New paper by Love et al suggests no prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change. I’m providing it here for discussion.
We are not convinced that the combination of sunspot‐number,
geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data can, with
a purely phenomenological correlational analysis, be used to
identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.
Abstract
Recent studies have led to speculation that solar‐terrestrial interaction, measured by sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, has played an important role in global temperature change over the past century or so. We treat this possibility as an hypothesis for testing. We examine the statistical significance of cross‐correlations between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity, and global surface temperature for the years 1868–2008, solar cycles 11–23. The data contain substantial autocorrelation and non-stationarity, properties that are incompatible with standard measures of cross-correlational significance, but which can be largely removed by averaging over solar cycles and first‐difference detrending. Treated data show an expected statistically significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson ρ < 10^−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, ρ = 0.9954, (ρ = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely‐cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change.
With respect to the sunspot‐number, geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data, three alternative hypotheses remain difficult to reject: (1) the role of solar‐terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is contained wholly in long‐term trends and not in any shorter‐term secular variation, or, (2) an anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature, or, (3) the null hypothesis, recent climate change has not been influenced by solar‐terrestrial interaction.
Citation: Love, J. J., K. Mursula, V. C. Tsai, and D. M. Perkins (2011), Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21703, doi:10.1029/2011GL049380.
Conclusions
One of the merits of using three separate data sets in a correlational analysis is that intercomparisons can be made. After treatment for removal of autocorrelation and nonstationarity through simple averaging and differencing, we find statistically‐significant secular correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This is expected,
and it serves as important support for our analysis method. On the other hand, after making the same treatment to the global surface temperature, correlations between temperature and either sunspot number or geomagnetic activity are not significant.
We have not, in this study, considered derived proxy metrics of relevance to climate change, such as reconstructed total‐solar irradiance [e.g., Fröhlich and Lean, 2004] or
interplanetary magnetic field [e.g., Lockwood et al., 1999]. Still, we believe that our methods are general, that they could be used for other data sets, even though our analysis, here, is tightly focused on specific data sets. [15] From analysis of sunspot‐number, geomagneticactivity, and global‐temperature data, three hypotheses remain difficult to reject; we list them.
(1) The role of solarterrestrial interaction in recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to reduce autocorrelation and nonstationarity. This possibility seems artificial, but we acknowledge that our method requires a nontrivial time‐dependence in the data that is different from a simple trend. Still needed is a method for measuring the significance of correlation between data sets with trends.
(2) An anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature. A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
(3) Recent climate change has not been influenced by solar‐terrestrial interaction. If this null hypothesis is to be confidently rejected, it will require data and/or methods that are different from those used here.
Paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049380.pdf
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
“identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.”
I guess that means Gaia cries :[ when she thinks about humans.
Sparks says:
November 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I understand that CMEs form aurora over the polar regions, caused by the collision of charged particles with the atmosphere
Not really. Aurora are always present at high latitudes. CMEs helps move those aurorae to lower latitudes where we then [rarely] can observe them. The process is well-understood. And has been for 40+ years. Although that old, my review of 1973 still describes the basic process: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
MrV says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm
We don’t even know why the corona of the sun is millions of K
We sort of do know, the problem is that we have too many explanations and we don’t know which one is correct. Perhaps more than one.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm
If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining techniques.
Always going after the person, eh… [again]
Simply put, the problem is “the data we have”. In the data that they were using, there is not significant solar change. By significant, I mean Dalton or Maunder minimum sized changes. The moderating influence of the oceans stored heat means that any smaller and shorter solar change is going to be overwhelmed by that stored heat (or cold), thus, any small change will be invisible. What we need to really tell if the sun causes climate changes is a period of quiet sun similar to at least a Dalton Minimum. There is a prediction that we are in the first solar cycle of just such a change. If so, we will know for certain by say, 2035.
Simply put, this paper is irrelevant to tell us if the sun can cause significant change since during it’s time frame there was no significant solar change that is large enough or long enough to overcome the moderating influence of the oceans so that we can see it. All this paper can say is that small and short solar changes cause no significant climate change in the short term. The claim of this paper is far larger than it’s actual science can show.
For this paper to really be able to make it’s claim, that solar variance causes climate variance, it needs to include a longer period of time, one that includes the Dalton Minimum at the least. If adequate records exist of solar variability and climate before their cut off date, and they did not use them, than I must assume that the whole purpose of this paper is to disprove the idea that anything except CO2 causes climate change, by deliberately excluding the data they know will show that their main premise is false. Does such data exist?
Since the data period this paper is limiting itself to does not include a period of solar change great enough to cause a climate change big enough to be certain of, I can only say that the conclusion this paper gives is .not proven (“.no prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction”). Without prominent solar changes, we are not going to get prominent “solar-terrestrial interaction”.
My response to this paper: Right, and Microwave ovens dont cook things either.
I hereby propose the Broken Paper Fallacy: The idea that just because a politically correct in-crowd of scientists with agendas say a theory is wrong, and doesnt understand why such a theory would be so, doesnt make it true.
Rob Boyd says:
November 15, 2011 at 11:35 am
I need to respectfully disagree with Ed_B’s statement:
Actually such an event simply means that the hypothesis has not been disproven.
Agreed. No observation that matches prediction proves the hypothesis correct. However, any single observation that does not match prediction proves the hypothesis false (assuming the observation is correct).
The prediction for AGW was for accelerating temperatures with accelerating anthropogenic CO2. We have accelerating increase in anthropogenic CO2. We do not have the predicted accelerating increase in temperatures.
Thus, the AGW hypothis has been shown to be false.
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
November 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Of course solar activity – or more precisely solar-magnetic effects modulated by lunar factors – DRIVE world weather systems
The well documented drought cycle worldwide follows the lunar orbital cycle. Hydrologists and the Farmer’s Almanac have known this for years. Locust have known it much longer. Climate science is still working on the concept of tail pipe emissions.
Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
Anyone that subscribes to this trick is not trustworthy and is most likely pushing the AGW barrow.
MrV says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm
We don’t even know why the corona of the sun is millions of K
We sort of do know, the problem is that we have too many explanations and we don’t know which one is correct. Perhaps more than one.
We see the same phenonemum on earth (Thermosphere). But of course this is impossible as solar radiation at TOA is 1367 w/m2, which is a blackbody temperature of 121 C.
(Thermosphere) Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,500 °C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Imagine that. 1500C at the top of earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to see, move along.
Nearing the end of this day, and longing for a tad more comity, I am left with the continuing impression that employing either mathematics or mathemannics one may come of one predictive complex or another.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
So you are saying that since the ocean PDO is the dominant determinant of global temperatures, solar output can only be related to the residual variation after PDO has been removed. Does make some sense.
“”””” dallas says:
November 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”
That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “””””
Not so: The energy of photons has nothing to do with the Temperature of the source. The spectral distribution (as a function of the wavelength or frequency, or energy if you prefer) may depend on the source Temperature, but the energy does not (first order). So there might be secondary effects, such as Temperature broadening of spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. but , primarily the Temperature can determine the number of photons having some specific energy, but the energy of the photons themselves is not Temperature dependent.
“”””” After all, the world IS flat and it DOESN’T move. Look out the window! “””””
Well actually, the mean earth is curved, and no matter how small a segment of that mean earth you look at, the curvature is exactly the same.
That’s one of the basic properties of a circle or a sphere; the curvature is constant: everywhere.
Nicola Scafetta (November 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm) wrote:
“If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining thecniques.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.”
—————————
Concur.
ferd berple says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm
We see the same phenonemum on earth (Thermosphere). But of course this is impossible as solar radiation at TOA is 1367 w/m2, which is a blackbody temperature of 121 C. […]
Imagine that. 1500C at the top of earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to see, move along.
Now, don’t embarrass yourself too much. The thermosphere is not in thermal equilibrium and will not behave as a blackbody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body and your ‘nothing to see’ is actually pretty close to the truth, as the air pressure up there is less than a trillionth of that at the surface, so there is really next to nothing there.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Concur.
Yet another member of the ad-hom club rears his head…
“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm
George E. Smith; says:
November 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm
somebody might actually find some small solar influence on earth climate.
There is, there is, to a tune of less that 0.1 degrees. “””””
If the only influence of the sun (TSI) is to change earth’s Temperature by less than 0.1 deg C; then why do people waste their time trying to collect solar energy ?
So it is just CO2 (and other minor GHGs) that raise the earth Temperature from near zero Kelvins up to 255 K or 288 or whatever one’s favorite mean global Temperature is supposed to be.
I could have sworn that it was the sun that was responsible for doing that; but if Leif says the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
I continue to ponder what all of this means relative to the apparent possible longevity of the Holocene. Chronis Tzedakis (2009 and 2010) (http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf) states in his conclusion:
“A comparison of the vegetation trends in MIS 1 and MIS 11 favours a precessional alignment of the two interglacials. This would support the notion that in the absence of anthropogenic interference, the Holocene should be nearing its natural completion.
“However, examination of MIS 19 as an alternative (and arguable closer) astronomical analogue for MIS 1 leads to different conclusions. The alignment of the two interglacials suggests that the Holocene has another quarter of an obliquity cycle to run its natural course.”
With the sun gone all quiet on us this is the” forest” as viewed from the “trees” in this thread. I would very much appreciate a considered response.
Love, J.J.; Mursula, K.; Tsai, V.C.; & Perkins, D.M. (2011) Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant? Geophysical Research Letters 38, L21703. doi:10.1029/2011GL049380.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049380.pdf
This analysis would be acceptable from someone with less than 1 year of experience exploring climate data. Also, there are catastrophic reference omissions.
George E. Smith; says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm
the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
just silly.
William McClenney says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Paul Vaughan says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:22 pm
This analysis would be acceptable from someone with less than 1 year of experience exploring climate data. Also, there are catastrophic reference omissions.
Yeah, we know you are the expert and the rest of the world are morons.
George E. Smith, No actually. The lower temperature reduces the size and intensity of the spectrum. The average energy of a spectrum at T/2 is fraction of T, T=288K yields F~390Wm-2, T=144K yields F~25Wm-2. This is one of the main reasons that the Antarctic did not read the IPCC reports. With an average surface temperature of -49C and an average radiant layer of -59C or 214K, F=118Wm-2 or roughly 1/3 the outrageously high Trenberth estimate of 330 Wm-2. It would appear, some climate scientists never bother reading the Arrhenius paper. If they had Chandler on their reading list, things might be different.
But then what would I know, I just fish for a living.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I’m sorry, Leif Svalgaard. When you reply to me in a negative way and out of context, I know YOU are wrong, You have interested your self with various comments within this discussion (as described above) It’s a discussion!
Answer with substance please 🙂 , I don’t mind starting from scratch, which every scientist should be doing every second squared, I will NOT tolerate your insolence, err, either! You left me hanging instead of discussing what we are genuinely interested in, it deprived me of an intellectual insight, FOR SHAME!! 🙂
Sparks says:
November 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm
When you reply to me in a negative way and out of context […] You left me hanging instead of discussing what we are genuinely interested in, it deprived me of an intellectual insight
What? I pointed out that your ideas about CMEs etc were not correct and provided you with a link to a detailed description of the modern paradigm of what causes the aurora. Do you expect to sit here and type that 66 page paper into a WUWT reply box?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
———————————————-
So you are saying that since the ocean PDO is the dominant determinant of global temperatures, solar output can only be related to the residual variation after PDO has been removed. Does make some sense.
It is just a matter of working out the residual. During times of grand minima extra solar factors responsible for jet stream changes could increase that residual.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Please continue your picking and choosing from comments out of context, it’s not a good strategy to win any argument. You said: “What? I pointed out that your ideas about CMEs etc were not correct”.
I’m sometimes wrong or misinformed or rushed maybe, I’m never ever ‘not correct’ What was correct about my contribution to the subject and discussion? you neglect the affirmative and exaggerate the negative for your own gain, without implied intellectual substance.
It seems to me, if the data is being analyzed by day, month, or year, and, if the data correlation is not aligned, for example, sunspot-data, geomagnetic-data, or global-temperature data if offset due to the chenical or physics processes, then, this type of analysis is worthless and misses the mark.