The controversy between Willson and Lean is over a decade old. And all the present graphs that I trust, those of NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, show a decline, very small, but a decline none the less, for the last 50 years. Thus far, no one has been able to show me why a decline in the TSI should result in further warming.
In fact, 2008 should have been a very cold year. One that was in the bottom 10 for warmth, not in the top ten. A very strong solar minimum with virtually no sunspots, a strong La Nina. But, depending on the record keepers, it ranked as either the tenth or eight warmest on record. And the next year, 2009, tied for second warmest. This is not indictutive of the TSI being the cause of the present warming. The primary change that we have seen is the additional GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere. And the physics of the additional GHGs state that we should be seeing that warming.
The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.
Yes, there is debate about whether the sun is brightening, or dimming. But the amount is a very small fraction of one percent in either case. As for the physics of the mechanisms within the sun, you are correct. We have little real understanding of it. Another satellite for the study of the sun, one that can answer a few questions, and probably provoke far more questions than those answered at this point, will be launch shortly.
Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance
As a result, questions remain about how the sun's irradiance has changed. Richard Willson, principal investigator for NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), reported in a 2003 paper that the overall brightness of the sun was increasing by 0.05 percent per decade.
Subsequent assessments of the same data have come to a different conclusion. Other groups of scientists have shown that the apparent upward trend is actually an artifact of the radiometers and how they degrade in orbit. Complicating the issue further, an instrument aboard NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) measured irradiance levels during a solar minimum in 2008 that were actually lower than the previous solar minimum.
Which measurements are right? Has the sun experienced subtle brightening or dimming during the last few solar cycles? Such questions remain controversial, but the radiometer aboard Glory, called the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), is ready to provide answers. The Glory TIM will be more accurate and stable than previous instruments because of unique optical and electrical advances. And each of its components has undergone a rigorous regime of calibrations at a newly-built facility at the University of Colorado.
By the way, thank you for the interesting article.
Think about this for a moment. The absorption spectra of the GHGs don't care what the TSI is, they will take in the same percentage whether it is up or down. But if you increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, then the GHGs will retain a higher percentage of the outgoing heat. A higher TSI, higher amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere, and you have a lot more heat retained.
Damn phone keeps logging out and I lose my comment.
Mostly visible light comes in, heats the earth, which then gives off black body radiation of mostly infrared. CO2 then absorbs its favourite wavelengths only one of which is not swamped by water vapour. That CO2 then gives off its own black body radiation, some or most of which is not captured by other co2, but escapes or is captured by a different ghg. I can see that some heat is held by co2 and some is sent back to earth but I don't see this as an efficient bottleneck in radiation escaping, especially compared to water both as vapor and oceans. Please enlighten me if I am confused.
Last edited: