Solar Irradiance in a nose-dive...

[Billy_Bob]

How many times have we been below 1360? Well, by YOUR source, since 2004, a dozen times.

Not surprisingly... Due to your Can'tReadaGraph syndrome, you picked the wrong time frame and context to see what the fuss is all about. Also probably need to switch variables and look at the radio astronomy and other direct activity measurements like sunspot counts.

But if THAT means something to you -- then Bless your Little Heart..

Clue --- you're not likely to see any real change in the TSI baseline until you are way INTO the event.. And nobody really knows if all the variance in TSI is even predictive of a solar minimum. We've not MEASURED one ever before..

You're a ******* idiot if you're joining up with this crew. Do YOU really think the sun is shutting down? Do YOU really think we're starting a snowball Earth RIGHT NOW? I suspect you're not that stupid. Then why pretend that you are? The data I posted came from the same source as the OP. They were right next to each other and display the exact same parametersh the only difference was the time scale. And since the OP and its denier entourage made claims about the behavior of those parameters over time, it's the perfect ******* response and YOU'RE the ******* graph idiot here.

Asshole.

Wow...

The denial of natural variation at its worst..Just what actually causes the 90,000 year periods of cold? {You appear to be a top notch scientist and know everything 100%... } --- NOT! Your ignorance is stunning...

 

[edthecynic]

IF this drop remains, there will be no fudging of the numbers capable of hiding the cooling. Since Jan 19th we have dropped almost 2W/m^2 of TSI... This is getting very interesting as this mirrors the drop in global temps since then..

New heights: First 3 months of 2016 see record-high temperatures

Global temperatures in January, February, and March of 2016 reached new highs, besting the previous January-March record set in 2015, according to the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 "was the highest for the month of March in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880," the NOAA announced Tuesday, adding that that this year’s temperatures for the period from January through March had also hit a new high.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where did you ever get the idea that "the Earth didn't stop warming during previous Solar Minimums"??

"Solar Minimums"? I thought we we talking about a little downward blip caused by a large sunspot rotating into an earth-facing position. Even the people at WUWT say that's what's happening.

And exactly WHO is confusing a Solar Minimum to an Ice Age?

Obviously you are, being you're the only one here confusing a short-term downward blip with a "solar minimum".

You're wasting time here Squidward..

Indeed. If you fail this hard at the basics, there's not much point in discussing it with you.

SORCE is going to show TSI back up next week, as the large sunspot rotates away from earth-facing. (Their current published data only goes up to Apr. 14.) Billy and the other deniers, after looking like morons, will simply pretend this episode of stupidity never happened, which will allow them to move on to some new stupidity.

The twist is a dance first dubbed by a black singer in the 50's. Dam you guys do it well. I pointed out correlation and potential causation, but because you all are so invested in the AGW crap, you fail to see the forest through the trees...

Amazing you offer up no other evidence but are quick to personally attack.. Your desperation is well established.

That is their hypothesis, but there is other evidence that it is dropping and not increasing... keep your blinder firmly affixed as I never said it would not rise, only that 1360 was the last solar siesta and that it has been a very long time since that level of drop has been seen..

 

[Billy_Bob]

IF this drop remains, there will be no fudging of the numbers capable of hiding the cooling. Since Jan 19th we have dropped almost 2W/m^2 of TSI... This is getting very interesting as this mirrors the drop in global temps since then..

New heights: First 3 months of 2016 see record-high temperatures

Global temperatures in January, February, and March of 2016 reached new highs, besting the previous January-March record set in 2015, according to the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 "was the highest for the month of March in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880," the NOAA announced Tuesday, adding that that this year’s temperatures for the period from January through March had also hit a new high.

The homogenization and pencil whipping of the record continues...

 

[edthecynic]

IF this drop remains, there will be no fudging of the numbers capable of hiding the cooling. Since Jan 19th we have dropped almost 2W/m^2 of TSI... This is getting very interesting as this mirrors the drop in global temps since then..

New heights: First 3 months of 2016 see record-high temperatures

Global temperatures in January, February, and March of 2016 reached new highs, besting the previous January-March record set in 2015, according to the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 "was the highest for the month of March in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880," the NOAA announced Tuesday, adding that that this year’s temperatures for the period from January through March had also hit a new high.

The homogenization and pencil whipping of the record continues...

 

[jc456]

^^exactly^^^ homogenized. It is the ticket.

 

[mamooth]

Here's Billy's ice-age inducer. Sunspot AR2529, big enough to be seen with the naked eye during sunsets. This photo from April 12, 2016. While sunspot activity indicates a more active sun in general, individual sunspots are cooler, and a big sunspot pointed at earth lowers TSI.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK....so now we have experts on the sun in here. According to them, the sun's activity has no effect on our climate!! They say this with 100% certainty!!

 

[SSDD]

IF this drop remains, there will be no fudging of the numbers capable of hiding the cooling. Since Jan 19th we have dropped almost 2W/m^2 of TSI... This is getting very interesting as this mirrors the drop in global temps since then..

New heights: First 3 months of 2016 see record-high temperatures

Global temperatures in January, February, and March of 2016 reached new highs, besting the previous January-March record set in 2015, according to the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 "was the highest for the month of March in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880," the NOAA announced Tuesday, adding that that this year’s temperatures for the period from January through March had also hit a new high.

The only records we have seen is manipulation of the data set taken to new highs.

As to what NOAA says...who can believe them?...in 1989 NOAA clearly stated that they saw a cooling trend between the years of 1921 and 1979...that trend has been adjusted out of existence....They also said that most of the warming since 1882 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919....another trend that has been adjusted out of existence. How can you possibly take anything NOAA says seriously?...how do you suppose altering data from 50 years back, and more makes it more accurate?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is starting to bounce back... but will it return to base line or will step lower?

 

[flacaltenn]

How many times have we been below 1360? Well, by YOUR source, since 2004, a dozen times.

Not surprisingly... Due to your Can'tReadaGraph syndrome, you picked the wrong time frame and context to see what the fuss is all about. Also probably need to switch variables and look at the radio astronomy and other direct activity measurements like sunspot counts.

But if THAT means something to you -- then Bless your Little Heart..

Clue --- you're not likely to see any real change in the TSI baseline until you are way INTO the event.. And nobody really knows if all the variance in TSI is even predictive of a solar minimum. We've not MEASURED one ever before..

You're a ******* idiot if you're joining up with this crew. Do YOU really think the sun is shutting down? Do YOU really think we're starting a snowball Earth RIGHT NOW? I suspect you're not that stupid. Then why pretend that you are? The data I posted came from the same source as the OP. They were right next to each other and display the exact same parametersh the only difference was the time scale. And since the OP and its denier entourage made claims about the behavior of those parameters over time, it's the perfect ******* response and YOU'RE the ******* graph idiot here.

Asshole.

The only s here would be the ones who don't know the difference between a relative Solar Minimum and "snowball earths" or "the sun shutting down"..

But in your case -- you also couldn't make the leap with me about TSI not BEING a leading indicator of going into/out of Solar Mins.. Neither the OP NOR your context free graph had anything important to say about predicting/verifying a Solar Minimum.. Once the event is ENTERED -- you'll see it as a delayed effect in the TSI -- but it's the "other" activities params that warn about solar mins..

Don't be so quick on the ad homs. . Just multiplies the embarrassment..

 

[flacaltenn]

It is starting to bounce back... but will it return to base line or will step lower?

It's GONNA step lower because it's in that phase of EXPECTED cyclical downturn... Won't know if it's a deeper minimum for about 6 or 8 years..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is starting to bounce back... but will it return to base line or will step lower?

It's GONNA step lower because it's in that phase of EXPECTED cyclical downturn... Won't know if it's a deeper minimum for about 6 or 8 years..

I agree... The AGW faithful are going to be sorely disappointed as this recent loss of heat will be felt in coming weeks and months. The northern hemisphere above 9,000 feet has cooled about 1.5 deg C in the last two weeks....

 

[mamooth]

I agree... The AGW faithful are going to be sorely disappointed as this recent loss of heat will be felt in coming weeks and months. The northern hemisphere above 9,000 feet has cooled about 1.5 deg C in the last two weeks....

Poor Billy, so ignorant of the basic physics, and so innumerate.

That graph? It's not a measurement of actual TSI at earth. It's a sort of normalized TSI, what TSI at earth would be if the earth had a circular orbit.

However, earth doesn't have a circular orbit. That's why TSI at the actual position of the earth varies by about 80W/m^2 between aphelion and perihelion.

Billy claims a one-week blip of 1 will nosedive temps. Yet we observe that a regular loss of 0-40 for a whole season doesn't freeze the earth.

Why? Because the earth's climate shows almost no response to TSI changes over spans of days or months. It takes years for any TSI effects to accumulate in the climate. To put it in systems terms, the earth's climate is a low-pass filter.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

So, how concerned should be be here, given that we are looking at a 0.1% change in TSI in this chart?

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree... The AGW faithful are going to be sorely disappointed as this recent loss of heat will be felt in coming weeks and months. The northern hemisphere above 9,000 feet has cooled about 1.5 deg C in the last two weeks....

Poor Billy, so ignorant of the basic physics, and so innumerate.

That graph? It's not a measurement of actual TSI at earth. It's a sort of normalized TSI, what TSI at earth would be if the earth had a circular orbit.

However, earth doesn't have a circular orbit. That's why TSI at the actual position of the earth varies by about 80W/m^2 between aphelion and perihelion.

Billy claims a one-week blip of 1 will nosedive temps. Yet we observe that a regular loss of 0-40 for a whole season doesn't freeze the earth.

Why? Because the earth's climate shows almost no response to TSI changes over spans of days or months. It takes years for any TSI effects to accumulate in the climate. To put it in systems terms, the earth's climate is a low-pass filter.

Oh that's rich.. The climate "is a low-pass filter" to ANYTHING EXCEPT CO2... In that case -- the forcing that Matthew sees TODAY will be headlines tomorrow..

And the SORCE/TIM graph reconstructions are NOT "normalized TSI".. They are EMPIRICAL (measurement or proxy) data set.. And a Solar Minimum is about a 40 year event at the least. Possibly more. WTF do you get this "one week blip"?

I've explained to Billy that this is expected variance in TSI at this point in ANY solar cycle. And that the "cooling event" would be signaled thru the more direct parameters measuring solar "activity" and not the "total solar output":.

Only SquidWard and the entire IPCC is confused between "solar activity" indicators showing CYCLICAL activity and TSI which has the cyclical activity sitting on top of an "UN-NORMALIZED" baseline. It's that BASELINE that determines climate warming/cooling.. NOT the "cyclical" indications..

 

[flacaltenn]

So, how concerned should be be here, given that we are looking at a 0.1% change in TSI in this chart?

Shouldn't be looking at TSI at all to PREDICT a relative Solar Minimum.. It's the other solar parameters that tell you if the sun is going quiet. And the event will already be here -- before the baseline decade average of TSI even starts to moves..

 

[mamooth]

Oh that's rich.. The climate "is a low-pass filter" to ANYTHING EXCEPT CO2... In that case -- the forcing that Matthew sees TODAY will be headlines tomorrow.

No, it's always a low-pass filter to everything, thanks to the thermal inertia of the oceans.

And sadly for you, the output of that filter is not acting in accordance with response to a solar input, no matter how you try to tweak the delay. So much for your solar theory.

And the SORCE/TIM graph reconstructions are NOT "normalized TSI".. They are EMPIRICAL (measurement or proxy) data set..

No, that's wrong. The SORCE satellite is in earth orbit. Therefore, it follows the earth through its elliptical orbit around the sun. It does not orbit in a 1 AU circle around the sun, therefore it is not measuring TSI at 1 AU. It is measuring TSI at wherever the earth happens to be.

You can see that data here.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

Column 10 is TSI at earth, the "raw data". It varies by about 6% or 80W/m^2 over the course of a year, in the fashion of a sinusoid with the small solar signal added.

Column 5 is TSI at 1 AU, the "adjusted data". Billy plotted adjusted data. The sinusoidal component is removed, leaving just the solar signal on top of the baseline. That's useful for solar studies. It's not so useful for climate models, as it doesn't represent the energy actually striking the earth.

And a Solar Minimum is about a 40 year event at the least. Possibly more.

There's no sign of any significant solar minimum. And GHG forcings are many times the magnitude of a worst-case solar minimum. Another Maunder Minimum would only slow down the warming a bit.

WTF do you get this "one week blip"

From Billy's graph in post #51. Are you even reading the same thread as the rest of us?

I've explained to Billy that this is expected variance in TSI at this point in ANY solar cycle. And that the "cooling event" would be signaled thru the more direct parameters measuring solar "activity" and not the "total solar output":.

Oh yeah, your "it's the spectrum!" handwaving. Good luck with that.

Only SquidWard and the entire IPCC is confused between "solar activity" indicators showing CYCLICAL activity and TSI which has the cyclical activity sitting on top of an "UN-NORMALIZED" baseline. It's that BASELINE that determines climate warming/cooling.. NOT the "cyclical" indications..

Perhaps you need some education in what a low-pass filter is. You know, an integrator. Which would sum any changes in the baseline. Given that you kind of said I claimed the opposite of what I actually stated, it's clear you're not competent to judge what I or the IPCC has stated.

As I live to educate, let me try dumb down what I said a little more for you.

Billy said a one-week downward blip of 1W/m^2 would "be felt in the coming weeks or months."

I pointed out that the seasonal sinusoidal variation of 80W/m^2 doesn't even show up in the weeks or months, so his claim was clearly wrong.

You could have just said "Mamooth, that was absolutely correct." In general, you'll save yourself embarrassment if you start out assuming that I'm right.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh that's rich.. The climate "is a low-pass filter" to ANYTHING EXCEPT CO2... In that case -- the forcing that Matthew sees TODAY will be headlines tomorrow.

No, it's always a low-pass filter to everything, thanks to the thermal inertia of the oceans.

And sadly for you, the output of that filter is not acting in accordance with response to a solar input, no matter how you try to tweak the delay. So much for your solar theory.

And the SORCE/TIM graph reconstructions are NOT "normalized TSI".. They are EMPIRICAL (measurement or proxy) data set..

No, that's wrong. The SORCE satellite is in earth orbit. Therefore, it follows the earth through its elliptical orbit around the sun. It does not orbit in a 1 AU circle around the sun, therefore it is not measuring TSI at 1 AU. It is measuring TSI at wherever the earth happens to be.

You can see that data here.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

Column 10 is TSI at earth, the "raw data". It varies by about 6% or 80W/m^2 over the course of a year, in the fashion of a sinusoid with the small solar signal added.

Column 5 is TSI at 1 AU, the "adjusted data". Billy plotted adjusted data. The sinusoidal component is removed, leaving just the solar signal on top of the baseline. That's useful for solar studies. It's not so useful for climate models, as it doesn't represent the energy actually striking the earth.

And a Solar Minimum is about a 40 year event at the least. Possibly more.

There's no sign of any significant solar minimum. And GHG forcings are many times the magnitude of a worst-case solar minimum. Another Maunder Minimum would only slow down the warming a bit.

WTF do you get this "one week blip"

From Billy's graph in post #51. Are you even reading the same thread as the rest of us?

I've explained to Billy that this is expected variance in TSI at this point in ANY solar cycle. And that the "cooling event" would be signaled thru the more direct parameters measuring solar "activity" and not the "total solar output":.

Oh yeah, your "it's the spectrum!" handwaving. Good luck with that.

Only SquidWard and the entire IPCC is confused between "solar activity" indicators showing CYCLICAL activity and TSI which has the cyclical activity sitting on top of an "UN-NORMALIZED" baseline. It's that BASELINE that determines climate warming/cooling.. NOT the "cyclical" indications..

Perhaps you need some education in what a low-pass filter is. You know, an integrator. Which would sum any changes in the baseline. Given that you kind of said I claimed the opposite of what I actually stated, it's clear you're not competent to judge what I or the IPCC has stated.

As I live to educate, let me try dumb down what I said a little more for you.

Billy said a one-week downward blip of 1W/m^2 would "be felt in the coming weeks or months."

I pointed out that the seasonal sinusoidal variation of 80W/m^2 doesn't even show up in the weeks or months, so his claim was clearly wrong.

You could have just said "Mamooth, that was absolutely correct." In general, you'll save yourself embarrassment if you start out assuming that I'm right.

Pitiful pickin's there. Especially the part where the IPCC always TOSSES the baseline completely OUT and just hoists the cyclical portion of "solar activity" as an "IPCC definition of solar forcing. It's always been contrived and deceptive..

So -- no more expectations that the temperature result has to look EXACTLY LIKE the forcing mechanism???

Wow man -- you're making great retarded progress.. Now that learned a little systems theory lingo -- we should clear up your misuses and poor understanding of "spectrum".. Maybe a little Fourier synthesis would help eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

How many times have we been below 1360? Well, by YOUR source, since 2004, a dozen times.

Not surprisingly... Due to your Can'tReadaGraph syndrome, you picked the wrong time frame and context to see what the fuss is all about. Also probably need to switch variables and look at the radio astronomy and other direct activity measurements like sunspot counts.

But if THAT means something to you -- then Bless your Little Heart..

Clue --- you're not likely to see any real change in the TSI baseline until you are way INTO the event.. And nobody really knows if all the variance in TSI is even predictive of a solar minimum. We've not MEASURED one ever before..

You're a ******* idiot if you're joining up with this crew. Do YOU really think the sun is shutting down? Do YOU really think we're starting a snowball Earth RIGHT NOW? I suspect you're not that stupid. Then why pretend that you are? The data I posted came from the same source as the OP. They were right next to each other and display the exact same parametersh the only difference was the time scale. And since the OP and its denier entourage made claims about the behavior of those parameters over time, it's the perfect ******* response and YOU'RE the ******* graph idiot here.

Asshole.

The only s here would be the ones who don't know the difference between a relative Solar Minimum and "snowball earths" or "the sun shutting down"..

But in your case -- you also couldn't make the leap with me about TSI not BEING a leading indicator of going into/out of Solar Mins.. Neither the OP NOR your context free graph had anything important to say about predicting/verifying a Solar Minimum.. Once the event is ENTERED -- you'll see it as a delayed effect in the TSI -- but it's the "other" activities params that warn about solar mins..

Don't be so quick on the ad homs. . Just multiplies the embarrassment..

I'm not experiencing the least bit of embarrassment. But, of course, I'm not siding with the lying fool BillyBob. If you want to lecture someone re short tetm TSI transients not being good indicators of an oncoming solar minimum, I'm curious why you haven't spoken to him as you've just spoken to me. Are his ad homs more acceptable?

So, Billy, what's your "colleague" at UC say now? Is the end still nigh?

The concern is a step down of function which has already started back in 1998. It will take a few more years before its fully seen. The recent drop to1360 is predictive of the further step down in conjunction with other predictors.

Too funny... you are incapable of addressing anyone without and adhom of some type. Then you ***** about being treated like you treat others who dont agree with your position...

Ocean heat reserves are depleted due to reduced solar output, circulations are now going cold, and on the down side of the long solar cycle (360 year)..

IF the warming is not already over (as I believe it is) the long 20 year pause is a good indicator of the top of the sign wave, and it wont be long now before we see rapid cooling.