I was pointed to this graph by an email from WUWT reader Phil Ravenscroft and I’m reposting it here for discussion.
While the correlation looks plausible, it seems almost too good. Since the email tip for this graph did not include the source data files, I was ready to dismiss it.
UPDATE: my first impression was the correct one – see comments
But in doing my own research, I found myself being led back to late John Daly and his references to Theodor Landscheidt in this page. While I don’t put much stock in Landscheidt’s barycentric theories, I’ve never known John Daly to pursue a wild hare. Looking further, in the peer reviewed literature, there is this paper:
Connection between ENSO phenomena and solar and geomagnetic activity (PDF) by M A. Nuzhdina, Astronomical Observatory of Kiev National T. Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2002) 2: 83–89. European Geophysical Society.
I find this passage interesting:
The analysis of planetary fields of pressure shows that they
are connected both with the 11-year and the 22-year solar cycles
(Wagner, 1971). The atmospheric barometric centers,
Icelandic and Aleut depressions, Pacific, Siberian, Azores
anticyclones in the northern hemisphere, displace close to
the maxima of 11-year solar cycles. The Azores and Icelandic
barometric centers tend to displace on the east close
to the maximum of a solar cycle (Herman and Goldberg,
1978). The clockwise circulation, connected with Azores anticyclone,
causes passat winds in the north-east direction.
The response of barometric formations at the midday regions
of the Earth (namely, recess or filling of cyclones or
strengthening or destruction of anticyclones) depends upon
tbe sign of the magnetic field of the sunspot which is crossing
the central meridian of the Sun (Nuzhdina and Barkova,
1983). Spontaneous phenomena of solar activity (solar
flares) and crossings by the Earth of an IMF sector boundary
are accompanied by changes of atmospheric pressure and
cyclonic activity in some regions Mustel, 1972; Roberts and
Olsen, 1973; Herman and Goldberg, 1978). A low-pressure
region in the gulf of Alaska is more significant, when the
IMF is directed away from the Sun, than towards (Wilcox,
1978).
The authors conclude:
– QB and QA oscillations in ENSO data are coherent with
the same oscillation in Ap-index and Wolf number data. 5.3-year oscillation is coherent in ENSO and Wolf number data.
– In our opinion, cyclic dynamics of ENSO phenomena
are due to solar activity and geomagnetic variations.
It is background long-period variations on which high frequency
oscillations are imposed.
This is an interesting concept and worth further discussion. My goal in posting this is to have our team of WUWT readers take a good hard look at this and see if the SOI – Ap graph has any merit.
I’m traveling today, so have at it. Please, please, keep on topic. Lately people have just been posting random links and OT’s.
Bob Tisdale (02:48:04) :
Leif, if you’ve got the AP Index data in monthly format, I’ll plot it with the SOI.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Index-1932-now.xls
Bob T / Jos
I think that Phil Ravenscroft’s SOI is the NCAR (Standardized Tahiti — Standardized Darwin) SOI where the standardizing is done using the approach outlined by Trenberth (1984).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/soiAnnual.html
Data here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/SOI.signal.annstd.ascii
I graphed this and it appears identical (it also is lagged by about a year to the Ap index).
Now, I had a quick look, but as it’s late here in Aus and I can’t look for a different version of the Ap Index (that maybe Phil used) – there are some out there. Maybe Leif will know of different versions… (By the way, Leif’s graph appears to be the data from NGDC.NOAA that Jos linked to above).
cheers
No no no. This is a hoax.
The obvious failing is two fold :
1) The allignment of the graphs is too perfect. Looking at the graphs, I could never believe that there would be such a perfect allignment.
2) If there is a correlation, then there must be a lag, of at least a few years. Water has tremendous heat capacity, and any solar influence would have a few years delay. That graph is just too perfectlt alligned to be real.
If it is genuine, then the AGW hoax has just technically ended.
(not necessarily policially ended !!)
But this is not real.
Well, I am not impressed.
1)There is a much higher frequency in the oscillations of the mauve curve than the yellow curve.
2) The yellow curve has more oscillations than the curve provided by Leif (13 versus 9) so they can not be the same curve
3) a spaghetti type effect is induced on the eye by the many small oscillations in each large one. If I had the tools I would try a fourier analysis or some such, to get some solid numbers to compare between the two curves.
That as far as presentation.
Now on more insidious grounds. If one has two oscillating sinusoidal behaviors it is easy to manipulate them to coincide in some peaks and troughs. It is also easy to get fortuitous coincidences.
I will again go to my example of wave trains in water. Take two similar size lakes and let the same amplitude wind blow on them. The wave trains of the two lakes will be highly correlated with some lags or forwards of the plots, even if one lake is in Geneva and the other in the US. Similar initial conditions and similar context make for correlations but in no way for causation. It is the effect of having the same differential equations entering the problem.
Now, in my view, there is a better probability that the fluid dynamics of the sun induced plasma is governed by similar equations as the heat inputted in the oceans than that the yellow curve is driving the mauve curve. That is, I need more proof from data.
Let me clarify: A theory is not needed to be able to say that the sun will come up tomorrow. Long human data gathering allows to make this prediction without any theory. If the above accumulation of data can be shown to predict what the ENSO or the PDO behavior will be in the future, then it will be evident that the theory is missing but there is predictability in the accumulation of data.
Just these specific curves shown here are not very convincing, for me.
In Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña, Theodor Landscheidt’s
Fig 3 under Distribution of El Niños within subcycles of the sunspot cycle since 1610
shows a strong similarity to Alexander’s Fig. 2 “Characteristics of the periodic sequences of river flow at representative dam sites. The double sunspot cycle is diagrammatically superimposed”
which correlates frequency of river flow intensity in southern Africa with the 22 year double solar cycle.
See: Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development, Alexander et al. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 49 Number 2 June 2007 pp 32-44 PDF file
(Here is an objection to Alexander’s work: <a href=”http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=10&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrc.org.za%2Fdownloads%2Fwaterwheel%2Fmar-apr07%2FLetter%2520p%252011-13.pdf&ei=csvxSZe-DpX2Mdmg5K0P&usg=AFQjCNENGAG4g_KQ-DJwV0u2Ic38r6UE5Q&sig2=pt0V7nEjyxsKkT939s_pRwIs Climate Prediction Flawed?)
So whattya think, Leif, of this latest from Erl? It looks pretty interesting to me, but, you know, I’m fairly naive.
==============================
The referenced figure was made using the Hadcet data set, and using Spectral analysis. The Input is the error from the liner estimation of the temperature from 1659-2008. A run was then made to look at temperature variations in the 10 year period range. This involved blocking out the freq. not only above the 0.12 freq., but also lower ones between 0.003 and 0.06 cycles/yr. This allowed a better look at the ~10 year period cycles, as shown in T_est_03.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_03-0KLEO.gif
The top illustration shows both the unfiltered and filtered temperature, and sunspot activity plotted below. It would appear that the 10 year solar cycle is reflected in some way to the temp., and existence of a strong correlation. A more detail analysis of this would be interesting in the future, as well as the North Atlantic cycle.
anna v (07:05:18) :
Let me clarify: A theory is not needed to be able to say that the sun will come up tomorrow. Long human data gathering allows to make this prediction without any theory. If the above accumulation of data can be shown to predict what the ENSO or the PDO behavior will be in the future, then it will be evident that the theory is missing but there is predictability in the accumulation of data.
This is the inductive method. It is not quite correct, though, to say that a theory is not involved. Induction is just a method to prove a theory. That the will rise every morning is a theory, or hypothesis, about nature. It just happens to be one that has long been established through the inductive method, so we forget that it is a theory.
All theories involve predictions. Theories are proven, or subjected to falsification, by one of two methods: induction, or deduction. In some cases, the theories are ill considered, so that the supposed predictions that “prove” them do not really do so.
While I do not have a lot of “faith” in GCM’s, I’ve never understood the criticism that the output of a GCM is not a “prediction.” Yes, it is. But it is a deductive prediction, or hypothesis, not an inductive one. Predictions from GCM’s are of the sort that “if this, and this, and this…are true, then this (the output) is true.” The big problem with GCM’s, as I see it, is that they are so complex that there is almost an infinite source of possibilities for logical errors. In other words, if the prediction of a GCM should pan out, that could easily be a coincidence, and doesn’t really vindicate the model.
I would add, here, that “model” is just a synonym for “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “prediction.”
When you say “the theory is missing” you simply mean that you do not understand the nature of a relationship, not that the relationship isn’t real, true, or valid. If some physical condition can be consistently shown to predict something, the fact that you cannot explain the connection with known physical science doesn’t mean the relationship is not real. And the relationship itself is a theory; one just doe not understand the why of the theory.
I see this confusion in Lief’s reluctance to acknowledge a solar influence on climate. The evidence for climate variations on a scale that matches solar variation is voluminous. But since we do not have a “theory” to explain the relationship, Lief is skeptical of it. But if you are able to believe that the sun will rise without a theory, simply on the basis of inductive observation, how is that different from my belief that the sun influences climate, on the basis of inductive observation?
I tried looking at some of this a while back, except I was looking at the Bz component of the IMF vs the SOI, and it had a tantalizing similarity, but I could never quite get it to match closely enough to want to go further with it. There seemed to be times when the correlation “switched signs” so to speak, perhaps due to the sun’s polarity reversing? I am not a statitstical kind of guy so I never went anywhere with analyzing cyclical behavior or possible lags. I believe there is a potential correlation there…but figuring out the causation to go with the correlation would be another big step to have to make.
Kim,
If one takes the trouble to sum the monthly values of the Southern Oscillation Index for each solar cycle and graph the resulting values you will see that the trend to cooling begins with solar cycle 23. Cycle 24 is headed to the downside of the big dipper. Moreover, there is a two to three cycle oscillation in the summed values.
As Anna V requires, though the theory may be obscure “there is predictability in the accumulation of data”.
So far as the theory is concerned: All that is required for the S.O.I. to show consistent cooling is for there to be an increase in the strength of the polar vortex which mixes nitrogen oxides into the stratosphere and depletes ozone. Ozone is carried into the upper troposphere in high pressure cells and when it increases in concentration (failure of the vortex) a tropical warming event is produced. The presence of ozone causes warming and loss of highly reflective ice cloud. The warming and cooling processes begin in subtropical latitudes where the near stationary high pressure zones exist.
The strength of the Polar vortex depends upon electromagnetic attraction and repulsion of the charged particles in the atmosphere. As these move, the neutrals are carried along. Particles can be held in tension by electromagnetic forces over long periods of time. We are not talking flares or sunspots here.
A weakening of the vortex produces an immediate increase in ozone content, stratospheric temperature over the pole and a coincidental cooling of the tropical stratosphere at all levels. Think about that. The strange thing is that equatorial sea surface temperature rises at the same time. Its easier to understand the rise in sea surface temperature in the in-feed zone for tropical waters at 30° latitude.
Strong solar activity weakens the vortex by shifting the atmosphere from the pole towards the equator. Surface atmospheric pressure falls at the pole and rises at the equator. Weak surface pressure is associated with slowing or stalling of the vortex.
Of course the Southern Vortex is an all year party whereas the northern vortex is a winter only affair. Hence the ‘Southern Oscillation’ and its influence worldwide.
My apologies: Leif, not Lief. I knew I should have proofread that posting. My fingers are hard-wired to type “i before e, except after c.”
In comparing such series, Nicola Scafetta has identified two major time constants: 0.4 years and > 8 years.
See:
Nicola Scafetta, “Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system’ by Schwartz.” In press on J. Geophys. Res. (2008). PDF
Basil (08:16:07) :
and Kim:
There is a tribe in darkest Africa that inductively believes that the beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse restores the Sun. It has in their experience never failed as surely as the Sun rises tomorrow.
It is not the lack of a mechanism or a theory that leaves me skeptical, it is the poor and shoddy ‘evidence’ provided by the thousands of correlations that people have cranked out over the past 400 years. And this includes Erl’s.
Basil (08:16:07) :
My apologies: Leif, not Lief. I knew I should have proofread that posting. My fingers are hard-wired to type “i before e, except after c.”
Neither ‘either’ nor ‘neither’ follow that rule…
Leif Svalgaard (09:04:04) :
Basil (08:16:07) :
and Kim:
“It is not the lack of a mechanism or a theory that leaves me skeptical, it is the poor and shoddy ‘evidence’ provided by the thousands of correlations that people have cranked out over the past 400 years.
To wit, the very topic of this thread…
While I would be interested in further articles on this subject, SOI and planetary correlations, I have a less controversial one as well:
The AMO does really seem to be going negative and though this has implications for Arctic sea ice formation I’m interested in the prospects for corn belt drought.
Here on the northern margin we had two ‘normal’ years of precipitation following the PDO flip. We now have ‘drought’ conditions or so the local media is persuaded.
With the AMO flipping we are slated to suffer another climate change so I’m inclined to take their alarm to heart.
D’Aleo might certainly have something to say here.
In the paper cited above: “Solid earth geophysicists assume that ENSO may possibly be physically connected with seismic events in the Pacific bottom (Walker, 1988, 1995)”
Could it be a possible contributor to increase sea temperatures plate tectonics and underseas volcanic or magma activities, as under the pacific warm pool, caused by changes in Ap index?
I went hunting for the graph, rather than the data. I think I found the graph in a now-deleted article “Text: El Nino – the kid had a magnet in his pocket all along” from Peter Ravenscroft, 19.04.09 at http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/el_nino_the_kid_had_a_magnet_in_his_pocket_all_along but had to access it through
<A href=”http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:JOsz7S2R6HYJ:www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/el_nino_the_kid_had_a_magnet_in_his_pocket_all_along+soi+ap+index+1932&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usGoogle cache copy
The text does point at some sources. However, the first comment implies there may be good reason that people are having trouble understanding the details in the graph: “Wrong graph. Article needs to be junked. Cannot delete for some reason”
Leif,
If you were to acknowledge that the variation in the temperature of parts of the upper troposphere is about double that at the surface and that it is due to firstly the variation in ozone content and secondly the variation in the incidence of UVB and thirdly the variation in OLR, your comment about shoddy correlations would have more credibility with me. But, you choose to deny that reality and the consequences for upper troposphere cloud density, and so for me, your credibility is compromised.
There is theory and there is reality and it looks to me as if you are stuck with a theory relating to the causation of variation in atmospheric temperature and you prefer to stick with it. Unfortunately your theory precludes the mode of interaction between the Sun and the Earth that I describe.
The rich generosity of the one liner!
And so, to bed.
gary gulrud (09:11:06) :
Perhaps conditions similar to those of the 1929-30 economic depression’ s droughts are repeaiting.
In SA we are having a prolonged summer time and you are having a prolonged winter time; it seems :cold waters less evaporations, less clouds, clearer skies more transparent to heat loss, in NA case, and warmer days during daylight for us in SA. Were not suppose to be appearing those Svensmark’s clouds by now?
Thanks Leif and Arnost for the data. So here are two comparison graphs with the AP Index and SOI datasets. I had to scale the SOI to provide any worthwhile comparison. The equation is on the graphs.
Here’s the AP Index and Scaled SOI without filtering:
http://i40.tinypic.com/1z1shhx.jpg
And here’s the same data with 12-month running-average filters:
http://i42.tinypic.com/23vx2mp.jpg
I don’t see any correlation. None at all.
Regards
erlhapp (09:31:33) :
If you were to acknowledge that the variation in the temperature of parts of the upper troposphere is about double that at the surface and that it is due to firstly the variation in ozone content and secondly the variation in the incidence of UVB and thirdly the variation in OLR
As usual, you connect two unrelated things. The variation is observed, so no problem there. The cause you postulate is wrong, however. The standard atmospheric models predict a larger variation at height, so no need to look for extraneous and inoperative other causes. The troposphere is not heated from above, but from below. The amount of ozone there is too minuscule to cause any direct heating, but since ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas it helps [minutely] along with the other GHGs in keeping us warm. But we have gone over this so many times that further elaboration seems tedious.
Anthony:
Please, please, keep on topic. Lately people have just been posting random links and OT’s
I would second this. It seems that people all too often just use this forum to post and promote their own pet theories instead.
“In SA we are having a prolonged summer time and you are having a prolonged winter time; ”
I’m barely conversant here, but it seems with PDO positive comes barrelling in from the temperate Pacific right across mainland US. With PDO negative, it consists as well in a northern leg sweeping into Canada and connecting with the southern leg roughly in the corn belt.
A blocking high pressure setup southwest of Alaska prevents earlier linkage.
Now the negative AMO alters this somehow so that the SW drought experienced last year moves eastward. Perhaps a blocking High over the Rockies, beats me.
OOps, our Jet Stream barrels in…