One of the best prospects to understand the complete solar – Earth link is a recent discovery (m.a.vukcevic) of the direct but non-stationary relationship between the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit and the CET’s ‘reference’ component: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm
The revision of the ACRIM data sounds very interesting, especially in the context that the ACRIM composite has been used by some (esp. Dr. Scafetta) to suggest that a jump in the apparent solar output during the so-called “ACRIM gap” of 1989 was an indication that solar output had risen somewhat through the “90’s” and thus an increase in solar output could be “rescued” as a major contribution to global warmng in that period!
[Response: The ACRIM gap is still an issue, though I think there is more support for the PMOD method than the official ACRIM version. Scafetta’s attempt to deal with it, was comprehensively demolished by Krivova et al. – gavin]
So does the recent Wilson revision of ACRIM resolve that particular issue or is there still uncertainty in the progression of solar output through the ACRIM gap?
This particular issue is discussed very informatively here:
In other AGU news, Jules and James have the culinary report and this comment regarding the modeling philosophy session:
I also thought there was a bit of a logical failure regarding the vexed question of the “independence” of the models, but there didn’t seem to be much point in picking a fight so I kept my mouth shut. [While considering the confirmatory effect of multiple models, several speakers stated confidently that the IPCC ensemble of models were not “independent”, while openly admitting that they were utterly incapable of providing any operational or measurable definition of this property.]
So — for us non-experts, is the level of solar irradiance now accepted to be about 5 W/m2 below the pre-2011 satellite estimates? I’m not trying to grind an ax of any kind, just trying to update my current understanding.
[Response: Yes. The TSI at solar minimum should be updated to around 1361 W/m2 (uncertainty around 0.5 W/m2). – gavin]
My poster was on day 3 of the AGU, rather than day 2. Also, while our number is higher than some past estimates, we only show a 10% difference between urban and rural stations over the past three decades, which translates into closer to a 5% difference between rural and all stations. Add in the fact that over 2/3rds of the earth is ocean, and you only have a global temp bias due to UHI of 1-2%.
We also only examined raw GHCN-Daily data. The NCDC folks are in the process of homogenizing it for us (previously only GHCN-Monthly has been homogenized), and we expect that at least some of the urban bias can be detected by the pair-wise homogenization process and removed (as we saw in the US).
So as we would expect there seems to be a positive bias due to urbanization, but the best that we can tell it is relatively modest.
Thank you for your reply. There wasn’t a thread for day 3 yet, so I posted the link here. The ocean issue is a given, but most temperature data show higher warming over land than ocean.
The argument began when a poster claimed that there was no bias. There has been disagreement as to whether rural or urban stations are warming faster. The claim by a few of us is that the bias occurs when a station shifts from being rural to urban.
Interestingly enough, the BEST folks revised their estimate of UHI to 0.02 C per decade from 1950-present. Its not statistically significantly different from zero in their estimate, but its not negative anymore.
@gavin: If the TSI is updated from 1365W/m² to 1361W/m² how does this affect the estimates for reflected and absorbed solar energy? Does only the reflected energy going down? Or the absorbed solar energy? Or may the albedo estimates remain constant so affecting both? Or is it more difficult?
[Response: The reflected solar energy is a directly measured quantity, and so a change in the incoming TSI will impact the calculated albedo. But the differences are not large. For the 5 W/m2 change in TSI, that makes 1.25 W/m2 change in net incoming radiation (1.25/342 or 0.4%), and that makes 0.02% difference in the derived albedo (i.e. from 29.8 to 30%) (assuming 240 W/m2 is absorbed). – gavin]
@gavin: Thanks! But could it be that the same scattering problem has also affected the measurements of the reflected solar energy? If yes, then the value for the reflected solar energy would have to reduced by the same percentage and the albedo does not change. Or could this be excluded, maybe because of completely different instrument types?