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

180 thoughts on “Another paper showing evidence of a solar signature in temperature records

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

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

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

  9. 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.

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

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

  14. 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.

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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).

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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 )

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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?
    =========================================

  27. 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.

  28. 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?

  29. 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.

  30. 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!

  31. 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].

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

  33. 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. 😉

  34. 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?

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

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

  38. 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).”

  39. 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?

  40. 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?

  41. 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.

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

  43. 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.

  44. Not another nail in the coffin – though I remember Shaviv pulling his nails. I prefer to see it as another ray of sunshine, resurrecting the true cause with new beauty of proof.
    The Sun.

  45. Nasif Nahle (11:45:05) :
    Actually, the obvious influences are from primary school lessons
    You forgot the biggest of all
    0) turn the Sun of if you don’t think the Sun has any influence.
    But none of you influences have anything to do with why the climate varies, so are hardly relevant.

  46. bill (09:33:21) :
    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?

    Yes, the UV that falls on the continents is turned into infrared which is radiated back.
    The light that falls in the oceans penetrates into it, and therefore can heat, according to the wavelength. Infrared only a few mm and the shorter the wavelength the deeper it goes, up to 100 meters or so.
    Since the long range cycles are so dependent on the oceans it would not be surprising if the difference between high and low spots in the cycle would modulate the behavior of the currents since there would be an 8 percent difference in what is happening there, rather than a 0.1 one one.
    I am not saying it is so. Just ennumerating speculations. There are further speculations with UV, since it has been found that plankton responds to the levels and tries to shield itself by releasing material in the atmosphere http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html that generates clouds.

  47. We will be thankful, in the end, that sol doesn’t vary her output by more (or, indeed less) than 1/1000.
    I don’t normally make predictions but a couple of brilliant people who work here do, so I guess it is rubbing off on me.
    Richard Mackey (01:28:04) : – really great post.
    timetochooseagain (09:02:23) : – legislative need trumps scientific investigation, court told.

  48. Nick Stokes (00:57:47) :
    Is anyone able to explain what is actually plotted in these graphs? For example, what is “lifetime”?
    _________
    I second this early post! What is this plot? It seems to bear no relation to the description in the second paragraph “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”.

  49. Leif Svalgaard (12:22:17) :
    Nasif Nahle (11:45:05) :
    Actually, the obvious influences are from primary school lessons
    You forgot the biggest of all
    0) turn the Sun of if you don’t think the Sun has any influence.

    I am almost sure that you, as a solar physicist, have had many experiences under the Moon’s shadow during solar eclipses. I am not a solar physicist, but I have experienced and observed dramatic changes of regional climate states during solar eclipses. I have observed how the temperature of ground and the atmosphere decreases as much as 10-14 degrees as the solar eclipses progress. I have experienced eddies which apparently come out from nothing during a calm day under the influence of a solar eclipse. Now… Imagine what would happen if the Sun turns off… Heh!
    But none of you influences have anything to do with why the climate varies, so are hardly relevant.
    Please, expand your posture on each one of the influences, which, by the way, are not mine.

  50. In Jasper Kirby’s slide show (see previous article on the CLOUD experiments at CERN), on slide 6, he makes the following points:
    • Numerous palaeoclimatic reconstructions suggest that solar/GCR variability has an important influence on climate.
    • However, there is no established physical mechanism, and so solar-climate variability is:
    ‣ Controversial subject
    ‣ Not included in current climate models
    What if we applied the same criteria to GHG’s, particularly CO2. We would find that there is no evidence in palaeoclimatic reconstructions that changing CO2 causes significant temperature changes. The evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Indeed, when CO2 is approaching a relative peak, temperatures have already been dropping for centuries. When CO2 is approaching a relative minimum, temperatures have been warming for centuries. Whatever turns global temperatures from one trend to another is uneffected by the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere!
    Secondly, there is no established physical mechanism that takes the measurably small influence of changing CO2 concentrations and turns it into a climate catastrophe. In addition, the history of global climate indicates that such a mechanism can not exist! There is no question that the solar/GCR mechanism for controlling global climate is scientifically more robust than the CO2 hypothesis and is supported much more by the paleo data.
    So why is the hypothesis that shows no correlation with climate history and has no scientifically supporting mechanism preferred over the hypothesis that is correlated to climate history and has a developing (yet incomplete), measurable, scientific mechanism?
    Answer: We live in a post-rational world.

  51. Nasif Nahle (13:01:40) :
    “But none of you influences have anything to do with why the climate varies, so are hardly relevant.”
    Please, expand your posture on each one of the influences, which, by the way, are not mine.

    But since they are all irrelevant, I’ll not waste anybody’s time on that. I’m sure you can find elementary books that will tell you all you want to know about the points you mentioned. Then, if you difficulties with some of them, I’ll be glad to help, if I can.
    Reply: This endless sniping by 3 or 4 commenters and Leif has just got to end sometime. Can all of you just tone it down? Act likes it’s a business meeting and you want to actually make the sale, even if the other guy pisses you off. ~ charles the paternal moderator
    REPLY2: Ditto that – Anthony

  52. Jakers (12:53:42) :
    Nick Stokes (00:57:47) :
    Is anyone able to explain what is actually plotted in these graphs? For example, what is “lifetime”?
    _________
    I second this early post! What is this plot? It seems to bear no relation to the description in the second paragraph “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″.

    If I remember correctly, I was a reviewer on an earlier submission to a more prestigious journal and recommended rejection for a variety of reasons, one being vagueness, another that you do not improve statistics by using many nearby stations [that all show almost the same thing], another one was the use of the geomagnetic station ESK [Eskdalemuir in Northern UK] where it is known that the data have been smoothed before 1932 and thus have smaller variability in the earlier years [can be seen in the Figure – raising the ESK curve to compensate for the smoothing actually improves the correlation, but that is besides the point].

  53. @Charles-the paternal moderator… It is fine for me. Although I have to say that it was not my intention to upset Leif in any way. I have agreed with many of Leif’s observations, except on two or three of his perspectives. Anyway, I apologize for any insolence in my messages addressed to Leif. We are scientists and we must keep equanimity.

  54. timetochooseagain (09:02:23) :
    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.

    This guy posts as ‘raypierre’ on realclimate and also attempted a smear against Roy Spencer which I debunked the other day. He accused Roy of ‘cooking’ a graph which used spencers simple model he uses to show sensitivity to clouds.
    It appears he’s repeated the smears against Courtillot there too:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/in

  55. So in a nutshell, they’re saying that solar activity “as characterized by the mean-squared daily variation of a geomagnetic component” correlates well with the “disturbances” of the temperature series. Therefore, they “conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances” and so solar activity “modulates major features of climate”. But it seems they found that solar activity and the actual temperature did not correlate well?

  56. Jakers (15:10:23) :
    So in a nutshell, […] But it seems they found that solar activity and the actual temperature did not correlate well?
    Something like that. Not convincing or supportive of their notion.

  57. Nylo (01:28:27) “Why do the graphs only plot information until ~1990?”
    2 factors:
    1) Some of the time series they used probably weren’t up-to-date.
    2) More importantly: 22-year averaging – (the future hasn’t arrived yet).

  58. Re: Nylo (01:28:27)
    Sorry – that should be 22 year differencing in this case (see p.5, bottom right)).

  59. In science, many times, it turns out progress of understanding only advances as confirmed opinions die out, and younger more open minds, who have had experience with the new ideas and evidence that support those ideas come into positions where they can in turn communicate those ideas.
    Therefore, it is not surprising in the slightest that there are those that in spite of the best scientific evidence currently available still cling to the old antiquated ideas.
    Although, it still can be remarkable how tenaciously some will hold on to those ideas that were current in their professional youth, but are now pathetically out-dated.

  60. I get the impression that most climate scientists don’t like cyclical data.
    As for me, I’m going to be interested in grain prices over the next couple of years.

  61. Re: John S. (11:11:06)
    Thank you for these valuable notes.
    – –
    Re: anna v (05:20:01)
    Well-said.
    – –
    Geoff Sharp (05:53:31) “[…] resist against those trying to stamp out fires that might one day provide the truth.”
    With the stamping reaching a feverish pitch, one has to wonder what (beyond the obvious) is being protected.
    – –
    Jakers (15:10:23) “But it seems they found that solar activity and the actual temperature did not correlate well?”
    The key is in this passage:
    “When attempting to find long-term correlations, and possibly causal connections between observables linked to the climate system […] only the longer periods are relevant if the system is a linear one. But if it is nonlinear and moreover turbulent, cascades from the higher to the lower frequencies or the reverse can occur. In that sense, it is important to estimate the long-term behaviour of the higher frequencies (disturbances), a delicate task with many time series spanning several orders of magnitude in characteristic frequencies. […] complexity arises from interactions between different sources over different time scales. […] […] […] overwhelming effect of Earth’s annual orbit […]” – (Le Mouel, Courtillot, Blanter, & Shnirman)
    It doesn’t take much of a nonlinear distortion to destroy (or impact) a linear correlation.
    Also:
    “It is not illegitimate to wonder about the significance and robustness of calculating a worldwide average for a disparate collection of trends.” – (Le Mouel, Courtillot, Blanter, & Shnirman)
    They appear braced for irrational reactions.

  62. Re: James F. Evans (18:11:20)
    Well-said.
    – –
    A.Syme (18:27:15) “[…] cyclical […]”
    Careful – you could be punished for mentioning that term in connection with anything other than the venerable year & day.

  63. So… um… you’re saying that the planet heats and cools based on the sun’s cycles and that it’s entering another cooling cycle? Not that being alarmed will change anything, but should I be alarmed and start wearing poster boards and hoarding the best winter gear LLBean has to offer?

  64. timetochooseagain (18:13:57) :
    tallbloke:
    Spencer responded too:
    http://climatesci.org/2008/05/23/follow-up-to-the-response-to-ray-pierrehumberts-real-climate-post-by-roy-spencer/

    Indeed, but he didn’t argue the point I picked up on, because he doesn’t claim to be an oceanographer. It’s a pity raypierre doesn’t realise he’s not either.
    raypierre has also smeared Courtillot and Allegre on realclimate and elsewhere. He’s a nasty piece of work for whom perception comes before principle.

  65. Jeff Larson: You can do Fourier filtering on WoodForTrees – actually, this subject was the reason I created it… But as far as I can see, it doesn’t reveal much of a correlation over the long term, for sunspots at least.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.7/fourier/low-pass:10/inverse-fourier/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/fourier/low-pass:10/inverse-fourier/normalise
    (note, temperature detrended to avoid Fourier edge effects, and both curves normalised)
    and as a sanity check, here it is done with a simple running mean:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.7/mean:120/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/from:1850/normalise
    If you open the two links in two browser tabs and blink between them you can see there are still some edge effects.
    In the interests of fairness, here it is again without the temperature detrend:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/from:1850/normalise

  66. Another worry about this paper… I can’t reproduce their solar magnetic curve from a naive running mean of sunspot numbers, which I think I would expect to be able to (should they be correlated, Leif?).
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1920/to:1990/mean:120
    The 1955-1960 peak is there, as is the little bounce around 1970, but their curve is missing the marked rise around 1980, and without that, their correlations with temperature wouldn’t be anywhere near as compelling. It’s as if their filtering method (if that’s what it is?) has a high-pass at around 20 years.
    Also, it’s pretty clear to me that the sunspot peak significantly lags the temperature peak – by about 2 decades!:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1920/to:1990/mean:120/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1920/to:1990/mean:120/normalise
    So I’m now seriously wondering whether I understand what it is they claim to be plotting… I’m going to have to read up about this “lifetime” business!

  67. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (01:45:46) :
    Another worry about this paper… I can’t reproduce their solar magnetic curve from a naive running mean of sunspot numbers, which I think I would expect to be able to (should they be correlated, Leif?).
    Yes, one would think so. But they use the geomagnetic variations at just one station [ESK in Northern UK, which BTW had data problems] as a proxy for solar activity, which is strange because we have solar data, so why use a troubled proxy? That was another of the [many] reasons I recommended rejection of the paper.
    There is a problem with the peer review system: Journals are rated [the ‘impact factor’] and scientists want to have their papers published in the highest rated journal in their field, so often they submit the paper to the highest rated journal first. Now, one reason a journal has a high impact factor is its rigorous review process, so they also have the highest rejection rate. If a paper is rejected, then you submit to the next highest journal, after rejection there, you submit to the next, etc, until finally you get it accepted in minor journal, either because they found a friendly reviewer or an incompetent one, either reason not being satisfactory from the viewpoint of the public that relies on the review process to place trust in the paper. One solution to this would be to require that the reviews [all of them, from the first journal to the last that finally accepted the paper] be public and be [electronically] attached to the paper. We are not there yet, but it would be a great help in judging the trustworthiness of the paper.

  68. Basil
    Above I asked a few questions I’ll repeat them here with a few corrections/additions since you have not answered them.
    From Your posting
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/
    Perhaps you can explain how fig 5 compares to fig 2. Fig 5 shows a sudden drop at >56 years and more detail than any FFTs can show at these periods despite the same data being used?
    To me it looks as if a band pass filter has been used with a passband of 8 to 22 year period. Is this true?
    The HP (not high pass!) filter is good and simple for smoothing data but I know nothing of its internal workings. I would therefore hesitate to use it not knowing how it mungs the data! For example this from wiki:
    Drawbacks to H-P filter
    The Hodrick-Prescott filter will only be optimal when:[5]
    Data exists in a I(2) trend.
    If one-time permanent shocks or split growth rates occur, the filter will generate shifts in the trend that do not actually exist.
    Noise in data is approximately Normal~(0,σ²)(White Noise).
    Analysis is purely historical and static (closed domain). The filter has misleading predictive outcome when used dynamically since the algorithm changes (during iteration for minimization) the past state (unlike a moving average) of the time series to adjust for the current state regardless of the size of lambda used

    (I checked it against a moving average and similar outputs could be obtained)
    Is this filter safe to use when processing this sort of data?
    The MTM FFT software seems to put little hats in black on the trace – are these peaks actually present at these amplitudes shown or is this just the software pointing out where peaks could be if they were harmonically related?
    In my plots a FFT of the TSI/SSN was included – Is is not a single noise free spike but one would expect to see this shape in the temperature plots if it was there. TSI shows no 22 year peak .
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9826/tsifft.jpg
    Please ignore the CET plots as you seem to find them flawed.
    From another discussion on wuwt the conclusion was drawn that it was not possible to get a high frequency to “pump” a subharmonic (11 year will not cause a 22 year cycle) The other way is OK (22 year cycle can cause a 11 year harmonic) (I simulated it using tuned circuits in a simulation package)
    PS I think the tone of your reply to me was a bit below the belt and unecessary
    Basil (09:31:06) :
    And I’ve responded just as many times. …Rather than just trumpet your fft charts…

    Someone asked a question and I replied – that is all. No trumpeting. And you certainly have not pointed out where my (or for that matter Leif’s) plots of FFTs are invalid!

  69. Sometimes, I think that this “Sun Is Responsible” argument is silly. Everyone knows that the Earth would not be warm, or as warm/hot as it is, without dear Sun. Yes, when the sun comes up, it is warmer on one’s spot on Earth — but it is cooler on the opposite side. Yes, when sun spots have “disappeared”, the Earth seems to have cooled considerably, but so far not predictably so. What it seems we are interested in (or at least I am and why I am choosing WUWT over most other blogs) is how the Sun interacts with Earth’s environment and position in the galaxy/universe. I am also interested in the chaotic nature of Earth’s weather/climate (or at least it seems chaotic at present).
    I see no problem with one scientist saying that a perspective has been proven irrelevant — as-long-as-the-evidence-is-presented. And I see no problem with the scientist of the forcefully disputed position returning with more evidence in support of his/her ideas. Let the disputation focus on the hypothesis and evidence. I have experienced some very productive “yelling” on your blog, Anthony. Scientific disputations are not business meetings; in that regard I disagree with you. And yet it is yours, for which I am very grateful. Let the good times roll.

  70. Just for interest some time ago I compered Hoderik Prescott, Eponential smoothing, moving average, and bandpass filtering on hadcrut data:
    http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1282/hodrickprescottfilter.jpg
    HP filtering on monthly data with a factor of 20000 gave a similar response to 3 year moving average with a few differences – some ripples removed, some peaks shifted and end of data handled differently (on the moving average there should be no valid results within 1.5years of the data ends.

  71. bill (06:31:40) :
    since you have not answered them.
    you certainly have not pointed out where my (or for that matter Leif’s) plots of FFTs are invalid!

    Well I pointed out that although the average cycle length is 11.01 years, there is almost never an 11 year solar cycle. So why expect temperature plots to conform under FFT? Especially with the kind of biennial swings caused by other factors we see.
    If you want to see the solar signal in the temperature series just smooth the temp series on a 43 month moving average like this:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/to:2009/scale:0.001
    I don’t know why I’m bothering, because I replied to a few of your posts now, and you never return the compliment.

  72. And I forgot to thank Paul Clark for the use of his excellent graphing facilities.
    Thanks again Paul.

  73. tallbloke (08:32:30) :
    If you want to see the solar signal in the temperature series just smooth the temp series on a 43 month moving average like this
    Even if the period changes a bit there would still be an FFT signal, the peak would just be broader. And the signal in your graph disappears when you just go a bit further back, e.g. to 1880. And finally, the ‘signal’ is as small as the 0.1 degree commonly predicted anyway.

  74. This shows it even better. Notice the peak around the strong el nino phase in the 1930’s followed by the slump and late response to the following cycle. The oceans have a 60 year cycle, guess what’s coming soon to a skating rink near you.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1910/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.5/fourier/low-pass:12/inverse-fourier/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:2009/scale:0.0005/fourier/low-pass:12/inverse-fourier/normalise

  75. tallbloke (08:32:30) :
    I didnot know you were expecting an answer.
    Taking your link and correcting it
    to remove the de-trend (why remove the trend?)
    include a few more years (What’s wrong with the earlier data?)
    Take the mean over a whole 2 years (43 months – why? )
    gets you this (woodfortrees is a wonderful cherry orchard!):
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:2009/mean:24/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2009/scale:0.001
    Doesn’t look so good now, does it?
    The FFTs I made all had a plot of the TSI or SSN FFT included so the pattern of the spectrum of SSN was known.
    This pattern does not show up above the noise. Other signals do, but these are not sun related. If it’s in the noise it will have no effect – even if by filtering and other DSP techniques you can show that it is actually present (I know it must be present because variations in TSI is a fact).

  76. bill (06:31:40):
    Today, I only have time for a quick note, namely, that certain nonlinear systems can indeed “pump” subharmonics of the forcing. Linear circuits are incapable of subharmonic response.
    P. S. Have you ever plotted your FFT results as an equi-spaced sequence of frequencies at which they are computed. It is in the frequency domain–and not that of the period you plot–that the Parseval relationship between the magnitudes of the F. coefficients and the total variance applies. You might also be surprised how much those coefficients vary with slight changes in record length. That’s why raw FFT periodograms are not relied upon in power spectrum estimation.

  77. bill (09:06:23) :
    Taking your link and correcting it
    to remove the de-trend (why remove the trend?)
    include a few more years (What’s wrong with the earlier data?)
    Take the mean over a whole 2 years (43 months – why? )

    I remove the trend to isolate the solar signal from oceanic cycles as far as possible.
    1910 on is more reliable SST data IMO.
    43 months because that is 1/3 of the solar cycle. (2 years -why?)
    Anyway, none of that matters, because I now understand that you simply don’t want to see the solar signal, and will do anything necessary to make it go away. Which is fine, we now know where each other stands, and I won’t waste anymore of your time. Or mine.
    Oh, last thing, you didn’t comment on my FFT’s, but here’s the last one, with the earlir data included. You can see the descent from the previous 60 year peak on this one, and join the dots, if you can bring yourself to make a useful interpretation.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.5/fourier/low-pass:15/inverse-fourier/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:2009/scale:0.0005/fourier/low-pass:15/inverse-fourier/normalise

  78. John S. (09:21:07) :
    You might also be surprised how much those coefficients vary with slight changes in record length.
    This effect can be clearly seen in this raw FFT plot of the sunspot series 1700-2008:
    http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png
    The FFT was calculated for 1700-2008, then for 1701-2008, 1702-2008, etc, a total of 17 curves. The length-effect, of course, becomes greater the longer the period is. On the other hand the significant peaks are still there, no matter what the record length is.

  79. Leif Svalgaard (08:48:45) :
    tallbloke (08:32:30) :
    If you want to see the solar signal in the temperature series just smooth the temp series on a 43 month moving average like this
    Even if the period changes a bit there would still be an FFT signal, the peak would just be broader. And the signal in your graph disappears when you just go a bit further back, e.g. to 1880. And finally, the ’signal’ is as small as the 0.1 degree commonly predicted anyway.

    Well as you know Leif, there are other things affecting the temperature series apart from TSI. However from the ‘big signal’ helped along no doubt by El nino dominted phases of around 0.6C to the ‘little signal’ of around 0.17C dampened by La Nina phases, there would seem to be an average around 0.38C, which is half a centuries worth of ‘global warming’ is it not? Probably more once you take Anthony’s work into account.
    So, by no means a minor 0.1C blip, and when you also take into account the cumulative running total method I developed, it seems the sun is a much bigger player in the climate game than youtry to make out. And that’s without having to invoke geomagnetism, extra UV or anything else.

  80. tallbloke (09:24:51) :
    but here’s the last one, with the earlier data included.
    As the peaks sometimes are in phase and sometimes not, all you show is that there are decadal-type variations, which nobody disputes. They just don’t line up with the solar cycles very well, which is the important point. And there should be a 0.07 degree solar signal. An interesting thing for you to do, would be to take the SSN, multiply it by 0.07 and divide by 115 [the average SSN peak value], then subtract that from the temperature curve and look again.

  81. My mistake, messed up my scaling. 0.2C to 0.1C. Still not insignificant when heat builds up in the ocean over periods of high solar activity.

  82. tallbloke (09:41:48) :
    Still not insignificant when heat builds up in the ocean over periods of high solar activity.
    If you heat something up [the oceans] they radiate more at the higher temperature. Heat does not build up. If you suddenly increased TSI by 0.1% the new temperature would be 0.07 degrees higher no matter for how long the increase lasts.

  83. Leif Svalgaard (10:22:04) :
    tallbloke (09:41:48) :
    “Still not insignificant when heat builds up in the ocean over periods of high solar activity.”
    If you heat something up [the oceans] they radiate more at the higher temperature. Heat does not build up. If you suddenly increased TSI by 0.1% the new temperature would be 0.07 degrees higher no matter for how long the increase lasts.

    Perhaps I should add that it might take the oceans a while to heat up the 0.07C [and a while to cool off again, if the TSI increase went away], but you don’t get it any higher than the 0.07C increase. And any delay in heating the oceans would destroy the phasing, wouldn’t it? [unless you postulate that the delay is precise a whole multiple of solar cycles].

  84. To me it looks tantalisingly like there is a link between Earth climate and solar activity which is greater than can be explained by changes in TSI alone.
    If we better understood the mechanisms which lie behind the suns 22y cycle, this would perhaps give us a better understanding of what we are missing.
    My thinking is that we could, perhaps, make headway by looking for something that could be effecting the chaotic processes of both the sun and the earth. An external force could be effecting the whole of the solar system on a periodic basis, and have slightly differing effects on both the earth and sun regarding timing of the manifestation of event and the effects on differing mechanisms.
    It sometimes only takes a small nudge to a chaotic system to cause a large event.

  85. Hi Leif, thanks for your considered reply. The thermal expansion of the ocean that has to have taken place to account for the observed sea level rise demands that the heat is permeating down a long way below the depth commonly asserted as the ‘mixing layer’ (Levitus et al).
    The atmosphere limits the amount of heat which can escape from the ocean the surface reaches a max of around 29C. Solar energy penetrating the ocean and warming the surface layer beyond that maximum causes the excess heat to propagate downwards. Where else can it go?
    0.07 degrees is pretty close to the decadal warming rate so it seems to me that any residual heat heading down into the lower strata towards the thermocline could indeed exhibit a decadal oscillation as it rises back to the surface and reinforces or or otherwise modulates the current solar cycle. There is as much thermal capacity in the top 2.5m of the ocean as there is in the entire atmosphere above it, and the heating goes down to a thousand metres or more. All that heat can’t get out quickly, it has to wait for when the atmosphere is cooler during lower points in solar cycles or runs of lower solar cycles.
    The ‘out of phase’ state the ocean gets into is also being caused during big cooling or warming periods as you can see from the FFT’s. This is when the SST has ‘overshot’ during a run of el nino’s, then crashes as in the 1940’s and now. The rebound keeps the temperature dropping as the next solar cycle is rising, and the ocean has to ‘play catch up’ to the higher solar signal during the following cycle max. As the temperature of the ocean heads up every 60 years, it almost smoothes away the solar signal, but you can see it is still there if you change the low pass filtering rate on the calcs.
    I remember a year ago on CA when you said to me you thought there might be a 10 year ‘lag’ in the system. What prompted you to say that if no heat is stored? No-one has a satisfactory explanation for the 60 year cycle as far as I know, that’s why I’m pushing ideas around it. I’m not trying to sell you a cut and dried theory, and thanks again for your insight which informs me and makes me think on my feet.

  86. By the way Leif, interesting peaks in your SSN power spectrum at 50 and 100 years.
    🙂

  87. Correction:
    residual heat heading down into the lower strata towards the thermocline could indeed exhibit a decadal oscillation as it rises back to the surface and reinforces or or otherwise modulates the ocean’s response to the current solar cycle.

  88. tallbloke (11:43:59) :
    thanks again for your insight which informs me and makes me think on my feet.
    Taking advantage of the above: I think you are confusing storage and temperature. If I increase the input (TSI) abruptly [as happens every 11 years – abruptly because the rise time is short], the upper layer [and SST and temps in general] will heat up fast [matter of weeks]. If I keep the heat on, the upper layers will not heat to any higher temperature, but the heat will penetrate deeper and deeper into the ocean [or the Earth (boreholes) for that matter]. Conversely, when you down down the heat, the heat already stored in the system will keep the temperature at the higher level for some time.
    tallbloke (11:57:13) :
    By the way Leif, interesting peaks in your SSN power spectrum at 50 and 100 years.
    Whether they are really separate or just an expression of the fact that there is power in a broad region from 40 to 110 years [perhaps centered on the ~88 year Gleissberg cycle] the sunspot record is really too short to tell.

  89. tallbloke (12:02:14) :
    a decadal oscillation as it rises back to the surface and reinforces or or otherwise modulates the ocean’s response to the current solar cycle.
    The temperature spike will be smeared out in time so you won’t get the same effect, and if the ‘response’ time is 5 years [as Schwartz thinks] or some number not equal to the cycle length, the effect would be a decrease in the oscillation. This whole thing cannot be handled with hand waving. One can make accurate models of this [I think this has been done – can’t remember where].

  90. Leif Svalgaard (12:35:10) :
    If I keep the heat on, the upper layers will not heat to any higher temperature, but the heat will penetrate deeper and deeper into the ocean [or the Earth (boreholes) for that matter]. Conversely, when you down down the heat, the heat already stored in the system will keep the temperature at the higher level for some time.

    I’m glad we agree on this. According to the calculations I did the other day (I don’t just wave my hands) The 16mm of sea level increase due to expansion as opposed to melt etc between 1993 and 2003 has to be distributed down about 1000m on average. Because the thermocline in the tropics is at about 50m, this means the heat is stored much deeper elsewhere. For example, in the sea off Labrador, the thermocline is at around 2000m in the winter.
    I’m well aware of the difference between heat and temperature, being an engineer by trade originally. The ocean has been heating since the late 60’s according to the ocean heat content graph in Levitus et al 2009, so this means the propagated heat raises the temperature of the deeper waters above the thermocline and was doing so for 40 years up until the ocean started cooling again in 2003.
    when you turn down the heat, the heat already stored in the system will keep the temperature at the higher level for some time.
    Swot I said innit? 🙂
    After the weekend I’ll be getting the calculator hot working out the total joules stored, against the annual earth energy budget to get a handle on how long the cooling ocean might keep temps reasonable. My first back of the napkin estimate is just under two years unless the sun bucks up a bit. The residual heat further down will eke out more slowly but land surface temps and upper stratospheric temps will fall pretty quickly because the atmosphere loses lot’s to space, especially when the sea is cooling and there’s less evaporation to keep the good old greenhouse effect in top gear.
    The temperature spike will be smeared out in time so you won’t get the same effect, and if the ‘response’ time is 5 years [as Schwartz thinks] or some number not equal to the cycle length, the effect would be a decrease in the oscillation.
    I won’t try and argue this one now, because that would involve a lot of handwaving, but consider that water does stratify, and doesn’t mix readily below the turbulence zone. I can conceive of several mechanisms, being the son of a water engineer, but I’ll chew on it over the weekend while I watch the motorcycle racing at Knockhill. Anyway, it’s a side issue for me, the important bit is working out the size and wattage and current flow rate of the battery.
    Thanks as always for your time.

  91. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (01:13:07) “running mean”
    When I say “running mean” I mean to imply that my window’s left edge is _anchored at the beginning of the series while the window’s right-margin varies. When I say “moving average” I mean my averaging-window maintains constant width as it moves (i.e. the window’s left-margin is not anchored). In the former case I plot values at window-right; in the latter case I plot at the window-midpoint. (Note: There are context-specific variants.)
    The preceding may seem a trivial point — the reason I mention it is that it is so often necessary to infer from context which way “running mean” is being used …since most people do not make the distinction – i.e. they just say “running mean” regardless of the scenario.
    Of course conventions vary – so one really does need to infer from context what is meant.

    Paul, you have a great website. Question: Can you explain what “isolate” does? I looked around on the woodfortrees links one day but could not find explanations for some of the drop-down-menu functions.

    I see Leif already pointed out that Le Mouel, Courtillot, Blanter, & Shnirman used a geomagnetic index. Your question about why you do not get their curve prompted me to review more-carefully what they did:
    They calculated year-over-year differences at daily resolution, squared these differences, and then boxcar-averaged them at 22 year bandwidth. This gives a series of 22-year-summaries of the intensity of year-over-year changes at daily resolution.
    I’ve performed the calculation at monthly resolution for aa, Log2(aa), & Sqrt(aa) — the curves share (roughly) some features with the blue (geomagnetic) curves in the article, but not all features – so when I have some free time, I might:
    1) do the same calculations for daily aa
    2) look into their reference [12]
    3) hunt for the Eskdalemuir geomagnetic series.
    – –
    Leif Svalgaard (06:30:42) “One solution to this would be to require that the reviews [all of them, from the first journal to the last that finally accepted the paper] be public and be [electronically] attached to the paper. We are not there yet, but it would be a great help in judging the trustworthiness of the paper.”
    For a whole lot of (good) reasons you’re going to have a tough-sell with this idea.
    I’ll state my preference again: A liberal publication system in conjunction with a much better education system. With a higher rate of science-literacy & numeracy, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about judgement capacity. People would be empowered to see what other (perhaps more creative) people did (perhaps wrong) …and then go do better. The best stuff would float to the top – fast.
    In any event: It will be interesting to see how the system evolves to better-match the online medium’s potential.

  92. The Chandler wobble period plummeted from ~1921 until ~1942. The phase reversal was in ~1931 and can be linked (statistically – I’m still waiting for a physicist to explain the mechanism) to a very unique combination of the following: (1) terrestrial polar motion, (2) solar system dynamics, & (3) the lunar nodal cycle. The alignment is precise and unique in the entire polar motion record (1846-present) – i.e. there is no other such spike.
    With awareness of this, some of you should be able to pull several threads together (e.g. precipitation, length of day, polar motion, atmospheric angular momentum, SOI, NAO, solar variation, temperature [global, regional, minimum, maximum, average, extreme monthly minimum, & extreme monthly maximum], rate of change of carbon dioxide concentration, …)

  93. Leif,
    Your idea is a constructive idea in regards to the peer-review process.
    If I understand your comment: Complete disclosure.
    No secrecy, in the reviewing process. All reviewers must be identified.
    Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
    Merit is the answer to the current difficulties, not continued secrecy.

  94. With awareness of this, some of you should be able to pull several threads together (e.g. precipitation, length of day, polar motion, atmospheric angular momentum, SOI, NAO, solar variation, temperature [global, regional, minimum, maximum, average, extreme monthly minimum, & extreme monthly maximum], rate of change of carbon dioxide concentration, …)
    Sounds like a piece of cake. I notice you are saying other people should do it though. 😉
    Interesting post. Thanks.

  95. Another thought on why the thermocline is deeper away from the tropics. Warm water spreads from the tropics polewards in wind driven currents. Due to the greater evaporation rates in the tropics, it’s a good deal saltier than the water it’s moving into. Even though it’s warmer, it will be denser than the cooler extra-tropical water and will sink. Need to check some real world figures, but 20C water at 39,000 mg/m3 is denser than 10C water at 35000mg/m3 by 1kg/m3.
    Right, off to Bonnie Scotland.

  96. tallbloke (23:21:38) “Sounds like a piece of cake. I notice you are saying other people should do it though. ;-)”
    Clarification:
    I’ve done the preliminary analyses.

  97. Re: James F. Evans (22:53:08)
    The suggested system is administratively extreme. The resistance would succeed – it would spill around the barriers like an uncontainable wave. The response would be “blue ribbon panels” popping up like dandelions.
    On the other hand, some small modifications might be well-received – and perhaps ongoing diversification is feasible.

  98. Paul Vaughan (02:04:12) :
    were you the person I was conversing with on an old thread about CO2 and what causes the sudden dip (still no plausible answer by the way!!!!).
    The final statements you made concerned inaccuracies you uncovered in the CO2 records. I was going to reply but the thread became old and you might have missed it
    Anyway here is my comparison of Barrow data when sampled Monthly and “hourly” – all flagged errors have been removed from the hourly data.
    http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2339/co2barrowhourvsmonthobs.jpg
    The only errors I can see are that the hourly data is offset by +2 weeks from the monthly. Is that the complaint to which you refered?
    This is the plot that sparked my query – “what causes the sudden dip in CO2 that dominates the globe including half the southern hemisphere, and why does it occur within a cople of monts from barrow to christmas island?”
    http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6153/co2manysitesch4.jpg

  99. tallbloke (08:32:30) “If you want to see the solar signal in the temperature series just smooth the temp series on a 43 month moving average […]”
    Leif Svalgaard (08:48:45) “[…] the signal in your graph disappears when you just go a bit further back, e.g. to 1880.”
    bill (09:06:23) “43 months – why? […] wonderful cherry orchard!”
    tallbloke (09:24:51) “1910 on is more reliable SST data IMO. 43 months because that is 1/3 of the solar cycle.”


    It may not have been evident, but my post at Paul Vaughan (18:11:23) [July 3, 2009] relates to the preceding quotes.

    When one takes the harmonics of polar motion into account in analyses, whole arrays of phase relations crystallize.

    Some would justify 43 month bandwidth as enough to suppress (some of) ENSO-related – or simply interannual – variation. 39 month time-integration can be theoretically justified by noting the beat period of the annual & Chandler wobbles – & working out the harmonics.
    Clarification:
    39 months on average — keep in mind that we’re dealing with nonstationary signals [which is why we can’t stop at basic FFT].
    For deeper insight – Step 1:
    Maximize the modulus of a Morlet (wavenumber = 2pi) complex wavelet transform of the magnitude of the gradient of the 2-dimensional (x,y) polar motion vector in the time-domain.

    Once one takes the Chandler wobble reversal into account, the simplicity of previously-perplexing phase relations begins crystallizing.

    For example, you should immediately see a problem with Leif’s claim (quoted above) as soon as you handle 1931 plus/minus a decade according to its unique conditions. You can create what statisticians call a “conditioning variable” – or what electrical engineers call a “switch”. (Note: You’ll actually need at least 2 switches.)

    Everyone should read the following book – & for every detail:
    William S. Cleveland (1993). Visualizing Data.
    http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~wsc/visualizing.html
    Pay attention, in particular, to everything about coplots (short for conditioning plot) if you want to enhance your ability to disentangle complexity – via conditioning.

    Noteworthy:
    1931 is dead-centre in Dr. Ivanka Charvatova’s trefoil window 1906-1956.
    If one uses cross-wavelet acoustic analysis, one will find 1:2:3 resonance broken at 1931 and nowhere else during the polar motion record.
    If anyone knows an open-minded astrophysicist who would be willing to patiently & respectfully help me work on the (physical) mechanics of this unique disruption of terrestrial phase relations (which can be precisely documented quantitatively via cross-wavelet acoustic analysis), please let me know. Statistical reasoning suggests this to be a MAJOR clue about the terrestrial hydrologic cycle.

    Once again:
    Strongly recommended reading:
    Jan Vondrak (1999). Earth rotation parameters 1899.7-1992.0 after reanalysis within the hipparcos frame. Surveys in Geophysics 20, 169-195.
    http://www.yspu.yar.ru/astronomy/lib/Rotation.pdf
    [See particularly section 3.2.]
    J. Vondrak & C. Ron (2005). The great Chandler wobble change in 1923-1940 re-visited. In: H.-P. Plag, B. Chao, R. Gross, & T. Van Dam (eds.), Forcing of polar motion in the Chandler frequency band: A contribution to understanding interannual climate variations, Cahiers du Centre Europeen de Geodynamique et de Seismologie 24, 39-47.

    Also:
    1) N.S. Sidorenkov (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
    http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
    [See particularly the “thermal engine” conceptual framework laid out in section 2.]
    2) W. Kosek (2005). Excitation of the Chandler wobble by the geophysical annual cycle.
    http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~kosek/s11/LxPcorr_kosek.pdf
    3) Harald Schmitz-Hubsch & Harald Schuh (1999). Seasonal and short-period fluctuations of Earth rotation investigated by wavelet analysis. Technical Report 1999.6-2 Department of Geodesy & Geoinformatics, Stuttgart University, p.421-432.
    http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/schmitzhuebsch.pdf
    4) Y.H. Zhou, D.W. Zheng, & X.H. Liao (2001). Wavelet analysis of interannual LOD, AAM, and ENSO: 1997-98 El Nino and 1998-99 La Nina signals. Journal of Geodesy 75, 164-168.
    5) Gross, R. S. (2005). The observed period and Q of the Chandler wobble. In: H.-P. Plag, B. Chao, R. Gross, & T. Van Dam (eds.), Forcing of polar motion in the Chandler frequency band: A contribution to understanding interannual climate variations, Cahiers du Centre Europeen de Geodynamique et de Seismologie 24, 31-37.
    http://www.sbl.statkart.no/literature/plag_etal_2005_editors/gross_1_CWTQ_final.pdf

  100. Leif Svalgaard (12:48:42) “but why use ESK which is known to have data problem?”
    Mainly to verify the curves – & be absolutely certain about how moving-windows were centred. Elaboration: Whenever possible, I reproduce calculations presented in papers. I imagine you will agree that the awareness arising from such exercises is (generally) valuable. [Furthermore, once the algorithm is built, it can easily be applied to series without quality issues.]
    Btw: Thanks for the upthread note about ESK series quality.
    – –
    Re: bill (04:24:13)
    The consistent winter dips in the rate of change of CDIAC’s Alert, Nunavut, Canada CO2 time series are PURELY ARTIFICIAL.
    The CDIAC CO2 “data” are NOT data.
    (See the print UNDER their “data”.)
    Based on my present knowledge, I remain willing to use the NOAA CO2 data in any analyses I run, but the CDIAC “data” is useless to a careful & responsible analyst (who has a better alternative). [A careless &/or irresponsible analyst might fail or choose to fail to: (a) venture from the annual timescale & (b) consider rates of change.]
    CDIAC CO2 data:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
    NOAA CO2 data:
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/
    Have you tried the diagnostic exercise I suggested in the earlier thread? (If you do, you might laugh out loud when you see the residuals plot.)
    As for your question: You have to keep in mind that not every global-scale terrestrial process with a north-south dimension is distributed symmetrically about the equator. (This is exactly the kind of crippling assumption that builds lengthy delays into our learning. We have a serious cultural-learning problem in our society: People have been conditioned to put more faith in models than in observations. The recent economic crash should be a wake-up call.)

  101. Paul Vaughan (16:56:10) :
    Statistical reasoning suggests this to be a MAJOR clue about the terrestrial hydrologic cycle.
    When a relationship does not bear out or hold up, it is physical reasoning suggests that it was spurious to begin with.

  102. Re: Leif Svalgaard (20:23:30)
    No reasonable person will be doubting a link with the hydrologic cycle Leif.

  103. Paul Vaughan (23:25:34) :
    No reasonable person will be doubting a link with the hydrologic cycle
    This reasonable person doubts very much a link with the hydrological cycle and the trefoil pattern.

  104. Thanks Leif Svalgaard, Paul Vaughn, tallbloke. Anthony, discussions/debates like these on your blog prove the truth of a Fourth of July “freedom” celebration. What a unique experience this is — along with that provided by a number of your colleagues elsewhere. And this grateful non-scientist has lots more reading for the “idle” hours.

  105. @Paul Vaughan… Oh, Paul! Haven’t you realized that the Sun is a small torch oil-painted on a crystal sphere in the sky and has nothing to do with anything is happening on Earth? Welcome to wonderland! 🙂

  106. Leif Svalgaard (04:20:00) “This reasonable person doubts very much a link with the hydrological cycle and the trefoil pattern.”
    This is how rumors get started – people twist other peoples’ words.

  107. Re: Nasif Nahle (09:25:58)
    One begins to wonder if ‘global’ security somehow depends on Leif’s ability to keep the general public believing in Santa Claus.

  108. Paul Vaughan (10:25:37) :
    This is how rumors get started – people twist other peoples’ words.
    Twisting is aided by vagueness. Perhaps you could clarify precisely what is supposed to linked with what…
    Also, when asked to reply to straight questions, squirming to avoid a straight answer doesn’t help your cause. Let me try again:
    Please tell me what Charvatova’s ‘central thesis’ was that I missed to take into account, and why it should have been taken into account.

  109. Leif Svalgaard (11:55:50) “[…] when asked to reply to straight questions, squirming to avoid a straight answer doesn’t help your cause.”
    Appropriate response is not always a straightforward reply. (It is unwise to take partisan-bait.)

    Leif Svalgaard (11:55:50) “Perhaps you could clarify precisely what is supposed to linked with what…”
    In increments perhaps.
    To get started:
    Does temperature (or temperature range) affect geomagnetic indices?

  110. Increasing the pace:
    Do you think it is reasonable to claim that the Chandler wobble phase reversal does NOT show up in the aa index record?

  111. The Sun heats the planet and we know by how much. Without it we would be colder. Much colder. Anyone who argues that the Sun has nothing to do with our climate is crazy. I would not say such a thing. Leif would not say such a thing. Leif and all the other scientists I have read know how the Sun heats the planet and know how the slight variation in the Sun changes how much it slightly changes its capacity to heat the planet. None of that is arguable. To try to make it an argument speaks volumes about the poster who engages in such diversion nonsense. The argument here is whether or not the Sun changes in additional ways to affect the larger temperature swings we experience over decades or if it is an endogenous phenomenon. There are hypothesized mechanisms available for endogenous drivers that far outweigh in number, strength, and plausibility any hypothesized solar drivers of variability. It remains, at the end of the day, that endogenous drivers rule, so far.

  112. Paul Vaughan (14:54:05) :
    Appropriate response is not always a straightforward reply. (It is unwise to take partisan-bait.)
    But it is simple human decency [to the extent you have it, of course – one cannot ask what you cannot give] to give a straight and honest answer.
    Does temperature (or temperature range) affect geomagnetic indices?
    Do you think it is reasonable to claim that the Chandler wobble phase reversal does NOT show up in the aa index record?

    If you think you have something to say, say it directly. If you have some mechanism to peddle, do that in a straightforward way without circumspection. My answer to both your questions would be a resounding ‘no’ to the first and ‘yes’ to the second. But you are not after my answers per se. If you disagree with them, explain why and provide solid evidence [many of the papers you have cited do not contain evidence, but speculations].
    And for the first question, you really have to specify temperature where? and define ‘range’ [e.g. on what time scale]. For example, the temperature of the magnet with which we measure the geomagnetic index does influence the index, as the response of the magnet depends on its magnetic moment which depends on the length on the magnet which depends on its temperature [warmer = longer].

  113. Pamela Gray (18:02:34) :
    The argument here is whether or not the Sun changes in additional ways to affect the larger temperature swings we experience over decades or if it is an endogenous phenomenon. There are hypothesized mechanisms available for endogenous drivers that far outweigh in number, strength, and plausibility any hypothesized solar drivers of variability. It remains, at the end of the day, that endogenous drivers rule, so far.
    Yes, Pamela, that’s the argument here. Nobody is rejecting the idea on the existence of intrinsic and/or inherent factors which drive the climate of Earth. For example, the ocean acts as a thermoregulator. However, the Sun has been, is and will be always the primary source of energy and every change in the intensity of its radiation has been, is and will be affecting the climate on the Earth. I am talking about global climate.
    The carbon dioxide has not thermophysical properties as to cause climate changes; it is not a primary source of energy, so we cannot say it “heats up the Earth”. What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun. If the Sun diminishes its output of energy, the load of energy received by the Earth would be lesser, etc.

  114. Pamela Gray (18:02:34):
    Addendum: To say that a solar flare or the absence of solar flares doesn’t affect the load of energy received by the Earth and its climate is non sense.

  115. Nasif Nahle (21:29:05) :
    Addendum: To say that a solar flare or the absence of solar flares doesn’t affect the load of energy received by the Earth and its climate is non sense.
    This is stated in the usual nonsensical way. Of course, there is an effect. The question is how big the effect is. And it is very, very, very small, so it will have no measurable impact. One of the biggest flares ever gave a 267 parts per million [or 0.3 W/m2] increase in the total energy we got from the Sun at the maximum of the flare. And such superflares are very rare. Overall, the extra energy we get from flares is negligible.

  116. Clarification: The references are for background information. The analyses are mine – and the Chandler wobble reversal in 1931 was a terrestrial event.
    Some want to continue believing in Santa Claus.
    You can lead horses to water but you can’t make them drink.
    It is not sensible to argue with people who have an agenda.

  117. This solar/geomagnetic stuff is way over my head and seems to be generating more delta-T than delta-Lux…
    To return to Paul Vaughan’s point about the meaning of “running mean” – apologies if I’ve used the wrong term here. The “mean” step on WFT does the second of your two, which you called “moving average” – that is it averages N samples *centered at the plotted point* – hence losing N/2 samples at each end, but retaining the phase relationships. Does anyone else think “running mean” is the wrong term for this? If so, I’ll correct the help page which mentions it.
    “isolate” simply subtracts the mean (moving average) centered at the sample from the sample itself – it’s a primitive kind of high-pass filter. So for example you could roughly select signals between 5 and 20 years period with:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:240/mean:60
    Finally, Paul expanded on the original paper’s method for generating the curves:
    “They calculated year-over-year differences at daily resolution, squared these differences, and then boxcar-averaged them at 22 year bandwidth. This gives a series of 22-year-summaries of the intensity of year-over-year changes at daily resolution.”
    Yes, as through a glass, darkly, I had gathered something like that – but what I don’t get is what it actually means! Are they effectively taking a differential (=>phase shift?), and what’s the significance of the 22 years – could it be acting (as I had guessed visually) as a high-pass filter?
    Put another way, are they “cherry-picking” their processing algorithm as well as the data range, to get two curves that happen to trend down at roughly the same time?

  118. Paul Vaughn
    I have checked the NOAA data for monthly and hourly CO2 data and it is basically the same plot as for CDIAC monthly and NOAA houly. About a 2 week lag between month and hourly.
    I did not follow your suggestion as no time. I have suggested that you show what I am supposed to see. But you come back with more stuff – just no time with a full time job and family to do this stuff. Please show all here what you have discovered!
    As to finding a solar influence on temperatures in the noise of the FFTs As I (and Leif) have stated – there is a signal somewhere in the noise – increase solar radiation and you will increase temperature) We are not trying to prove it is there, we KNOW it is. All the filtering, differentiation, signal analysis will eventually pick up the solar signiature this is not in dispute. It is SIMPLY that the signiature is so far in the general noise of temperature fluctuation that it can be ignored.
    Nasif Nahle (21:25:36) : What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun
    This statement is inaccurate (but approximate)
    1. Taking the earth as a black body radiator as the earth heats it will non linearly lose more radiation.
    2 As the earth heats More cloud / water vapour less ice etc will cause a non linear effect.
    Solar radiation controls temperature but in a nonlinear complex manner.

  119. Leif Svalgaard (21:45:25) :
    This is stated in the usual nonsensical way. Of course, there is an effect. The question is how big the effect is. And it is very, very, very small, so it will have no measurable impact. One of the biggest flares ever gave a 267 parts per million [or 0.3 W/m2] increase in the total energy we got from the Sun at the maximum of the flare. And such superflares are very rare. Overall, the extra energy we get from flares is negligible.
    I am not talking about a single superflare. Consider 234 flares, from which 38 were X flares, including one superflare, which were given during 1997 that produced a super-El Niño, for example. The following year, 1998, was the warmest year of the decade.
    A single superflare as the one that you described would generate a change of temperature of 0.1 °C. Taking into account that the ocean stores energy and releases it very slowly, it is reasonable that more flare events would cause more warming of the oceans and, consequently, a larger fluctuation of the Earth’s temperature.

  120. bill (04:07:13) :
    Nasif Nahle (21:25:36): What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun
    This statement is inaccurate (but approximate)
    1. Taking the earth as a black body radiator as the earth heats it will non linearly lose more radiation.
    2 As the earth heats More cloud / water vapour less ice etc will cause a non linear effect.
    Solar radiation controls temperature but in a nonlinear complex manner.

    Nasif Nahle (21:25:36): What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun
    This statement is inaccurate (but approximate)
    1. Taking the earth as a black body radiator as the earth heats it will non linearly lose more radiation.
    2 As the earth heats More cloud / water vapour less ice etc will cause a non linear effect.
    Solar radiation controls temperature but in a nonlinear complex manner.

    You took only a fragment of my statement. Here the whole paragraph:
    “What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun. If the Sun diminishes its output of energy, the load of energy received by the Earth would be lesser, etc.”
    Is it inaccurate? Please, this is not the Bible from which you can cherry pick only those sentences and phrases that best suit to a homily.
    In my response to Pamela I said:
    “Yes, Pamela, that’s the argument here. Nobody is rejecting the idea on the existence of intrinsic and/or inherent factors which drive the climate of Earth. For example, the ocean acts as a thermoregulator.”
    Have your doubts were satisfied?

  121. Nasif Nahle (08:45:10) :
    “What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun. If the Sun diminishes its output of energy, the load of energy received by the Earth would be lesser, etc.”
    Is it inaccurate? Please, this is not the Bible from which you can cherry pick only those sentences and phrases that best suit to a homily.

    Yes it is wildly inaccurate. The temperature of the Earth varies with the fourth root of the incoming heat. Double the heat and the temperature only goes up 19%. This is the reason that the effect of a change of TSI is so small.

  122. Leif Svalgaard (09:38:22) :
    Nasif Nahle (08:45:10) :
    “What heats up the Earth is the Sun and the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun. If the Sun diminishes its output of energy, the load of energy received by the Earth would be lesser, etc.”
    Is it inaccurate? Please, this is not the Bible from which you can cherry pick only those sentences and phrases that best suit to a homily.
    Yes it is wildly inaccurate. The temperature of the Earth varies with the fourth root of the incoming heat. Double the heat and the temperature only goes up 19%. This is the reason that the effect of a change of TSI is so small.

    However, it is directly proportional. If the incident solar irradiance upon the Earth’s surface goes up, the temperature of the surface goes up also. It would be inaccurate if the incident solar radiation striking on the Earth’s surface would go up and the temperature of the surface would go down. But not, it is directly proportional, even when there are intrinsic factors which could modify the effect.

  123. Nasif Nahle (09:52:11) :
    However, it is directly proportional.
    Two quantities A and B are directly proportional if A = k B, so that if B doubles, A doubles as well. Since a T^4 = S [S-B’s law] T is not proportional to S.

  124. Leif,
    If I may comment.
    T^4 = S is proportional, in this case exponentially proportional, not directly proportional. Unfortunately many people use proportional sloppily to mean if x rises when y rises, then x is proportional to y.

  125. Leif Svalgaard (10:15:06) :
    Two quantities A and B are directly proportional if A = k B, so that if B doubles, A doubles as well. Since a T^4 = S [S-B’s law] T is not proportional to S.
    It is true for the proportionality between the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the surface and the temperature of the surface:
    ΔΤ = λΔΦ
    However, the intensity of the radiation from the surface is inversely proportional to its temperature:
    k
    Ћ = ———- (C) [(Gr) (Pr)]^a
    D^3

  126. Nasif Nahle (11:36:15) :
    It is true for the proportionality between the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the surface and the temperature of the surface:
    You are just digging yourself a bit deeper. The quantities are not proportional. For small changes, the changes are proportional.
    However, the intensity of the radiation from the surface is inversely proportional to its temperature
    Deeper still.

  127. deathsinger (11:34:03) :
    T^4 = S is proportional, in this case exponentially proportional,
    Two quantities y and x are exponentially proportional if y = k^x. So T and S are not. Perhaps this will help

  128. Leif Svalgaard (12:03:26) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    deathsinger (11:34:03) :
    T^4 = S is proportional, in this case exponentially proportional,
    Two quantities y and x are exponentially proportional if y = k^x. So T and S are not. Perhaps this will help

  129. ΔΤ = λΔI is directly proportional; for example:
    ΔΤ = (0.12) 0.3 W/m^2 = 0.036 K
    And doubling ΔI:
    ΔΤ = (0.12) 0.6 W/m^2 = 0.072 K
    Or halving it:
    ΔΤ = (0.12) 0.15 W/m^2 = 0.018 K

  130. Nasif Nahle (12:39:32) :
    ΔΤ = λΔI is directly proportional
    As I pointed out. But perhaps you were just being sloppy when you said that “the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun” and you meant ‘proportional to a [small] change of the heat incoming from the Sun’. I think that would have been the appropriate response rather than all your Greek symbols 🙂

  131. Leif Svalgaard (13:01:45) :
    As I pointed out. But perhaps you were just being sloppy when you said that “the change of temperature of the Earth is directly proportional to the load of heat incoming from the Sun” and you meant ‘proportional to a [small] change of the heat incoming from the Sun’. I think that would have been the appropriate response rather than all your Greek symbols 🙂
    Ok, I made a careless use of language; it’s not easy for me to express my ideas in a foreign language and I use to drop or raise one or more words; thus it is easier for me to express my ideas through Greek symbols. 😉

  132. I appreciate the discussion has moved on from where I left it on saturday morning, but thought I’d add this snippet. I just scaled off from the graph presented by the NOAA at their website which is pretty much the one calculated by Levitus et al 2009. It shows an increase in ocean heat content of around 5.5×10^22J between 1993 and 2003. During this time, the mean world sea level rose around 33mm according to satellite altimetry, and around half of that was due to thermal expansion according to IPCC estimates. (levitus is a lead IPCC author).
    By my calculation, this amount of heat is only around half that required to get that expansion.
    Either
    1) The altimetry is wrong.
    2) Only a 1/4 of the sea level rise was due to expansion and the ice caps melted more than estimated. (Unlikely)
    3) Levitus et al have underestimated the amount of heat stored in the oceans by a factor of two.
    Of interest is that Levitus et al only use the ocean temperature data to a depth of 720m. If (3) is correct I conclude that they have missed a lot of the extra heat stored at a deeper level in the ocean while the sun was on it’s strong run of cycles.
    Also of interest is that Levitus et al 2000 had the rise in heat content for 1955 – 1994 around 13.7×10^22J, but this seems to have been halved in the most recent effort. Bob Tisdale informs me that this was due to a ‘warm bias correction in the XBT data’. If that older data was in fact correct and the 1993 – 2003 data should be adjusted up by a directly proportional amount, the books would balance and be consistent with an increase of around 0.3C in sea surface temperature over the same period.
    Hmmm.

  133. Re: bill (04:07:13)
    As previously indicated, you can difference the series to see how they have imposed invariant seasonal structure upon the “data” (when you have time). CDIAC has a note at the bottom of their “data” files to alert people of the processing, but the articles to which they refer are not publicly available.
    The diagnostics I described (from Stat 101) take only 2 minutes to complete. The lesson sinks in best when the exercise is conducted first-hand. When you have time, you will see that the residuals do not show random scatter (as they must in order for the model to be valid); rather, they show an exceptionally-systematic pattern (which is the most extreme model violation you can get).
    Why is CDIAC presenting (badly) modeled-“data” instead of data? An analogy would be if before the sunspot numbers were released, they were all adjusted so that all solar cycles showed the exact same shape (but retained differing peak-amplitudes).
    For anyone who studies phase relations & timescales other than 1 year, the preceding is of fundamental importance. (Based upon your various comments, you are restricting your view to the annual timescale and ignoring phase relations.) [Note: Don’t confuse timescale with resolution – for example, you can study hourly (resolution) data at the 17 month timescale.]
    – –
    Leif, you appear to be taking advantage of the general public’s failure to distinguish between linear relations and phase relations – capitalizing on this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between peoples’ common sense & their need for social harmony (achievable through conformity to your positions).
    You leave the impression that your attitude is that since the general public is “never going to understand”, you are compelled to mislead (since you perceive yourself as advancing the lesser of 2 evils – not both of which can be avoided).
    You are underestimating the audience.
    – –
    Re: woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (02:59:34)
    Thanks for the comments on the woodfortrees “isolate” function – much appreciated.
    May I ask for the story behind the name “woodfortrees”? This is of interest to me, in part, because I formally studied forestry & forest engineering and worked in forest research for a number of years. You’ve got me wondering if the development of the site had something to do with forest mensuration, biometry, &/or wood science.
    Before addressing your other comments, I want to run some calculations and check some references (partly because I believe their procedure may be equivalent to another procedure I have seen used). For now I will note that while I do not suspect cherry picking, I do have concerns about the failure to include the 11a timescale summaries for comparison. [Ideally a multi-timescale color-contour plot would have been presented – among other benefits, this would have pre-empted “cherry picking” suspicions.]

  134. Paul Vaughan (17:41:33) :
    You are underestimating the audience.
    There are several classes in people in the ‘audience’:
    1) people with agendas
    2) people peddling pet ideas
    3) people seeking knowledge
    4) trolls
    Which one(s) of the classes am I underestimating?
    I’m not interested in social harmony. If I know something [or think I do] I’ll hold forth on it. When I see pseudo-science, I’ll try to point that out and explain why it is worthless. Even when confronted with rude persons that repeatedly will not give straight answers to straight questions, I’ll try to be patient. Contrary to your accusation I have no agenda.

  135. Re: Leif Svalgaard
    Repeating the answer from 12 days ago:
    “Investigating relationships possibly involving SIM is worthwhile, in part since future SIM can be accurately predicted.”
    I will also reiterate the qualifier:
    “I’m not saying I agree with the more speculative comments Dr. Charvatova makes.”
    …And I’ll stress this again:
    One needs to maintain unwavering awareness of confounding when investigating what Dr. Charvatova calls “SIM”, since SIM is confounded with other indices (some of which are physically meaningful).

    EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) are affected by solar system dynamics & terrestrial weather patterns. This is not in dispute.
    All of those “classes of people” [see Leif Svalgaard (18:11:10)] are capable of understanding that it does not take much of a nonlinear distortion to impact – or destroy – a linear correlation. Linear methods alone are insufficient for thoroughly investigating nonlinear relations.
    Some of the relentless focus on amplitude needs to be diverted to phase, scale, conditioning, rate of change, & gradients.
    Clearly the physicists (& all others) are overlooking important mechanics — otherwise we’d have all the answers and WUWT would need to find a new theme. I state this objectively, not maliciously.
    I encourage you to refrain from disparagingly attacking other disciplines that may be able to help point you in the right direction in your search for missing mechanisms. This is a complex interdisciplinary problem.
    If you look into what I am saying about the terrestrial Chandler wobble phase reversal, you will discover substance (even if you ignore the solar system centre of mass). If you think I’m peddling a statistics-based theory of barycentric influence on solar activity, you have fantastically misunderstood.
    Despite your claims, I have doubts about your agenda; however, there’s an area of high priority where it seems we agree:
    The truth takes precedence over social harmony.

  136. Paul Vaughan (21:06:41) :
    Good to see that you have toned down the rhetoric a tad, and to actually say something worthwhile, rather than pontificating on Santa Claus and non-drinking horses.
    Repeating the answer from 12 days ago:
    And what took you so long to remind me? Why would you play hide and seek with this for so long?
    “Investigating relationships possibly involving SIM is worthwhile, in part since future SIM can be accurately predicted.”
    And where does she actually say that? I must have missed it, and I do not think that this is her central thesis, if there even is one. As I have stated, predictability in itself does not seem to be a reason for investigating something. Otherwise you could claim that relationships with SIM need to be investigated for almost anything,
    I will also reiterate the qualifier:
    “I’m not saying I agree with the more speculative comments Dr. Charvatova makes.”

    And this is much too vague and void. State what you agree with and what you disagree with.
    …And I’ll stress this again:
    One needs to maintain unwavering awareness of confounding when investigating what Dr. Charvatova calls “SIM”, since SIM is confounded with other indices (some of which are physically meaningful).

    I’m sure that every scientist that reads her papers is fully aware of this.
    EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) are affected by solar system dynamics & terrestrial weather patterns. This is not in dispute.
    It is not in dispute, but also not relevant for solar/geomagnetic activity.
    Some of the relentless focus on amplitude needs to be diverted to phase, scale, conditioning, rate of change, & gradients.
    There has to be an amplitude first, before there can be a phase, etc. Most scientists do not consider just a correlation to mean anything. Equally important are energy and coupling considerations: does the purported impetus carry enough energy to cause the claimed effects and is there a possible physical coupling to mediate the relationship.
    Clearly the physicists (& all others) are overlooking important mechanics — otherwise we’d have all the answers and WUWT would need to find a new theme. I state this objectively, not maliciously.
    I don’t think anybody is overlooking anything. It is just that the relationships are complicated and we don’t have enough data to guide the theory. Your statement seems to imply that everything we need is sitting just in front of our noses and that we are just ‘overlooking’ the obvious.
    I encourage you to refrain from disparagingly attacking other disciplines that may be able to help point you in the right direction in your search for missing mechanisms. This is a complex interdisciplinary problem.
    Attacking which other disciplines? Any discipline that can bring something to the table is welcome. I just don’t see much positive brought forward. I myself have fairly solid knowledge about atmospheric physics, solar physics, and geomagnetism, covering most of the disciplines involved.
    If you look into what I am saying about the terrestrial Chandler wobble phase reversal, you will discover substance (even if you ignore the solar system centre of mass). If you think I’m peddling a statistics-based theory of barycentric influence on solar activity, you have fantastically misunderstood.
    The goal of communication is to state something clearly so that misunderstandings don’t occur. If they do, the onus is on the person making the statement to be clear. And I do not think solar activity has anything to do with the reversal [for energy and coupling reasons].
    Despite your claims, I have doubts about your agenda
    This is unhelpful. If you think there is an agenda, state what you think it is and what you base that belief on.
    Let me illustrate how to communicate: “I think that A is occurring and here is my reasons for thinking so […]. Do you think that B has any influence on A”.
    Contrast this with:
    “In increments perhaps. To get started: Does A affect B?
    Increasing the pace: Do you think it is reasonable to claim that C does NOT show up in A?”

  137. Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:06:57)
    You still appear to be on the attack. It won’t be sensible to address all of your comments, but I’ll address a few points:
    1)
    You appear to have misunderstood (or misread) the following:
    Paul Vaughan: “If you think I’m peddling a statistics-based theory of barycentric influence on solar activity, you have fantastically misunderstood.”
    I will reiterate here that my earlier comments are about terrestrial phenomena.
    2)
    Leif Svalgaard (22:06:57) “Most scientists do not consider just a correlation to mean anything.”
    Surely you realize you are wasting my time with such elementary notes.
    3)
    Leif Svalgaard (22:06:57) “Your statement seems to imply that everything we need is sitting just in front of our noses and that we are just ‘overlooking’ the obvious.”
    Yes. That is the nature of complexity – i.e. it’s not necessarily easy to figure out even if simple.

  138. When you girls have finished pulling each other’s pigtails perhaps you might both turn your prodigious intellects to the salient matters in hand.
    Syd Levitus and the mystery of the missing ocean heat content.
    Retension of the heat of insolation in the oceans.
    Paul’s 1931 centred phase switch and the anomalous SST increase 1920-1940 not matched by a Nino cool phase 1945-1975 decrease in SST.
    Bob Tisdale’s step changes in global temperature and the spreading, return and re-emergence of heat from the Pacific Warm Pool.

  139. Leif Svalgaard (18:11:10) :
    Paul Vaughan (17:41:33) :
    You are underestimating the audience.
    There are several classes in people in the ‘audience’:
    1) people with agendas
    2) people peddling pet ideas
    3) people seeking knowledge
    4) trolls

    I’m not sure which of these groups Leif pigeonholes me into, probably (2), but for the record, I’m not sold on or selling any particular theory. I’m trying to use some basic arithmetic to elucidate some of the lacunae in the present state of knowledge and get some fundamental issues with thermodynamics in order, as it seems to me the AGW crowd have misled themselves and us with an overly atmosphere-centric view of the earth’s heat engine. Sunlight mostly passes straight through the atmosphere and warms the ground and ocean, which then warms the atmosphere.
    I’m a reasonably bright guy with an engineering background and a broad based science degree who suffered a reorganisation of his brain when punted off the road into a tree by an out of control car three years ago this week. I still have some insight but struggle with higher maths and stats and would appreciate some feedback and assistance with what appear to me to be fairly important issues WRT to the energy budget of this rock we call home.
    A bit of co-operation whereby I chuck half baked ideas over the net and people with quick minded maths and stats skills bat them back with added value would be most welcome. At the moment, Paul intimates discoveries but fails to deliver any ‘look at my graph’ moments, and Leif is in auto-denigrate mode. Come on, lets crack the problem and collect the nobel prize as a collective effort.
    Thank you.

  140. tallbloke, based on your comments, you might be interested in the following:
    Zhou YH, Yan XH, Ding XL, Liao XH, Zheng DW, Liu WT, Pan JY, Fang MQ, He MX, Excitation of non-atmospheric polar motion by the migration of the Pacific Warm Pool. Journal of Geodesy, 78, 109-113, 2004.
    http://www.shao.ac.cn/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2004JG_PM_Warmpool.pdf
    Yan, X.-H., Y. Zhou, J. Pan, D. Zheng, M. Fang, X. Liao, M.-X. He, W. T. Liu, & X. Ding (2002). Pacific warm pool excitation, earth rotation and El Nino southern oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(21), 2031.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015685.shtml
    I’ve just located a copy of the Levitus et al. (2009) paper. If there is some particular figure or paragraph in the paper you think worthy of special attention, feel welcome to be very specific in pointing it out, otherwise I’ll be putting the paper aside as I have plenty on my plate.
    I’ll consider looking into webspace for posting graphs. This text-only submission format is quite limiting.

  141. “… BUT THE CORRELATIONS BREAK DOWN AFTER …”
    Of course the correlations break down! That is *exactly* what you would expect if you are looking at LINEAR shadows of NON-linear relations! It suggests a problem with assumptions. Only once all of the terms, interactions, & dimensionality are *fully* worked out will equations be linearizable. Perhaps some fluid is being treated as Newtonian when it should be treated as visco-elastic. And perhaps also some terms in some differential equations are being set to zero when this is not *always valid. Perhaps some mass is being treated as a point when it should be treated as a series of concentric shells with differential response to gravitational accelerations. Perhaps some probability density functions are being assumed to be of one form when they are really of another. Until the morphology of the various nonlinearities are all worked out you NEED to pay some more respect to phase relations Leif — and I’ve given you some big clues — if you haven’t turned up anything interesting with the clues I’ve shared about the Chandler wobble phase reversal, then I know you haven’t made much of an effort.

  142. Paul Vaughan (07:36:14) :
    you NEED to pay some more respect to phase relations
    Phase is very important and most of the time plays a big role in disproving a correlation when the phase changes all the time.
    and I’ve given you some big clues
    which is precisely the problem. If you have something to say, say it, don’t give clues, drop hints, asking one to have to ‘discover’ substance in what you say, intimate discoveries, or other circumspections. Oftentimes, the failure to be able to say what the ‘discovery’ is, is a sign of lack of substance.
    You can be constructive by showing me where Charvatova says what her ‘central thesis’ is.
    Surely you realize you are wasting my time with such elementary notes:
    “Most scientists do not consider just a correlation to mean anything.”
    You are taking this out of the context of what followed:
    “Equally important are energy and coupling considerations: does the purported impetus carry enough energy to cause the claimed effects and is there a possible physical coupling to mediate the relationship.”
    About non-linearity: Any system that has existed for billions of years is to first order linear. Non-linear effects are perturbations on the linear effects.

  143. @Paul Vaughan… Can you give me a link to the whole process? I see the theory very interesting, but my knowledge on it is fragmented. Thanks!

  144. Re: Leif Svalgaard (08:29:47)
    It appears you would rather hurl insults than conduct the wavelet analysis I suggested as step 1. Once someone confirms step 1, I will be in a position to communicate about step 2 productively. If no one here can reproduce step 1, then I’m addressing the wrong forum.

  145. Re: Nasif Nahle (09:03:03)
    I had basic insights into this research problem as early as September 2008, but in the past 2 weeks, a pile of clean results avalanched on me after a key realization – and I’m still digging out. I’m used to communicating via software called FirstClass, which handles images beautifully. I’m finding this text-only medium quite limiting, but as I’ve indicated to tallbloke, I’ll look into webspace access. Even if I secure webspace access, it is going to take me weeks-to-months – perhaps years – to organize my work & pursue the new leads I’ve turned up — and an audience will have to have intuition about cross-wavelet acoustics to appreciate some of the findings. In the meantime, if someone can confirm that they have reproduced my step 1, I imagine that will be of interest to others who need to see reproducibility.
    I have been advised by one of my senior colleagues to stop responding to Leif Svalgaard.

  146. Paul Vaughan (09:54:26) :
    have been advised by one of my senior colleagues to stop responding to Leif Svalgaard.
    Whereas, I [in stark contrast] am always willing to answer straight questions [past and in future] without circumspection, if I’m able or have an opinion, as I have done too many times to recount here, except for mentioning the last few instances, like what caused the aa-spike in 1930 and giving a link to ESK data.

  147. Paul Vaughan (07:19:50) :
    tallbloke, based on your comments, you might be interested in the following:
    Zhou YH, Yan XH, Ding XL, Liao XH, Zheng DW, Liu WT, Pan JY, Fang MQ, He MX, Excitation of non-atmospheric polar motion by the migration of the Pacific Warm Pool. Journal of Geodesy, 78, 109-113, 2004.
    http://www.shao.ac.cn/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2004JG_PM_Warmpool.pdf

    Paul, thanks for the link to the paper, it is indeed interesting to me in general, and to some extent confirms the links between AAM, ENSO, loD and various planetary wobbles I’ve been trying to draw attention to for a year or so. I’m glad to see you have run with that line of enquiry with your stats abilities.
    Of particular interest to me was the sheer distance the measured centre of the Pacific warm Pool moves on an annual and interannual basis. Obviously the ~10 degree north/south movement is dominated by Earth’s inclination to it’s orbital plane which is ~23.5 degrees. The latitudinal movement of up to ~20 degrees on such short timescales is intriguing. The PWP has an area greater than the continental U.S. What shifts it so far and fast? Trade winds drive surface currents, but we are talking here of a body of warm water with a depth of up to 400m! Perhaps the body of water is not moving so much as the applied heat intensity is shifting and cloud variability is the primary driver of this phenomenon, both in terms of regulating heat input from the sun, and rate of heat-energy emittance from the ocean.
    I can conceive of ways a study of cloud location change, PWP centre movement and heat content, thermocline depth and near surface temperature may help us get a handle on the timescale of ocean heat retention and rates of energy absorption to deeper levels. I will try to find out if these problems have been worked on, but as I noted earlier, the atmosphere-centric tendency of the AGW crowd means these things have been neglected more than they should.
    There are free image hosting services on the net you could make use of while you look into getting your own hosting arrangements sorted out. I have used photobucket.com which has now added some useful features including online image editing facilities, and comments dialogue.
    Please try not to fall out with Leif Svalgaard. I have in the past sometimes found him unnecessarily rude, but he is nonetheless a world class scientist who has been generous in sharing his research results with lay members of the climate interested community who have sometimes accused him of having an agenda. Unfairly in my view. Take a breath, put the ego issues aside, and thank him for the links he has provided for you. Then put some graphs on photobucket and prove him wrong. No-one will be more pleased than he.
    Is there an acoustic cross wavelet 101 online you can point me to? – I’d like to be able to understand your graphs when you post them.
    Thanks.

  148. tallbloke (11:36:17) :
    Then put some graphs on photobucket and prove him wrong. No-one will be more pleased than he.
    Absolute spot on. Then I would have learned something. And that is what it is all about.

  149. Paul Vaughan (18:11:23) :
    The Chandler wobble period plummeted from ~1921 until ~1942. The phase reversal was in ~1931 and can be linked (statistically – I’m still waiting for a physicist to explain the mechanism) to a very unique combination of the following: (1) terrestrial polar motion, (2) solar system dynamics, & (3) the lunar nodal cycle. The alignment is precise and unique in the entire polar motion record (1846-present) – i.e. there is no other such spike.
    With awareness of this, some of you should be able to pull several threads together (e.g. precipitation, length of day, polar motion, atmospheric angular momentum, SOI, NAO, solar variation, temperature [global, regional, minimum, maximum, average, extreme monthly minimum, & extreme monthly maximum], rate of change of carbon dioxide concentration, …)

    I did take note of this post and await more details. 🙂
    One thing which may interest Paul with regard to this is that according to my solar activity cumulative running total method, the count reached a minimum in around September 1935 following a decline since around 1875, and rose to a peak around 2000. To me, this would indicate that the swiftly rising temperature 1920-1940 was the result of a terrestrial redistribution of energy, rather than having a direct solar energy emission cause. How much of the terrestrial redistribution of energy was due to motions induced by non-terrestrial sources I leave to Paul to elucidate and demonstrate.

  150. Here is the best wavelet tutorial of which I know:
    http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
    It is worth going down every link-branch on that site in all detail. The site pitches at a truly introductory level. Someone with no background could spend weeks looking at other wavelet sites and get nowhere – and then get all the wavelet basics in a few hours on this site. There are a LOT of BAD wavelet sites that are just scrapes of other bad wavelet sites – it is epidemic.
    The links between LOD, GLAAM, & ENSO are well-established and can be traced back decades in the literature. You might want to dig into the references listed in papers 1, 4, & 5 which I listed at Paul Vaughan (16:56:10). You may also have noted links provided by Richard Mackey (to Lambeck) & Ian Wilson (to Sidorenkov) during recent months — and the following (which includes tons of good references) is likely to be of interest:
    R.S. Gross (2007). Earth rotation variations – long period (3.09). In: T. Herring & G. Schubert (eds.), Treatise on Geophysics, Volume 3, Geodesy, pp. 239-294.
    ftp://euler.jpl.nasa.gov/outgoing/EarthRotation_TOGP2007.pdf
    You may also be aware that Klyashtorin & Sharp make use of the polar motion harmonics I explained above:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y5028e/

    If anyone knows of any very concise summaries of the spatiotemporal extent & phasing of the 1930s drought (that affected at least North America), please let me know. Also, if anyone knows of any “respected” regional &/or global precipitation series, I will appreciate links.
    Related:
    “Currie (1996), who employs filtering techniques commonly used in electrical engineering, seems to contend that significant lunisolar components are detectable in a very wide variety of terrestrial time series, including virtually all climate series. He investigates terrestrial geographic sites individually (thousands of them) and cautions that zonal &/or global averaging masks locally detectable signals that are intermittently out-of-phase with those at different locations, even ones relatively nearby. […] Currie (1996) suggests that “on decadal and duodecadal time-scales the spectrum of climate is signal-like rather than noise-like, as radically assumed by statisticians and mathematicians the past 70 years.”” (Vaughan 2008)
    Currie, R. G. (1996). Variance contribution of luni-solar (Mn) and solar cycle (Sc) signals to climate data. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 12, 1343-1364.

  151. An outline for anyone reproducing what I have described above as “Step 1”:
    1.
    Polar motion time series can be obtained here:
    http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/products/combined/C01.html
    2.
    Difference both x & y and find the root mean square. (This creates an index of polar motion radius with the trend removed.)
    3.
    Do a complex Morlet transform with wavenumber = 2pi on the interval (3.5a, 9.5a). [Note: a = annum.]
    4.
    Convert the real & imaginary arrays into modulus & argument arrays.
    5.
    Find the maximum modulus for each time and note the timescale. (If using Excel, use the functions “max” and “match”.) [Note: This gives a series of group-wave periods corresponding to the polar motion beats visible in the original x & y.]
    6.
    Find the beat period of this series of modulus-maximizing timescales with the annual wobble using the Helmholtz acoustic equation.
    7.
    Convert from years to days.
    8.
    Make a simple time-plot of the resulting series.
    This will draw undeniable attention to the Chandler wobble phase reversal.
    Step 2 is to compare the resulting curve with precipitation series smoothed at 13 year bandwidth (the average period of the envelope of the polar motion group-waves). [Note: Be sure to check to see if the precipitation series need variance-stabilizing transforms – square root works well with the series I have investigated.]
    In part due to the notes of Currie (1996, cited above) I have focused my attention on the heavy precipitation of the Pacific Northwest of North America, where the Pacific Ocean abruptly meets mountain ranges, resulting in heavy fall/winter rain/snowfall. A large anomaly in the 13a-time-integrated precipitation series matches the wavelet-derived Chandler period series. The spatial extent of the 1930s drought extended beyond the Pacific Northwest. I plan to expand the analysis to other sites & regions.
    Good science is reproducible. I await feedback. If this result is already known to climatologists, I await references (and I have other clean results involving extreme monthly temperatures).
    Note that the calculations do not (so far) depend on the solar system barycentre. Things get a lot more complicated. This is just an introduction.

  152. Hi Paul,
    I’ve downloaded the data and chucked it into a spreadsheet (openoffice calc).
    I’m guessing step 2 amounts to a trigonometrical function but need help to grasp how you perform the ‘difference’ calculation.
    It might help if I understood the units. Presumably x and y are coordinates representing the offset of the pole from the reference frame.
    I hope you don’t mind taking the time to get me through this step by step. I’m certainly willing to spend the time to try to replicate and corroborate your results.
    Thanks

  153. I’ve started working through the wavelet tutorial. Thanks for the link.
    One other thought, once we have the radius plotted against time, we could also take the first and second derivatives to look at velocity and acceleration of the polar motion. It seems to me these might have some bearing on the excitation of atmospheric and oceanic phenomena and may lead to some insight into the relationship between the slopes of the AAM curves and the rate of motion of the pacific Warm Pool.

  154. tallbloke, your intuition about acceleration, etc. is good — differencing approximates a derivative. The differencing is this simple: Say your x series is in column A in Excel – then enter in cell B2 the following:
    +A2-A1
    Copy B2 & paste it all the way down column B.

    LOD & AAM:
    When you have time, I encourage you to study:
    a) figure 1a in Schmitz-Hubsch & Schuh (1999)
    http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/schmitzhuebsch.pdf
    b) Figure 6 in Sidorenkov (2005)
    http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
    c) figures 1, 2, & 3 in Zhou, Zheng, & Liao (2001)
    d) everything Richard Gross has to say in Gross (2007)
    ftp://euler.jpl.nasa.gov/outgoing/EarthRotation_TOGP2007.pdf
    You will see that the PWP (Pacific Warm Pool) is something Zhou & associates are looking at to explain “left-overs” not explained by AAM (Atmospheric Angular Momentum). If you dig into Gross’s work, you’ll see that he looks at OAM (Oceanic Angular Momentum).
    It is important to keep in mind that most experts agree that AAM accounts for a large proportion of LOD variation.
    There is plenty of quantified speculation about polar motion, but my impression from digging in the literature is that it is not as well understood as LOD, even though certain aspects of it are certainly very well-understood.
    The paper that originally drew my attention to polar motion was the following:
    Yndestad, H. (2006). The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63(3), 401-420.
    http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401
    Over time I have developed the view that, while Dr. Yndstad’s research is a very important contribution, there are problems with his interpretations; I believe there are confounded-influences on polar motion (no simple matter to disentangle). There are different factors with very similar harmonic scales that show up in polar motion phase relations analyses (details will have to wait for another day).

    Regarding wavelets:
    It would take me weeks of heavy, more-than-full-time engagement to develop a good “Wavelets in Excel for Beginners” website. For now, I suggest you focus on getting the basics.
    The simplest way to think of it is that the wavelet can shrink and grow —- at each size which it can assume, it takes a trip through the data, pausing at each time-step to measure how well its shape correlates with the data. As you know, correlations range from -1 to +1 – so if the wavelet records -1, that means it matched that data perfectly in a given time-step-window (& at a given size), but that it had to flip over to do it.
    For each wavelet size (timescale) there is a string of measurements. In a wavelet plot the strings of measurements are stacked vertically on the timescale axis. Don’t confuse time (horizontal axis) with timescale (vertical axis) on wavelet plots.
    What I’ve just described is for a real wavelet. To get at phase information, complex wavelets (with a real & an imaginary part) are used. The imaginary part is phase-shifted by 90 degrees (seahorse-shaped) so that it sees “uphill” vs. “downhill” (upside-down seahorse) while the real part (mexican-hat-shaped) sees “peak” versus “valley” (upside-down mex-hat). This enables one to know – from a pair of correlations – things like “going uphill & approaching a peak” or “in a valley bottom & about to go uphill”, etc. —- i.e. it takes you a step beyond just knowing “on a peak” or “on the side of a hill” — it puts these states into a richer context.
    The mexican hat & the seahorse are cooperative traveling buddies. They have different shapes, but they always stick together & assume the same size. These explorers are always curious to see how well their complementary shapes match their surroundings on the time-series-landscape as they slide & change size together. Mathematicians call them a “complex pair” because of their relative appearance, but their view of the world is simple.
    Wavelets come in other shapes. The Morlet wavelet gets lots of attention. It can be adjusted to control how many waves it has in its sliding window. This means it can be adjusted to achieve good timescale-resolution – but at the expense of lost time-resolution. For graphs that illustrate this point nicely, see here:
    http://www.clecom.co.uk/science/autosignal/help/Continuous_Wavelet_Transfor.htm
    If you get the basics from the tutorial at …
    http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
    …to the point where you can look at the regular timeplots on that site and see how they map onto the wavelet plots and vice versa, that will be enough to tide you over until you master wavelet transform calculations — i.e. at least you’ll be able to read others’ work while you are learning to write your own.
    Advised: Go through the tutorial links in the order in which they are presented.
    Wavelet concepts are simple, but since the edge-effect varies with timescale – i.e. the wavelet hangs further off the edges of a time series as it grows – computer-coding gets fussy. This is just a technical issue – so reading comes fast, but writing takes a little longer.
    I don’t have multiple free weeks to explain all of the coding technicalities now – and “part-way” coding doesn’t cut-it with computers. I suggest moving at whatever pace you can, with the first priority being ability to read wavelet plots.
    For now I’ll take questions on that. I’m hoping to be positioned to start posting graphs within hours-to-days (there is a technical issue – & I never underestimate them).

  155. tallbloke (00:48:04) “[…] if I understood the units. Presumably x and y are […] I hope you don’t mind taking the time […]”
    If you dig around in directories like …
    http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/eop/
    …and in publications, you’ll find the info you need.
    “mas” is the abbreviation for milli-arcseconds (angle).
    You may find this site to be a useful gateway:
    http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
    Accessible from there, the following page gives a good overview of EOP:
    http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/orientation.html

  156. Paul, thanks for your excellent and clear explanations. Your graph does show up at your link and very interesting it is. I’ll read more on the tutorial site and at your other links so I can get more out of the nuances of the information your graph contains.
    Speculative question: Could the polar motion on a longer timescale affect the position of the magnetic north pole? I remember Vukevic got excited about that and posted some maps on solarcycle24.com showing the path of the shifting magnetic north over the last 2000 years or so which had been produced by some researchers (from Canada I think).
    I get what you mean about differencing now. It’s the same as the method I used to get the running cumulative total on the sunspot counts and sunspot area measurements.

  157. By the way, wikipedia says:
    On 18 July 2000, however, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that “the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans.”
    But you probably knew that, and were being elliptical when you said the atmosphere was the bigger driver than the ocean. I wonder though, whether the changes in the ocean’s retention of the heat of insolation I’m working on may also have an effect due to density changes. I know the effect on the polar motion caused by the Pacific Warm Pool calculated by Zhou et al are small in relation to the total, but The PWP isn’t the only place the oceans are storing heat if I am right. The north Atlantic anomaly has run particularly high in the later C20th, and being further from the equator, I would expect a greater effect. I wonder also if perhaps the pressure changes on the bottom of the ocean are large enough change the shape of the earth’s crust.

  158. tallbloke,
    Be sure to differentiate between LOD and polar motion. It is true that most of the variation in LOD is related to AAM.
    You will find lots of news releases from the early 00’s about Richard Gross’s work on the Chandler wobble. Gross’s work is fascinating – and it leaves questions for scientists in other disciplines about what is driving the atmosphere & the oceans. The cause of the Chandler wobble phase reversal in ~1931 is still considered a mystery.
    Regarding the magnetic poles, one pub of which I know is:
    Adrian K. Kerton (2009). Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection. Energy & Environment 20(1-2), 75-83.
    http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change/E-E_Clr_Abstracts.pdf
    If you dig into references in Gross (2007), you’ll find more.

  159. tallbloke,
    There is a lot of uncertainty regarding Earth’s core and geomagnetism. That stuff is on my radar, but my plate is already full with productive leads that will keep me more-than-busy for the foreseeable future.
    If you review the conversation, you’ll realize we’ve barely grazed the surface of the ideas I have to introduce. A serious challenge I am facing is that many of the people I am writing to about my findings do not understand wavelet methods, let alone cross-wavelet & acoustic-cross-wavelet methods.
    You are certainly right when you say, “lots to do now!”.

Comments are closed.