3.1a Solar Irradiance

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 5:46 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first five articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s sixth and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he considers that the IPCC have failed to carry out any risk analysis for the potential for global cooling instead of global warming and that a repeat of the Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago would cause mass starvation worldwide.

The Death Blow to AGW by Stephen Wilde

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed. I don’t yet accept that TSI tells the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards it’s representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the Earth via the entire available range of physical processes.

Despite the limitations of TSI as an indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.

This link shows the pattern of TSI from 1611 to 2001.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.

However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.

Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.

The critical issue is that having achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now die.

Throughout the period 1961 to about 2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect from the sun. The fact that the TSI was, on average, level during that period is entirely irrelevant and misleading.

It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth to the atmosphere. My link below to article 1041 contains details of my view that the sun drives the various oceanic oscillations which in turn drive global temperature variations with all other influences including CO2 being minor and often cancelling themselves out leaving the solar/oceanic driver supreme.

It could be said that the increase in TSI from a little over1363 to a little under1367 Watts per square metre over the 400 year period shown is pretty insignificant. However a square metre is a miniscule portion of the surface of the planet so that even a tiny increase or decrease in the heat being received on average over each such tiny area translates into a huge change in total heat budget for the entire planet. The smallness of the apparent range of variation is a function of the smallness of the area subdivision used rather than an indication of insignificance. It is fortunate for us that the sun is not more variable.

The observation of a historically high level of TSI from 1961 to 2001 tends to fit with the theories set out in my other articles about the real cause of recent warming and the real link between solar energy, ocean cycles and global temperatures.

1Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality

2The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature

Amongst other things the above link (2) shows how the negative PDO from 1961 to 1975 cancelled out the warming effects of solar cycles 18 and 19 and led to a cooling trend during those years despite the relatively high TSI levels. The switch to a positive PDO from 1975 to 2001 allowed the solar warming influence to resume. We now have both a falling TSI and a negative PDO which is an entirely different (indeed opposite) scenario to the one which led to the concerns about runaway warming.

If the current scenario continues for a few more years then real world observations will resolve most of the disputed issues. For the past 10 years the real world has been moving in the direction predicted by the solar driver theory and in my articles I have described the oceanic mechanism that transfers solar input to the atmosphere and then to Space.

If global temperatures were to resume warming despite a reduction in solar activity and/or a negative PDO then the alarmist position might be vindicated. The alarmist camp is predicting such a resumption of warming. The Hadley Centre suggested 2010 but others have more recently suggested 2015. If there is no resumption of warming by 2015 then AGW is dead as a theory. It would not count in favour of AGW if any resumed warming were accompanied by increased solar activity or a positive PDO because that would put the solar driver back in control.

My own view is that there is plenty of evidence currently available that should demonstrate from an objective viewpoint that the theory of AGW is already dead, namely:

1) Real world temperature observations which are diverging from model expectations more and more as time passes

2) The clear recent decline in solar activity

3) The return to a negative (cooling) Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which may last 30 years on past performances

4) A change in global weather patterns which I noticed as long ago as 2000 whereby the jet streams moved back towards the equator from the positions they adopted during the warming spell. The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and will be dealt with in more detail in my next article.

Those who still believe in AGW have to be able to show that any CO2 driver is powerful enough to seriously disrupt the solar driver. If all that the CO2 does is to marginally raise global temperature over the period of a natural solar driven warming and cooling cycle then there is nothing to fear because the mitigating effect in cool periods will outweigh any discomfort from the aggravating effect at and around the peak of the warm periods.

In fact, it is possible that even the extra warmth around the natural warm peaks will be entirely beneficial.

There are other interesting implications to be drawn from the TSI history referred to above.

Applying a little logic it must be the case that at a certain level of TSI the global temperature budget will be balanced i.e. neither warming nor cooling. During the 400 years since the world experienced the relatively low TSI levels of the 1600’s that point of balance must have been crossed and re crossed many times as the TSI numbers varied with time. That is why the world has experienced warming and cooling spells regularly over the centuries (though with an average warming trend since 1601)

As it happens the chart shown covers TSI from the depths of the Little Ice age to the recent warm spell so it is clear that the point of transition from net cooling to net warming is somewhere within the range 1363 to 1367 Watts per square metre. Indeed on the basis of just a brief glance at the chart that point of transition is obviously lower than the average TSI between 1961 and 2001 hence my assertion that during those years there was a steady solar warming effect which adequately explains the observed warming without reliance on rising CO2. This is such a simple and obvious point that I really do not understand why the IPCC and the modellers did not see it.

The information that we need and which is critical to the whole global warming debate is some idea of the level of TSI at which the Earth switches from net warming to net cooling. It will be hard to identify because, as I have mentioned in my other articles, the filtering of the solar signal through the various oceanic cycles is neither rapid nor straightforward.

In fact that point of transition will itself vary over time depending on whether, at any given moment, the oceanic cycles are working against or in support of the TSI changes. Similarly the speed of response will vary for the same reasons.

I really do not see how any climate model can operate meaningfully without that fundamental piece of information.

Clearly the ‘elephant’ is missing from the room.

Finally, in view of the widespread concerns about the involvement of CO2 I should emphasise that if solar energy is the primary driver of global temperature then the only consequence of a stronger greenhouse effect is going to be a slight upward movement of the prevailing temperature throughout the natural warming and cooling cycles.

Because of the logarithmic decline in the greenhouse warming effect of increased amounts of CO2 there is never going to be enough greenhouse effect from any amount of increased CO2 to overturn the primary solar driver or the regular movements from warming to cooling and back again.

The only ‘tipping point’ we need be concerned with is the level of global temperature at which warming switches to cooling and vice versa. Due to the much greater threat from natural cooling the higher we can lift the global temperature at that tipping point the better. On balance we need more CO2 rather than less.

The band of TSI in which the switch from warming to cooling and back again is a variation of less than 4 Watts per square metre of heat arriving at the Earth’s surface.

In view of the size and volatility of the sun we can be boiled or frozen at any time whatever we do. The only reason the sun seems stable enough for us to live with it is that in relation to astronomic timescales our whole existence as a species is but a flash of light in darkness.

The whole of modern civilisation has been made possible by a period of solar stability within a band of less than 4 Watts per square metre. It will not be a result of anything we do if solar changes suddenly go outside that band. On a balance of probability it is more likely that the TSI will soon drop back from the recent unusual highs but remaining within the band of 4 Watts per square metre. It would need the arrival of the next ice age to go significantly below 1363 but even a reduction down to 1365 from present levels could introduce a dangerous level of cooling depending on where the tipping point currently lies.

A period several decades of reduced solar activity will quickly need more emissions producing activity to SAVE the planet yet nonetheless the populations of most living species will be decimated. At present population levels a repeat of the Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago will cause mass starvation worldwide. Does anyone really think that the CO2 we produce is effective enough to reduce that risk to zero when we have plenty of astronomic evidence of an imminent reduction in solar activity?

And, moreover, the real world temperature movements are currently a good fit with the solar driver theory both as regards the warming spell, the subsequent stall and the recent turn downwards.

The AGW risk analysis process (if anyone ever bothered with one) is seriously flawed.

Updated, see Update: The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming

A curious article this -

Clear link between solar activity and winter weather revealed

Tamera Jones
Physorg.com
Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:10 CDT
Scientists have demonstrated a clear link between the
11-year sun cycle and winter weather over the northern hemisphere for the first
time.

They found that low solar activity can contribute to cold winters
in the UK, northern Europe and parts of America. But high activity from the sun
has the opposite effect.

The study helps explain why the UK has been
gripped by such cold winters over the last few years: the sun is just emerging
from a so-called ,
when solar activity is at its lowest.

‘Our research establishes the link
between the and winter climate as more than just coincidence,’ says
Dr Adam Scaife from the UK’s Met Office, one of the study’s authors.

The
findings, published in Nature Geoscience also raise the tantalising
possibility that the regularity of the solar cycle might help weathermen predict
cold winter weather over the northern hemisphere.

‘We’ve been able to
reproduce a consistent ,
confirm how it works, and quantify it using a .
This isn’t the sole driver of winter climate over our region, but it is a
significant factor and understanding it is important for seasonal to decadal
forecasting,’ says Scaife.

Up until now, researchers have only managed
to see a weak link between solar activity and winter weather: when the sun is
less active, we’re more likely to see weak westerly winds during the winter in
the . This pattern suggests that easterly winds could
bring from the continent to the UK.

But scientists
have struggled to incorporate these ultraviolet (UV) signals into climate
models.

Now, new from NASA’s
and (SORCE) have revealed that differences in UV
light reaching the Earth during the 11-year solar cycle are larger than
previously thought. The satellite, launched in 2003, is the first ever to
measure solar radiation across the entire UV spectrum.

‘The instrument
on the SORCE satellite divides UV light up into small wavelength regions,
providing good spectral resolution. Before this,
used broad spectral bands, so couldn’t reveal the solar signal,’ explains
Professor of atmospheric physics, Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London.

Using this new information in a Met Office climate model, Scaife, Haigh,
and other researchers from the Met Office and the University of Oxford,
demonstrate that it’s possible to reproduce the effects of solar variability
which show up in climate records.

It seems that in years of low UV
activity, unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about
50 kilometres up. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid
latitudes – a pattern which then makes its way down to the Earth’s surface,
bringing easterly winds and to
northern Europe.

But when is
higher than usual – around the peak of the 11-year solar cycle – the opposite
happens: strong westerly winds bring warm air and so milder winters to Europe.

‘What we’re seeing is UV levels affecting the distribution of air masses
around the Atlantic basin. This causes a redistribution of heat – so while
Europe and the US may be cooler, Canada and the Mediterranean will be warmer,
and there is little direct impact on global temperatures,’ explains Sarah Ineson
from the Met Office, lead author of the report.

‘Even with the most
sophisticated atmospheric models, it is very hard to predict weather patterns on
seasonal timescales. This study, along with our ongoing research through the
NERC Solar Variability and Climate (SOLCLI) consortium, is adding much detail to
our current understanding,’ says Haigh.

She is keen to point out that
this finding is based on just one satellite: ‘If there’s something wrong with
the instrument we used to get this new data, this might not be right.’

Haigh is however, confident of the mechanism. ‘While statistical data
pointed to links between UV from the sun and winter weather, this new paper
explains how those links come about,’ she says.


This story is republished courtesy of Planet Earth online, a free,
companion website to the award-winning magazine
Planet Earth published
and funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

More information: Sarah Ineson, Adam A.
Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray and
Joanna D. Haigh, Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the northern
hemisphere, Nature Geoscience, published 9 October 2011, doi:10.1038/ngeo1282

Related articles

2 Responses to 3.1a Solar Irradiance

  1. Amie says:

    Hi Jonathon.The arguments are very very thin and tihwout any real evidence to support them. The reasons are financial and therefore political. That and laziness.Some governments don’t want to admit to it, or at least don’t want to take responsibility. Mainly because most economies are built upon the trading of the Fossil Fuels etc. And if they admit to it they have to stop trading in Fuels and move to green technologies which are expensive to set up and can cause political tensions with people they purchase e.g. oil from.Many PEOPLE don’t want to believe in it because:a) it’s actually quite a scary idea (that the actions of people could be endangering not just other plants and animals but our very own futures);b) it means people have to stop being lazy; andc) they have to change their lifestyles. For most this seems too difficult and so they would choose to disbelieve. For some it’s simply hard to change long-held ideas. And even those who DO believe will often do nothing about it because they say it’s not my responsibility’, why should I care’, or I’ll die before it gets too bad’.The biggest problem currently is the media (with the exception of the BBC who are criticised for being too supporting of current climate change being a human cause). Many stories on Climate Change will try to sow the seeds of doubt. It was strange to see (as I just watched An Inconvenient Truth on Fox Movies as it’s Earth Day) Al Gore demonstrate that in 2005(?) there were over 900 scientific studies published in journals on Climate Change where there was no doubt at all that human impact is leading to the current round of Global Warming, and yet of all the Media stories published in the same year on that topic, over 50% of them tried to cast doubt on the science. When all Scientific studies HAVE to be peer-reviewed (examined by other scientists) and all of them were found to show the same thing, it’s interesting the media wasn’t publishing info in the same way.People that talk about mass-conspiracies are fools as there are literally tens of thousands of scientists investigating some aspect of climate change and they almost all will say the same thing.As Trevor demonstrated, the arguments are childish, illogical, insubstantiated, and tihwout any scientific evidence to support them.You have to make your own mind up where you stand on issues but please always bear this in mind: Do your own research, but research the SCIENCE using science journals and magazines and avoid the conspiracy theory sites as they will never provide the whole story only results that support their biased views. Remember, a scientist as a person may be biased and try to be misleading in his reports, but scientists as a group are unbiased and are simply looking for the truth and for a report to be published other scientists have to review it and decide if it’s a good study and carried out honestly.

    • Amie, pleased to accept your comment.
      Of course I do not agree with that the support for AGW legitimately exists as you claim.
      Evidence in abundance on this blog, and on linked related blogs, has to at least be considered as serious proof that, at the very least, a great deal of doubt exists.
      I hope to respond to you further and detail a bit of it, if you are prepared to read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s