It’s true this simple relationship hasn’t been seen before, more than likely because nobody bothered to look. But you know, apparently there is nothing new under the sun. So it goes.

My first thought about global warming was the result of my skin heating up and burning (I am a redhead so I burn ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME) when the sun is shining bright. From there I naturally thought that when the sun was hot, I was hot. Therefore the temperature around me was hot. If the sun stayed hot with little time spent in slumber, I just figured that the temperature rise was due to a hot sun. However, if that were the case, we would have seen this simple relationship long ago and there would be no Al Gore movies.

Apparently this is not the case because we have Woody Al stiffly describing the devastating affects of the stuff we all breath out.

But at least I was given the opportunity to see peaks. . . .Then I started looking at valleys. From there I started looking at what the sun was doing during the valleys. Man, was I surprised. Here is what it is doing when it sleeps: It is NOT protecting us from some very damaging rays. Not only did I get a hole in my lip, but our blanket in the sky is being eaten alive by that seemingly quiet, passive sun. So I have come full circle. The scar on my lip can probably be blamed on solar MINIMUMS, not maximums. What else can we add to the rap sheet of the sun when it looks oh so peacefully quiet?

Pot, kettle, … ?

Thanks again and Godspeed in getting this published!

one way to think about it is this. if you had zero trend and noise with a 1 deg sig
your year to year delta can be huge. swinging from 1 sig down to one sig up would imply a rate of 2 times the 1 sig value.

Capacitor, indeed. I love capacitors. Especially those big honking 1 farad ones you can buy now.

My abiding belief here is that stats are inappropriate (ICA excepted) for the determination and evaluation of causation, and I believe Phil, J, and Tammy are expecting Basil and AW to prove that to which they do not aspire, a correlation of cyclic phenomena tantamount to causation.

A couple of relevant observations of current practice:

MBH98 proposed to combine temperature proxies, e.g., the Bristlecone series, by means of PCA, to replace existing proxies with less precision, e.g., 10Be, and temperature data. The latter because the record was essentially NH only.

It would have been entirely plausible to do a PCA on the BC data, separating into factors (H20, C02, Temp), creating a polynomial fit and then doing phase analysis in a calibration of the resulting fit with the local temp.

This was not done or imagined. This despite the intent to recreate a reasonable facsimile of the temperature curve, a continous record!

Phase analysis wasn’t undertaken with the composite proxy! And some of the MBH98 supporters are here engaged.

Svalgaard and Cliver (2007?) have proposed correcting historic SSN data with Geomagnetic data. Neither are physical quantities, but statistics themselves. Indeed, SSN are discontinuous taking no value between 0 & 11.
The former are the direct result of torodial fields near the Suns surface, presumably bathed in the polodial field. The later are the effect at 93 million miles of the highly ‘twisted poloidal field’ of orginating some days earlier. In addition the Geomagnetic measure is highly effected by UV, a highly volatile factor.

It would have been perfectly plausible that the SSN and Geomagnetic data be evaluated for phase consistency since the object was to correct SSN data.

This was not done or imagined.

I’m not arguing against hypocrisy here. Basil and AW are measuring a feature of the data. Many of their critics are manifestly out of their depth in their analysis.

However the following quote shows that B & A are indeed trying to assert that the two curves are in phase.
“The strong degree of correspondence between the solar cycle peaks and the peak rate of change in the smoothed temperature trend from HadCRUT surface temperature data is seen in Figure 5.”

However the form of plot they used hides the actual lack of correlation between the timings of the peaks.

“One should be careful to analyze for oneself and not depend too closely on gadflies like Hansen’s Bulldog; his enthusiasm outstrips his talent.”

Some of us are able to think for ourselves Gary!

Do a reconstruction.

The entire issue of “correlating” through whatever measure, the sunspot maximum with the surface temp dt, seems on reflection to be a snipe hunt of sorts.

Surface temps ( as collected by Jones and cru and hansen and crew) are noisy bits of the record. If you think that SSN correlates in some way to the HEAT of the planet, then look at SST. It’s a big old capacitor and all the high freq crap is filtered out.

Looking at hadcrude or gimptemp ( jokes intended) you are just introducing unnecessary noise.

Look at SST. a thought.

Basil (several posts back):

A. I’m not sure of the semantics. In any case, my sense is that correlation analysis and your choice of axes and such is off. I think this has been well pointed out to you by now by others with more description. I’m not a “jock”, but I could sense right away that there was a fundamental flaw in your method.

B. I don’t know a better method of comparing cyclicality. I have asked this question as well. I think you should research this in books and with experts. I’m sure that it is a type of problem that has been thought about and that there are some good methods and caveats on usage and stuff. Your work to date is obviously very preliminary and the comments on publishing, etc. were “off”. It’s fine to “doodle”. But at least appreciate that you are doodling when you do so. And then go and learn the basics of what techniques are needed to use on your particular problem. Do that before publishing or even before overly promoting your work. (BTW: you worry me a bit with some of your tone. You seem to be a bit pompous in language, etc. but not to really be a critical thinker. Please work on that.)

C. ‘the peaks are interesting but come out with higher level filtering’.
1. Well, in the filter you DID use, the peaks were there. So they should be included in figure 5.
2. Why the comment on filters in commentary, but not in the initial headpost (draft publication)? Do you appreciate that points like this should be raised as part of the publication itself?
3. It just scares me to hear things like use more filtering to remove peaks.
4. Doing numerical correlation analysis on smoothed data is a dangerous thing. One that we criticize AGWers for.

REPLY: TCO, using a better “wrapper” these days I see. Good on you!

Output the temperature with a DSP and do a Fourier transform analysis on the signal. Never know what you might find … If anyone has a copy of Mathematica, I believe it will do the work for you.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

This predicts that the next minimum period is imminent and may be as pronounced as either the Daulton or Maunder.

This is a totally different approach than the solar scientists have used to predict an unusually/unprecedented low level of activity in cylce 25 – but both forecasts are pointing to the same result.

Fourier can still be useful; Watts have concentrated on 2 cycles, Schwabe and Hale, with a nod at a 60-70 year periodicity; they have used Javaraiah’s work on the Hale cycle, but Javariah has also done a paper on a 17 year solar cycle; since the solar influence is variably constant, any analysis should cover all cycles, with a reasonable assumption being that climatic discrepancies that statistically fall outside those periods are the result of either lag or unknown cycles or combinations. The Watts’ analysis was brave but deficient in content perhaps.