Another paper showing evidence of a solar signature in temperature records

Readers may find the title familiar, that’s because Basil Copeland and I also did a paper looking at solar signatures in climatic data, which has received a lot of criticism because we made an analytical error in our attempt. But errors are useful, teachable moments, even if they are embarrassing, and our second attempt though, titled,

Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends

hasn’t been significantly challenged yet that I am aware of. Basil and I welcome any comments or suggestions on that work.

In our work, we used Hodrick-Prescott filtering to extract the solar cycle signal from the HadCRUT temperature dataset. In this paper the data are extracted from the ECA&ECD database (available via http://eca.knmi.nl ).  According to the paper, they are “using a nonlinear technique of analysis developed for time series whose complexity arises from interactions between different sources over different time scales”. Read more about it in the paper. In both our paper, and in this one, a solar signature is evident in the temperature data.  – Anthony

Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature

By Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman (PDF available here)

J.-L. Le Mouël et al., Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe, C. R. Geoscience (2008), doi:10.1016/j.crte.2008.06.001

solar-temp-world-regions

Click for a larger image - Comparison of the mean squared interannual variation (left column) and lifetime (right column) of the overall minimum temperature data from the US (153 stations), Australia (preliminary, 5 stations) and Europe (44 stations). Europe (bottom row) is shown for the two types of calculation for quick comparison (green curves), and also the magnetic index representing solar activity (blue curve).

Abstract

We analyze temperature data from meteorological stations in the USA (six climatic regions, 153 stations), Europe (44 stations, considered as one climatic region) and Australia (preliminary, five stations). We select stations with long, homogeneous series of daily minimum temperatures (covering most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps).We find that station data are well correlated over distances in the order of a thousand kilometres. When an average is calculated for each climatic region, we find well characterized mean curves with strong variability in the 3–15-year period range and a superimposed decadal to centennial (or ‘secular’) trend consisting of a small number of linear segments separated by rather sharp changes in slope.

Our overall curve for the USA rises sharply from 1910 to 1940, then decreases until 1980 and rises sharply again since then. The minima around 1920 and 1980 have similar values, and so do the maxima around 1935 and 2000; the range between minima and maxima is 1.3 °C. The European mean curve is quite different, and can be described as a step-like function with zero slope and a ~1 8°C jump occurring in less than two years around 1987. Also notable is a strong (cold) minimum in 1940. Both the USA and the European mean curves are rather different from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report.We then estimate the long-term behaviour of the higher frequencies (disturbances) of the temperature series by calculating the mean-squared interannual variations or the ‘lifetime’ (i.e. the mean duration of temperature disturbances) of the data series.We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature.

We find that station data are well correlated over distances in the order of a thousand kilometres. When an average is calculated for each climatic region, we find well characterized mean curves with strong variability in the 3-15-year period range and a superimposed decadal to centennial or ‘secular’ trend consisting of a small number of linear segments separated by rather sharp changes in slope. Our overall curve for the USA rises sharply from 1910 to 1940, then decreases until 1980 and rises sharply again since then. The minima around 1920 and 1980 have similar values, and so do the maxima around 1935 and 2000; the range between minima and maxima is 1.38C. The European mean curve is quite different, and can be described as a step-like function with zero slope and a 1.8C jump occurring in less than two years around 1987. Also notable is a strong (cold) minimum in 1940. Both the USA and the European mean curves are rather different from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report.

We then estimate the long-term behaviour of the higher frequencies (disturbances) of the temperature series by calculating the mean-squared interannual variations or the ‘lifetime’ (i.e. the mean duration of temperature disturbances) of the data series. We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory.

We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature.

We have also shown that solar activity, as characterized by the mean-squared daily variation of a geomagnetic component (but equally by sunspot numbers or sunspot surface) modulates major features of climate. And this modulation is strong, much stronger than the one per mil variation in total solar irradiance in the 1- to 11-year range: the interannual variation, which does amount to energy content, varies by a factor of two in Europe, the USA and Australia. This result could well be valid at the full continental scale if not worldwide. We have calculated the evolution of temperature disturbances, using either the mean-squared annual variation or the lifetime. When 22-year averaged variations are compared, the same features emerge, particularly a characteristic centennial trend (an S-shaped curve) consisting of a rise from 1920 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975 and a rise since. A very similar trend is found for solar indices. Both these longer-term variations, and decadal and sub-decadal, well-correlated features in lifetime result from the persistence of higher frequency phenomena that appear to be influenced by the Sun. The present preliminary study of course needs confirmation by including regions that have not yet been analyzed.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
michel

You can’t be right all the time, to err is human. The thing to do is admit any errors at once, correct them, and move on. An example of how disastrous a refusal to do this can be is provided by the Hockey Stick fiasco, where a refusal to admit error in the face of overwhelming evidence has probably done more to damage the credibility of Global Warming than any amount of attacks by opponents.

Dev

Anthony/Charles
Quick suggestion–you may want to substitute a lower-res JPG thumbnail in place for the chart graphic. Right now, the main article page attempts to load a rather large 723KB chart PNG. Save the PNG for the chart click-through.
Readers on dialup or mobile edge/3g will thank you. 🙂
Feel free to delete.

Howard

I initially thought this was a new paper, but it seems to have been published over a year ago. Can anyone explain why it’s only just surfaced? Did it receive any press coverage at the time?

Nick Stokes

Is anyone able to explain what is actually plotted in these graphs? For example, what is “lifetime”?

janama

may I mention that
Roy Spencer’s http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Patrick J. Michaels’ http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
both have new comments regarding the passing of the Cap’n Tade bill.

This gives me the opportunity to raise from its dormant state in cyberspace a longish comment I posted on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/#comments
in which I picked up from an observation that Leif Svalgaard had made. But by the time I had got around to posting my notes on 8 June last everybody had moved on – as they say – and it has been undead in cyberspace ever since.
In case my notes are of interest to the millions who read WUWT, I’ll post it here again.
I do think WUWT readers will find the gushing article in the New York Times of October 28 1906 effusively reporting how the Sun controls our climate of great interest!
Here are my notes:
I would agree with you, Lief, that the field of research about relationships between the Sun’s behaviour and our climate is disconnected. I can’t say whether this disconnectedness is any more or less pronounced than other areas of scientific research.
I do know that research in many areas of scholarship (ie not only science and mathematics) is noticeably tunnel vision and hostile to outsiders.
A dynamic builds up largely through conditions of employment, promotion and funding for professionals to become better and better at less and less. Employees don’t have the luxury of spreading their wings. Publish as much as possible, get cited as much as possible, get on funding gravy trains and stay there as long as possible are the dynamics throughout most areas of scholarship, probably most professions. Professionals doing well in their area of specialization tend to close ranks against outsiders; multidiciplinarians are seen as jacks of all trades and masters of none, despised jackals coming to take away goodies from the hard working specialists. Worse still, specialist professionals will join ranks to gang up on their common enemy – the generalist who dares to challenge the specialists’ cherished paradigms and certainties. Once the outsider has been repelled the specialists resume their research programs within their narrow specialisms with the understanding that they won’t encroach on each other.
I note that Leif’s criticism that “the whole field is too ‘disconnected’, having all kinds of different findings piled on top of on another. The usual method in a valid endeavour is the build on other’s results, but I see very little of that here [other than saying that others also find some relations]” has been made before, most noticeably by one of the great minds of modern solar physics, John Wilcox, (see http://wso.stanford.edu/images/people/wilcox.html ) with whom Leif worked closely in his earlier years.
In 1973 John Wilcox wrote:
“An appreciable influence of solar activity on the weather is not widely accepted, and it is not in everyday use for forecasting purposes. The literature on the subject tends to be contradictory, and the work of the authors tends to be done in isolation. It is often difficult to compare the claims of one author against those of another. Many times an author starts from scratch, rather than building on the work of his predecessors in the classical pattern of science. A widely accepted physical mechanism has not yet emerged.”
I thought it would be helpful to our understanding of this situation and of interest to the millions who frequent WUWT to reflect just a little on some history of the field so as to better understand this enduring problem of disconnectedness.
The first major scientific effort to relate solar variability to climate was William Herschel’s two papers in 1801. At the time he was 63 and was acknowledged by all as Europe’s most distinguished Astronomer. He had held the appointment of the King’s Astronomer since 1782, was a Fellow of the Royal Society, which had awarded him the prestigious Copely Medal in 1781.
I have studied his papers and am writing a short paper about his work.
His two Sun/climate papers were careful, meticulous, full of qualifications and bubbling with excitement – as his papers to the Royal Society often were. They were first rate pieces of work. He had available Adam Smith’s huge tabulation of wheat prices. Adam Smith’s 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, included details of English wheat prices over 562 years from 1202 to 1764 compiled in the most careful manner. In contrast to this data, Herschel had rather flimsy solar activity data and he knew this.
William Herschel’s language is wonderful!
He wrote:
“Since light and heat are so essential to our well-being, it must certainly be right for us to look into the source from whence they are derived, in order to see whether some material advantage may not be drawn from a thorough acquaintance with the causes from which they originate.”
His observations showed that sometimes the Sun had more spots than others, sometime it had no spots. He concluded that the Sun’s output of ‘light and heat’ increased with the number of sunspots. He went over observational records since 1610 and identified five periods longer than two years in which no spots had been recorded. He reasoned that with no spots the Earth would receive less ‘light and heat’ and therefore be cooler.
Herschel reasoned that if the climate cooled in response to diminished ‘light and heat’ from the spotless Sun, the wheat harvest would be reduced and accordingly, the price of wheat would rise. He further reasoned that the effect of variable solar output on vegetation would be similar to the tidal effect of the Sun and the Moon. That is, that in some parts of the world the tides are very high and very low and that the tidal phenomena vary around the world over time and in relation to latitude and longitude. He pointed out that even though there were these great variations, the tidal phenomena are universally the result of a single principle, the variable gravitation of the Sun and the Moon, as Newton had shown.
Herschel applied his test to the five lean periods by tabulating the price of wheat for these periods.
Herschel found, and reported to the Royal Society that, roughly speaking, the price of wheat in England was highest when sunspots were absent. He summed up his argument in this way:
“The result of this review of the foregoing five periods is, that, from the price of wheat, it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has generally taken place, when the Sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be the symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat.”
Members of the Royal Society mocked him mercilessly. One member, Henry Brougham, then aged 25, who in October 1802 launched the Edinburgh Review, which was to become one of the most influential British magazines of the 19th century, made William Herschel the target of his mockery.
In January 1803 in the second issue of the Edinburgh Review Brougham made his most vindictive of all comment about Herschel’s theory of a relationship between variable solar activity and the price of wheat. Henry Brougham wrote:
“To the speculations of the Doctor on the nature of the Sun, contained in the last volume [of the Transactions of the Royal Society], we have many similar objections but they are eclipsed by the grand absurdity which he has committed in his hasty and erroneous theory concerning the influence of the solar spots on the price of grain.”
Sir Joseph Banks, the President of the Royal Society, implored William Herschel to ignore the ‘darts’ of Henry Brougham, assuring William that “….nothing can affect and overturn truths and discoveries founded on experience and observation.”
Henry Brougham would rise far in politics becoming Lord Chancellor and Baron Brougham in 1830, receiving a second peerage 30 years later.
Interestingly, Pustilnik and Yom Din 2004 reported their analysis of records of the price of wheat in England from 1259 to 1702 in relation to the established sunspot record. They found that Herschel was right: the price of wheat was high in medieval England during periods when there were hardly any sunspots, and low during solar maxima.
The following year Solar Physics published a second paper by the two authors extending their analysis to wheat prices in the US during the 20th century (Pustilnik and Yom Din 2005). The authors recorded their surprise, finding a relationship between numbers of sunspots and the price of wheat, just as Sir William hypothesised. The authors did not expect to see a sunspot connection due to modern technologies that make crops more robust in unfavourable weather, globalised markets, and the massive economic disruption that occurred during the two world wars. They reasoned that these factors should have cancelled out any variation in the data attributable to a sunspot effect. They surmise that the effect persists because 70% of US durum wheat grows in one part of North Dakota, where localised weather conditions could be expected to have a dramatic impact on total production.
Jumping to the 19th Century, the topic of the Sun causing climate change was fashionable and main stream. William Jevons, who became a famous Economist, Logician and Statistician, claimed that variable solar activity was responsible for almost everything that changed on the face of the Earth. He introduced the idea of business cycles into our economic language: he attributed them to the Sun’s activity cycles.
Towards the end of the 19th Century governments around the world were setting up national meteorological agencies. At that time, meteorologists were keen to understand weather and climate and devoted scarce resources to the search for explanations of the phenomena they were employed to predict. They embraced solar explanations.
In 1898, one of the world’s leading meteorologists of the day, Professor Bigelow, wrote:
“That there is a causal connection between the observed variations in the forces of the Sun, the terrestrial magnetic field, and the meteorological elements has been the conclusion of every research into this subject for the past 50 years.”
See here, for example: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E0DE4DB1631E733A2575BC2A9669D946797D6CF (aka http://tinyurl.com/odr8um )
In the 1920s and 30s when it was still respectable for Government agencies to examine Sun/climate relationships, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published two papers reporting that the Sun regulated our climate. One published in 1925 concluded that “The year 1914 was the culmination of what was in all probability the worst drought in Australian history” and attributed the drought to the weakness of Sunspot Cycle No. 14. In the other, published in 1938, the Bureau concluded:
“A rough generalisation from the winter rainfall over northern Victoria would suggest that when the new solar cycle begins with a rapid rise to a definite peak then the heaviest rains are in the early years, but when the solar activity begins more gradually and takes four or more years to reach a low or moderate maximum, then comparatively poor seasons may be expected in the early part.” (Details can be found in my paper, Mackey 2007, available here:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf )
The low amplitude forecast for Solar Cycle 24 is that it will be the same as Solar Cycle 14. On the basis of the BoM’s early research this suggests another Federation drought for Australia beginning in the next year or two and poor seasons in northern Victoria. I wonder if the BoM of today would take this hypothesis seriously enough to allocate scarce resources to it.
In 1972, the distinguished scientist, Edward Bowen (see http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/bowen.htm ) reported that in relation to these two BoM reports (see Bowen, 1975): “Other workers (Deacon and Das, private communication) have since extended these data to the 1950s, that is, for another 30 yr, and the relationship stands up”.
Dr Bowen also reported that the march of the high and low pressure systems around the poles as a result of solar activity first identified by the BoM in the 1920s could be used to improve the accuracy of long term weather forecasting.
A couple of generations after the pioneering research of the 1920s, the government meteorological agencies seem to have been lobotomised: explanatory-type research was generally prohibited and those that dabbled ostracised. Weather bureaux concentrated on getting good measurements of meteorological variables and forecasting by statistical analyses of them. Even research into the major oceanic/atmospheric oscillations, which are usually the proximal cause of weather, was heavily discouraged by the mandarins who controlled the weather bureaux.
Neville Nicholls, an Australian scientist employed for most of his professional life in Australia’s BoM who pioneered the BoM’s study of ENSO, pointed out that the BoM’s management took many decades of convincing before acknowledging in the 1990s that ENSO was a worthwhile subject of study for meteorological purposes (see Nicholls 2005).
Interestingly, Nicholls also reports the following:
“Throughout the atmospheric sciences in the middle decades of the twentieth century, climatology was “neither respected nor valued” (quoting from P. J. Lamb, “The Climate Revolution: A Perspective”, Climate Change, Vol 54, 2002, pps 11 – 28). According to Kenneth Hare, “only the old, the halt, and the infirm could be appointed to the climatological branch; the able-bodied men were expected to be forecasters” (quoting from F. K. Hare, “Dynamic and Synoptic Climatology”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol 35, 1955, pps 152 – 162). Climatology was regarded as “mere book-keeping….. to be posted to the climatological branch of a national weather service was like being made an intelligence officer, or a lighthouse keeper; it was a terminal appointment” (quoting from F. K. Hare, “The Concept of Climate” Geography, Vol 51, 1966, pps 99 – 110)”.
As I read the history of national weather services, after WWII management had a very narrow focus of operational meteorology. Unlike the earlier period, there was no interest in trying to understand the phenomena, there was little interest in long term predictions and any attempt to think outside the square of management’s paradigm was to risk dismissal. Management was not strategic, but obsessed with operational agendas. The persistence of this ingrained thinking may help explain the refusal of national weather services in Australia, the UK, the USA, Canada and NZ to resume research about Sun/climate relationships. In contrast, the national weather services of Russia and Japan maintain active and highly effective research programs in this field.
In 1972 one of the world’s leading meteorologists, Andrei Monin, wrote:
“The greatest attention should be devoted to the question of whether there is a connection between the Earth’s weather and fluctuations in solar activity. [emphasis in original]. The presence of such a connection would be almost a tragedy for meteorology, since it would evidently mean that it would first be necessary to predict the solar activity in order to predict the weather; this would greatly postpone the development of scientific methods of weather prediction. Therefore, arguments concerning the presence of such a connection should be viewed most critically.”
By the time Jack Eddy published his papers in the mid 1970s about the role of the Sun, the field was no longer fashionable and Eddy’s thesis suffered a fate not unlike William Herschel’s.
Nevertheless science marches on! An increasing quantity and quality of papers continued to be published supporting the hypothesis that the Sun regulates our climate.
A NASA organised conference in 1973 (at which Leif Svalgaard presented a significant paper) surveyed the entire area of Sun/climate research. The conference proceedings (Bandeen and Maran, 1975) outlined a framework which could guide future research. It included solar radiation, solar plasma and the Sun’s electromagnetic field and the complex structures created by solar activity in the Heliosphere (itself one of those structures) which could have climate consequences.
In 1978 NASA published a comprehensive review of Sun, climate and weather relationships (Herman and Goldberg 1978). John Wilcox wrote the following in his foreword to the book:
“’A growing mass of evidence suggests that transient events on the Sun affect our weather and long-term variations of the Sun’s energy output affect out climate Solar terrestrial exploration can help establish the physical cause and effect relationships between solar stimuli and terrestrial responses. When these relationships are understood, science will have an essential tool for weather and climate prediction.’ This paragraph, written by Robert D. Chapman as part of a proposal for a five-year plan for Solar Terrestrial Programs in NASA, is an indication of the present status of Sun-weather/climate investigations.”
It is to be noted that neither NASA publication addressed the role of the Sun’s gravitational field in the regulation of the Earth’s climate.
The developments in solar physics during the 1970s and 80s must have greatly aggravated the meteorologists’ nightmares so eloquently described by Andrei Monin.
Within a few years two prominent meteorologists, John Houghton (UK) and Bert Bolin (Sweden) joined the evil Maurice Strong to create the hideous, post-modern Golem of AGW/GHGs that is now on the cusp of destroying the world’s advanced democratic societies and sophisticated economies, as Maurice Strong originally and publicly intended.
For the meteorologists, the deal with Maurice Strong was that solar physics hypothesis would be buried so that meteorology would not become subservient to solar physics, but rather would be positioned to be indispensible to the governments of the world thus assuring meteorology a permanent place on the funding table of benevolent governments. In return, the meteorologists would give Strong’s environmental global domination agenda a veneer of scientific respectability with some plausibly sounding science and the elaborate climate computer-based models that meteorologists developed for their craft.
Returning to solar physics for the moment, the two NASA publications mentioned above provided a framework, which if followed, would end the disconnectedness in Sun/climate research reported by Lief and by John Wilcox more than 35 years before.
Inexplicably, the framework is ignored by some prominent solar physicists.
Thus the two distinguished solar physicists, Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich, ignore it totally in their mischievous papers published by the Royal Society in 2007/08.
These papers ignore the substantial findings about the role of the Sun’s plasma output and numerous heliospheric topology variables in generating the Earth’s climate dynamics (heliospheric variables include heliospheric structures (Heliospheric Current Sheet structure (inclination; homogeneity; thickness; current density); the Interplanetary Magnetic Field structure; open and closed fluxes; solar wind, Coronal Mass Ejections, Solar Proton Events; interplanetary counterparts of CMEs; Alfvenic waves; magnetic field directional turnings; pressure balanced structures; magnetic ropes and clouds (chilarity); and corotating interaction regions); solar polarity (dipole to multipole); solar hemispheric asymmetries; solar-terrestrial magnetic field orientation (parallel, antiparallel); solar-terrestrial orientation; Helioid; and Helioid-Geoid orientation. For an entrée into this world of science see the university website of Brian Tinsley, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas, Dallas:
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html )
Lockwood and Frohlich ignore completely the established findings about the role of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon in the regulation of the Earth’s climate. Because of this and other glaring errors in their papers, the Royal Society should not have published them. But not only did the Royal Society publish them, the Royal Society triumphantly editorialised that the papers prove that “the Earth’s surface air temperature does not respond to the solar cycle” and, as if Henry Brougham was still writing for the Royal Society, the blurb on the website of the Proceedings of the Royal Society states in relation to the Lockwood and Frohlich papers, the truth about global warming! The sun is not a factor in recent climate change!
Why would two of the world’s leading solar physicists author papers so blatantly incomplete? Why would a once esteemed scientific society make such a blatantly false announcement? As is usually the case, when lies are told it is inevitably the teller of the lies who is the most deceived. It is most unfortunate in the extreme that there is no one in the Royal Society (or in any leadership position in science in the UK, Australia or the USA) of the calibre and integrity of Sir Joseph Banks who was able to minimise the rabid nonsense of Henry Brougham.
More recently on May 7, 2008 as WUWT recently listed, NASA issued a press release quoting NASA’s Robert Cahalan, Head, Climate & Radiation Branch with news that “about 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere during the sun’s quietest period. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy reaches Earth.” “This TSI measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to assess Earth-based forces on climate change,” Robert Cahalan said. There is no mention at all of established relationships between other solar variables and climate. It is as if NASA has dementia and all the work in the above mentioned NASA publications of 1978 and 1975, which has in the intervening 30 years advanced enormously, is lost to NASA’s corporate memory. Why is this?
It is customary in scientific research when trying to understand some phenomena to consider all relevant variables that might have a role and which a scientist can investigate. It is customary when doing so to use the notions of independent and dependent variables,
(see http://www.viswiki.com/en/Dependent_and_independent_variables )
Yet this way of thinking is totally absent in the science of climate dynamics; it is scarcely used in the study of solar-terrestrial relationships. Why is this?
If it was fully utilised in these two fields of inquiry the disconnectedness noted by Lief (and before him by John Wilcox) might finally vanish.
References:
BANDEEN, W. R. and MARAN, S. P., 1975. Symposium on Possible Relationships between Solar Activity and Meteorological Phenomena Proceedings of a Symposium held November 7 8, 1973 at the Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Md.: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA SP 36.
Bigelow, F. H., 1898. “Solar and Terrestrial Magnetism in their relations to Meteorology”, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Weather Bureau, Bulletin No. 21. [quoted by Wilcox 1975].
Bowen, Edward G., 1975. “Kidson’s relation between sunspot number and the movement of high pressure systems in Australia” paper in Bandeen and Maran 1975 pps 43 – 45.
Brougham, Henry, 1803. “Art. XV. Observations on the two lately discovered Celestial Bodies By William Herschel, L.L.D. F.R.S. From Phil. Trans. RS 1802”. Edinburgh Review Vol 1 pps 426 – 431, January 1803.
Herman, John R., and Goldberg, Richard A., Sun, Weather, and Climate National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1978.
Herschel, W., 1801. “Observations tending to investigate the Nature of the Sun, in order to find the Causes or Symptoms of its variable Emission of Light and Heat; with Remarks on the Use that may possibly be drawn from Solar Observations”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pps 265 to 301; Read April 16, 1801.
Herschel, W., 1801. “Additional Observations tending to investigate the Symptoms of the variable Emission of the Light and Heat of the Sun; with Trials to set aside darkening Glasses, by transmitting the Solar Rays through Liquids; and a few Remarks to remove Objections that might be made against some of the Arguments contained in the former Paper”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pps 354 to 363; Read May 14, 1801.
KIDSON, E., 1925. Some Periods in Australian Weather. Research Bulletin No. 17 Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.
Lockwood, M. and Frohlich, C. 2007 “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences June 2007.
See http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.pdf
Lockwood, M. and Fröhlich, C. 2008. Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 464 (2094) , 1367-1385 , 2008.
Lockwood, M. 2008. Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 464 (2094), 1387-1404, 2008.
Mackey, R., 2007 Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 – 968. Gold Coast, Australia.
Monin, Andrei, 1972. Weather Forecasting as a Problem in Physics. MIT Press. [quoted by Wilcox 1975].
Nicholls, N. 2005. “Climatic Outlooks: from revolutionary science to orthodoxy” a chapter in Sherratt, T., Griffiths, T., and Robin, L. A Change in the Weather – Climate and Culture in Australia. National Museum of Australia Press 2005.
Pustilnik, L. and Yom Din, G., 2004. “Influence of solar activity on state of wheat market in medieval England”, Solar Physics, v. 223, Numbers 1-2, pps 335-356.
Pustilnik, L. and Yom Din, G., 2005. “Space Climate Manifestation in Earth Prices – from Medieval England up to Modern U.S.A.” Solar Physics v 224 Numbers 1-2, pps 473-481.
QUAYLE, E. T., 1925. Sunspots and Australian Rainfall. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria New Series, 37 Part 2, 131 143.
QUAYLE, E. T., 1938. Australian Rainfall in Sunspot Cycles. Research Bulletin No. 22 Bureau of Meteorology Melbourne.
Wilcox, J. 1975. “Solar Activity and the Weather” paper in Bandeen and Maran 1975 pps 25 – 38.

Nylo

Why do the graphs only plot information until ~1990?

Anthony
I am curious as to whether your selection of weather stations matched that used by James Hansen when he formulated his original 1987 paper which is still much used by the climate industry-and IPCC- as proof of temperature change since 1880.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
Are his stations more reprsentative? Are they selected merely because there was a long term record available? It would be interesting to see how his ‘solar signature’ matches with yours.
Is Europe considered as one climatic region in meteorological terms? The UK has a vastly dfifferent climate to the Iberian peninsula, which is vastly different to Southern Europe, which again is different to central Europe where the Alpine influence comes into play.
A good piece of work. Thanks for the continued high quality of articles here.
Tonyb

… errors are useful, teachable momenets, even if they are embarrassing.
Too true … have you looked at the spelling of “momenets”?
Reply: Fixed ~ ctm

VG

My guess Mackey (above) correct. We shall see but its looking that way. It is the sun (mainly).

Flanagan

“in the our attempt” ?
Reply: Fixed ~ ctm

Britannic no-see-um

Richard Mackey (01:28:04) excerpt
‘In 1898, one of the world’s leading meteorologists of the day, Professor Bigelow, wrote:
“That there is a causal connection between the observed variations in the forces of the Sun, the terrestrial magnetic field, and the meteorological elements has been the conclusion of every research into this subject for the past 50 years.” ‘
Those old boys knew their onions, and I’ll bet their temperature readings were spot on and should stand, not be ‘adjusted’ in cavalier fashion.

Alan Millar

Richard Mackey (01:28:04)
Excellent summation Richard.
Why not try posting it over at RC ……….. if you are in a masochistic mood!
Alan

Konrad

Richard Mackey (01:28:04)
Thanks for reposting that. I was very interested to read that Herschel’s work on the correlation of grain prices with solar activity had been replicated in modern times. It is distressing that instead of widespread continuing research into possible solar forcing mechanisms, we see scientists actively trying to muddy the waters on solar issues. There are attempts to reinterpret past records, as well as attacks on any suggestion of researching solar climate connections. I feel the recent nature of the reinterpretations and the speed of attack on suggestions for new research belies the scientific impartiality of those involved. “Mischievous” may be too charitable a term for some of those involved in this behavior. The good news seems to be that like Lady Macbeth, no amount of scrubbing seems to make the issues with spots go away.

Most of the reports I’ve seen are based on time-series plots, matching up peaks & valleys with various offsets, etc. Has anyone done a spectral analysis of the various aspects of climate data? I think there are some powerful statistical analyses that could be done which could identify correlations that otherwise get lost in the noise.

Robinson

Richard Mackey, thanks for that post. It was a most intelligent and thoughtfully argued exposition of the general position.

theBuckWheat

It appears that AGW is to climate science as bleeding and phrenology were to medicine.
Seriously, the entire AGW mess is a chilling reminder of how ideology can corrupt the honest evaluation of facts. Indeed, this appearst to be an almost existential battle between those who insist facts must govern evaluation and those who insist that ideology trumps facts. Further, for advocates of AGW, what is the trajectory of their evaluation, why is it ALWAYS to point to “man is bad, nature is good”? Because of their resistence to facts and logic, along with how they propose to mitigate AGW, I am forced to conclude that these people loath humanity and yearn for the day when the earth is cleansed from our occupation of it.
To futher prove my point, why on earth (?!) have a TV series on what earth will be like after humans die out, except that there are enough people with that secret desire that they form their own “market” for such tripe.

Britannic no-see-um

Reading Mackey’s long comment again, I’m thinking its really worth considering for full post status?

anna v

Bear with me.
Let us take the example of a teapot on a lit hot plate in a room of area 10 m**2.
We have something like 2 kwatts under that water in that room.
Let us take the average energy watts /m**2 in that room. It will be 200 watts/m**2.
What are the odds that the water will boil in something like 5 minutes, that steam will come out and piercing noise from the whistle?
By talking of the earth as if it is a homogenized unit and looking at average energies inputted and outputted, we are making the same mistake as above and end up saying that solar variations are too small to make a difference.
Solar variations are huge between day and night, winter and summer and latitudes. In addition the average solar radiation change of 0.1% between solar maxima and minima has a variation within the spectrum: UV changes by 8% for example and it is UV that penetrates the ocean depths.
The seasonal variations evidently make a large difference, from monsoons and trade winds to jet streams and ENSO and PDO, these are collective excitation modes by the sun’s energy beating in various rhythms ( day/night winter/summer,coriolis, tides) on the oceans and land.
I will not be surprised that an amplification factor will be found for the small 0.1% change in the sun’s energy output, and it is good that research is going on on this instead of trusting experts who say : science is settled.
Carry on, I say.

rbateman

I was shocked to learn firsthand from the Fire Information Officer last summer, when we had the terrible fires, that the USFS was being briefed by NASA on the constant smoke inversion that had aircraft grounded was due to GCR’s. Some part of NASA obviously was on top of things. It was only the times of prevailing winds picking up that allowed fire suppression from the air.
I was equally shocked 2 days ago when I learned from someone who knew Harry Geise that he used sunspots in his forecast method. Harry was notoriously accurate, and went longrange in a time when nobody else dared to.
I found for my own area how the low cycles of the late 1870’s through the turn of the century caused repeated losses in orchard and vine crops, as well as caused the original settlers of the area to remark upon the changing climate.
I don’t have the data typed out yet, but from taking notes at the historical center, it’s obvious that you find such instances occuring with great regularity in a hop-scotch pattern in the low cycles 12,13 & 14 than you do in the cycles 10 & 11.
In 1864, the Indians told the locals here of the Trinity River tributaries going underground 20 years before (1844) due to no rain in 20 moons, that being the minima of cycles 8 & 9.
From August J. Bowie’s Treatise on Hydraulic Mining (1890’s), the record of a great dry period in the Sierras in 1869-late 1870’s only fully recovered by the l880’s barrage of increasing wet weather. That the low-lying end of SC11 to the low-lying end of SC12, both 4 year long minima bottoms.
As always, it’s the literary record of people who keep this stuff.

rbateman

anna v (05:20:01) :
For your teapot Earth, anna.
From my course in Astronomy, we learned that light has two behaviors:
1.) a particle
2.) a wave
The waves, interestingly here, might be what you are looking for.
Clouds, being uneven surfaces, could be acting like mirrors to send more energy down through holes in clouds than would be expected from straight-on, through constructive/destructve wave interaction.
Too little GCR’s, more holes, the volume get through.
Too much GCR’s, too few holes, the pressure in the holes is too great and you have restriction (just like in your garden hose that is too long or too small an opening in the nozzle losing volume).

Richard,
A masterful summary of the history of ideas in this area and also a great read.
Might I observe that problem solving activity proceeds from observation of phenomena to speculation as to the mechanisms responsible for these phenomena.
In relation to the Earths climate what do we observe ?
1. The seasonal cycle
2. Variations in the strength of seasonal cycles
The causes of the first are not something that we disagree about. Primary school students are taught that the seasons are driven by the tilt of the Earths axis and its rotation around the sun.
However, there is no accepted explanation for the variation between one year and the next.
I suggest that the heating and cooling cycles observed in tropical waters should be primary objects of study. Why? The rest of the globe loses more energy in long wave radiation than is incident as sunlight. It is dependent upon the tropics to supply the energy that keeps winter temperatures equable and maintains the evaporation that feeds global cloud cover and precipitation.
These interannual variations in energy acquistion in tropical latitudes are plainly not ‘energy budget neutral’ on decadal and longer time scales. And yet, without understanding of either cause or impact some observers (IPCC) propose anthropogenic causes for climate change. The witch doctor mentality is with us still.
So, I want to refer readers to http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
where I observe that the timing of tropical warming events, some of which reach El Nino intensity, is dictated by the QBO in the tropical stratosphere via the ozone concentration of the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere and its effect on the temperature of the upper troposphere, ice cloud density and consequent variation in the level of incident solar radiation at the surface of the sea.
When total column ozone increases the temperature of the atmosphere above 200-300 hpa (well within the troposphere) increases and the surface of the sea warms. There is absolutely no doubt about this identity or the relationship between high clouds and surface temperature. Yes, 200hPa temperature at 20-40°S peaks in mid winter in the build up to strong El Nino events rather than summer when the sea is warmest.
It may be surprising to some readers to discover that the temperature of tropical waters is dictated by what is happening as far as 40° of latitude either side of the equator. At the initiation stage, warming begins at 20-40°south in winter and therefore at a time when change in upper troposphere temperature has the largest impact on cloud cover.
There is good reason to believe that the QBO in stratospheric ozone depends upon vortex activity at the poles and that this ultimately depends upon solar activity. Change in the amount of nitrogen oxides that enter the polar atmosphere depend upon levels of irradiance, the solar wind and vortex activity. Nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere erode ozone. When the vortex stalls as it did in February-March 2009 in the Arctic, and partially so in the Antarctic in May-June, there is an immediate response in total column ozone and sea surface temperature in both hemispheres.
Very large changes in stratospheric temperature occurred over the last 60 years that can readily account for surface temperature variation. ‘Precipitous’ is not too strong a word for what happened at the time of the climate shift between 1976 and 1980.
Plainly we need to understand the forces that drive ozone levels in the stratosphere if we wish to understand the interannual, decadal and centennial change in climate.

Richard Mackey (01:28:04) :
Your general drift (as I see it) is that much is being suppressed by those that might gain benefit from their current position. I tend to agree, and will continue to resist against those trying to stamp out fires that might one day provide the truth.

Magnus

This looks good, and these four scientists had also a paper in May 2009, “Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe”
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/new-paper-evidence-for-solar-forcing-in-variability-of-temperatures-and-pressures-in-europe
In the end of the abstract:
“In concluding, we find increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening the earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United States (Le Mouël et al., 2008). With the recent downturn of both solar activity and global temperatures, the debated correlations we suggested in Le Mouël et al. (2005), which appeared to stop in the 1980s, actually might extend to the present. The role of the Sun in global and regional climate change should be re-assessed and reasonable physical mechanisms are in sight.

(Meanwhile IPCC ignore this sun-climate connection the Waxman-Markey bill, the Copenhagen summit, etc are threaten to kill our economies and will (for some people may like this) reduce freedom, and may indirectly have the potential to cause the death of millions of people. Lomborg, but also prominent progressive economist and AGW believer Richard Tol [1], are totally ignored in the economics of climate policy (dominating by erroneous Stern). This seems to be the time of lies in science and economy and the time of the Malthusian ideology embraced also by non-socialist. We may see a triangulation by the far left/socialists using the cute environment issue (polar bear cub’s black eyes and the story of saving the world), and this cuteness of the issue seems to be something everyone wants to use (all political stances, and all businesses), but I think truth is the only thing that can create a good future for society. Scientists driven by careers efforts lie with computer models, which enables them to say the right things, although no empirical data supports it. A farce and modern tragedy. Some politicians also wants to replace current economic system with a distribution based “carbon system“. Anyway, to be on-topic agains data in these studies shows that a dominating sun can’t be ignored, but the great wall of China between politics/media and truth complicates things? Talk with your politicians, or journalists, or teachers… Truth should finally penetrate through the communication and prevail. Are we already on totalitarian territory? Shouln’t then communication be even more important, to bring down the wall?
[1] http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0 )

AnonyMoose

Where you mention your previous paper, how about a link to discussion about it?

Tom in Florida

anna v (05:20:01) :
” Solar variations are huge between day and night, winter and summer and latitudes.”
“The seasonal variations evidently make a large difference, from monsoons and trade winds to jet streams and ENSO and PDO, these are collective excitation modes by the sun’s energy beating in various rhythms ( day/night winter/summer,coriolis, tides) on the oceans and land. ”
But those variations are not caused by the sun’s output but rather conditions of the Earth. The Earth rotation creates the day and night, the Earth’s tilt creates the seasons and the Earth’s shape creates the difference in solar insolation at latitudes. The Sun doesn’t do anything different.

bill

Jeff Larson (04:51:01) :
Has anyone done a spectral analysis of the various aspects of climate data? I think there are some powerful statistical analyses that could be done which could identify correlations that otherwise get lost in the noise.

I have posted these plots many times
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/84/hadcrutnhshlsgiscetssna.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1127/ffts.jpg
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/861/averageffttempcftsi.jpg
Leif has posted similar. No one seems to believe them! (there is no 11 year cycle present).
The plots are of stations with long continuous (FFTs do not like missing data) records, monthly data, some detrended to remove the “noise” generated at long periods by the FFT algorithm. There is no filtering done on the temperature values. There are plots of US areas included which presumably average the temperatures for the particular area.
The average is made by averaging the FFT output of the named locations.
anna v (05:20:01) :
Solar variations are huge between day and night, winter and summer and latitudes. In addition the average solar radiation change of 0.1% between solar maxima and minima has a variation within the spectrum: UV changes by 8% for example and it is UV that penetrates the ocean depths

These solar features are constant day night summer winter occur in a repeating pattern of 365.25 approx days (obviously)
TSI varies on an 11 approx years cycle, but each cycle is different amplitude so will be a variablke to the insolation.
O3 of course has been implicated in the cooling of the anarctic (lack of o3 = greater loss of heat) – see BAS website.
O3 changes over the rest of the globe would add/subract from the UV reaching ground level. What is the power of UV in the TSI data?
O3 loss has been attributed to human activity.

blcjr

Jeff Larson (04:51:01) :
Most of the reports I’ve seen are based on time-series plots, matching up peaks & valleys with various offsets, etc. Has anyone done a spectral analysis of the various aspects of climate data? I think there are some powerful statistical analyses that could be done which could identify correlations that otherwise get lost in the noise.

Anthony and I did spectral analysis in our paper. Follow the link Anthony posted near the top of this blog post, and look particularly at Figure 5. Spectral analysis is actually quite common in the analysis of climate data. One of Leif’s principal criticisms of our paper is that it was just another in a number of papers he put at ~2000 showing climate cycles of this nature. Ours was a little more unique than Leif’s remark suggested, but it is true that there are countless papers showing cycles in climate data that seem to correspond to solar cycles.
The best overall book on the subject, if you are interested, is William Burroughs’ “Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary?” (link below). Burroughs is more open to the possibility of a solar-climate connection than our resident expert Leif, while still acknowledging the limitations of what the data show.
An Amazon link to Burroughs’ book:
http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Cycles-William-James-Burroughs/dp/0521820847

Dennis Sharp

Anybody want a Nobel prize in 12 years? Put the puzzle together and show cause and effect mechanisms between sun and earth climate. Leif and others will keep disregarding these articles until the link is made. You may also put the final nails in the global warming agenda.

kim

Richard Mackey 01:28:04
That’s good stuff, and thanks for reposting it. I’m sure you are aware of the study by Ruzmaiken, Feynman, and Yung showing a correlation between Nile River levels and aurorae borealis.
anna v 05:20:01
Do you think it is possible that the multiplicity of agents enhancing, in different ways, the small change in TSI can account for the lack of runaway sensitivity that has so worried Leif?
=========================================

Jimmy Haigh

Britannic no-see-um (03:06:33) :
Those old boys knew their onions, and I’ll bet their temperature readings were spot on and should stand, not be ‘adjusted’ in cavalier fashion.
I agree. A good friend of mine is now 81 and he has been keeping weather records on Loch Tayside in Scotland for about 50 years now. It’s a labour of love for him. Unlike the automated weather recording, adjusting (dare I say fiddling?) that prevails today.

Jimmy Haigh

I’m not an expert in things solar but to me it is inconceivable that the sun does not have an effect on our weather/climate? It just seems like common sense to me. I mean, imagine if it wasn’t there?

Steven Hill

Jimmy…..
You won’t get any answers on why the earth cools and heats. To me Roy Spencer has it all correct….it has to do with the cloud formations which are caused by the Sun. The delays in cooling and heating that we see had to do with the great ocean heat sink. I expect we are for an extended cooling period.
The AGW people know this but are taking an advantage of propaganda. Large government and it’s ability to control the wealth of the world is the real agenda.

timetochooseagain

From:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
“Vincent Courtillot et al (2007) encountered a similar problem. (Courtillot, it should be noted, is the director of the Institute for the Study of the Globe at the University of Paris.) They found that time series for magnetic field variations appeared to correlate well with temperature measurements – suggesting a possible non-anthropogenic source of forcing. This was immediately criticized by Bard and Delaygue (2008), and Courtillot et al were given the conventional right to reply which they did in a reasonably convincing manner. What followed, however, was highly unusual. Raymond Pierrehumbert (a professor of meteorology at the University of Chicago and a fanatical environmentalist) posted a blog supporting Bard and Delaygue, accusing Courtillot et al of fraud, and worse. Alan Robock (a coauthor of Vinnikov et al mentioned in the preceding section) perpetuated the slander in a letter circulated to all officers of the American Geophysical Union. The matter was then taken up (in December of 2007) by major French newspapers (LeMonde, Liberation, and Le Figaro) that treated Pierrehumbert’s defamation as fact. As in the previous case, all references to the work of Courtillot et al refer to it as ‘discredited’ and no mention is made of their response. Moreover, a major argument against the position of Courtillot et al is that it contradicted the claim of the IPCC.”
Ah, “discreditation”…such a lovely process!

Richard Mackey (01:28:04) :
A NASA organised conference in 1973 (at which Leif Svalgaard presented a significant paper) surveyed the entire area of Sun/climate research.
At that time John Wilcox jointly with myself and others [most notably the very founder of NCAR: Walt Orr Roberts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992BAAS…24.1331E ] sort of had revived the solar/weather/climate field with a series of papers on the possible effect of solar variables on the ‘Vorticity Area’ [a storminess index] Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, pp. 185-186, 1973. Those papers were generally viewed positively and were actually the impetus for NASA to hold that conference. A historical note: Charles Greeley Abbot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot gave the introductory talk at the meeting. He was 101 years old, but gave the talk with verve and passion. He died a few days later [perhaps he felt his work was done].
As more data became available, the Vorticity Area Index effect weakened and eventually died [as so often happens with sun/weather effects]. Brian Tinsley whom you mentioned is trying to keep it alive by showing that the effect is only visible when volcanoes have provided enough aerosols…
Lockwood and Frohlich ignore completely the established findings about the role of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon in the regulation of the Earth’s climate.
And what might that role be?
It is as if NASA has dementia and all the work in the above mentioned NASA publications of 1978 and 1975, which has in the intervening 30 years advanced enormously, is lost to NASA’s corporate memory. Why is this?
It is because when ideas don’t pan out, they are [as they should be] quickly forgotten [people ‘move on’ as it it said].
If it was fully utilised in these two fields of inquiry the disconnectedness noted by Leif (and before him by John Wilcox) might finally vanish.
The disconnectedness is caused by research not holding up [and/or being of low quality].

Steven Hill

[snip]
4th of July, now the new national dependence day. Obama, congress and senate supports the us gov ruling every aspect of your lives.

blcjr

bill (06:50:14) :

I have posted these plots many times

And I’ve responded just as many times. The solar signal will be harder to extract from the “noise” when you use regional data like you are doing. (But not always.) In the global temperature data, there is a well-defined peak at 20-22 years, and another, less well defined, at ~9 years. There is a voluminous literature on the bidecadal signal, and whether or not it is solar. Rather than just trumpet your fft charts, why not immerse yourself in the relevant literature, and see if you can relate what you see in the data to that literature. That’s why Anthony and I did. Our bibliography might be a good starting place for you.
I will match your fft’s, and raise you with Figure 5 of our paper. 😉

bill

anna v (05:20:01) :
UV changes by 8% for example and it is UV that penetrates the ocean depths

The same UV of course lands on plants/earth/houses. this would heat the “land” and hence the air above. A change in UV should show up as a temperature change (it does not in the FFTs). Or would you postulate that the UV is reflected from the earth?

Tom in Florida

Jimmy Haigh (08:13:23) : “I’m not an expert in things solar but to me it is inconceivable that the sun does not have an effect on our weather/climate? It just seems like common sense to me. I mean, imagine if it wasn’t there?”
The Sun has helped create the climates of our Earth simply due to it’s being there. However, the differences in weather/climate conditions on Earth are a result of other circumstances. Let’s try this example. You go to the eye doctor because you think you have a vision problem. The Dr sits you down in the chair and has you look at the eye chart on the wall. He then places the refraction equipment in front of your eyes and begins the process of changing lenses and asking you which lens is better for you. Now the eye chart on the wall doesn’t change, it’s image is picked up by your eyes from the light it gives off. What changes are the conditions that the light must pass through to get to your retina and that causes the changes in the way the chart appears. So it is with the Sun, it changes very little, but the conditions of the Earth change all the time. Those changing conditions are the drivers of weather/climate differences. Fortunately for you, the Dr will know if you have a problem and because correcting vision has a long, tried and true history he will know exactly how to fix your problem. Unfortunatley for us, that is not true with climate scientists and politicians.

Leif Svalgaard (09:04:22):
The problem is that you disconnect the obvious solar influence on local Weather and global Climate from other remainder domains which are more clearly affected by the intensity of solar irradiance and show the mechanisms through which the Sun drives climate.
At this pace, you’ll end believing that the Earth is an isolated system 100% protected from the fury of the Sun, if this has not occurred already.

KW

I’m always irritated by outdated graphs. Just look at Wikipedia. This article is the same. What has happened up to 2009.5?

There is ‘low quality’ research in climate science due to politicisation. The attempts to link hurricanes with global warming is one example (Holland and Webster, 2007 has been declared ‘statistically invalid’ in BAMS). Stefan Rahmstorf’s ‘smoothing’ of temperature observations in Copenhagen is another. The question about the sun-climate link is not ‘if’ but ‘how’ and ‘how big.’ I’m sure no one needs reminding that the AR4 LOSU for solar irradiance is ‘Low’ and even lower for other solar factors. Lockwood & Frohlich pointed to a solar amplifier and claimed that it wasn’t relevant ‘now’ even though they didn’t know the mechanism. Shaviv (2008) has provided more evidence of a solar amplifier:
Shaviv: “Yes, I pulled finger nails until the data said “I give up, I give up!”
o.k., now seriously.
In order to get the cleanest data I used the 24 tide gauges chosen by Douglas 1997 for different stringent criteria (e.g., in geologically stable locations, long records, consistent with other gauges nearby, etc). I used someone else’s tide gauges so that I could not be accused of cherry picking.
Secondly, because I am not interested in long term trends, but I am interested in short term derivatives, I treated the data differently than what other people do. Instead of averaging the station heights and then differentiating, I first differentiated the data for each station and then added the derivatives. The reason is that this way I avoid getting spurious jumps from the start or end of individual station data. Because it can give rise to spurious long term trends and because I don’t care about long term trends, I simply removed any linear trend from the data.
In the graph from 1870 that Lief Svalgaard points to, one cannot see the 11-year signal because the latter only amounts to a few cm amplitude (3.5 mm/yr!). It obviously drowns in the annual noise or the long term trends in Leif’s particular graph. Note that at least over the past 50 years, Holgate sees consistently the same 11-year variations in the data (e.g., referenced here). Of course, because he uses a lot of lower quality stations (177) and/or is not careful to first differentiate and then add the tidal gauge data, he sees somewhat different variations before 1950, than what I find. (Of course, this is not a problem because he does not care about 11-year variations). Anyway, did Holgate torture his data too?
Oh, and the fact that Lean 2000 is used for the TSI is totally meaningless. The correlation with any signal synchronized with the 11-year solar cycle would give the same result. Note that I removed any long term trends from the tide data and from the solar proxies (whether TSI or cosmic rays).”

I have been careful enough on writing the next article on the influence of the solar irradiance upon some stratigraphic units. The article was classified like a “didactic article”. I am not mad at this classification, although I think its level is higher than a “didactic article”:
http://www.biocab.org/Hematite_Stained_Grains_and_TSI.html

Nasif Nahle (10:07:06) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:04:22):
The problem is that you disconnect the obvious solar influence on local Weather and global Climate
What obvious influence?

bill

Basil (09:31:06) :
The solar signal will be harder to extract from the “noise” when you use regional data like you are doing. (But not always.)
There are plenty of hadcruts there – honest, even a giss!
If the signal is in the noise and usually so far below the noise that it is invisible then surely it is having no effect. Remember you are not looking for, or trying to extract the signal in the noise you are trying to show that the signal is actually affecting the temperature. I will freely admit that somewhere way down in the noise there will be a TSI spectrum – but as it is so small it will be insignificant.
In the global temperature data, there is a well-defined peak at 20-22 years,
At this period there is very little time accuracy and to relate this to the TSI cycle is not a sensible task. To me the plots I made show peaks somewhat to either side of 22 years.
see if you can relate what you see in the data to that literature.
The Oxford data I believe showed a reasonable peak at the NAO 7.7years, but on averaging this disappears. But I thought this was about TSI = 10 – 14 years? There is no significant peak!
I will match your fft’s, and raise you with Figure 5 of our paper
I had a look at the MTM site with a view to using this software. But it is not available for Windows and I do not consider it worth linuxing my puter just for this!.
Perhaps you can explain how fig 5 compares to fig 2 Fig 5 shows a sudden drop at >56 years and more detail than my FFTs show at these periods. (but the same data is used!.
To me it looks as if a band pass filter has been used centred on the 22 year period?
The HP filter is a nice agorithm for smoothing data (ive used it rather than arunning average as they seemed to produce a similar output) but I would hesitate to use it not knowing how it mungs the data! I assume you had a look at its workings?
The MTM software seems to put little hats in black on the trace are these peaks actually present at these amplitudes or is this just the software pointing out where peaks could be if they were harmonically related?

John S.

Jeff Larson (04:51:01):
Yes, proper power spectrum analysis (not just FFTs, whose results, called “raw periodograms,” presume strict periodicity and vary as chi-square with only 2 degrees of freedom) has been applied often in search of a connection between the 11-yr Schwabe sunspot cycle and terrestrial temperature variations. The results of proper analysis have been almost uniformly negative, for the simple reason that surface temperature records usually have little spectral density near that fundamental frequency.
The situation becomes much more interesting, however, at the harmonics and subharmonics of the sunspot cycle–and all the more so when solar factors besides the TSI are considered.
In the present paper, a pronounced downward swing from the late 50’s to the mid-70’s is evident in both the solar metric and the (rather obscure) surface temperature metric. Both metrics employed then rise in concert from the trough, manifesting coherence at frequencies well below not only the Scwabe, but below that of the Hale (~22yr) cycle. Cross-spectrum analysis using different metrics consistently shows this multi-decadal coherence. Thus a necessary–but by no means sufficient–condition for a solar link to surface temperatures has been established.
The sufficent condition, i.e., an unambiguous physical mechansim, has yet to be discovered. I suspect that it is only a matter of time that accumulation of global satellite data reveals that mechanism–provided that the AGW crowd doesn’t totally hijack the science.

John S.

Moderator: Please eliminate the paragraph break before the “Thus a necessary…”
Done – A

Leif Svalgaard (10:40:27) :
Nasif Nahle (10:07:06) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:04:22):
The problem is that you disconnect the obvious solar influence on local Weather and global Climate
What obvious influence?

Actually, the obvious influences are from primary school lessons:
1. Local temperatures depend on the intensity of solar irradiance, though local conditions could modify it.
2. Solar irradiance heats up the surface of oceans and land and the surface of oceans and land heats up the atmosphere.
3. The geographical distribution of biomes on Earth depends on latitudinal climate. Curiously, the distribution of biomes follows the line of the angle of incidence of the solar photon stream.
4. Evaporation from oceans is determined by the load of incident solar energy upon the ocean’s surface. Evaporation determines cloudiness, rainfall frequency and rainfall coverage, local temperatures and global temperatures.
5. As the Sun appears each morning on the horizon, the temperature of the surface exposed to the solar beams starts increasing and it starts decreasing as the Sun declines into the horizon.
6. The seasonal succession is due to the angle of incidence of the sunbeams upon Earth.
7. The champion on this issue is the iron stained grains, which definitely are shaped by the solar radiation. Its proportion is higher as the solar irradiance increases and gets lower as the solar irradiance decreases. Iron stained grains, curiously, are also used for knowing the climatic conditions prevailing at any geological era.
8. Winds are driven by the unequal heating of the surface, which is driven by the solar radiation.

The higher sophisticated our knowledge is, the higher our blindness on simple things.

Howard
I found this Received 16 February 2009; revised 24 April 2009; accepted 6 May 2009. Available online 18 May 2009 at Science Direct