Saturday, August 9, 2014

It's the Sun

Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the "time integral" of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard's data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700's and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a "hockey stick" rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:


The real "hockey stick"





Related:

The Sun explains 95% of climate change over the past 400 years; CO2 had no significant influence

Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96

Analysis shows accumulated solar energy explains 20th century global warming; no significant effect of CO2

The Time-Integral of Solar Activity explains Global Temperatures 1610-2012, not CO2

Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight

New paper confirms the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century

Global warming made simple: How natural variability explains 20th century global warming without man-made CO2

Sunspot Integral v. Temperature

The Sun can't possibly explain global warming

New paper finds recent Grand Maximum of solar activity was 'rare or even unique event' in 3,000 years


New paper finds up to 72% of temperature increase over past 150 years due to the Sun

How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate

How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change [Part 3]

How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change [Part 4]


9 comments:

  1. The 11-year solar cycle only changes by up to 0.1% min to max, and yet according to the below GRL paper (Camp and Tung, 2007), there is even a statistically significant correlation between the ups and down of the solar cycle and temperatures, an average of almost + or - 0.2 C min to max.

    http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf
    By projecting surface temperature data (1959 – 2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2 C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. Our work establishes that the surface-temperature response is correlated with the solar-cycle forcing at over 95% confidence level. For comparison, a similar relationship between response and forcing has not been statistically established for the greenhouse global-warming problem. Our result shows a global-mean warming of almost 0.2 C at the surface from solar min to solar max.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Leif Svalgaard has notoriously insisted on other blogs that there was not a significant increase in TSI in the last few decades, despite his preferred SORCE/TIM team accepting the ACRIM (which revealed a +0.05% TSI increase per decade between 1980 and 2002) over the PMOD for pre-2003 TSI reconstructions.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m.jpg
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html#acrim

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
    PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (0.009%/decade trend of the 21– 23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) and by adopting it, or the equivalent TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], some researchers and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001; Hansen et al., 2002] deduced that the Sun has not contributed to the observed global surface warming of the past decades. Consequently, the global surface warming of DT1980 – 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K from 1980 to 2002 shown in Figure 2 could only be induced, directly or indirectly, by anthropogenic added green house gas (GHG) climate forcing. Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21– 23 (1980 –2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003].

    Question: Does Leif view the sunspot interval observations showing a impressive rise in solar activity (like in the graph above) as drastically different than TSI? How else to explain his apparent dismissal of TSI variations versus his sunspot interval graph above?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leif's TSI estimate [which is included in the Excel file linked above] is 1361.24 Wm-2 at the beginning of 1611 & 1361.56 Wm-2 at the end of 2013, so yes no change. However, that's not really what is important - it is the accumulated change or "time integral" which most accurately demonstrates the change in solar activity over time.

      Leif's data beginning in 1611 show the huge drop in solar activity into the Maunder Minimum, followed by recovery of solar activity, with periodic hiatuses.

      TSI is by no means the whole story on solar activity due to changes of up to 100% in solar UV over just a single solar cycle, which in turn has differing effects upon ozone production, ocean penetration, solar amplification mechanisms, etc.

      Delete
  3. Leif believes we’re entering a new Mauder grand minimum- in connection with the L&P effect, which Livingston doesn't support anymore but Penn still does,
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328
    I believe the L&P is real, not directly in connection with intensity of the magnetic field at the sunspots as originally proposed, but indirectly through the increasing ratio of the number of small-to-large ones. (see previous link)
    Abdusamatov has been talking about this possibility too,
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S0884591307030026
    and the polar field strength
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    and the aa-index also seem to give support to this idea
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bth8LryIEAAKGxE.jpg:large

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/peak-solar-geomagnetic-activity-shows.html

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-argues-current-lull-in-solar.html

      Delete
  4. If the oceans can accumulate energy over long periods of time (not disputed), then the Sun's energy can accumulate or drawdown over time in the same manner.

    Solar TSI goes 2.0 W/m2 above the normal long-term level and the planet will slowly accumulate about 0.25 to 0.5 W/m2 of that extra energy. In a few centuries, that adds up to and extra 1.0C to 2.0C in increased surface temperature.

    That is how the physics actually works and how it should actually be calculated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, but climate scientists really don't care about the big ball of fire in the sky.

      Delete
  5. Instead of revising sunspot observations, solar physicists need to address the precise experimental measurements and observations over the past sixty-nine years (2014 - 1945 = 69 yrs) that falsify the Standard Model of Solar Energy:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Preprint_Solar_Energy.pdf

    This manuscript on

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another model showing solar activity explains temperature changes since 1880 much better than GHGs

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/11/a-comparison-of-the-efficacy-of-greenhouse-gas-forcing-and-solar-forcing/

    ReplyDelete