Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle.
Archive for the ‘Dataset’ Category
Nicola Scafetta and Richard Willson: New paper linking short term solar variation with planetary periodsPosted: November 25, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, Dataset, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
From the ‘Not as bad as we theorised’ department, a paper which finds that models of water cycling in rainforest over-estimated the effect of drought by a big factor. The paper is paywalled, but there’s a write up here which summarises. Worth noting that the paper emphasises this natural resilience operates best in undisturbed forest.
Journal of Climate 2013 ; e-View
Impact of evapotranspiration on dry season climate in the Amazon forest
College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Ian T. Baker, A. Scott Denning, David A. Randall, Donald Dazlich, and Mark Branson
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Moisture recycling can be an important source of rainfall over the Amazon forest, but this process relies heavily upon the ability of plants to access soil moisture. Evapotranspiration (ET) in the Amazon is often maintained or even enhanced during the dry season, when net radiation is high. However, ecosystem models often over predict the dry season water stress. We removed unrealistic water stress in an ecosystem model (the Simple Biosphere model, SiB3), and examined impacts of enhanced ET on the dry season climate when coupled to a GCM. The “Stressed” model experiences dry season water stress and limitations on ET, while the “Unstressed” model has enhanced root water access and exhibits strong drought tolerance.
Repost of a repost by Clive best, shamelessly stolen because it’s so good. This adds to the several posts already here at th talkshop comparing sunshine hours to temperature regionally and globally. How long can the mainstream climate scintists ignore this growing body of evidence which demonstrates a link between solar activty levels, albedo cloud amount levels and surface temperature? H/T to A.C. Osborn
This is a repost written by Euan Mearns and is an introduction to the work we consequently did this summer concerning cloud and CO2 radiative effects on UK temperatures. Two more posts will follow describing the radiative model in more detail.
- Terrestrial sunshine records provide an inverse proxy for cloud cover. Sunshine at surface means cloud free line of sight between the point on the surface and the Sun.
- We present concordant sunshine and temperature records for 23 UK Met Office weather stations. Data is available for a handful of stations from 1908 but it is only from 1933 that there are a sufficient number of stations to provide representative cover of the UK.
- Data from 1933 to 1956 is believed to be affected by air pollution from burning coal for home heat and power generation, therefore our main analysis focusses on the time interval 1956 to 2012.
- Both temperature (Tmax) and sunshine hours show cyclic variation, both showing a tendency to rise in the period 1980 to 2000 in keeping with global warming that has been documented in many studies.
- In the UK there is a high degree of covariance between sunshine and Tmax, sunny years tend to be warmer. The correlation coefficient (R2) between sunshine hours and Tmax is 0.8 whilst R2 for CO2 and Tmax is 0.66 (calculated on 5 year means). A significant portion of warming observed in the UK may be attributed to temporal variations in sunshine and cloud cover.
- This post presents a summary of the raw data in 14 charts. Next week we will present a combined net cloud forcing and radiative forcing model with the aim of quantifying the relative contributions of dCloud and dCO2.
Figure 1 Maximum daily temperature (Tmax, red, LH scale) and minimum daily temperature (Tmin, blue, RH scale) from the Leuchars weather station. The red and blue lines are annual averages. The black lines are centred 5y moving averages. Note high degree of co-variation between Tmax and Tmin. Also note how temperatures drifted higher during the 1990s and 2000s but recently are drifting down again, in keeping with the global temperature trend.
Here’s a new paper which looks at the group and Wolff sunspot numbers in the mid C19th. The authors find the Wolff sunspot numbers (WSN) prior to 1848 are too high, and need reducing 20%. This brings the Wolff sunspot number more into line with Group Sunspot Number (GSN). The full paper is available (for a short time) directly from A&A here (free signup required).
Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848
Raisa Leussu1,2, Ilya G. Usoskin1,2, Rainer Arlt3 and Kalevi Mursula1
1 Department of Physics, PO Box 3000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
Received: 26 July 2013
Accepted: 23 September 2013
Aims. Sunspot numbers form a benchmark series in many studies, but may still contain inhomogeneities and inconsistencies. In particular, an essential discrepancy exists between the two main sunspot number series, Wolf and group sunspot numbers (WSN and GSN, respectively), before 1848. The source of this discrepancy has remained unresolved so far. However, the recently digitized series of solar observations in 1825–1867 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who was the primary observer of the WSN before 1848, makes such an assessment possible.
ANYONE LOOKING FOR THE EU SEED LAW PETITION CAN FIND IT HERE
I haven’t time to edit this properly, so I hope Roger Andrews will forgive me for just pasting his email into this guest post and lobbing in the images. Somewhere in the archives there’s a post From RA in which he used my cumulative solar technique to get some good fits too. I’ll link it if anyone finds it. You’ve all seen data before, and know what to do…
Here are the results of the empirical models I ran five or so year ago, plotted on the three sets of figures linked to below and accompanied by a writeup, sort of. The first set of figures allows for both anthropogenic and natural forcings. Results are presented for the 60-90N, 30-60N, 0-30N, 0-30S and 30-60S latitude bands and for the area-weighted global average of these bands. (There weren’t enough data to put together a comparison for 60-90S.)
Back in May, MDPI’s new Journal, Climate, published a paper by Japanese researcher Syun-Ichi Akasofu entitled ‘On the Present Halting of Global Warming’. The paper proposes the idea that the recovery from the little ice age and the 60 year oscillation evident in the data not reproduced by climate models needs subtracting from the temperature history before the effect(if any) of additional atmospheric co2 can be assessed. This enraged several of the new journal’s editorial panel so much that they resigned. The Chief editor provided this reassurance and reasoning:
What we can disclose about the review process of the Akasofu paper, without violating the confidentiality of the review process, is that the manuscript was reviewed by three specialists affiliated to institutes or universities based in Europe and the USA. The reviewers were not from the same institution as the author and they have not co-authored papers with the author in the last five years…
We hope that this opportunity for debate will be taken up by members of the scientific community, and that Climate can facilitate vibrant discussion around environmental climate topics that can often polarize opinion, but are of vital importance for stimulating cutting edge research.
Collected from Judy Curry’s site, some well informed analysis on Ocean Heat Content (OHC) and cloud cover variation by ‘Chief Hydrologist’ which should put us in mind of Peter Berenyi’s excellent analysis published here a couple of years ago:
Chief Hydrologist | August 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm |
In ARGO from 2005 to 2010 – the increase is about 0.3E+22 J/yr. This is pretty much consistent with CERES and SORCE over the period – with the changes all in shortwave. I would suggest that earlier ocean temp data – especially to 2000m – might be a little lacking and that the splice between the old and new data looks horrendously unlikely. I suggest that the planet is again cooling with more recent increases in cloud shown in the Palle and Laken paper.
Oceans gained energy to 1998 – pretty much in line with changes in ERBS net radiant flux. Which again was all in shortwave as a result of cloud radiative forcing.
The interesting bit however is the increase in cloud in the 1998/2001. Here it is in ISCCP-FD.
But it shows in Project Earthshine and ERBS as well. The 1976/77 shift shows in COADS – which again is consistent with ISCCP-FD
As anticipated the SORCE TSI experiment is on it’s last legs as yet another battery cell went bad.
With the loss of another battery cell, SORCE is now operating in a new configuration. While we are working ultimately towards recovering back to normal operations with daily solar irradiance measurements, our current focus is preparing the spacecraft to support a campaign mode to assure overlapping measurements between SORCE and TCTE in December 2013. There will be a data gap for SORCE for several weeks, but we plan to continue the SORCE solar irradiance measurements as soon as it is feasible.
The following lists more details about SORCE status and plans for future operations.
SORCE spacecraft is currently operating in an ‘emergency’ mode.
Note: there is a coda on a related subject at the end of this report.
Nicola Scafetta: Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cyclesPosted: October 9, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, climate, Cycles, Dataset, Forecasting, solar system dynamics
Congratulations to Dr Nicola Scafetta, who has just had another major paper published in the high-impact journal Earth-Science Reviews. In email, Nicola tells me:
This paper contains a detailed analysis of all CMIP5 models used by the IPCC, and demonstrates that they do not well reproduce the decadal and multidecadal patterns since 1850 (not just the temperature standstill since 2000, the failure is nearly total). The paper extensively discusses my astronomical based model since the Medieval Warm Period and demonstrates its far better performance than the CMIP5 models.
|Fig. 25 (click for larger)||Fig. 27 (click for larger)|
Volume 126, November 2013, Pages 321–357
Power spectra of global surface temperature (GST) records (available since 1850) reveal major periodicities at about 9.1, 10–11, 19–22 and 59–62 years. Equivalent oscillations are found in numerous multisecular paleoclimatic records. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) general circulation models (GCMs), to be used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), are analyzed and found not able to reconstruct this variability. In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a GST plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 °C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records at multiple time scales.
H/T to Oldbrew for flagging up this post by Roy Spencer, which shows how a cloud water dataset can be employed to get a better idea of the way changing cloud albedo has affected Earth’s surface temperature over the last few decades. Roy is being cautious, but given the unlikely calibration of satellite altimetry of sea level, it’s safe to conclude that the effect he outlines is more than the 1/3 of global warming it appears to account for. The rapid fall after 2010 indicates that the Sun has a much bigger effect on surface temperature via albedo changes it may itself be causing than mainstream climatology recognises.
I consider what follows to be potentially very significant…but also very preliminary. Background Global warming (including the increase in ocean heat content) is supposedly explained by human greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) reducing the ability of the Earth to cool through infrared radiation to outer space, leading to the observed warming in the last 50 years or so. My (admittedly minority) view is that some portion of this heating/warming is due to Mother Nature, probably from natural cycles in low cloud cover changing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. (Why? Well, take your pick…ENSO, PDO, NAO, cosmic rays, etc.). So, which is it?