Personal tools
You are here: Home Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Total Solar Irradiance
  NICHOLAS INSIDER: get the inside scoop on duke's school of the environment
      learn about us through:  THE GREEN GROK   |   student blogs   |   travel blogs   |   multimedia   |   my nicholas (profiles)   |   itunesu   |    facebook   |   insider home

Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Total Solar Irradiance

by Bill Chameides | Oct 20, 2008
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

Permalink |  Comments (12)
Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Total Solar Irradiance

Variations in the sun's energy have been monitored since 1978 by instruments mounted on satellites. Their findings show us just how much the sun's energy has influenced global warming.

More comments at Huffington Post (28)

This is the first post in a 4-part series on the connection between the sun, sunspots, and climate.

The skeptics are squawking again, their blogs achatter with talk about solar variability and sunspots. According to them, anybody who is anybody in climate science now knows the sun is to blame for global warming. Even the New York Times recently wrote about the low level of solar activity this year and the possibility of a coming ice age. Can any of this be true? This post is the first in a series examining the sun-sunspot-climate connection.

Part 1: Solar Variations

Of course the sun affects climate and there is little doubt that variations in the sun's energy (called the total solar irradiance or TSI) have caused significant climate swings in the past. For example, the so-called Little Ice Age, an anomalously cold period that peaked in the 1600s, may have been caused by an extended interval with low TSI (see here).

But just because changes in TSI have caused climate variations in the past does not mean they are the cause of global warming today. If variations in TSI were responsible for the increased global temperatures of the past few decades, then there would be a corresponding increase in TSI itself. Has there been? We can answer this question in a very straightforward way – not with models or theories but with actual data.

Examining the Data to See How Much Solar Variations Affect Climate

Other Posts in This Series
Part 1: Total Solar Irradiance
Part 2: Sunspots
Part 3: Global Warming Since 1998
Part 4: Predicting Future Climate

Since 1978 we have monitored the TSI using a series of instruments mounted on satellites. To determine if there has been a net change in TSI over this 30-year period, one must “stitch” the data from each of these instruments into a single, composite record. (I should note a complicating factor here: a gap between 1989 and 1991 with no measurements at all.)

To date, two such composites have been produced: one by scientists at the Physicalisch-Meteorologishes Observatorium Davos (PMOD) and the other by scientists involved with one of the TSI-measuring instruments, the Active Cavity Radiometer Radiance Monitor (ACRIM). Each used a different method to bridge the data gap and each produced slightly different results.

ACRIM Composite TSI Time Series

The composite from the ACRIM group is shown here. Most apparent is the cyclic pattern in TSI with maxima and minima occurring approximately every 11 years. This is the so-called 11-year sunspot cycle – which will be the subject of the second post in this 3-part series.

There can be little question that the ups and downs in TSI over any given cycle do affect our climate. But these ups and downs are relatively small -- only about 0.3 percent, causing perhaps a 0.15 degree Fahrenheit swing in global temperatures from solar minimum to solar maximum (see how solar variability affected 2007's temperatures). By comparison, the net rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution has been just under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, ten times that amount.

Solar Variations: Too Tiny to Matter

But to understand the role of TSI in global warming, we must look at the long-term average -- that is, not the variations within an 11-year solar cycle but the net variations over multiple cycles. As the graphic here indicates, the ACRIM composite finds that over the past three solar cycles, TSI has increased about 0.004 percent per decade. It's an increase but a tiny one -- much smaller than the variations in TSI from peak to valley in any given solar cycle and far too minuscule to explain the warming seen in the last 30 years. By comparison, the PMOD composite finds a net decrease in TSI by about 0.012 percent per decade.

Some discussions out there make much ado over the differences between the ACRIM and PMOD composites. But for the purposes of this discussion, the differences are moot and the conclusions the same. The ACRIM web site puts its well: “Both time series demonstrate no significant trend over the two decade period separating the first and third solar activity minima.” In other words, one can not attribute the lion’s share of global warming in the last 30 years to changes in the sun’s energy output. This conclusion is not based on a model or solar theory; it is based on the facts – data pure and simple.

In the next post in this series, we will turn our attention to sunspots.

Other Posts in Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age

Part 2: Sunspots

Part 3: Global Warming Since 1998

Part 4: Predicting Future Climate

Document Actions
  • Send this
  • Print this

Invitation to weigh in here

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 22, 2008 01:40 PM
Dr. Chameides comments:

Guess what folks, my post has sparked a good deal of discussion, virtually all of it contained in and insulated inside the blogs authored by the folks who often describe themselves as skeptics. Come on you skeptical guys and gals, it may be fun to chatter amongst yourselves in your own little echo chamber, but if you have a comment why not air them here.

Global warming

Posted by RodD at Dec 08, 2008 10:35 AM
All of the temperature gains touted as reflecting global warming 1.5C have been wiped out by the global chill starting in 1998 as C02 levels have been rising. How long would life of earth last without an abundance of C02? Consensus? Now many of the scientist of the 2,500 disagree with the report by the IPCC. What is the ideal temperature of the earth? "In a question of science, the authority of a 1,000 is not worth the humble reasioning of a single individual." Galileo Refer me to one highly credible scientific document, by naming the aurthor and showing the critique of 5 anonomus fellow scientist proving that C02 causes harmful global warming. Why is there no debate among pro and disagreeing scientist?

Three things

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Dec 08, 2008 11:06 AM
From DR. CHAMEIDES -

RobD -
1. This supposed chill you are referring to is documented by where? The average temperatures over the past 5 years were higher than the previous. There was a short dip in temperatures in early 2008, but that is not a climate trend.
2. No one is suggesting that there is an "ideal" temperature. Temperature and climate change and disruption are the issues.
3. Your statements reflect a profound misunderstanding of the nature of scientific debate and consensus and their relationship to the issue of global warming. In fact, there seems to be somewhat of a catch-22 in your argument: global warming can't be correct because not all scientists agree and it can't be correct since there is no disagreement.

Global Temp

Posted by DrWGP at Jul 20, 2009 03:31 PM
Some climate experts use ground based temp data. I prefer orbital technology over ground based for the simple reason that ground base does not cover much territory and they are predominantly placed in areas that are little man made deserts built of concrete; namely airports. Orbital data provides a whole picture representation.

Next point is: I'll take more CO2 up to 1220 ppm; the optimum for the green stuff to grow, however it seem odd the global warming jihads denounce CO2 as some evil gas. Less CO2 equates to less food! Less heat equates to less food!

Next point is: throwing little bits of data at an argument is meaningless. Statistics are what the user often decides best fits his argument. Unfortunately, some science is being twisted by money and emotion; namely climatology these days.

The argument will be well answered by real climate changes in the next fifty years. I vote for more heat, but I'll bet my stuff on continued cooling.


Dr. Chameides responds -

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Jul 20, 2009 03:48 PM
DrWGP - The surface temperature record is based in part on satellite data -- sea surface temperatures are routinely measured from space and show a record of warming consistent with data from ground-based measurements. And by the way, your description of ground-based meteorological stations that are used to document global temperature trends reveals that you have never visited one of these and therefore don't really know of what you speak. Just because there are ground-based meteorological stations at airports does not mean that all stations are like them or that those measurements are used to determine global temperature trends.

Response to comments

Posted by RodD at Oct 13, 2009 09:28 AM
You ask where the temperature drop is documented? All over the internet...From January 2007 to January 2008, earth surface temperatures measured by all of the separate global monintoring systems[Hadley, NASA's GISS,UAH,RSS} showed the largest decline in the history of their record-keeping. This drop measured with close agreement between the four systems is comparable to the entire temperature increase for the 20th century. Moreover, after recent adjustments in the data, official temperature records show no warming of surface temperatures since 1998, a fact conceded by the head of the UN IPCC Panel. Your TSI chart only covers a very short period of time and is only one componiet in establishing proof of little solar output to embelish the argument, with broad assumptions that C02 caused by mankind causes runaway global warming. The argument that C02 causes warming does not fit the facts. Their was no industrial C02 produced in large quanities when the Roman Warming period occurred or when the Medieval Warming period occurred. Both are well documented to have been warmer than the recent period of warming. Also I stand by my example of peer review above. You did not present a countering proof other than an ad hominem attack. Finally more than three-dozen studies contradict UN-IPPC's claim that increased C02 persist in the atmosphere long term. The whole IPCC document is based on crude computer models which do not take into account many factors like cloud formation, El Nino and La Nina variations.

Dr. Chameides responds -

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 19, 2009 08:53 AM
RodD, I have but one question: have you actually read the IPCC reports? If you had, you would know that the "whole document" is NOT "based on crude computer models," but is replete with data and data analysis and does take into account clouds, El Nino and La Nina formations.

Ideal temperature

Posted by Ken Towe at Oct 13, 2009 09:29 AM
Sorry to be late to this discussion, but there may be a problem... Dr. Bill said:

"No one is suggesting that there is an "ideal" temperature. Temperature and climate change and disruption are the issues. "

Doesn't the very use of late 20th-century "base period anomalies" imply that these 30-year average temperatures (~14°C, 57.2°F) are what some 21st century folks believe are "normal" and therefore more or less ideal? The current anomaly iterations (and they are quite different from those in the 70s) show that from 1840 to 1940 the average annual temperatures were all below "normal". From 1940 to 1980 they were, by base-period definition, "normal"... near zero? And since then they have increased to abnormal, non-ideal?

Dr. Chameides responds -

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Oct 19, 2009 08:55 AM
Ken, Don't believe the word "normal" is relevant to the discussion. What are relevant are "disruption" and "change" from the conditions to which we have grown accustomed. For example, if the citizens of Atlanta suddenly found themselves with 20 percent less water than what they need, I suspect normal or abnormal would not be as much of a concern as "where are we going to find the water we need." And the fact that these conditions happened 1,000 years ago would provide little solace.

TSI

Posted by rob at Dec 08, 2008 11:09 AM
Why leave it at 30 years, thats cherry picking, how much has the TSI increased from the end of the little ice say from 1840. The sun and its increasing TSI brought about the end of the little ice age and started the modern warming. Over the last 60 years or so the average TSI has been higher than at any time in the past 11,500 years, all that energy has been stored in the oceans that cover 74% of the planet, this stored heat has to be released, it does not always need a rising TSI to increase global temps especially if the TSI over the preceding years has been extremely high, the oceans will need to release the stored heat over time further raising global temps even though the TSI has become stable, in this case stable at a very high level. global temps have not risen since 1998 and in 2008 they dropped substantially, TSI has been at a very low level now for approximately 2.5 years and the oceans are now cooling even though CO2 is still increasing.

YOU SAY, Global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution have increased just under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, ten times that of average TSI. NO they have not, UHI can take care of at least 50% of that figure. Google (UHI and population growth), and don`t tell me Giss/Hanson have allowed for UHI. Just ask yourself why Giss use station pairs instead of just rural sites and don`t tell me there are not enough rural sites. Funny, these rural sites invariably show little or no warming, Armagh for one.

Greenhouse gas warming

Posted by Erica Rowell (Editor) at Dec 08, 2008 11:12 AM
From DR. CHAMEIDES -

Rob - All of these arguments have been thoroughly covered in previous comments.

For example, your argument about energy being stored in the ocean and then being released to explain the warming over the past few decades. It doesn't work. Why? We have observations that show that the heat content of the oceans has increased over the past 30 years. The oceans haven't warmed the atmosphere. The atmosphere has warmed the oceans. And where has the heat come from over these past 30 years? Not the sun; the TSI data clearly show that. In fact, the only source we can document is greenhouse gas warming.

For the rest, please read the earlier discussions.

Fine blog--why no comments?

Posted by Raydon at Nov 03, 2008 11:36 PM
Good to see this blog...and of course, it's not getting comments from the climate change 'skeptics'...you're dealing in facts...and facts are something most are not prepared to deal with. Keep up the good work, though...those of us who can handle ideas and facts appreciate your blog.

about The Green Grok
Dean Chameides

We are on an unsustainable course. While world populations and consumption grow, resources diminish and global warming threatens our way of life. We must find a more sustainable path. But how?

In The Green Grok, Dr. Bill Chameides elucidates causes of and potential remedies for environmental change and identifies pathways towards a more sustainable future.

meet team Grok »

Grok video

Double-click on video for a larger version (for best quality click youtube's HQ button).

A Cautionary Tale of Trees

City Parks: Great Places to Visit and Good for the Environment

DIY: Eight Tips for a More Sustainable Food Shopping Trip

more Grok videos »

Grok series

Cap and Trade In 6 parts »

Cash for Clunkers Ongoing series »

Coal Ash Ongoing series »

Electronic Waste Ongoing series »

Global Warming and Predictions
of an Impending Ice Age
In 4 parts »

Senators on the Climate Bill Fence Ongoing series »

The Smart Grid Part 1 » :: Part 2 »