Insolation and surface air pressure.


    So broadly, standard detailed, regional mechanism, climate research. Not extraordinary or paradigm changing. Just the obvious that not all the details of the science is settled. Which of course it isn't.

    Again a giant version of the 'the science is settled' strawman argument.

    But too detailed to try and rebut in depth.

    Response:

    Welcome to SkS.

    If you are interested in discussing this further the 'the science isn't settled' thread is the appropriate location. Others will follow you there.
    [GT]

  19. Can someone point to a rebuttal of Soon, Connolly & Conolly?

    http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

    They claim It's the Sun.

  20. sailingfree @1169, a brief read of Soon, Connolly and Connolly (SC&C)shows it to be a smorgasborg of cherry picks.  They start by cherry picking the ACRIM reconstruction of Satellite measurements of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in preference to the PMOD reconstruction, or the IRMB reconstruction.  They do this despite the fact that, by their own admission that comparisons of the reconstructions to ground based data were "were slightly
    better for PMOD".  They then cherry pick one of eight reconstructions of TSI since 1850, choosing one with the highest variability in TSI.  From what I know of the issues, neither choice is justified, but I will leave that to be argued by others.

    Moving on, they procede to cherry pick their own NH temperatures series using just rural stations from China, the United States, Ireland and the Arctic Circle.  Last time I looked, there were more locations than that in the NH.  Their resulting reconstruction is significantly different from that using the GHCN (essentially the NOAA temperature reconstruction).  That is odd because Caerbannog has repeatedly shown using randomly selected rural stations chosen to maximize territorial coverage that just a few tens of stations essentially reproduces the standard records:

     

    More troubling than the difference is the cherry pick of a NH only temperature reconstruction.  The NH temperature record is considerably more variable than that of the SH:

    Presumably global forcings will have global effect, so that effects seen primarilly in one hemisphere only cannot be attributed to global forcings.  The choice of a NH temperature series (strictly a 3 nation plus Arctic series) invalidates the study without further analysis.

    Proceding further on, SC&C test the correlation between their cherry picked reconstruction of TSI and their cherry picked reconstruction of NH temperatures.  They then assume that CO2 forcing only accounts for the residual of TSI based temperature reconstruction.  This pair wise comparison proceedure is not a valid statistical technique for testing the correlation of multiple factors.  If it were valid, it would generate the same linear dependence between CO2 and temperature regardless of whether you tested CO2 against temperature and TSI against residuals, or the reverse.  As it happens SC&C do test both and show that they do not generate the same factor.  They claim this demonstrates they should use the solar first priority, whereas it actually disproves the validity of their technique.

    Finally, SC&C find a variation in temperature relative to changes of TSI of 0.2112 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 28 a).  Adjusting for albedo and the fact that the Earth is spherical, that becomes 1.207 C/ (W/m^2) of solar forcing.  For an equivalent forcing to the doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of 4.465 C.  In contrast, for CO2 they find a change in temperature relative to change in forcing of -0.1039 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 29 b).  For a doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of -0.384 C.  

    The TCR of CO2 differs from their stated estimate, which was calculated based on CO2 concentration (Figure 29 a) rather than radiative forcing.  We can default to their stated TCR value of 0.44 C for CO2.  That leaves unexplained why their trend line for CO2 and for CO2 radiative forcing have opposite signs.  It also leaves unexplained why they repeatedly mistate the TCR as being the "climate sensitivity".  The most fundamental problem however is, why is the temperature response to changes in solar radiative forcing 10 times greater than that due to CO2 radiative forcing in their model?  That is an extraordinary result that requires extraordinary explanation.  The default assumption must be that reponse to radiative forcing is approximately the same across all forcings.

    To summarize, even if we ignore their multiple cherry picks - the use of a NH only temperature series; and of singular sequential linear regression rather than multiple regression means the paper is scientific garbage.  Unsurprisingly, it produces a garbage result (temperature responce to solar forcing ten times that due to CO2 forcing).

  21. Tom Curtis @1170,

    Your characterisation of Soon et al (2015) as "a smorgasborg of cherry picks" is well founded. One "cherry pick" you could add to the charge-sheet is that Soon et al (2015) fail to address the implications of the Hoyt & Schatten TSI data prior to 1880. Their Figure 8 does plot out the various TSI reconstructions back to 1800 which, if the Hoyt & Schatten (1993) data is accepted as a proxy for NH temperature as Soon et al propose, implies the 1830s NH temperatures would have to be warmer than the 1960s. And if that is a tricky proposition to defend, it must be remembered that the H&S resconstruction is 1700-1992 (see IPCC graph here). The implication of the Soon et al (2015) proposition thus also encompasses the implication that the 1770s were as warm as the 1940s and also as warm as the early 1990s. I think even the bogus methods of Soon, Connolly & Connolly would struggle with defending such a warm 1770s.

  22. There is no way that the satellite instruments measuring TSI are stable enough to make any claims one way or another about its change since they have been flown (1978 to present).  So the belief that TSI has been stable or even gone down based on these measurements is a myth.

    Stability requirement:  As is understood, a change on the order of 0.1% in TSI could yield the observed average warming.  So in order to use these instruments to successfully state that this is not happening, they would need to be stable by <0.01% !!!.  This is this stability requirement stated by the instrument engineers and scientists themselves (see for instance the Wikipedia "Solar irradiance" article, and then click on links to articles written by the instrument engineers/scientists).  Mind you, this requirement needs to be satisfied over the entire series of instruments flown since 1978, with the change in TSI "passed through" several of these instruments to the present, using each instrument in the "daisy chain" to calibrate the next one.

    Community stability assessment:  In the community of engineers and scientists that actually build and fly these instruments, there is a high degree of skepticism that they are stable to the 0.01% requirement (or even anywhere close to this).  Just Google the subject of satellite TSI instruments, or fan out from the Wikipedia "Solar irradiance" article, for yourself.

    My background:  I was an optical instrument engineer for my entire career, with a lot of that time working as a contractor for NASA GSFC (such as working to fix the Hubble telescope).  I designed, built, and calibrated flying instruments, as well as the instruments used to test same.  A considerable amount of my time was spent dealing with issues affecting the long term performance of optical instruments, including radiometric stability.  With this experience, I was constantly called upon by NASA to evaluate the instruments built by others.  If NASA had used GSFC to fly these instruments, as it "should" have done since it is GSFC's pervue to fly any unmanned bird within the bounds of lunar orbit, there was a fair likilyhood that the long term stability assessment of these instruments would have ended up on my desk.

    My stability assessment:  Any optical engineer with any radiometric experience whatsoever, would ROFL if you claimed that you had a radiometric instrument stable to <0.01%, let alone a whole "daisy chain" of them flown over decades in space.  This is certainly true after examining the design of these instruments (active cavity electrical substitution radiometers), and the environment in which they operate.  Leaving the electronics aside, there is no way that these radiometers could be assumed to optically stable to 0.01%, or anywhere near that performance.  OMG, your hitting the radiometric cavity with full vacuum sunlight.  Do you have any idea what that does to any optical surface over time?  Also, no matter how careful you are, there can and will be outgassing from the internal surfaces of the instrument cavity (especially all that baffling), which will collect on the (designed) specular surface of the light cone used trap the light.  When the sunlight hits that contamination, it will "fry" it, causing "globules" that will increase the diffuse reflectivity of the cone over time, thereby decreasing the amount of specular light absorbed by the cone, and therefore its sensitivity.  This is something we intrument engineers have seen time and again with spaceborne instruments measuring full sunlight.  The present generation has some accompanying ground "witness instruments" that are twins of what is being flown, and the engineers/scientists have wisely put one permanantly in a vacuum chamber along with a solar simulator to measure its long term stability under the expected conditions.  But this measurement is still in progress (in my understanding), and I'll bet my last dollar that this witness won't even come close to being stable enough.

  23. Total Solar Irradiance Data

    Data Quality Description
    On-orbit instrument characterization is an on-going effort, as the TIM team regularly tracks instrument degradation and calibrates the instrument servo system on-orbit, periodically updating the data processing system with new calibration values. Only minor corrections are anticipated at this phase in the SORCE/TIM mission. To date the TIM has shown lower degradation than any other flight TSI instrument, and long-term relative uncertainties are estimated to be less than 0.014 W/m^2/yr (10 ppm/yr). At-launch absolute accuracy is estimated to be 0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm), largely determined by the agreement between all four TIM radiometers. The 4.5 W/m^2 by which the TIM read lower than prior instruments at the time of launch has been resolved as being largely due to internal instrument scatter in those prior instruments causing erroneously high readings (see Kopp & Lean, GRL, 38, L01706, 2011). Most of those other instruments have now corrected (lowered) their values, and are now in very good agreement with the SORCE/TIM. 

     

  24. Bill N @1172 . . . presumably for the same reasons, you are equally skeptical that TSI could have been shown to have "risen" significantly since 1978.

    And then there's the matter of stratospheric cooling since 1978 ~ which also seems to suggest that the TSI has not risen.

    And the cumulative and aggregate effect of data from ground-level instruments which are properly maintained.  

    All in all, "it doesn't seem to be the sun" . . . would appear to be quite correct.

  25. Greetings "RedBarron".  What you posted does not address the long term optical stability issue.  There is no onboard instrumentation that can test for optical changes over time (see below for a caveat).  The quoted long-term relative uncertainties of 10ppm/yr for the TIM have nothing to do with the continual optical changes due to environmental factors such as outgassing, dust, and sunlight induced degredation of the conical specular refelectors used.  This is why use is being made of a ground vacuum witness under simulated solar impingement in order to finally get a handle on this.  If you don't believe me, just look at what is being said about stability by some of the very engineers and scientists who fly these instruments.  Finally, to obtain a time frame long enough for reasonable assessment of whether the average TSI is changing (over time constants longer than the 11yr solar cycles of course), use is required of the similarly designed radiometers prior to TIM use.  Again, there is no way that the whole "daisy chain" of these instruments can be relied upon to the level of stability required.  Note we are not talking about absolute calibration here, since each instrument in the series is calibrated against the ones already flying to measure TSI changes.  But if they are all experiencing optical changes over time (at levels smaller than what can be detected by the absolute calibrations, but plenty large enough to swamp the long term stabiliy requirement), there is no way to know that.

    The UV channel of the TIM spectrometer can though indirectly measure long term solar changes accurately, due to its use of a large number of reference stars in order to measure its sensitivity changes over time.  But at present, solar science may not be mature enough to predict TSI changes based on purely UV changes (I far as I can tell).  Perhaps if an instrument were flown that could use a similar "many-star" based calibration technique across a number of visible wavelengths, then the changes in our Sun's TSI could be reasonably inferred.  But at present, even if the TIM UV channel could be used to infer TSI changes, it has not flown nearly long enough to quantify what these changes are.  

  26. Bill,

     Could you put some numbers to that delta uncertainty please. Clearly as my post shows, they are making calibration adjustments (obviously at least in part due to the reasons you posted) and have quantified their estimate of long-term relative uncertainties. Where are your numbers? And how much difference between yours and theirs?

    Thanks

  27. Hello "Eclectic".  You are spot-on correct about me making no claims about either increased or decreased TSI being reliably measured by these instruments.  I am simply saying that this "data point" does not exist, one way or the other.

    As for ground instruments, even if they could be reliably calibrated to the 0.01% stability requirement (which in itself is dubious), the atmospheric induced variablities in ground based TSI measuement are enormous compared to the stability requirement, even if averaged over time.  I am unaware of anyone that has established the ability to reliably ground measure long term TSI changes to the precision required.

    As someone who spent a career dealing with optical stability issues, I can not overemphasize just how dramatically difficult it is to achieve 0.01% long term optical stability of radiometric instrumentation, even under the best of circumstances.  Some scientists believe their instruments are a lot more optically stable than they are, and then we engineers have to present them with the "realities" of practical radiometry "in the field" to set them straight (I'm not picking on scientists here, oops, maybe I am, hehe).  I hope some of the TIM folks aren't making any "overblown" claims about their instrument, or the similar previous ones.  It seems though that some do indeed appreciate the difficulties involved, to the point of saying "it's not reliably stable enough."

    I'll address the stratospheric cooling issue in my next post.

  28. Bill,

    In the graph of TSI in the intermediate OP their data goes back to 1880, well before satellite measurements.  In the link to their data (Krivova 2007) they describe a model that estimates the TSI based on a series of ground based measurements.  I am not expert like you, but it seems to me that your argument that the satellites are not stable enough for the displayed data is moot since the data is not satellite based.  Perhaps they use the satellites to ground truth the model?  Can you address the issues with the model used to generate the graph of the data?  Obviously it is best if you have a direct measurement but for the period before satellites you have to use the data you have and a model.  The described calibration issues of the satellites are much higher than the changes in the TSI over the period of observation.  Since it is based on ground measurements can the model be used to correct the calibration errors of the satellites?  

    It seems reasonable to me that if you had 30 years of satellite data you could calibrate a model that would generate data covering the period before you had the satellite data.  For the climate argument they do not require the model to be absolutely correct, they only need relative TSI to determine if the warming correlates with TSI.

    In the linked data source they describe several models of TSI that are used to generate data over various time periods before we had satellite or ground based machne based TSI measurements.

  29. Hey again @Eclectic.  I decided to make a separate post on the stratospheric cooling issue to keep the TSI instrumentation optical stability postings separate.

    My background for this issue:  Masters degree in Physics.  As an optical engineer, developed and/or utilized thermal modelling of spaceborne instruments and spacecraft that were heated by the Sun and cooled by their emitted IR radiation, determining then their internal and surface temperature environments under solar variations induced by spacecraft orbital and orientational changes.

    Opinion on maturity of science:  As far as I can tell, the science and modelling of solar induced warming of our Earth, especially when combined with the influences of greenhouse gasses present (manmade or natural), has not matured to the point to be able to definitavely conclude that the observed temperature distributions in our atmosphere indicate that manmade greenhouse gas emmisions are responsible for the observed global warming as opposed to a long term TSI increase.  Heck, even a few years ago the "official" (IPCC) position was that solar TSI changes had essentially no influence on the Earth's temperature.  Only recently then has the science matured to the point that it is now understood that long term TSI changes could indeed significanly change the average Earth temperature.  Having only just found this out, claims then that the science has matured so rapidly since this discovery as to be able to distinguish between TSI based changes in our atmosphere and greenhouse gas based changes, seems highly dubious.

    "Mixing" issue:  Has the recent modelling included the effects of "chaotic mixing" of the stratoshere with the rest of the atmosphere.  After all, this is long term warming we are talking about.  Certainly the daily winds will "churn" the entire atmosphere to the point as to "swamp" layered atmospheric temperature predictions of one model vs another.

    Greenhouse gas perturbation:  Assuming that the above "mixing" issue has been properly accounted for, there is still the issue of greenhouse gas induced perturbation in the atmospheric temperature distribution.  This will occur even if a solar TSI increase is causing the warming.  So when modelling solar induced heating, the "atmospheric layering effect" of the natural greenhouse gasses present must still be included.  My suspicion is that this is not being done by the folks attmpting to differentiate between solar and manmade greenhouse gas warming.  It is simply a mistake then to model solar warming without including the "atmospheric layering effect" of the natural greenhouse gas that is always present.  Once this effect has been properly included in the modelling, I strongly suspect that there will not be a significant difference between the predicted stratospheric cooling of the solar warming model and the manmade greenhouse gas model.  As is well understood, long term geologic records show that natural greenhouse gas levels will indeed rise and fall with the Earth's temperature, regardless of the reason for the temperature change.  So even if the warming is solar induced, don't forget to include the measured increase in greenhouse gas levels that go along with it.

    Opinion:  So IMHO, it can not be concluded at this point in our science and modelling, that the observed stratosperic temperatures indicate that the warming is due to manmade greenhouse gas increases as opposed to solar warming.

  30. Hi RedBaron,

    Unfortunately, there are scant numbers available, either from me or the instrument engineers/scientists for that matter, quantifying the degree of optical changes for some of the effects I have mentioned.  That is indeed the problem.

    For instance, I can assure you that no one has a handle on how much TSI is being lost by buildup of outgassing contamination on the specular optical surface of the cone traps of these instruments.  Outgassing of even "clean" materials can be significant over time, with for instance even MIL-SPEC anodized aluminum coatings (typically used to make baffle chambers from) significantly varying in outgassing from one production batch to another, and from one type of cleaning procedure to another.  Even though the FOV (Field of View) of the instrument picks up only a small fraction of the solar disk, so that the solar light intensity at the cone is only a small fraction of the full TSI, the instrument has to stay on for a while in order to come to thermal equilibrium when making a measurement (thermal equilibrium under loading is the basis for making the measurement).  The result is that over time, the integrated solar power is enough to "fry" the contamination many many times over, turning it into diffusely reflecting "gue."  No objective experienced optical engineer would ever be comfortable making the claim that even this one effect was contained within the required <0.01% degredation level, not without extensive testing such as use of the groundbased twin witness instrument placed in a vacuum and hit with a solar simulator.  Even then, outgassing distributes differently when in 1g on Earth and weightless in space, so use of the witness to quantify this effect is "sketchy" at best (assuming the same production run and cleaning procedure was used for the chamber materials of both).

    I hope the above example gives you a feel for what you're up against when attempting to achieve <0.01% optical stability.  I can tell you that in the business, the way the game is played when such dramatically small radiometric stability errors are required, is that the instrument builder/user must prove that it is that stable, not that those of us that scoff at their overblown claims must come up with numbers indicating that it is not. 

  31. Hi Micheal,

    You have hit the nail on the head bringing up the other measurements spanning since well before the satellite measurements.  Indeed,  a key reason for me "throwing out" reliance on the satellite measured TSI changes, is to force reliance on just the ground based measurements you are talking about.

    These measuremnts primarily fall into two groups:  accurate measurements of sunspots and faculae since around 1850; measurements of carbon-14 levels in tree rings going back much further.

    On the sunspot/faculae measurements, the best solar modelling to date establishes a causal relationship between average magnetic flux in the solar outer layer (averaged over the 11yr sunspot cycles), and the "amplitude" of the sunspot cycles, with a higher amplitude meaning a higher magnetic flux.  In turn, the solar modelling also establishes a causal relationship between the average magnetic flux and the TSI, with a higher flux meaning a higher TSI.  Now until the latest sunspot cycle, the cycle "amplitude" (variation in areal sunspot/faculea coverage) has been observed to increase since the beginning of when such measurements were made starting around 1850.  Using the latest greatest TSI vs magnetic flux vs sunpot cycle amplitude modelling, the predicted averaged TSI has increased on the order of 0.1% from 1850 to present.  Based on our latest greatest atmospheric temperature modelling under solar loading, this predicts beautifully the observed solar warming of about 0.7C from 1850 to present.  So there you go.  Once you throw out the unreliable satellite data, then the observed global warming since 1850 is completely explained by the observed/modelled solar TSI increase, down to evidently the observed "stratospheric cooling" by including the above mentioned "atmospheric layering effect" of the natural greenhouse gas that is always present.

    The carbon-14 data is used to determine past TSI levels by using modelling in which the cosmic rays inducing carbon-14 production, are partially "blocked" by solar wind production that has a known causal relationship with sunspot activity.  The carbon-14 is absorbed by trees as they grow, with the tree rings giving a timeline for the past carbon-14 presence in our atmosphere.  This then is used to infer past sunspot and solar wind activity, which infers then past TSI levels.  The resultant historical TSI levels inferred from this technique, fit beautifully with the TSI levels based on the directly observed sunspots since 1850 to present, providing then key support for the conclusion that the observed global warming is solar induced.

    With my principle goal at this website established, mainly throwing out reliance on the satellite data, the onus on folks thinking that the observed global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions, is to prove that it is NOT indeed due to a solar TSI increase since the mid-1800's, as this is the most straightforward conclusion that can be made based on the best modelling and science we have to date.

  32. Bill,

    It strikes me that you are speaking with a great deal of confidence for someone who has not read very much about AGW.

    In the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism, there is an illustration at the bottom of page 3 that shows why we know without doubt that the warming is due to carbon dioxide and not the sun.  If the Sun was causing warming we would expect days to warm faster than nights, summer faster than winter, the stratosphere to warm with the troposphere, the same amount of heat to be returning to Earth as backradiation, the same heat escaping to space and several others.  We measure that nights are warming faster than days, winter is warming faster than summer, the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms, more backradiation, and less heat is escaping to space.  You will have to counter all of these observations if you wish to support your claim that unmeasured TSI increase could be the cause of warming.

    I suggest that you forget all the propaganda that you have read at WUWT and other skeptical sites and try reading the Newcomers Start Here post on the home page.  If you continue to post here with claims supported only by your opinion you will not get very far.  Your opinion as an engineer about TSI measurements does not count much against the observations I have summarized above.  It is not necessary to have any TSI measurements to be sure that the warming is caused by carbon dioxide pollution and not the Sun.  

    Keep in mind that the warming caused by carbon dioxide pollution was predicted in 1896 by Arhennius.  Arhennius predicted most of the observations that I listed above 100 years before they were measured.  You are countering a 120 year old scientific prediction with an ad hoc explaination that has a great deal of evidence against it and no measured support.

  33. Bill N . . . my apologies for not completely following your chain of logic.  Surely there must be some factor I am overlooking?

    You have said there is no clear evidence (from the satellite measurements) that TSI has increased or fallen, since 1978.   As to TSI in earlier times : observed sunspot activity has less than perfect correlation. And ice-core and tree-ring proxies are based on a deposition of certain isotopes - an isotopic deposition suffering considerable variation from changes in terrestrial magnetic field and changes in atmosphere circulation.

    It is well established that there has been rapid global warming in the last 50 or 100 years.   And the general scientific view is that that change is well explained by the radiative properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) .

    Yet you yourself feel that possibly there has been a relatively large [ 0.1% or greater ] rise in TSI over the past century or two, and which possibly may have caused all the recent warming.

    In addition, you will somehow have to abolish the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, in order for your proposed (but not demonstrated) large and rising increment of TSI to do its work in heating up the Earth.    On top of that, you will need to explain away the observed diurnal and climatic changes mentioned by Michael Sweet (above) .

    Bill N, your line of argument does not hold together.

    So there must be some other factor which I have overlooked?

  34. Bill:

    Here is the illustration of human fingerprints.  These fingerprints show that warming is caused by carbon pollution and not the sun.

    illustration of human Fingerprints

  35. OK Micheal and Eclectic.  Now I am going to have to ask the moderators to get involved for your "dog piling" and ad hominum attacks, which are clear rule violations at this sight.  Your discussions have degenerated from bonified scientific debate to childish antics.

    Michael, you have no idea what I do or do not know about this subject.  My views are formed from refereed publications and books on this subject.  Eclectic, I take personal afront of your claims that I just made my opinions up from thin air.  If the both of you have a problem with the emerging views and findings of an ever growing number of bonified scientists showing that the observed global warming is solar induced, you should take it up with them.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I will not argue any further with you two.

    My primary purpose here is to state that in my area of expertice, namely optical instruments, the claim that the satellite instruments have successfully measured that the solar TSI has not gone up since 1978 (even gone down a little), is completely bogus.  That then shoots down a major cornerstone used by folks claiming that the observed warming must be due then to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.  

  36. Bill N , surely you are capable of conversing with 2 people, rather than only 1 .

    I certainly don't wish for you to waste your time arguing with yourself about whether there has or has not been any ad-hominem attack on you - for as far as I can see, there has been nothing of any personal attack against you, of any sort.

    You have been asked to supply a logical coherent reasoning, showing that the standard science (accepted by all climate scientists) is somehow wrong.   You have failed to do so - thus far, anyway.

    Therefore please put aside your deflections and diversions about ad-homs; put aside your rhetorical assertions and quibbles about satellite instrumentation - instrumentation which is a very small part of the total picture of climate science.

    Whatever cogent ideas you have, I am sure our readers here would be delighted to see them.   If they exist, of course.   Likewise it would be gratifying to know something of these [your quote] "bonified scientists" (not bonified* in the cranium, surely ??!  :-P  ) and their contrarian ideas.   Contrarian ideas which so far seem uncirculated in the scientific realm (or pehaps are simply not cited . . . which says something in itself) .

    So, Bill N , please proceed rationally.   For myself, I am keen to see anything useful you can provide.

     

    * Bill N , please note that these comments columns have no SpellChecker . . . so you misspell at your peril.   "Bona fide" humorous efforts are always welcome, though !

  37. Bill N @various, the IPCC AR12, Working Group 1, Chapter 8.4.1 says:

    "Total solar irradiance (TSI) measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor(TIM) on the spaceborne Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 during 2008 (Kopp and Lean, 2011) which is ~4.5 W m–2 lower than the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) TSI composite during 2008 (Frohlich, 2009)."

    The SORCE/TIM home page gives an accuracy to 1σ of 350 ppm, or 0.48 W/m^2 of 1360.8 W/m^2, so I take that accuracy to be represnt one standard deviation, giving a 2σ accuracy of 0.07%.  The SORCE/TIM home page also gives a"long term repeatability" of 10 ppm per annum (1σ), or 0.002% per annum, where the former is the accuracy of the absolute estimate of TSI, and the later is the accuracy of estimates of relative change in TSI from year to year.

    It also says:

    "TSI variations of approximately 0.1% were observed between the maximum and minimum of the 11-year SC in the three composites mentioned above (Kopp and Lean, 2011). This variation is mainly due to an interplay between relatively dark sunspots, bright faculae and bright network elements (Foukal and Lean, 1988; see Section 5.2.1.2). A declining trend since 1986 in PMOD solar minima is evidenced in Figure 8.10. Considering the PMOD solar minima values of 1986 and 2008, the RF is –0.04 W m–2. Our assessment of the uncertainty range of changes in TSI between 1986 and 2008 is –0.08 to 0.0 W m–2 and thus very likely negative, and includes the uncertainty in the PMOD data (Frohlich, 2009; see Supplementary Material Section 8.SM.6) but is extended to also take into account the uncertainty of combining the satellite data."

    (Emphasis in original)

    The Guidance Note on Uncertainty indicates that something is "very likely" if it has a 90-100% probability (Table 1), so we can take that uncertainty range to be the 90% uncertainty range.  The reduction in the PMOD composite over that period is 0.04 W/m^2, giving an estimated reduction, with 90% confidence intervals of 0.04 +/- 0.04 W/m^2, which represents an accuracy of 0.003% relative to the 1360.8 W/m^2 estimate of TSI from SORCE/TIM.  Assuming a normal distribution, a 90% confidence interval of 0.04 W/m^2 is equivalent to a 2 standard deviation interval of 0.05 W/m^2. Even allowing that the error on the estimate the IPCC estimate represents an 80% range ( the minimum consistent with their expressed likelihood) yields a 2 standard deviation interval of 0.06 W/m^2.  

    The current version of the PMOD composite, with monthly values estimated by taking the mean of daily values, excluding missing values) shows an OLS trend of -0.014 +/- 0.008 W/m^2 per annum (2σ error margin).  The absolute difference between the Months with the lowest Sunspot Number is the respective minimums (June 1986 and Aug 2008 respectively) is -0.255 W/m^2, while that between the average of the two years is -0.219 W/m^2.  The trend difference is -0.3 +/- 0.18 W/m^2.  Expressed as changes in forcing to two significant figures, these values are -0.04 W/m^2, -0.04 W/m^2 and -0.05 +/- 0.03  W/m^2 respectively.  It appears, therefore (and is confirmed by the IPCC 8.SM.6), that the value expressed by the IPCC is the absolute difference between the relevant years expressed as a forcing rather than as TSI.  Expressed as percentages of the 2008 TSI (SORCE/TIM), they all represent 0.02% of the value, rounded to two significant figures. 

    The IPCC's (and PMODS's) stated accuracy is less than the relative accuracy of TIMS (by all accounts their most reliable single instrument) if expanded over the June 1986-Aug 2008 interval, which would have an accumulated error of 0.6 W/m^2 (or 0.11 W/m^2 expressed as a forcing; 2σ error margin).  This is in part due to the fact that typically (and always from 1986 to 2008) at least three space borne instruments have observed TSI at any given time.  This is important, both because the drift in satellite instruments is unlikely to be synchronous, and because multiple measurements reduce error (as errors are summed in quadrature).

    More importantly, in developing PMOD, each satellite record of TSI was fit against the square root of the Sunspot Number (SSN), which then provided a framework to develop the composite TSI record.  In that way, the superior accuracy of the SSM record is used to overcome the deficiencies of the satellite record.  Because of this use of the SSN, and because of the use of multiple instruments observing simultaneously, no consideration of innate instrument accuracy alone can correctly characterize the error in TSI observations.  

    The use of SSNs by PMOD also indicates that belief in the decline in solar intensity is not based on satellite instruments alone.  Indeed, the SSNs show a trend of -3.09 +/- 1.33 per annum (2σ range).  Given that you accept the accuracy of the SSN record, and accept a high correlation between SSNs and solar intensity, that should mean you also agree that solar intensity has declined over the last four decades, although we may be in doubt as to just by how much.

    In the mean time, and with respect, you retain effective anonymity so your authority on this or any topic (as is mine) is just that of "some random guy on the internet".  Even if we take your claimed credentials and expertise on face value (as I am inclined to do), those credential and experience are no better than those of the teams of scientists working on individual TSI instruments, composites, and in reviewing the data for the IPCC.  Given that, I see no reason to give your beliefs on this matter particular credence.  

  38. Bill,

    At this time you have provided no links to any "peer reviewed" studies that you used to form your opinions.  I have only your unsupported claim that you are an expert on TSI (although you have apparently never been involved with the measure of TSI).  I have provided links to peer reviewed studies that support my position.  The Comments rules for Skeptical Science require peer reveiwed links to support your position.

      Eclectic and I have shown that TSI is not required to determine that carbon pollution is the cause of warming and not an unmeasured increase in TSI.  It is incumbent on you to answer these arguments.  Since you have refused to even acknowledge them I presume that you have realized that you cannot respond and concede our position.

    You have not " [shot] down a major cornerstone used by folks claiming that the observed warming must be due then to manmade greenhouse gas emissions", you have made unsupported assertions from unsubstantiated authority.  Tom Curtis above has demsonstrated (using peer reviewed sources) that your argument is incorrect.  That leaves you with only your unsupported opinion.  Since I have shown that TSI measurements are unnecessarry to prove that warming is not due to the sun, you have shown nothing.

    You are welcome to decide who you want to communicate with.  If you want to argue by claiming expertise in a subject you clearly have not studied well (I look forward to your peer reviewed studies that answer Tom above) , claim you have proven a substantial part of AGW theory is incorrect when you have not, refuse to provide peer reviewed data and ignore arguments from other sources of analysis that show your argument fails, go for it.  I think you will find that your unsupported opinions do not convince people at this web site.

    A word to the wise: people who come here with bold assertions that they have overturned everything scientists have learned over the past 150 years are frequently recieved harshly.  If you instead ask questions about what you do not understand people are happy to discuss these issues in great detail.  If you say you do not understand the  TSI measurements and how they relate to overall AGW theory you will be much better received.  If you say you will not discuss how scientists know that the sun is not the cause of warming because you are an expert (at something you have never measured) you will not get friendly responses.

  39. Hello Tom,

    Thank you for the excellent post about the satellite instruments.  It looks like you put a lot of work into it, which is greatly appreciated.

    I especially took notice of the part about comparing 3 instruments at once to reduce errors.  This of course significantly reduces all "drift errors" in which the drift mechanism has a equal likilyhood of moving in either direction.  Unfortunately, optical radiometric changes are typically "one way," so that for instance all 3 compared instruments will have a reduced sensitivity over time due to the three error sources indentified previously: outgassing induced contamination, solar light induced degredation of the cone optical surface, and accumulation of spaceborn dust.  All three sources will increase the diffuse reflectivity of the (designed) specular cone, thereby reducing the amount of light collected, yielding then a lower measured TSI over time for all instruments flown.

    Of course, the degree of change for any particular source will vary between instruments.  One of these error sources is likely to be predominant over the others (my guess would be either the outgassing contamination or the solar light induced degredation), and if its rate of change varied significantly from one instrument to the next, it would be detected as a relative change in the sensitivity of 3 instruments being compared.  But IMHO, the variation between instruments for the rate of change of the predominant error source, is likely to be less than the average rate of change for the instruments combined, so as long as the average rate of change is not dramatic, the variation in the rate of change between instuments will not be significant enough to indicate the presence of the error.  The TSI measurements themselves are "stable" enough to indicate that the optical error sources are not dramatic, so the predominant one is of course also not dramatic.  Therefore, what ever the predominant optical error source is, it is reducing the sensitivity of all instruments together, but not so much as to indicate the variation in the rate of change from one instrument to the next.  However, the average variation can still be large enough to significantly exceed the 0.01% stability requirement neccessary to rely on these instruments to show the TSI levels are not changing.  Therefore, the issue still remains.

    You are right in not taking my word on this issue with any more credence than what anyone else has to say, especially against the engineers/scientists building and using these instruments.  However, in one respect, I am simply pointing out what any objective optical engineer will tell you, which is that an optical stability level of <0.01% for radiometric instrumentation is extremely difficult to obtain and prove, especially for "field instruments" such as ones flown in space.  You should also be aware that there is disagreement amongst the instrument engineers and scientists as to whether they can be relied upon at all for measuring TSI changes (as opposed to absolute TSI measurements which everyone seems happy with).  In particular, the claims of achieved stability made by PMOD are in dispute, as are their resultant measurements.  I suggest you Google on this issue and take a look for yourself (I mentioned a starting point in my original post).

    I believe I've "done my job here" in pointing out that the claimed stability of these instruments in order to successfully infer that the TSI is not changing (or even going down), is in question, even amongst the engineers and scientists that built and use these instruments.  So I am now "signing off."

  40. I will try to keep this short for the moment, as it look as if BillN may be leaving.

    BillN has made several assertions about space-based measurements of TSI. I have not been involved in any space-based measurements, but I have a dozen year of experience in ground-based measurements of direct beam solar radiation using Eppley HIckey-Frieden (HF) cavity radiometers, of identical type to those that have been used in space. [All Eppley HF radiometers are built to the same space-rated specifications. I can't point to a peer-reviewed article that says so, so in a scientific paper I would have to reference this as "John Hickey, personal communication". He's the "Hickey" in "HF"...]

    Anyway, BillN has made several questionable assertions. I will respond to a few:

    • He refers to "optical stability". In the Eppley HF, the only "optics" are a black cavity that is fully-exposed to sunlight - no glass, no optics to focus sunlight, just an exposed cone-shaped receiver. The important "optical" characteristic of this receiver is its absorption ratio (or reflectivity, if you prefer). If that were to change, then stability would be affected, but all that cavity does is absorb solar radiation.
    • The radiometer also has a tube and calibrated orifice arrangment to limit the field of view. You may also call this "optics", if you like, but it's not as if there is a telescope or anything like that. It's much like limiting your field of view by holding a paper towel tube in front of your eye. It's fancier than that - black interior, etc., to limit stray light reflections, and a controlled area aperture at the end so that you get an exact field of view, but that's it.The view of the sun is completely unobstructed.
    • The field of view of the Eppley HF is slightly larger than the diameter of the sun, so BillN's assertion in comment #1180 that "Even though the FOV (Field of View) of the instrument picks up only a small fraction of the solar disk..." is simply wrong for the Eppley HF. For ground-based measurements, this means that the instrument also views a bit of scattered sunlight around the sun, but in space this will not happen. There is no adjustment for seeing a portion of the solar disk, as BillN has stated.
    • BiilN correctly refers to "active cavity radiometers", without explaning what they are. The Eppley HF can be operated either in active or passive modes. The principle of operation is that the cavity that absorbs solar radiation will heat up, which introduces a temperature gradient measured by a thermopile. In active mode, this heating is offset by an electrical heater, and by measuring the electrical heating rate you will know the solar heating rate. In passive mode, you measure the thermopile output caused by solar heating (no electrical offset), but periodically shade the instrument (no sun) and substitute a short period of electrical heating to check the calibration. The calibration results is used to convert the solar-heating output to irradiance. Ground-based observations using the HF will usually use passive mode (e.g. at the International Pyrheliometer Comparisons held every five years in Davos, Switzerland, where the World Radiation Reference is maintained. These IPCs (which have been happening since the 1960s) are a primary indicator of instrument stability in ground-based measurements.

    So, stability of an HF instrument depends on the absorption in the cavity remaining stable, and the electronics that measure the electrical heating remaining stable. There are no other "optics" involved.

    Rather than taking my word on any of this, HIckey, Frieden, and Brinker have reported on the stability of the Eppley HF after six years in space:

    Report on an H-F Type Cavity Radiometer after Six Years Exposure in Space Aboard the LDEF Satellite

    J R Hickey, R G Frieden and D J Brinker

    Metrologia, Volume 28, Number 3

    This is a 1990 paper, unforunately paywalled, but the abstract reports a 0.1% stability, but with a 0.1% uncertainty on that value. 0.1% of 1368 W/m2works out to less than 1.5 W/m2. After accounting for global abedo (30%) and dividing by 4 (area of sphere vs. area of circle), this leads to an uncertainty of less than 0.25 W/m2 in global absorbed solar radiation. Much less than the CO2 forcing.

    BillN is wrong in implying that the developers of such instruments have not considered stability. Tom Curtis' post above also explains how examiniation of multiple instruments and multiple sources of analysis increases confidience in the readings of TSI.

    In short, BillN's implied position of infallible authority on matters of spaced-based TSI measurements is fallible.

  41. Bob,

    You have mischaracterized what I have said on almost every count.

    The only thing you have corrected me on is that the FOV for these instruments encompasses the entire solar disk, which only serves to strengthen my argument that the solar light hitting the cavity wall will degrade it and cook any outgassing contamination on it.  I never said an adjustment must be made to account for what I thought was a limited FOV, so again you mischaracterize.

    I never said that there were any other optics besides the open aperture and the optical cavity, so again you mischaracterize.  You yourself said that the only room for optical change is the cavity reflectance (absorption ratio).  But that's exactly what I have been talking about, nothing more, nothing less.  It is the long term stability of this optical property under degrading environmental influences that is the question here.

    I did not feel the need to explain what "active cavity radiometers" are beyond the optical components being evaluated, assuming that interested readers here can Google this in a split second and get a lot more detail on them than what I could provide in writing.  So what's you beef here.

    Again you BS when claiming that I said the instrument developers did not consider stability.  I have stated here till I'm blue in the face that there is disagreement amongst the developers and users over what the stability is, even to the point that some think they can not be relied upon for long term TSI variability measurements.  So obviously this is a hot topic for them, as I have said again and again.

    Finally, I have made no claim whatsoever as to being an authority on space-based TSI measurements, so you last mischaracterization of me about this is a cheap shot.  My only "authoritity" is my general experience as an optical engineer flying spaceborne instruments, with of course then radiometry part of that experience (some of this covered solar measurements).

    So summarizing Bob, you're really a piece of work.

    After recieving so much vitriol about reasonably poised questions and thoughts by me, I decided to Google what other folks think about what is going on at ScepticalScience.  Wow!  It seems the world opinion is that this site is populated by a bunch of alarmist trolls (kids mainly) who engage in dirty tactics to voraciously defend their pseudo-scientific viewpoints, so that anyone who comes here with a differing viewpoint, no matter how reasoned, will not be treated fairly.  Well, that is certainly what I have experienced here (with a few exceptions).  So good bye.

  42. BillN:

    I expect that your latter paragraphs, if not your whole post, will be deleted by the moderators. For someone who complains about others' tone, you seem to not hold yourself to the same standards. What you consider to be "reasonable" in your own posts is not considered reasonable by others here.

    In your post #1180, the full sentence is:


    Even though the FOV (Field of View) of the instrument picks up only a small fraction of the solar disk, so that the solar light intensity at the cone is only a small fraction of the full TSI, the instrument has to stay on for a while in order to come to thermal equilibrium when making a measurement (thermal equilibrium under loading is the basis for making the measurement).


    You may not have specifically stated that an adjustment is needed, but you did say (incorrectly) that the instrument does not measure the full disk, which certainly implies that something needs to be done about it. How would you get a proper reading of the full TSI from a partial measurement if you do not account for the partial measurement? Or were you just (incorrectly) implying that an assumption had been made that thought was unwarranted?

    Your use of the word "optical" implies much more than it should to the casual reader. I pointed out the very limited limited scope in which that term applied to the Eppley HF. If what I said was (to quote you) "exactly" what you meant, then that is what you should have said to begin with. I have not accused you of intentionally misleading anyone, but I have clarified the very limited scope in which your statement applies, so that casual readers will not take the wrong impression from what you have said.

    When you walk in here and start proclaiming your expertise, and acting as if we should only take your word on things, then you are making an argument from your own authority. I provided links to the group (PMOD) responsible for the surface-based pyrheliometer comparisons and the World Radiation Reference. I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal paper describing the stability of the Eppley HF after space exposure. Tom Curtis has provided you with other links. You have not (as far as I can see) provided a single link to support any of your assertions - instead expecting us to believe you solely on the basis of your claimed expertise. Since you claim to have knowledge in these areas, surely you can back up your claims with some references?

    You are correct that SkS is a web site where individuals that can provide nothing more than a viewpoint are subject to critical reaction. People are expected to provide independent support of those opinions.

  43. http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Modern-Grand-Maximum-Usoskin14.jpg

    study shows above normal solar activity in the 1900-2000 period. 

    Response:

    [JH] Please do not post a url without an explanation of what it links to and why it is relevant to either the OP or the commentary or both. Posting naked urls is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy

  44. Sorry Pink, but the Notrickszone .com has an abysmal level of accuracy.   They'll tell you that black is white, if that's the particular propaganda line they wish to push at the moment.

    That site is something like 97% garbage - you can find almost any sort of misleadingly massaged information there.   Basically you are wasting your own valuable time by going there.

    Please look elsewhere, if you seek more reliable information.   And please use your critical facilities.        And where better to start, than right here on the SkS website !   It is a very useful entry portal to climate science in general, and to more detailed information sources.

    Pink, as a small point, e.g. with your Aanda. org link ( which you haven't yet motivated me to read ) , please show consideration for your readers' own valuable time, by (a) activating the link, and by (b) giving a short description or "thumbnail sketch" of what's in the link, and of why you think it is significant.    ( There's so much rubbish out there on the internet, that it's all too easy to waste 60 seconds of irrecoverable time, assessing something that just isn't worthy of attention. )

    Response:

    [JH] Pink's Aanda. org link was deleted because it violated the SkS Comments Policy which prohibits naked urls

  45. pink's graph @1194 is Figure 2 from Usoskin et al (2014).  Although the abstacts teases about the potential impact of the paper's findings on climate, no actual inferences about climate are drawn.  Any inference drawn by pink, therefore, is from his/her own fervid imagination.

    The red plot on the graph is the group sunspot number from Hoyt and Schatten (1998).  It is shown here (in blue) agains the international sunspot number (red):

    Given the close correlation between group sunspot number, and the international sunspot number, it is reasonable to suppose that the group sunspot number would also have rapidly declined in the early 21st century (indeed, that it may be verging on a Grand Solar Minimum).  Regardless, it is clear that there is an increase in solar activity from the late 18th century to about 1950, which may have contributed the rapid increase in temperature in the early 20th century.  Since, circa 1950, however, it has been in decline, and since 2000 in rapid decline.  Therefore it can only have mitigated, not enhanced the rapid rise in temperature from about 1970 to present, although it may have contributed to the apparent reduction in the rate of increase in temperatures since 2007.  Direct observations of the Total Solar Irradiance, however, show the contribution to either must have been minimal.

    Pink merely trys to present old information without commentary in the hope that, absent that commentary the visual image may decieve, wheras actually understanding the graph shows it to in no way support the viewpoint pink has pushed in the past.

  46. But even chart posted by Tom Curtis shows exceptional solar activity in the period of 1900-2000, definently beating the previous 300 years.  And that's the same century where the establishment science claims too much warming due to GHGs.  I don't see a big difference between that chart and the chart published in Usoskin et al., 2014.

  47. pink @1196, read again my paragraph immediately following the chart.  To make it clearer, the difference in TSI between the 2008 solar minimum and the 1958 solar maximum was just 1 W/m^2, or 0.07%.  That works out to a solar forcing of just 0.175 W/m^2, or less than a 10th of the change in anthropogenic forcing over the 20th century.  Further, arguing that "its the Sun" requires you to believe that the most rapid and longest sustained temperature increase driven by the Sun was the result of the Sun having a slightly cooling trend (from 1951-2008).

  48. A paper was published 2 weeks ago, can some experts comment on it ?
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931

  49. @Jc

    I'm no expert but it reads like a vanity project born of engineer-flavoured dunning-kruger. It isn't worth an expert's time.

  50. @Tristan
    Thanks for confirming what I feel too.

    Still, if someone comes with an argument which has not yet met a rebutal, then the argument should be reviewed. SkS is not the place for that, I agree. I was just looking if someone had enough background to point me where the bias lies.

    So many arguments can be made based on stats alone. Stats are a real mine field. Easy to get trapped in it. And those stats are not the one I use in my field. Frustrating.

    Thanks the same. I appreciate.

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us