Radiation Clouds at Aviation Altitudes (and It's Link to Climate Change.)

Here is part of what Dr Joanna D. Haigh's paper states.

...
The thermal radiation increases the Lean radiative forcing slightly, and moderates the decrease in SIM, so that
the net solar radiative forcing 2004–2007 estimated using the two data sets is +0.08 W m^2 with Lean (consistent with previous studies of radiative forcing over a solar cycle 17) but -0.10 W m^2 when the SIM data are used. The latter suggests that radiative forcing of surface climate by the Sun is out of phase with solar activity, at least over this declining phase of solar cycle 23. In their study Cahalan et al.12 did not find this out-of-phase relationship in near-surface air temperature, perhaps because their radiative–convective model did not incorporate
the ozone response.
The SIM data provide an entirely different picture from the one currently accepted for the variation of solar irradiance. It is pertinent to ask whether this spectral variability is typical of solar activity cycles and, if so, why it has not been observed previously. It is possible that the Sun has been behaving in an anomalous fashion recently; certainly the current solar minimum is lower and longer than any of those observed over recent decades
18 and perhaps the solar spectrum has different characteristics when the Sun is in a state of very low activity. Gaps
in understanding will only be resolved by the acquisition of long-term, well-calibrated, high-vertical-resolution measurements of stratospheric composition and temperature acquired coincidently with essential solar spectral data that have also been properly degradation-corrected and calibrated.
...

Link

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As for TSI... You are more than familiar with Dr Wilson's research, because I have posted them responding to your past false statements about TSI. Wilson is the Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments and his conclusions, as well as his colleagues have disagreed with many of your past claims that TSI hadn't been increasing.

They are arguing with the data?
lasp.colorado.edu...
lasp.colorado.edu...
lasp.colorado.edu...
lasp.colorado.edu...

the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.

Yes. I know that solar energy in the troposphere increased. That's what I said.
I also said that TSI did not increase. It didn't.

The latter suggests that radiative forcing of surface climate by the Sun is out of phase with solar activity, at least over this declining phase of solar cycle 23

You know that radiative forcing is, right? It is the amount of radiation trapped in the atmosphere. Higher forcing = more trapped radiation.

As I said, the Nature article is interesting. It says that there was a large decrease in UV radiation from the Sun as solar activity declined. During that same period there was in increase in other wavelengths. It does not say there was an increase in TSI.

But it does not say that TSI increased between 2004 and 2007, nor does the data. But what it does say is that the assumed (by some) link between solar activity and climate may be inverse rather than direct.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It would be interesting to see what has been happening with the Solar spectrum as cycle 24 winds down.
UV seems to be declining


Visible, maybe down a bit.

lasp.colorado.edu...

a reply to: Phage

Do you not understand that they are saying the sun is acting strangely in a way not seen before? It should be very clear.

...
It is pertinent to ask whether this spectral variability is typical of solar activity cycles and, if so, why it has not been observed previously. It is possible that the Sun has been behaving in an anomalous fashion recently; certainly the current solar minimum is lower and longer than any of those observed over recent decades (18) and perhaps the solar spectrum has different characteristics when the Sun is in a state of very low activity.
...

Link

What these scientists are saying is that "the sun" seems to be acting strange lately... It is not that more visible light is "being trapped in the atmosphere" as you try to claim...

Heck, there are several articles in which astrophysicists talk about the sun acting strange this time around...

There’s a giant spot on the sun, and it’s acting weird

Strange Doings on the Sun

What's down with the Sun? Major drop in solar activity predicted

This is what is "predicted".

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you not understand that they are saying the sun is acting strangely in a way not seen before? It should be very clear.

What they say is that they don't know how abnormal the solar spectrum was in 2004 to 2007. As compared to any other time period.

This is what is "predicted".

What the Nature article says is that that "prediction" might be wrong. It says that they found a possible inverse (not direct) relationship to solar activity and warming in 2004 to 2007. Did you miss that part? They found that as solar activity declined, forcing increased. A very small amount. They found that what many assume ( lower solar activity = lower temperatures) may not be what happens.

The latter suggests that radiative forcing of surface climate by the Sun is out of phase with solar activity, at least over this declining phase of solar cycle 23

And, as your stated in your source:

"The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations," he says. "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."

"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."

www.nature.com...

a reply to: Phage

What these scientists have been arguing is that the instruments that have been normally used do not record all the ranges of energy being emitted by the sun. There are ranges of energy which were thought not to influence climate, but in fact they do.

UV radiation had been decreasing and at the same time visible light from the sun, and soft x-rays had been increasing. Soft x-rays don't seem to be decreasing, but in fact has been increasing and in ranges which were not being recorded or measured which is why there have been astrophysicist stating that we need to measure and record these ranges of energy not being measured by conventional instruments.

New Observations of the Solar 0.5-5 keV Soft X-ray Spectrum
Amir Caspi, Thomas N. Woods, Harry P. Warren
(Submitted on 5 Feb 2015 (v1), last revised 20 Feb 2015 (this version, v2))

The solar corona is orders of magnitude hotter than the underlying photosphere, but how the corona attains such high temperatures is still not understood. Soft X-ray (SXR) emission provides important diagnostics for thermal processes in the high-temperature corona, and is also an important driver of ionospheric dynamics at Earth. There is a crucial observational gap between ~0.2 and ~4 keV, outside the ranges of existing spectrometers. We present observations from a new SXR spectrometer, the Amptek X123-SDD, which measured the spatially-integrated solar spectral irradiance from ~0.5 to ~5 keV, with ~0.15 keV FWHM resolution, during sounding rocket flights on 2012 June 23 and 2013 October 21. These measurements show that the highly variable SXR emission is orders of magnitude greater than that during the deep minimum of 2009, even with only weak activity. The observed spectra show significant high-temperature (5-10 MK) emission and are well fit by simple power-law temperature distributions with indices of ~6, close to the predictions of nanoflare models of coronal heating. Observations during the more active 2013 flight indicate an enrichment of low first-ionization potential (FIP) elements of only ~1.6, below the usually-observed value of ~4, suggesting that abundance variations may be related to coronal heating processes. The XUV Photometer System Level 4 data product, a spectral irradiance model derived from integrated broadband measurements, significantly overestimates the spectra from both flights, suggesting a need for revision of its non-flare reference spectra, with important implications for studies of Earth ionospheric dynamics driven by solar SXRs.

lasp.colorado.edu...

Yes, i know that in cycle 24, in 2012 and 2013 the sun's activity was at maximum for this cycle. But the fact is that on overall solar soft x-rays have been increasing.



Does that seem like a decrease in soft x-rays activity to you?... Soft x-rays also warms the lower atmosphere of Earth.

As for solar irradiance, the paper I presented and the statements from the astrophysicists is that the visible light of the sun had increased in 2007 more than it had in 2004, and this increase in visible light from our sun had been also causing warming. You do know that in 2007 the sun's overall activity had been decreasing, except it's visible light and soft x-ray emission were increasing, and soft x-ray emission seems to continue to increase. In 2004 solar sunspots were still higher than in 2007 yet in 2007 the sun was emitting more visible light and more soft x-rays which is not what the sun normally does.


www.swpc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: infolurker

Genius, pure evil genius!

I heard the radiation is all because of the sun and it's phases. And the missing ozone probably doesn't help. But it's mostly natural, and has probably been happening for billions of years. People aren't supposed to be up there anyway.

a reply to: panaque

Really. If man had been meant to fly God would have given him wings.

originally posted by: Phage
What the Nature article says is that that "prediction" might be wrong. It says that they found a possible inverse (not direct) relationship to solar activity and warming in 2004 to 2007. Did you miss that part? They found that as solar activity declined, forcing increased. A very small amount. They found that what many assume ( lower solar activity = lower temperatures) may not be what happens.

The latter suggests that radiative forcing of surface climate by the Sun is out of phase with solar activity, at least over this declining phase of solar cycle 23

First of all, Lockwood wasn't part of the research team. But we all knew the AGW camp would try to change the narrative, as you keep doing, as to what has been causing this strange behavior in the sun.

Again, what the research actually says, and not what you, or other AGW followers want to claim...

...
Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.
...
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...

The net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere was larger in 2007 than in 2004.