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
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:31 pm
If you measure solar activity by a real physical index like F10.7, you’ll find that the solar cycle variation is much like that of B.
Well, that’s all right then, thanks god for that the world isn’t a linear place.
Re: Temperature & Heliospheric magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm
temperature spectrum added.
I apologyse, but… Too poor paper – no principally new results and even more – new ideas The study is correct, but only as technical proceeding. Such results by such methodology could be predicted in advance! The comparison between SUNSPOTS and global climatic parameter like the global temperature is too trivial and there are great many similar papers no only in the recent years, but even during the last 3-4 decades.
To make a good study for the Sun- climate relationship especially for the last centuries it need /and it is possible!/ to taken into account that the different types of solar activity events are forcing the Earth climate by different physical channels- for TSI and electromagnetic indexes at all – the corellation is positive, but for flares – negative, while for north-south assymetry / important factor too!/ depend by sign. There is also a possible solar-geomagnetic forcing over the Earth dynamo and by this way – over the Earth rotation , tektonics and inertial forces effects over atmosphere and oceanic flows. By this one there are also many regional effects over climate. All this could not correctly described only of the base only of such simple , very integral
and less -representative by physical point of view isunspot indexes like Ri or GSN . Itshould be taken into account such events like for example the middle latitude aurora activity, whicha are indicaator for important for the low atmosphere events like solar energetic paarticles penetration or ground level enhancements. The overall “Sun- climate” relationship is very strong, but too complicate and strongly nonlinear in mid and short timescales It stay more linear iif it is consider n long time scales. ! It is certain.
In addition it should be also note, that there is an essential decreasing of solar flare activity, since the middle of 1970s , i.e after the end of solar cycle 20th. It could be clear follow no only by GOES satellite data , but also in solar radiobursts in whole MHz and GHz range between 30- 15000 MHz. On the other hand after 1975 the sunspot activity is predominly in the south solar hemisphere, while during the period 1940-1975/86 it is predominanntly in the northern one. The south assymetry has remain at least up to 1994 and ,may be,, during the whole solar cycle 23. Both these circumstances are related to warming periods in the past. So, it seems by this one that the recent warming after the mid of 1970s is related rather to the conditions on the Sun during the last decades of 20th century as to an additional terestrial sorce oof warming.
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.
This satire .. right ? “anthropogenic” and “sun spots” ? Unless we give the Sun a childish name like “Bob” and treat it like a human, I doubt it will ever have an “anthropogenic affect on climate.”
Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 11:57 am
“Even the primary local/chaotic climate drivers, e.g. ENSO, appear to be more or less slaved to the solar cycle.”
Not so much the solar cycle but the solar wind speed: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_28666.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Ulric Lyons says:
November 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Not so much the solar cycle but the solar wind speed: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_28666.gif
Slow solar wind in 1998 caused the great El-Nino?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Slow solar wind in 1998 caused the great El-Nino?”
There is mostly an excellent correlation between falling or rising SW speed and ENSO phase through the record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Slow solar wind in 1998 caused the great El-Nino?”
It was May 1997 to May 1998.
“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:19 pm
George E. Smith; says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
just silly.
NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.
YES, silly as you and most people would know that was meant was the effect of the variation of solar output over a cycle.
would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
My number [as you should also know] was clearly an order of magnitude estimate. “””””
Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.
For starters, my citation of the 72 mK change in BB Temperature for a 0.1% p-p cycle in TSI, was not haggling over your figure (0.1 deg). On the contrary, I was entirely agreeing with your 0.1 deg estimate. You have in the past cited the very same 72 mK number, and it’s close enough to 0.1 deg given that there is no real reason to suppose that, the calculated BB Temperature change would persist in the climate Temperature; because of all the feedbacks that would pile on and smother that effect..
Where I disagree with the story, is that changes in the surface collected fraction of the TSI (mostly stored in the ocean); due to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover and distribution certainly do have a noticeable change in the climate, whereas the normal sunspot cycle change in TSI of 0.1% would not. And that change in solar energy gathered seems to be totally ignored by the climate crowd, who simply can’t think of applying the feedback to the actual (solar) driving source.
But I regard you as the expert (and I DO mean that); so I’m not quibling about minuiae.
George E. Smith; says:
November 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.
Well, you certainly fooled me into thinking so 🙂
Where I disagree with the story, is that changes in the surface collected fraction of the TSI (mostly stored in the ocean); due to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover and distribution certainly do have a noticeable change in the climate, whereas the normal sunspot cycle change in TSI of 0.1% would not. And that change in solar energy gathered seems to be totally ignored by the climate crowd, who simply can’t think of applying the feedback to the actual (solar) driving source.
I think they do take these effects into account, but shall not try to sway you. Over long periods of time [pick a number: 10 years, 100?, 1000?] what goes in must come out, so a 0.1% change in TSI must result in a temperature change of 0.1K over that time frame. That is the order of magnitude of the effect of solar variability. How that is distributed, how that varies on short time scales, etc, was not my point. Observations show that the change cannot be more than 0.15-0.2K, otherwise it would be too obvious [which it isn’t].
Since when is a correlation above .8, much less above .95 not significant?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Over long periods of time [pick a number: 10 years, 100?, 1000?] what goes in must come out, so a 0.1% change in TSI must result in a temperature change of 0.1K over that time frame.
In order to forestall semantic quibble, this change is in addition to whatever changes are due to other causes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
The total energy in these parts is small, so their larger variation does not have much effect. You are advocating judging changes in Bill Gates’s wealth by the
Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere
And have less than 0.05K effect on the lower atmosphere, i.e. climate: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf
In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.
Dr. Svalgaard (as far as I understand it) is correct, large swings in temperatures are not caused by any of the parameters measured in the TSI; solar wind might, but I put it to the Arctic’s solar geomagnetic link. There are numerous indication of this, the most convincing I came across is the AMO link to the Arctic circle’s summer atmospheric pressure anomaly
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm directly leads to
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm
see pages 11 + of http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 17, 2011 at 12:05 am
In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.
Rubbish, it comes down to how the energy is used in the system. How much is reflected, retained, released and zonal redistribution, all can be controlled by chemical reactions. Add some smaller movements in TSI and you have a system capable of larger movements.
Geoff Sharp says: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“Leif Svalgaard says:November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow”.
=============================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
to use the standard wuwt phrase
Wow, Just Wow!
Are you daring to suggest that O3 at concentrations ~10^4 less than CO2 (which according to many here has no effect) is modifying the climate. Wow!
Or are you again suggesting another mystic effect of O3? Please describe why CO2 has no effect and O3 has massive effect.
to help you here is wiki:
The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918-1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide. This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone.[24]
BUT do you beleive in the “green house” effect of gasses in the atmosphere.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input
Formation of ozone: O2 + photon energy -> 2 O; O + O2 + catalyst-> O3 + catalyst
JJThoms says:
November 17, 2011 at 4:43 am
……
You might find this useful starting point
http://www.arizonaenergy.org/WaterEnergy/Mean%20Circulation%20and%20Transports%20in%20the%20Atlantic.htm
Leif said, “In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.”
While that is true, where the energy impacts may need some consideration. It the ratio of atmospheric to surface absorption changes, that would have an impact. It the time constant of the release of the absorbed energy does not remain constant, that would have an impact.
It is a much more interesting puzzle when viewed from the surface rather than space. 🙂
Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface. Water vapor also influences the amount of atmospheric absorption in the near infrared. A 0.5W increase would have a 1W increase at the surface. Once allowing for the time constants of the absorbing media, the impact of 0.1K plus the 0.05K can have a 0.3 surface temperature impact on cooling and only a 0.15K impact on warming. Don’t cha just hate nonlinear relationships 🙂
dallas says:
November 17, 2011 at 7:45 am
Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb.
The EUV in question does not reach the surface or even the troposphere.
dallas says:
November 17, 2011 at 7:45 am
“Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface.”
WTF?
First of all clouds don’t absorb they reflect. Second of all it’s not two Watts it’s less than one Watt.
If there are 200 Watts hitting the cloud and it reflects one Watt the ground receives 199W. If the cloud goes away the ground receives 200W. That’s a difference of one Watt to the surface, not two.
But it’s actually worse than that the ground albedo is more that 0%, sometimes far more, so the extra Watt that the surface receives is partially reflected anyhow so the full extra Watt doesn’t get fully absorbed in any case.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 17, 2011 at 12:05 am
“In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.”
That’s naive even for you. The distribution of the energy can vary a great deal and the controlling factors need not be energetic. The best way to envisage this is how little energy it takes to close a furnace vent in one room and open a vent in another room. This makes a dramatic difference in the temperature of those two rooms even though it neither adds nor subtracts from the total energy entering both rooms.