Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature
From Physorg.com. h/t to Leif Svalgaard who offers this PDF with this diagram that makes it all clear.
In contrast to a previous analysis, a new study has shown that the distributions of (a) the global temperature anomaly by month since 1880 and (b) the solar flare index by day over a few solar cycles are fundamentally different. One feature the detrended data do have in common is self-similarity: the probability density functions are the same on different time scales, which means that neither can be described as Lévy walks. Image credit: Rypdal and Rypdal.
(PhysOrg.com) — The field of climate science is nothing if not complex, where a host of variables interact with each other in intricate ways to produce various changes. Just like any other area of science, climate science is far from being fully understood. As an example, a new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth’s global temperature. The new study points out a few errors in the previous analysis, and concludes that the solar and climate records have very different properties that do not support the hypothesis of a sun-climate complexity linking.
In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. Solar flares, which are large explosions in the sun’s atmosphere that are powered by magnetic energy, vary in time from a few per month to several per day. Although solar flares occur near sunspots, their frequency variation occurs on a much shorter time scale than the 11-year sunspot cycle. In their studies, the researchers’ results seemed to show that data from solar flare activity correlates with changes in the global temperature on a short time scale. Specifically, their analysis showed that the two time records can both be characterized by the same Lévy walk process.
However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. For instance, the solar cycle has its 11-year periodic trend, where periods of lots of sunspots cause larger numbers of solar flares. Likewise, the global temperature anomaly has numerous other factors (a “multi-decadal, polynomial trend”) that impacts global temperature fluctuations. By not detrending this data, the analysis resulted in abnormally high values of certain variables that pointed to Lévy walk processes. By estimating the untrended data, Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion.
Read the entire article here at Physorg.com
A preprint of the paper is available here
Practice making your own Levy walks here
Leif Svalgaard (02:52:59)
The rate of upwards energy transfer is the speed at which heat transfers upward from surface to space by whatever means is available. In the troposphere it is largely conductive and convective but from stratosphere upward it appears to be primarily radiative.
You have previously stated that radiative energy always travels at the speed of light which is all very well but we nevertheless see the atmospheric layers warming and cooling differentially which is an issue not resolved by your bald assertion.
I have no idea what the numbers are and nor it seems does anyone else although I have seen much speculation.
You have said that only the thermosphere expands and contracts in response to solar surface variability.
However you have also said that the stratosphere is warmed by the extra UV arriving during spells of a more active solar surface. If it is warmed then there must be some expansion.
However in contrast to that expected stratospheric warming the stratosphere actually cooled when the sun was more active and is no longer cooling now that the sun is less active. Indeed it may be warming again.
C02 proponents put that down to reduced rate of energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
You put it down to unspecified and unquantified reactions to changes in chemical composition. I assume you mean ozone related changes.
I think it more likely that there is a differential response in the seperate layers of the atmosphere caused by changes in activity levels on the solar surface.
Can you make your assertions more consistent with observations please ?
Stephen Wilde (03:15:59) :
The rate of upwards energy transfer is the speed at which heat transfers upward from surface to space by whatever means is available.
Before things can be discussed [and numbers put on them, otherwise they cannot be compared], they must first be defined and agreed upon. So my question still stands. Your answer refers to ‘speed’, so I assume that you are talking about something like meters per second. Now, if you, as you say, “have no idea what the numbers are”, then how can one have a meaningful discussion?
Stephen Wilde (03:15:59) :
If it is warmed then there must be some expansion.
If I understand you correctly [and that is hard because you are not precise nor quantitative], then the crucial difference is that you claim the expansion controls the temperature, while in actual fact the temperature controls the expansion.
Leif Svalgaard (21:10:24) :
“Those are the ones that have not been shown to exist. Not that there are any lack of claims [yours included]. But I can turn the question around: if solar activity only produces 0.1 K changes, then what causes these much bigger changes?”
well, those long variations too are quite well documented by numerous studies based on both climate and solar proxies, including mine!
How many studies propose an alternative explanations. So, what is your explanation: what causes these much bigger changes?
Of course sunspots are irrelevant to Earth’s Global Average Temperature; they are never strong enough to have any bearing upon the earth’s radiative budget. The interplay of coronal mass ejections with magnetic solar conditions that are responsible for stimulating the magnetic vulcanic potential on earth are, on the other hand, relevant to Earth’s Global Average Temperature because they do.
nonsensically complicated ideas and formulations about the causally simple relations between the earth and sun entertain to distract and manipulate
Leif Svalgaard (03:04:38) :
When people stop claiming they have proven something, they regain and deserve respect.
Such arrogance, you do not have my respect.
Your comments are getting tired, recycling the same old lines, do you keep your comments so you can copy and paste?
Most of us are aware the MWP is between the Oort and Wolf, but you seem to be relying on Wiki approx dates? I can see why some describe you as a charlatan.
The same old TSI arguments also having a repeat performance, science has moved on, we all know there are other influences coming from Sol.
It’s time to come up with something new Leif, we have heard it all before. Treating other scientists with a modicum of respect would be a good start.
Leif Svalgaard (10:20:25) :
Dave F (10:00:36) :
So if the sun has an even smaller effect, then what caused the MWP? The LIA?
This is another example of false logic. The “appeal to ignorance”: ‘What else can it be? BTW, the MWP had the Oort Grand Solar Minimum smack in the middle of it
Dave F,
Poor Old Leif has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
He, of cousre, is unable to deal with the possibility that the short term Oort “Grand” Solar Minimum in solar activity (~ 1050 A.D.) might be caused by a phenomenon that is acting on a different time scale to another (solar) phenomenon that might have caused the long-term increase in the Earth’s temperature (900 – 1300 A.D.) during the MWP. If you get beyond one phenomenon acting at one time, Leif gets lost.
Leif Svalgaard (21:10:24) :
Nicola Scafetta (20:49:44) :
What about the longer and shorter scales? […]
The amplitude of these oscillations are much larger than 0.1K and may be as large as 1K!
Those are the ones that have not been shown to exist. Not that there are any lack of claims [yours included]. But I can turn the question around: if solar activity only produces 0.1 K changes, then what causes these much bigger changes?
Leif,
Have you ever thought of the possibility, that the temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides? It also might be possible that changes in solar/lunar tides just happen to be synchronized with changes in the level of long term solar activity simp[ly because the changes in shape and precession of the Lunar orbit happen to be influenced (over the billions of years) by changes in the general level of solar activity.
Nicola Scafetta (05:14:59) :
well, those long variations too are quite well documented by numerous studies based on both climate and solar proxies, including mine!
An example of how careful one has to be with words. The non-existence was not about the variations, but about any causative link between them, or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.
How many studies propose an alternative explanations. So, what is your explanation: what causes these much bigger changes?
An appeal to the Fallacy of Ignorance. Just because you do not have another hypothesis handy, does not make the one you have correct.
There are no ‘much bigger changes’ in the Sun and the tiny variations we observe do not match with the ‘much bigger changes’ in the climate that are inferred. Roy Spencer’s recent book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ might give you some insight into the variability of climate.
jinki (06:20:02) :
Such arrogance, you do not have my respect.
I’m not fishing for it.
Most of us are aware the MWP is between the Oort and Wolf
You should study these Figures closely http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
The two bottom panels how very recent reconstructions of TSI [which is a good proxy for solar activity as a whole.
Ninderthana (08:07:55) :
Leif, Have you ever thought of the possibility, that the temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides?
No, and even poor old Nicola would not subscribe to that idea [I think, but I’ll let him explain himself].
Ninderthana (07:59:35) :
might be caused by a phenomenon that is acting on a different time scale to another (solar) phenomenon that might have caused the long-term increase in the Earth’s temperature (900 – 1300 A.D.) during the MWP.
A good principle in science is not to invent a new cause for every new observation. See here
Leif Svalgaard (08:21:29) :
“The non-existence was not about the variations, but about any causative link between them”.
Leif, the problem of the physical mechanisms is different from the problem of a physical-link. It is possible to determine that two fenomena are linked even if the microscopic causes are not fully understood yet. In complex system that is often the case. For example, everybody knows that an aspirin can help in some muscular pain, nobody knows about the exact mechanisms how it happens.
“or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.”
The correlations are sufficiently good. See the figures in my papers, please.
“An appeal to the Fallacy of Ignorance. Just because you do not have another hypothesis handy, does not make the one you have correct.”
Science is done with what we know and see, not with what we do not know. If you do not have any “hypothesis handy” you just do not have any scientific arguments to contradict other hypotheses supported by data correlations!
About the tides, they can partially contribute to something. The climate system is not just a piece of iron heated by a fire!
Leif Svalgaard (08:21:29) :
You should study these Figures closely http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
The two bottom panels how very recent reconstructions of TSI [which is a good proxy for solar activity as a whole.
I recognize Loehle’s non-treering temp reconstruction, but are the other 2 graphs TSI reconstructions? The blue line on the bottom graph seems to be a repeat of a section of the middle graph, but what’s the orange line?
But if the point is that there’s no decent correlation then I knew that anyway. 🙂
Nicola Scafetta (08:59:11) :
“or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.” The correlations are sufficiently good. See the figures in my papers, please.
I have, of course, seen your Figures and they do not impress.
contradict other hypotheses supported by data correlations!
Except that correlation is not causation, and the correlations are not so good to begin with. See further down in my reply to Yarmy.
About the tides, they can partially contribute to something. The climate system is not just a piece of iron heated by a fire!
You are side-stepping the issue. The statement “temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides” leaves no room for any other causes. The ‘partially contribute’ phrase is vacuous without specifying how much. 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, 0.0001%, … Be specific, or at least indicate a range if in doubt.
Yarmy (09:00:07) :
but are the other 2 graphs TSI reconstructions? The blue line on the bottom graph seems to be a repeat of a section of the middle graph, but what’s the orange line?
Yes, they are. They are based on three independent analyses of different ice cores. The fact that they look alike is simply because they show the same phenomenon. They should look alike, to have any relevance, no?
But if the point is that there’s no decent correlation then I knew that anyway. 🙂
Something for Nicola to ponder.
Ciao Nicola, bienvenuti!
It’s great to see you joining the fray – it might get a little rough and tumble here sometimes but there is, IMO, some very fascinating “sausage-making” going on here. It’s an honor to have you here. Now a question for you and Leif…
Leif, Nicola
Could I be correct in stating the following: the core of your disagreement is regarding the, more or less, direct correlation of solar input with climate – technical considerations aside.
My background is economics, not a solar physics, and I think it might be constructive for the bystanders here (like me) to really understand, in your own words perhaps, what it is the two of you are disagreeing on. I think I have a rough idea about the core of the issue and the consequences but, TBH, I’m not really sure how accurate it is. Just a thought…
Best Regards and, as always, thank you for being here!
Leif Svalgaard (10:07:02) :
John F. Hultquist (09:51:42) : This seems to be false logic of the “it does not follow” type (non sequitur).
If we are not distracted by that nonsense [likely injected by the journalist] the paper by R&R ends much more reasonably: “The results provide strong evidence that the stochastic properties of the temperature record are generated by the long-term memory internal dynamics of the climate system and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent fluctuations which characterize the solar output”.
I too consider this to be a sensible conclusion but still have not given up on the Jose Cycle although I am finding the Milankovitch Cycle washes out most historical suggestions of climate modulation by short term solar variation. In other words, outside the Holocene Optimum and ‘Winsconsin et al’ Glaciation there is not much left to look at.
So I concede you and others I’ve discussed this with may be right 😀 … but my argument is now with the silly graph in this article detailing temperature. I now think the Holocene Interglacial ended 2000 years ago and the Milankovitch Cycle is carrying on, ‘on schedule’ and we now only are waiting for a Heinrich Event to seal the deal (looking for a 7000 year cycle now :D)
I now wonder if the present lack of solar activity will present more questions and not at all settle the question of a direct link to climate … now that I think we are under the more prominent influence of the Milankovitch Cycle as it has been manifested for the last 500k years.
NickB. (09:33:40) :
Could I be correct in stating the following: the core of your disagreement is regarding the, more or less, direct correlation of solar input with climate – technical considerations aside.
As I see it, we can start with the agreement. Solar activity [as commonly measured by sunspot number or TSI or Heliospheric Magnetic field -doesn’t make any difference which] produces a 0.1K variation of global temperature. This is observed [just barely though, and not really significant, but accepted because of:] and expected and mostly understood.
The global temperatures show much larger variations [say 1K] than the 0.1K and the issue is whether there is a corresponding variation in solar output that is ten times larger than the observed variation in solar activity. I contend there is not, and that a claim to the contrary is an ‘extraordinary claim’. And that the correlations between the large global temperature changes and solar activity are not good to non-existing, perhaps because the data is not good, but ‘extraordinary claims’ require extraordinary evidence, which has not been produced.
In the end, it may come down to examination [or re-examination] of the data, both solar and terrestrial, as there is debate about both. To claim that the link has been proven or ‘strongly suggested’ by the shaky data is going too far. To me, the subject is important, so it is important that it be dealt with correctly, and the ‘what else can it be’ argument does not fall in that category.
Leif Svalgaard (09:16:59) :
“I have, of course, seen your Figures and they do not impress.”
are you sure to have seen them well and read all comments etc? 🙂
“Except that correlation is not causation”,
again what is your alternative theory of climate change if the sun does not play any role but with the 11-year cycle?
NickB. (09:33:40) :
the core disagreement between Leif and me is that Leif has proposed a total solar irradiance record which is practically constant with a 11-year solar cycle modulation. So, in his solar reconstruction nothing but the 11-year solar cycle exists. Consequently, he does not see the correlations that exist between the temperature data and the solar reconstructions, but the 11-year modulation of course.
Please see Leif’s reconstruction (red curve) compared with those proposed by everybody else, here
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20%28Reconstructions%29.pdf
Leif’s reconstruction is by far the flattest, nothing can be flatter than that! Moreover Leif’s solar reconstruction clearly disagrees even with the satellite measurements from all experimental groups since 2004. This is evident in his figure 1 bottom where his reconstruction (red line) does not reproduce the decreased solar activity seen experimentally by everybody (but him).
In any case, if you are interested in knowing more about climate change, please feel free to read this work of mine:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_change_causes.html
Leif Svalgaard
Leans (2010) explanation of the recent cooling implies greater sensitivity to the solar component and concomitant phase process such as enso eg
Direct linear association of natural and anthropogenic influences explains 76% of the variance in the observed global surface temperature during the past 30 years (and also in the past 120 years22),Figure 2 shows how a model that combines these
influences clearly identifies the cause of the rapid global temperature rise from 1992 to 1998 as the result of ENSO-induced warming following Pinatubo produced
cooling. The cause of the lack of overall warming in the last decade is also identified, the result of decreasing solar irradiance in the declining phase of cycle 23 from 2002 to 2009 and La Nina cooling countering anthropogenic warming.
As around 25% of the qualities for warming (cooling) are unexplainable,and there are problematic reasons for this type of analysis for a velocity inversion,confidence is not great in the robustness of her arguments.
Hello Dr. Scafetta, thank you very much for posting.
Don Easterbrook agrees with you about correlations between temperature and solar (and CR) proxies. He noted a while back on his website that :
“Good correlations can now be made between global temperature change, sunspots (Eddy, 1976; Stuiver and Quay, 1980; Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2005), solar irradiance (Lean, 1989, 1991, 2000, 2001, Lean and Rind, 1998; Lean et al., 1995, 2002), and 10Be (Beer et al., 1994, 1996, 2000) and 14C production (Fig. 38) (Stuiver, 1961, 1994; Stuiver and Brasiunas, 1991, 1992; Stuiver et al., 1991, 1995; Matter et al., 2001) in the atmosphere. [..]”
“Correlations of solar variation and climate have recently been made by Soon (2005), Soon and Yaskell, (2004), Scafetta (2009), and Scafetta and West (2005, 2007, 2008) and a mechanism for explaining the relationship between solar fluctuations and climate has been proposed (Svensmark, 1998, 2006; Svensmark and Friis–Christensen, 1997; Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Svensmark et al., 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2007). ”
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/solar-variability&climate-change.pdf
Nicola Scafetta (10:25:29) :
again what is your alternative theory of climate change if the sun does not play any role but with the 11-year cycle?
As Roy Spencer points out a natural variation in the amounts of clouds resulting from chaos in the complicated climate system is perfectly capable of causing the observed climate change.
NickB. (09:33:40) :
Moreover Leif’s solar reconstruction clearly disagrees even with the satellite measurements from all experimental groups since 2004.
The claim that TSI this solar minimum is lower than at previous minima is usually based on the PMOD composite. Comparisons with SORCE TIM since 2004 clearly demonstrate that PMOD [based on SOHO data] is degrading [due to the harsh environment in space] more than accounted for. Here is a comparison of PMOD, SORCE, and the ratio between them [which should be constant if both were operating correctly]: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD-Degradation.gif
It is evident that PMOD is showing steadily less TSI with time. The degradation back to 1996 is just the difference people claim this minimum is lower than the previous minimum. In case you wonder what the strong spikes in the ratio are every ~90 days [marked by the cyan vertical lines], they happen when SOHO is in the keyhole position [lasting a couple of weeks], and are thus artifacts in PMOD. Again showing that the calibration is somewhat wanting, if systematic errors like those shine through.
My reconstruction does not disagree with everybody else’s, only with old, obsolete, or inferior ones. Preminger and Walton reconstruct TSI back to 1874 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005GL022839.pdf ]. Their result agrees closely with mine [pink and red, respectively at http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png ]. They note:
“Lean et al. [1995] suggested that a solar irradiance component with a long term secular trend might exist and estimated the magnitude of that component by assuming that it tracks the overall level of solar activity. We find that the data do not support such an assumption.”
Even Lean herself is doubting that long-term changes exist. See the last lines of green text on this plot [from a recent talk by Lean]:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png
“longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur?”
So, the indications are that there are no long-term trends, or at least that the evidence for such is shaky, and finally that several other recent reconstructions [http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png bottom panels] do not show variations exceeding the 1-2 W/m2 characteristic of the ordinary cycle [which cause a 0.1K variation], plus the fact that the peaks and valleys do not line up. E.g. in 600 AD.
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
in previous post
maksimovich (11:25:28) :
Leans (2010) explanation of the recent cooling implies greater sensitivity to the solar component
and
confidence is not great in the robustness of her arguments.
If so, why do you bring up her paper.
Wait a minute – self similarity on different time scales – surely not fractal pattern?? How bizzare is that! A system as simple as climate, passive to controlling forcing by CO2 and entirely explained by the Stefan-Boltzman law? Where could the complexity come from to allow non-equilibrium pattern formation and log-log distributions and fractal pattern? Must be an instrumental glitch – dodgy sensor somewhere.
If however strangely it was in fact a non-equilibrium (see LIndzen’s recent post) quasi-chaotic system then it might just turn out to be a periodically forced oscillatory non-linear system, which depends on the periodic forcing(s) but [this is the important bit] whose emergent patterns and frequencies bear only partial relation or no relation to the forcing frequencies.
Thus trying to match up neatly the periodicities of the solar cycles and climate cycles, plus planetary gravitational plus Milankotitch and all the others, cannot be the whole story. Correlation is not proof of causation. Nor in a non-linear periodically forced oscillatory system (e.g. reaction-diffusion system such as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction) is non correlation proof of non-causation. Not even close I’m afraid.
BTW if you are looking for traditional correlations between variables A and B, if you subject either or both of A and B to some mathematical treatment, however righteous the justification, you will increase and multiply error and decrease the chance of a correlation remaining. So the authors subject the data to “de-trending”. And the correlation goes away! Again – how surprising is that??
oneuniverse (11:35:37) :
Don Easterbrook agrees with you about correlations between temperature and solar (and CR) proxies. He noted a while back on his website that :
These correlations assume a TSI variation of 3-4 W/m2 over the past 400 years. Nobody in the TSI-field today believes that such a variation exists. As Lean pointed out, they have not been demonstrated. Gregg Kopp from the SORCE TIM team a few days ago said in an email to me: “Sadly, this probably does mean we don’t have good knowledge of how this current minimum relates to the prior one.”, so again, shaky data.
The SORCE 2010 [May] meeting scientific committee in has accepted this abstract of my presentation at the meeting:
“Comparing the latest PMOD composite with SORCE/TIM I find that the ratio PMOD/SORCE has been declining steadily since 2004.0 [a total of 80 ppm]. Extrapolating the decline back to 1996.75 [previous solar minimum] the decline amounts to 172 ppm. In addition, the ratio seems to have ‘spikes’ of the order of 50-100 ppm [thus not trivial]. These spikes coincide with times when SOHO was in a ‘keyhole’ condition [KH], and are thus artifacts. During a KH there is a slight data loss and calculating a daily average has to be done VERY carefully [especially the correction for solar distance]. Another possibility is the effect of some differences in the thermal environment during KHs. I conclude that if we assume a correct SORCE/TIM calibration, the difference between the latest solar minimum and the previous minimum may not be real and that the Sun even this minimum may have just returned to the same constant conditions prevailing when there is no solar activity.”
The point is that TSI is under debate and nothing ‘proven’ or ‘strongly suggestive’ can be stated with any degree of integrity.
The topic here is R&R’s paper. So perhaps all the experts here can divert their attention a bit to why they think R&R are wrong.