Solar Periodicity

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance from the sun (average earth distance). What Dr. Roy has done is to “composite” the variations in TSI. This means to stack them one on top of another … and here is where I ran into trouble.

I couldn’t figure out how he split up the TSI data to stack them, because the cycles have different lengths. So how would you make an 11-year composite stack when the cycles are longer and shorter than that? And unfortunately, the comments are closed. Yes, I know I could write and ask Dr. Roy, he’s a good guy and would answer me, but that’s sooo 20th century … this illustrates the importance of publishing your code along with your analysis. His analysis may indeed be 100% correct—but I can’t confirm that because I can’t figure out exactly how he did it.

Since I couldn’t confirm Dr. Roy’s interesting approach, I figured I’d take an independent look at the data to see for myself if there is a visible ~ 11 year solar signal in the various temperature records. I started by investigating the cycle in the solar variations themselves. The TSI data is here. Figure 1 shows the variations in TSI since 1880

total solar irradiance lean dataFigure 1. Monthly reconstructed total solar irradiance in watts per square metre (W/m2). As with many such datasets this one has its detractors and adherents. I use it because Dr. Roy used it, and he used it for the same reason, because the study he was investigating used it. For the purposes of my analysis the differences between this and other variations are minimal. See the underlying Lean study (GRL 2000) for details. Note also that this is very similar to the sunspot cycle, from which it was reconstructed.

If I’m looking for a correlation with a periodic signal like the ~ 11-year variations in TSI, I often use what is called a “periodicity analysis“. While this is somewhat similar to a Fourier analysis, it has some advantages in certain situations, including this one.

One of the advantages of periodicity analysis is that the resolution is the same as the resolution of the data. If you have monthly data, you get monthly results. Another advantage is that periodicity analysis doesn’t decompose a signal into sine waves. It decomposes a signal into waves with the actual shape of the wave of that length in that particular dataset. Let me start with the periodicity analysis of the TSI, shown in Figure 2.

periodicity analysis tsi leanFigure 2. Periodicity analysis of the Lean total solar irradiance (TSI) data, looking at all cycles with periods from 2 months to 18 years. As mentioned above, there is a datapoint for every month-by-month length of cycle. 

As you can see, there is a large peak in the data, showing the preponderance of the ~ 11 year cycle lengths. It has the greatest value at 127 months (10 years 7 month).However, the peak is quite broad, reflecting the variable nature of the length of the underlying sunspot cycles.

As I mentioned, with periodicity analysis we can look at the actual 127 month cycle. Note that this is most definitely NOT a sine wave. The build-up and decay of the sunspots/TSI occur at different speeds. Figure 3 shows the main cycle in the TSI data:

cycle length 127 months lean tsiFigure 3. This is the shape of the main cycle for TSI, with a length of 10 years 7 months. 

Let me stop here and make a comment. The average cyclical swing in TSI over the period of record is 0.6 W/m2. Note that to calculate the equivalent 24/7 average insolation on the earth’s surface you need to divide the W/m2 values by 4. This means that Dr. Roy and others are looking for a temperature signal from a fluctuation in downwelling solar of .15 W/m2 over a decade … and the signal-to-noise ratio on that is frankly depressing. This is the reason for all of the interest in “amplifying” mechanisms such as cosmic ray variations, since the change in TSI itself is too small to do much of anything.

There are some other interesting aspects to Figure 3. As has long been observed, the increase in TSI is faster than the decrease. This leads to the peak occurring early in the cycle. In addition we can see the somewhat flat-topped nature of the cycle, with a shoulder in the red curve occurring a few years after the peak.

Looking back to Figure 2, there is a secondary peak at 147 months (12 years 3 months). Here’s what that longer cycle looks:

cycle length 147 months lean tsiFigure 4. The shape of the 147-month cycle (12 years 3 months) in the Lean TSI data

Here we can see an advantage of the periodicity analysis. We can investigate the difference between the average shapes of the 10+ and the 12+ year cycles. The longer cycles are not just stretched versions of the shorter cycles. Instead, they are double-peaked and have a fairly flat section at the bottom of the cycle.

Now, while that is interesting, my main point in doing the periodicity analysis is this—anything which is driven by variations in TSI will be expected to show a clear periodicity peak at around ten years seven months. 

So let me continue by looking at the periodicity analysis of the HadCRUT4 temperature data. We have that temperature data in monthly form back to 1880. Figure 5 shows the periodicity analysis for the global average temperature:

periodicity analysis hadcrut4 satFigure 5. Periodicity analysis, HadCRUT4 global mean surface air temperatures.

Bad news … there’s no peak at the 127 month period (10 year 7 month, heavy dashed red line) of the variation in solar irradiance. In fact, there’s very little in the way of significant periods at all, except one small peak at about 44 months … go figure.

Next, I thought maybe there would be a signal in the Berkeley Earth land temperature data. The land should be more responsive than the globe, because of the huge heat capacity of the ocean. However, here’s the periodicity analysis of the Berkeley Earth data.

periodicity analysis berkely earthFigure 6. Periodicity analysis, Berkeley Earth global land surface air temperatures. As above, heavy and light red lines show main and secondary TSI periods.

There’s no more of a signal there than there was in the HadCRUT4 data, and in fact they are very similar. Not only do we not see the 10 year 7 month TSI signal or something like it. There is no real cycle of any power at any frequency.

Well, how about the satellite temperatures? Back to the computer … hang on … OK, here’s the periodicity analysis of the global UAH MSU T2LT lower tropospheric temperatures:

periodicity analysis uah msu t2ltFigure 7. Periodicity analysis, MSU satellite global lower troposphere temperature data, 1979-2013. 

Now, at first glance it looks like there is a peak at about 10 years 7 months as in the TSI. However, there’s an oddity of the periodicity analysis. In addition to showing the cycles, periodicity analysis shows the harmonics of the cycles. In this example, it shows the fundamental cycle with a period of 44 months (3 years 8 months). Then it shows the first harmonic (two cycles) of a 44-month cycle as an 88 month cycle. It is lower and broader than the fundamental. It also shows the second harmonic, in this case with a period of 3 * 44 =132 months, and once again this third peak is lower and broader than the second peak. We can confirm the 132 month cycle shown above is an overtone composed of three 44-month cycles by taking a look at the actual shape of the 132 month cycle in the MSU data:

cycle 132 months t2ltFigure 8. 132 month cycle in the MSU satellite global lower troposphere temperature data.

This pattern, of a series of three decreasing peaks, is diagnostic of a second overtone (three periods) in a periodicity analysis. As you can see, it is composed of three 44-month cycles of diminishing size.

So the 132-month peak in the T2LT lower troposphere temperature periodicity analysis is just an overtone of the 44 month cycle, and once again, I can’t find any signal at 10 years 7 months or anything like it. It does make me curious about the nature of the 44-month cycle in the lower tropospheric temperature … particularly since you can see the same 44-month cycle (at a much lower level) in the HadCRUT4 data. However, it’s not visible in the Berkeley Earth data … go figure.  But I digress …

I’m sure you can see the problem in all of this. I’m just not finding anything at 10 years 7 months or anything like that in either surface or satellite lower troposphere temperatures.

I make no claims of exhausting the possibilities by using just these three analyses, of the HadCRUT4, the Berkeley Earth, and the UAH MSU T2LT temperatures. Instead, I use them to make a simple point.

If there is an approximately 11 year solar signal in the temperature records, it is so small that it does not rise above the noise. 

My best wishes to everyone,

w.

PERIODICITY THEORY: The underlying IEEE Transactions paper “Periodicity Transforms” is here.

DATA: As listed in the text

CODE: All the code necessary for this is in a zipped folder here.  At least, I think it’s all there …

USUAL REQUEST: If you disagree with something I said, and yes, hard as it is to believe it’s been known to happen … if so, please quote the exact words you disagree with. That way, everyone can understand your point of reference and your objections.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
293 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael D Smith
April 10, 2014 10:49 pm

“it is so small that it does not rise above the noise”
I love this quote from Pielke Jr:
“My 2¢ on metaphysics: a signal that cannot be seen is indistinguishable from a signal that does not exist”
Classic.

Lance Wallace
April 10, 2014 10:51 pm

Link to IEEE paper didn’t work for me.

Konrad
April 10, 2014 10:57 pm

0.8C of warming in 150 years is only 0.00533C per year. If we wish to find if solar variation can cause that, we will have to wait for solar cycle 25 or later and review data from modern instruments.
There are several plausible explanations of possible solar connections to climate variability, but trying to find 0.00533C per year in “reconstructed TSI” or old thermometer readings from 1880 seems a stretch. The corollary of that is nor can we dismiss the possibility of solar influence on such records.

Lance Wallace
April 10, 2014 10:59 pm

The 2nd harmonic (88 months) looks like it might be there in the HADCRUT4 data as well. Since Roy used HADCRUT3, which might be less diddled with than HADCRUT4, would it be worth looking at?

ren
April 10, 2014 11:07 pm
Dave N
April 10, 2014 11:15 pm

“Polar vortex over the South Pole unabated.”
Wow! That is cool.. thanks!

Admin
April 10, 2014 11:40 pm

Ren doesn’t understand what “off topic” means, just because something is cool, doesn’t give you a license to blurt it out on a totally unrelated thread. Had there not been a comment addressing it already I would have deleted it.
Please folks, use TIPS and NOTES

April 10, 2014 11:42 pm

1) TSI is made up of UV, IR and visible light. How far can we go back with those as separate values?
2) I notice the pre-1950 TSI curves are shorter with more periods that are very low.

Admin
April 11, 2014 12:02 am

Willie Soon claims to have identified a link between solar activity and important temperature metrics. http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate/

BoyfromTottenham
April 11, 2014 12:21 am

Hi from Oz. Interesting analysis (as usual), Willis – thanks. Following up on the comment from sunshinehours1, can you tell me what has the TSI measurement that you used actually measured, in terms of spectral range (width)? Does it include all the solar radiation that might have an effect on global surface temperature, or not (i.e. from the high UV to the low infra-red range, including of course all the visible spectrum). And if not, how much radiation might have been missed by this measure, and what effect might the “missing” energy / insolation have for instance on the sea temperature, noting that (AFAIK) some of the non-visible light spectrum has a far greater heating effect on (sea)water than the visible light spectrum?
Keep up the good work – for us all.
regards, J

Richard
April 11, 2014 12:23 am

Dr Lief Svalgaard has made a new Sunspot series where he has integrated the data from various data sets. He has also made a 21 year Running average of the graph. How well does that running average correlate to the temperature graph?
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png

jorgekafkazar
April 11, 2014 12:26 am

By inspection, TSI is clearly too flat to be a good candidate for temperature correlation. UV, on the other hand, varies much more. A lunar component might also be proposed, since there is a pronounced atmospheric ‘tide.’ Leif claims the thermosphere is too tenuous to have an effect on weather; I’m not so sure. It’s certainly low in density, but it’s thick, and the thickness varies considerably with incoming UV. The odds of a photon escaping from Earth without colliding with an atom or ion in the thermosphere is very small.

Admin
April 11, 2014 12:28 am

Yes, you can play interesting games with sunspots. For example, the following integrates sunspot count using a baseline of 40 – anything below 40 sunspots is considered a “cooling” event. I don’t know how valid it is from a scientific perspective.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise

April 11, 2014 12:36 am

I think this result of Willis is consistent with the claim that the oceans with their immense heat capacity act as heat sinks to average out the annual and sub-decadal temperature variations
I have read the claim that the oceans (PDP, AMO, NAO) “ate the heat” from about year 2000 and will continue to eat the heat during the 30 years or so after 2000 until about 2030.
If we projecting that claim backwards 30 years in time before 2000, the oceans were in their up phase–yielding up the heat to the atmosphere–which would account for the observed global warming between about 1970 to 2000.
The oceans with their immense heat capacity act as heat sinks to average out the annual and sub-decadal temperature variations but the up phase of the 60-year natural cycle from about 1970 to 2000 has been mistaken as a secular increase global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.
I think this explanation is consistent with what Willis shows here and what Kevin Trenberth has offered as an explanation of the “pause”.

eco-geek
April 11, 2014 12:47 am

Please repeat with ocean temperature data. I suspect you may be surprised!

eco-geek
April 11, 2014 1:14 am

Further to the above comment I believe you may see surprisinly short term ocean temperature signals i.e. nothing to do with Frederick Colbourne’s buffering directly although this is doubtless of significant truth.

Kelvin Vaughan
April 11, 2014 1:35 am

I used to work on Tropospheric Scatter radio systems where the radio signal was lost in the background noise. You could clearly see this on a spectrum analyser. We were amazed to see that phase correcting 4 different receivers and combining their signal cancelled out some of the noise but enhanced the signal. You could now see sitting well above the noise.

April 11, 2014 1:50 am

in my greenhouse if the sun comes out its an oven and at night its freezing.so sun effects pretty instant and variable.
if i was looking for sun influence correlations then i would look at earth angle movements, earth sun distances , maybe moon influence, magnetosphere. This would set the the mood within which a lot of other variables would be fitted like volcanoes
in the past space rock hits and close fly bys seem to be the cause the ‘catastrophic’ element in past climate. Sumarians talked of earth being shifted on its axis and earth crust slides eg hudson bay 12,900 years ago, after being hit by debris [and close fly bys of planet sized rocks] from a supernova explosion that they then reported caused a 1000yr winter [ younger dryas].
space rock like the russian 1908 come every 100 years and if it had landed in belgium would have killed everyone in it. So the next one could be a ‘country killer’ if it lands near mass populations.Some say modern civilisation has only a 50 50 chance of making it thro any 100 year space rock hit period. But you can’t tax ‘human caused’ space rock so co2 deathstar is the fashion in the academic beerosphere.
the point being does the earth have a stable climate system that is subject to frequent shocks like space rock and volcanoes that create ‘oscillations’ which take it ages to rediscover the return to the mean? So the effects remain after the cause is long forgotten?
given the melting ice sheets are revealing buried forests then this current warming looks more like a return to the normal mean or at least the warm season in the ice age ‘year’.

charles nelson
April 11, 2014 1:50 am

Could you please detail the locations and the type of equipment used to measure TSI during the 1880s?

tolou
April 11, 2014 1:54 am

No signal? Gimme a break…
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
By just looking at this plot you will notice the solar cycle influence on mean temp.

DonV
April 11, 2014 2:03 am

According to this site the TSI measurement is integrated over the entire solar disc and over the entire spectrum:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
This report came from this website:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
Apparently there are other TSI measuring data sources as well, and apparently they don’t agree with each other as is evident from a plot on Greg Kopp’s web page:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

Katherine
April 11, 2014 2:07 am

What Dr. Roy has done is to “composite” the variations in TSI. This means to stack them one on top of another … and here is where I ran into trouble.
I have to admit I haven’t looked at Dr. Spencer’s article, but when you said he’d “‘composite’ the variations in TSI,” what came to mind was a composite of the variations in UV, IR, and so on.

@njsnowfan
April 11, 2014 2:25 am

There is a big connection between TSI and Global Temps. TSI drives the AMO in turn the AMO drives not only N hem temps and global temps also I find. Seems in the 1970’s they forgot to tamper with the AMO data?
TSI and AMO
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/454549366137561088/photo/1
AMO and Global Temps
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/454550447949217792/photo/1

steverichards1984
April 11, 2014 2:34 am

W: “it is so small that it does not rise above the noise.”
That makes it tricky but not an insurmountable problem.
Have a read of http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890
Where ‘Spread spectrum’ techniques are described.
It is common, (especially with satellite signals) to demodulate signals that are ‘below the noise floor’.
Sounds daft at first but the above link gives an exceptional description of the process.
How does this apply to spotting ‘signals’ in climate records?
As with spread spectrum, you have to know what signal (or pattern or key) you will be receiving so all we need to do is predict what sine waves made up our 100 year data set (f1 + f2 + f3 etc), sum them and check for correlation with the time series, if a poor match then change the sine wave set and repeat.
The chance of hitting on an educated guess giving a good correlation is slim so:
One could envisage thousands of PCs running R scripts, with pseudo random sine wave sets being compared to a time series. With only ‘reasonable’ matches being flagged up, it would take little time from humans.
Perhaps 5 pseudo random frequencies, with pseudo random start points (phase shift) with pseudo random amplitudes,
do
Generate f’s
Sum
Correlate with Ts
Write variable values and correlation value to text file
repeat
After a certain time, grep the text file for values greater than 0.95 or whatever would be helpful for further diagnosis and share with others.

Alan the Brit
April 11, 2014 2:44 am

Even the crazy UNIPCC admit & accept that the Sun drove past climate changes, but irrationally & illogically deny that the Sun has a significant influence on Climate today! I find it somewhat bizarre that the big shiny ball thingamajig in the sky that heats me up when the clouds are away, but cools me down when the clouds are present, possesses 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, is 332900 times the mass of the Earth, is a vast fusion reactor converting hydrogen (the second most abundant element in the Universe) into helium (the first most abundant element in the Universe) its activity can take out power grids, satellites, & communications equipment, & disrupt tv viewing pleasure, doesn’t affect our climate one jot, not even an iota!!!! Strange, very strange! Ho hum.

eco-geek
April 11, 2014 2:46 am

Willis says: “The land should be more responsive than the globe, because of the huge heat capacity of the ocean”
Whereas njsnowfan shows us a chart (short on axis data but I presume temperature – unquantified) showing exactly the short term correlation I predict. This graph in its own right contradicts Willis’s assertion despite this being based on on an obvious and true (implied) heat capacity argument.
In fact the ocean is being very responsive and is heating up and down in synchronicty with the TSI. I cannot see much of a phase lag at all but note the upward trend in temperature underlying the fine structure which I certainly believe is due in part to buffering effect mentioned by others and implied by Willis.
The AMO temperature curve is in sync with the TSI curve in fine detail however this is a correlation. No causality is proved. Indeed the AMO curve in my opinion is not caused by the pitiful TSI variation (as is likely the opinion of most readers of this article). The TSI variation is far too small when quantified to account for the ocean temperature changes.
Thanks to njsnowfan for showing us this curve match I predicted some years ago (but didn’t know the data existed).
So help us out Willis. Do your stuff with the ocean data and if we see a positive result I will tell you all what is going on!

johnmarshall
April 11, 2014 2:50 am

No you do not need to divide the TSI anomaly by 4 because the Earth does not receive it ALL OVER but on a hemisphere because we have day/night cycles. So divide by 2.
Your thinking is FLAT EARTH thinking.

cRR Kampen
April 11, 2014 2:51 am

“The land should be more responsive than the globe, because of the huge heat capacity of the ocean.”
Somewhat true, but actually the solar cycle temp signal will mainly be found (and is found) inside of the tropics. The signal is lost at higher latitudes, much like the EN/SO-signal.

DonV
April 11, 2014 2:57 am

In retrospect, INMHO, Willis periodicity analysis wouldn’t so much care about who was right with respect to a baseline TSI value as this type of analysis sees low frequency and baseline data as one component all the way to the right of the graph. Instead this analysis provides insight about what is happening over time, where the time scale is anything greater than 1 month. As long as the data sets haven’t been fudged up or down with some kind of predetermined periodic data that just happens to be at 10 years 7 months or “averaged” so greatly over vast regions to produce a monthly values that are mush (ie premasticated so as to be devoid of any meaningful taste-bud signal, Berkley’s data?) – then periodicity analysis like Fourier analysis should show up any signal that repeats. Finding such a signal should then prompt the question, What is causing it? Does the sun have it’s own internal “clock”? And analysis of the magnitude of the variability over the “entire spectrum” should also prompt interrogation of why the “spectrum” was integrated, instead of measured at each wavelength to ascertain the true solar irradiance power, and instead of just staring at the sun, perhaps have a look as well at the earths overall outer atmosphere from a distance to watch how solar flux influences the molecules it bombards, and does this then correlate to cloud formation or any other phenomena below etc.
Would someone be so devious as to “fudge” data so that it had periodicity? I don’t think so. But many well meaning folk could so badly masticate data so that any meaningful periodicity was averaged out. So, NOT finding a signal could have meaning, or it could just reflect on how bad the temperature series currently are in there current “post-adjustment” state at giving us any kind of meaningful energy balance information.

April 11, 2014 3:26 am

I’ve given up the TSI –temperature link idea few years ago.
North Atlantic SST ( AMO )and the 350 year long CET record are by no means metric of what the rest of the globe is/was doing at the time. However they may help understand possible input from the natural variability, Maximum insolation months Jun + July have near zero trend, while the minimum insolation months December (Y-1) + January(Y) have the strongest uptrend. Graphs includes relevant periodgrams.
One could speculate for reasons, but this would be OT. Climate science is fun.

D. Cohen
April 11, 2014 3:43 am

i remember decades ago back in grad school coming across articles about how sunspots affected the weather, using data claiming that wheat prices in 19th century England correlated with the 11 year sunspot cycle. Sure enough, this stuff can still be found on line. The correlation of the sunspot cycle to wheat prices in the middle ages is discussed here
http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031215/full/news031215-12.html
and an analysis of sorts of modern data is here
http://time-price-research-astrofin.blogspot.com/2012/07/tom-mcclellan-sunspot-cycle-vs-grain.html
It wouldn’t have to be temperature changes affecting the wheat crop. It could be something reacting to keep the temperature from changing — for example, more clouds and rain in response to a rise in sunshine, (already suggested and analyzed in earlier posts here by the author W. Eschenbach)
I have also sometimes wondered whether investigators calculating the TSI have taken proper account of how the time-averaged, effective size of the sun could change over the sunspot cycle as more (and larger) or fewer (and smaller) solar prominences erupt from the sun’s edge. Each solar prominence seen edge-on from the earth would contribute just that much more to the solar radiation reaching the earth — and a similar thing could be happening with more or fewer hot particles being ejected into the solar wind. I think this effect would be very difficult to measure accurately, and of course it wouldn’t have to be a very big effect to change by multiple tenths of a percent the solar radiation reaching the earth over the solar cycle.

Layman Lurker
April 11, 2014 5:51 am

If there is an approximately 11 year solar signal in the temperature records, it is so small that it does not rise above the noise.

I think it makes sense that global temp is not a direct linear response to solar variability. But global temp should reflect energy imbalance which is ultimately about how the system captures and releases energy from the sun. Because of ocean inertia and other climate system properties, I seriously doubt that the ebbs and flows of (solar) energy imbalance is a linear process.

April 11, 2014 6:51 am

Eric Worrall says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:28 am
Yes, you can play interesting games with sunspots. For example, the following integrates sunspot count using a baseline of 40 – anything below 40 sunspots is considered a “cooling” event. I don’t know how valid it is from a scientific perspective.
I don’t think it is valid, especially not the free parameter 40. What would make sense, perhaps, is to use the overall mean as the base, then you get this: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Integral.png

beng
April 11, 2014 6:53 am

Thanks, Willis — easy to understand. Interesting about the seeming ~44 month periodicity. Some kind of ENSO effect?
One might assume that the 10.7 yr TSI variance is simply too small to have an effect.

@njsnowfan
April 11, 2014 6:57 am

This is a very good read that Joe D’Aleo wrote, I found awhile ago, Has info on TSI.
Solar Changes and Climate.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Chap10Elsevier.pdf

lgl
April 11, 2014 7:03 am

Not so fast Willis
Others have done this more accurately and found peaks close to 10, 11 and 12 years, very close to your Best and UAH.
http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Report.pdf

April 11, 2014 7:23 am

” Since Roy used HADCRUT3, which might be less diddled with than HADCRUT4, would it be worth looking at?”
How about the CET temperatures in that case?

lgl
April 11, 2014 7:30 am

Leif
Or we could use a 200 yrs sliding window for the integral, remember?
http://virakkraft.com/Loehle-temps-Steinhilber-integral.png

commieBob
April 11, 2014 7:49 am

So the 132-month peak in the T2LT lower troposphere temperature periodicity analysis is just an overtone of the 44 month cycle,

Here’s the Wikipedia definition of an overtone:

An overtone is any frequency higher than the fundamental frequency of a sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

The 44 month signal has a higher frequency than the 132 month signal. (frequency = 1 / period) Thus the 132 month signal is, by definition, not an overtone of the higher frequency 44 month signal.
The term you were probably looking for is undertone (or subharmonic). In my experience, in unamplified systems, subharmonics are usually a lot weaker that their fundamental frequencies. In that light, the 44 month signal is more likely to be a harmonic of the 132 month signal.
Other possibilities:
1 – both signals are harmonics of another, lower frequency, signal
2 – one or both signals are bogus and are products of the analysis
I’m not familiar with periodicity analysis and don’t know what kind of pitfalls it presents. Fourier Analysis suffers from things like aliasing and spectral leakage. I would be surprised if periodicity analysis doesn’t suffer from something similar.

April 11, 2014 8:03 am

lgl says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:30 am
Or we could use a 200 yrs sliding window for the integral, remember?
That would be yet another free parameter. I’m sure we could find more and thus drive the correlation to any degree of ‘significance’.

Retired Engineer John
April 11, 2014 8:03 am

Willis, this is an interesting analysis. I am sitting here thinking about what it means. When the Sun is at Solar Maximum, there is approximately a 6 percent increase in ultraviolet radiation. The total TSI increases only .1 percent; so there is reduction in mid frequency radiation. It would appear that sunspots with their much lower temperature, several thousand degrees lower, combined with the fact that the radiation generated varies with the fourth power of the absolute temperature shifts their radiation to lower frequencies and emits smaller amounts. The power generation of the Sun does not slow down and the energy must find other places to escape. The probable areas are the plaque areas on the Sun. These hot white areas radiate the energy blocked by the Sunspots at a higher frequency. In short, the spectrum of the Sun changes and the energy contained in the wavelengths that are absorbed by the substances whose temperatures you are analyzing could actually be decreasing. Just thinking.

April 11, 2014 8:05 am

lgl says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:03 am
Others have done this more accurately and found peaks close to 10, 11 and 12
Willis found those same peaks for the SSN; they are simply the result of the long 100-yr period]. They are not there for the temperature.

Retired Engineer John
April 11, 2014 8:21 am

Another factor, when you look at Bob Tisdale’s temperature charts, the Ocean temperatures appear to change in discrete steps, not in a smooth manner, that your analysis would require.

RobR
April 11, 2014 8:28 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
lsvalgaard says:
I think this one to one mapping of TSI or Sunspots to temperature could be missing something. As long as the Sunspot activity stays within some band the whole chaotic climate system just sort of chugs noisily along, but if Sunspot activity either remains below or exceeds the band over a protracted period the climate changes. The recent warming may have occurred during a period where sunspots were greater than average. While there are reconstructions of Sunspot numbers going back millennia, we only have observations of 22 complete cycles starting at the end of the Little Ice Age. Our temperature data is pretty much limited to the same period.
I think we can safely say the Little Ice Age happened as there is just too much evidence to reason otherwise. So…how could it happen?
Either the Sun done it, the Clouds done it or the Oceans done it or they all contrived together to do it.
I think we can rule out the Oceans as the sole cause because they would need to stuff heat down for 350 years and while I guess it is possible for the NAO to stay negative for that long, it is unlikely and the LIA would have only been regional.
So by my reckoning Total Solar Radiation decreased, Albedo increased or there was a combination of the two. From what I’ve read from Leif and others it seems to me that over the long trek the photons make through the Sun they should be pretty homogenized, meaning Total Solar Radiation is probably constant over millennial timescales. So as Sherlock says whatever is left, that being Albedo, done it. So whatever caused the change in Albedo, be it GCR’s , Volcanos, Unicorns or Space Aliens flying rice sized ships, if we can solve that riddle, I think we will be on our way to predicting climate changes into the future. My best guess is that somehow low sunspot counts over protracted periods increase the Albedo of the Earth, ….somehow.

April 11, 2014 8:37 am

Thanks, Willis. Very good analysis.
I will ponder its consequences in my overall view of the possible influences on climate.

pochas
April 11, 2014 9:08 am

From a comment I posted on Dave Stockwell’s blog back in 2011.

This is what I found when I plotted integrated sunspot number against satellite TLT temperatures some time ago. At time I wasn’t aware of the phase lag relationship.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk145/pochas_2008/Sunspot_Model.jpg
I had to lag the model temperatures by 36 months to make the solar influence visually evident.  Of course, signals from ENSO and volcanism are present as well, and can dominate.  Now that I know that the correct lag is 11 * 12  / 4 = 33 months, I take credit for a good guess!”

This quarter-cycle phase lag relationship is well known to EEs and signal processing experts.

pochas
April 11, 2014 9:15 am

OOPS! Armagh temperatures not satellite temperatures.

lgl
April 11, 2014 9:15 am

Leif
Willis found those same peaks for the SSN; they are simply the result of the long 100-yr period]. They are not there for the temperature.
That’s three sentences and three errors, congrats.
Willis did not find those same peaks, one of them is at 9 years. The 100-yr modulation is just speculation, (and wrong because the sidebands are not symmetrical and not of the same amplitude) and there are indeed periods around 10, 11 and 12 years in the Best and UAH data.

Duster
April 11, 2014 9:23 am

jorgekafkazar says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:26 am
By inspection, TSI is clearly too flat to be a good candidate for temperature correlation. UV, on the other hand, varies much more. A lunar component might also be proposed, since there is a pronounced atmospheric ‘tide.’ Leif claims the thermosphere is too tenuous to have an effect on weather; I’m not so sure. It’s certainly low in density, but it’s thick, and the thickness varies considerably with incoming UV. The odds of a photon escaping from Earth without colliding with an atom or ion in the thermosphere is very small.

This may be very pertinent. Satellites are affected by thermosphere changes since a hotter states results in expansion and thus more drag on satellites placed in Low Earth Orbit. Cooling has the opposite effect. I’ve heard through grapevine sources that the last few years have seen unexpectedly low requirements for orbital correction maneuvers, meaning the “pause” has had genuine economic effects. Less maneuvering means that the satellite can remain in service longer before it ceases to be maintainable.

Frank
April 11, 2014 9:30 am

One could start with the basics. If we look at solar changes purely as a radiative forcing of 0.15 W/m2 (0.044%), one can calculate a no-feedbacks temperature change of 0.028 degK (using dW/W = 4*(dT/T). Multiple this whatever feedback amplification you prefer: The IPCC’s preferred value for TCR 1.8 degC is 1.5X greater than a no-feedbacks climate sensitivity of 1.2 degC, whereas Nic Lewis’s preferred TCR of 1.3 degC represents essentially no amplification. (For cycles of 11 years, TCR is a more appropriate metric than ECS.) From a purely forcing perspective, the amplitude of the temperature response to TSI forcing is likely to be about 0.03-0.05 degK.
Anyone proposing or finding changes bigger than this is looking for a mechanism that isn’t purely dependent on the change in total energy reaching the earth. The amplitude of the change in UV (about 10%) with the solar cycle is far greater than the amplitude of the TSI change (0.04%) and the change at even higher energies is greater – but these high energies don’t penetrate to the troposphere. The mechanism of their effect must be indirect. Trying to detect these indirect effects using TSI data reported units of W/m2 appears somewhat dubious, when we already know that radiant energy alone can’t produce large changes in temperature. Looking for correlations with some other proxy for solar activity besides TSI (sun spot number, C14, Be10, ?) might be more fruitful.

Mario Lento
April 11, 2014 9:35 am

Willis, writes:
What Dr. Roy has done is to “composite” the variations in TSI. This means to stack them one on top of another … and here is where I ran into trouble.
I couldn’t figure out how he split up the TSI data to stack them, because the cycles have different lengths.
++++++++++
I’m at work, but found this post’s introduction of interest. I look forward to reading it more thoroughly later on, so my input could be moot or incorrect.
It sounds like Roy integrated the rate of TSI over time. In controls, when we integrate, we add up rates over a millisecond time frame so we capture at that level of precision, the accumulation of the rate. So the sample changes from a rate to an accumulation of that rate, or the integral. Thus if we integrate power over time, we get energy. If we integrate speed, we get distance. I hope my input is not insulting, but if this is what was done, readers might find my post of interest.
Kindest regards,
Mario AKA fanboy 🙂

April 11, 2014 9:36 am

Willis
There is a paper by Dan Pangburn : The Time-Integral of Solar Activity explains Global Temperatures 1610-2012, not CO2
Calculated Mean Global Temperatures 1610-2012
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-time-integral-of-solar-activity.html
This paper considers the effects of solar magnetic cycles on long term ocean heat flux and ocean surface temperature oscillations. This takes into account the total solar effect – UV flux and frequency changes during cycles, ozone production and destruction and solar proton flow that affects ozone heating, hence surface pressures and of course through cosmic ray flux low level cloud formation:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/climate-disaster-declining-rainfall-rising-sea-levels/
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/06_projekter/isac/wp501b.pdf
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-paper-corroborates-solar-cosmic-ray.html
Since it is recognized that global land temperatures largely reflect ocean surface temperatures and ocean heat capacity through heat distribution via the atmosphere and ocean currents this approach that ignores the deficiencies of the land series makes more sense. I would be interested in your take on the paper.

April 11, 2014 9:40 am

Nice work Willis.
people should do the following thought experiment.
Look at figure 1.
Imagine that Willis had labelled that C02.
Then imagine he had claimed that he could find no c02 effect in the temperature data.
would you accept this result.
Now lets look at the twists and turns. First lets look at them schematically
A) Theory “X” influences the climate.
B) hypothesis, if “X” influences the climate and “X” has property “Y” ( a peak at 11 years)
Then we should find “Y” in the climate.
C:test.
we look for “Y” in the climate and dont find it
D: interpretation
I’ll use this example to make the argument Ive made many times before. Nothing compels us to
“falsify” a theory. Step D is not a logical step or mathematically determined. It is an interpretation
step. It’s governed by pragmatics .
Here are some choices.
1. Falsify the theory?
2. you need to use a different method
3. you need to look at different data sets/ adjust data etc
4. you need to look for different effects in the climate/
5. its too small to see we will have to wait.
6. Stop investigating the theory, chances of it being true are low
Note that there is Nothing in math or logic that dictates what you should do ( 1 through 6)
It a choice. a pragmatic choice.
Folks looking for a big solar influence are wasting their time. That’s a pragmatic choice.

The other Ren
April 11, 2014 9:53 am

After looking at the off-topic antarctic polar vortex graphic and the D’Aleo paper posted, plus the other comments, with all the feedbacks in place can you really expect a peak anywhere?
My guess are trend changes at best. Changes in UV and solar wind result in changes in ozone and cloud formations which changes wind and frozen precipitation patterns which changes ocean temps which changes jet stream patterns which .. you get the drift. Throw in the thermal inertia of the oceans and it make it worse.
I know the intent of the article was to prove/disprove a statement by Roy Spencer and Willis presented his methodology and findings in his usual easy read and understand method. But if you are heating a large pot of water on the stove and turn the heat down suddenly, the water temperature in the pot will slowly cool. Turn the heat back up and it will slowly warm. I see peaks in the heat going in, but curves in the results.

April 11, 2014 9:53 am

wow.
I should have read all the excuses before I did my comments.
folks seem to be saying.. Forget feynman…….
What ever you do Willis, dont falsify the theory.. dont do that!!!
forget Feynman, forget Popper…
Instead…
is your data good, look at hadcrut3, look at land, look at ocean, look at CET, arrggg
look at lake levels, look at stream flows, look look look find that 11 years somewhere..
find that unicorn..
is your method right? oh use a different method, use method x, scale by z, integrate the signal,
detrend, then integrate, transform, flip, stretch… find that 11 year signal..it has to be there…
dont look at TSI, look at UV.. look here, look there, look everywhere
Here is the clue folks. When you believe it has to be the sun, there is NO END to where you can look and how you can look.
No end.
No mathematical end,
no logical end.
You can look for unicorns forever.
and the longer you look the higher your chance of finding a spurious result.
if your goal is actually understanding things.. you’d note that the sun supplies the power. the power doesnt vary much.. and you’d look at something else to explain the changes.

April 11, 2014 9:55 am

I think we can safely say the Little Ice Age happened as there is just too much evidence to reason otherwise. So…how could it happen?
Either the Sun done it, the Clouds done it or the Oceans done it or they all contrived together to do it.
###############
sun + volcanos is the standard theory. it works.

Don Easterbrook
April 11, 2014 9:57 am

“If there is an approximately 11 year solar signal in the temperature records, it is so small that it does not rise above the noise.”
Willis’s usual masterful analysis of TSI vs temperature quantifies long-held conclusions that variations in TSI are too small to correlate with global temperature changes. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should forget about solar variation related to global temperature. It isn’t mere coincidence that global cool periods correlate so well with times of low sunspot incidence (e.g., Maunder, Dalton, 1895-1915, 1945-1977 among others). The 11-year periodicity doesn’t correlate well with global temperature, but the number of sunspots in each cycle correlates very well.
Also interesting is the very good correlation of 10Be and 14C concentrations with sunspot number, which tells us that 10Be and 14C production rates in the upper atmosphere (which depend on radiation flux) are dancing in tune with solar variation and global temperature.
So my question, Willis, is what do the numbers show if you plot numbers of sunspots in each cycle with global temperature, rather than the periodicity?

Mario Lento
April 11, 2014 10:00 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:40 am
…Folks looking for a big solar influence are wasting their time. That’s a pragmatic choice.
++++++++
Do you really conclude that the sun does not have a big influence on our climate? Riddle me this: What is the most influential source of energy that warms our planet?
I submit that the argument is whether or not relatively small changes in measured TSI could result in slightly higher variations in temperature of a complex system.

April 11, 2014 11:03 am

Steven Mosher says (elsewhere):
……… magic undetectable fairy dust (that) controls the temperature?
Not exactly, but close enough, it’s the flutter of its wings ; see bottom right hand corner,

April 11, 2014 11:11 am

“Do you really conclude that the sun does not have a big influence on our climate? Riddle me this: What is the most influential source of energy that warms our planet?”
1. the sun supplies all the energy.
2. the variations in that power are small.
3. these variations do not influence the CLIMATE
4. climate is the long term average of weather.
There are exceptions. when we look over really long periods you will find evidence that orbital changes do influence the climate and that the faint young sun does as well.
But to the actual point. The changes from 1850 to today are not solar driven
A) the variations are small relative to the changes
B) there is no coherence between the TSI record and the temperature ( which is just PART OF the climate)
C) If you want to identify the cause of the change in temperature, you need to look at something else.
what is not a cause.
1. natural variation. natural variation doesnt explain natural variation.
2. ocean cycles. ocean cycles describe patterns in data they do not ’cause’
a good candidate for study?
well the intuition that the sun is the main cause is good one. the sun supplies the power received.
does anything else cause forcing or change forcing or modulate forcing.
yes: the atmosphere and what it is made of

RobR
April 11, 2014 11:16 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:55 am
” sun + volcanos is the standard theory. it works.”
Volcano: I do not thinks so, a big one would need to have gone off every couple of years for 350 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/volcanoes-erupt-again/
Sun: This post is saying no.

Bart
April 11, 2014 11:31 am

“I’m sure you can see the problem in all of this. I’m just not finding anything at 10 years 7 months or anything like that in either surface or satellite lower troposphere temperatures.”
You don’t hear the carrier signal on your AM radio either. If you hypothesize that the Earth’s climate response is dominated by processes with very long time constants, then that could be effectively what is happening – the 11 year “carrier” is filtered out, and you get the “signal” which is carried in the envelope of the rectified carrier.
However, there is another possibility. To appreciably affect the climate, you might hypothesize that you need to get substantial ocean mixing to store up the heat. That would suggest that perhaps the additional solar heating would be modulated by the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis.
The Earth’s spin axis undergoes forced nutation, mostly from lunar influences, with a period of about 18.6 years. The radius of that motion varies in roughly a 3:2 ratio with a period of about half that at 9.3 years. Modulate an 11 year influence with a 9.3 year one, and you get periods of
T1 = 11*9.3/(11+9.3) = 5 years
T2 = 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years
These are, roughly speaking, evident in the data. I discuss this all here.

RobR
April 11, 2014 11:40 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:08 am
“Folks, “science by assertion” doesn’t work with me. If you want to make some claim like Rob’s claim, that the climate changes if sunspots go above or below a certain (unspecified) limit, you need more than your mouth to back that claim up.”
Wow, rereading it does seems I was making the assertion, but I didn’t mean to. I meant to state it as a plausibility. The Maunder minimum which likely had few sunspots occurred during the middle of the LIA. Some have attributed recent warming to above normal sun activity for the last few cycles. So I think the possibility exists and is plausible. Detailed observations really only exist from after the LIA, so proof is unlikely but its seems the plausibility might temper concluding (not putting words in anyone’s mouth) sunspot activity has little effect on climate.

Max Hugoson
April 11, 2014 11:54 am

steverichards1984 —-
Steve: I went and read the IEEE paper. It’s PRIMO! Written so that someone with a 30 year old, EE signal theory background, could really understand it. The implications of this are ASTOUNDING in many ways. It says MANY THINGS identified as NOISE could have intelligence in them.
Holy Cow! The right band spread signal, injected…say on “Heavy Metal Music” and you could have Beethoven’s 9th..Or, better yet, you could extract value from “Nightly News”.
The possibilities (and the satire) are endless!

lgl
April 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Willis
I said others, in that case Svalgaard and Scafetta. From the pdf:
Svalgaard Scafetta (Years)
10.04 9.99 Figure 3
10.92 10.91 Figure 3
11.92 11.87 Figure 3

Editor
April 11, 2014 12:03 pm

RobR
We do have pretty good records back to 1659 with Central England Temperature which I have extended to 1538 here;
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/11.jpg
I remain an agnostic about sunspots but it is plausible as some of the solar minimums do coincide with low temperatures. I am currently reconstructing the record to 1200AD and initial indications appear to be that we can infill the period 1500 to 1538 as being pretty warm with the fifty years before that being more unsettled and colder. This century long period overlaps with the Sporer minimum so it would appear to contain a notably warm AND a notably cold period!
Solar activity is not my field but its an interesting subject and hopefully the extended record might give us some more clues as to how the climate is affected by sunspots.
Incidentally it is quite noticeable in the historic record that at times the Aurora Borealis is seen a lot even in Southern Britain, whilst for the vast majority of the time it can’t be seen from this latitude. Presumably that would correlate with solar activity.
I am very dubious about the long term effect of volcanos though. The big ones appear to have an impact for a season or two, other than that the historic record shows their emissions as being lost in the noise
tonyb

April 11, 2014 12:28 pm

tonyb says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm
………..
Your “long thaw from LIA to year 2000” axiom appears to be remarkably appropriate to the CET winter temperatures (see link in my graph, post further above).
Solar is in there, but indirectly and a way around, so it gets lost in the noisy crowd of ‘wannabes’.
Bart says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:31 am
T2 = 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years
Ahh, yes as Dr. Svalgaard would say “numerology”
60 year cycle in the AMO and in the N. Hemisphere, is what one might call an illusion, due to the short length of the data set. In the much longer CET records, which well correlate with NHT, there are two distinct periodicities of about 55 and 68 and possibly 90 years. Spectral analysis can’t separate them clearly in the shorter data sets such as the AMO, but produces a spectral envelope of these frequencies (see link in my post above – magenta line).
In addition, the spectrum of the NA. tectonics data appears to correlate closely.
It is rather premature to announce death of the 60 year cycle, but from here it looks to be in very poor health.

Steven
April 11, 2014 12:38 pm

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this but there was a recent claim of sunspot integral correlating well with temp record: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-time-integral-of-solar-activity.html

Richard
April 11, 2014 12:39 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm
“Are you talking about a scatterplot of HadCRUt4 temperature vs. sunspot count? ”
What about http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/2006_temp_anom.gif
or earlier
With this: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png

April 11, 2014 12:42 pm

“Thanks, Steven. I dealt with the “volcanoes caused the Little Ice Age” claim in my post “Dronning Maud Meets the Little Ice Age“. Short answer? Ice core data says volcanoes had nothing to do with it.”
Sorry Willis, not buying anything you wrote.

Bart
April 11, 2014 12:51 pm

vukcevic says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm
‘Ahh, yes as Dr. Svalgaard would say “numerology”’
He probably would. But, that would be incorrect. Here, there is an actual, plausible physical mechanism involved.

Richard
April 11, 2014 1:00 pm

Steven says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm
.. a recent claim of sunspot integral correlating well with temp record: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-time-integral-of-solar-activity.html
Interesting

ren
April 11, 2014 1:08 pm

vukcevic says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:03 am
Steven Mosher says (elsewhere):
……… magic undetectable fairy dust (that) controls the temperature?
Not exactly, but close enough, it’s the flutter of its wings ; see bottom right hand corner,
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

Richard
April 11, 2014 1:33 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:51 pm
This throttle is the tropical clouds. They change the amount of incoming energy by hundreds of watts per square metre, not the pansy-arsed 0.6 W/m2 variation we get from TSI or the wimpy 1.2 W/m2 increase we’ve seen over the 20th century from CO2.
And the tropical clouds in turn are thermally regulated, meaning that the warmer it gets the more clouds you get. A few moments reflection shows that this kind of throttle linkage is theoretically sufficient to keep the temperature of the earth within narrow bounds (e.g. a temperature variation of only ± 0.3°C over the 20th century).

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:19 pm
..One feature of the system I hypothesize is that it is robust against variations in forcing.
While it maybe robust against warming, it may not be equally robust against cooling.

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 1:39 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/
Dr. Vincent Courtillot points out that total solar irradiance only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% & that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. Hence the variation in UV is 100 times greater than in TSI. Dr. Svalgaard counters that this is still not much energy relative to TSI & adds that he doesn’t like Courtillot’s data handling.
As some have argued on this blog, the small variation in UV could have outsized effects high in the atmosphere in ways not adequately studied yet, such as creating CCNs. Ways in which such a possible influence ultimately affects the climate system might not be immediately obvious in climatic data, without more & better data & the breakdown & analysis thereof, such as effects in regions or at times typically low in CCNs.
Maybe a better place to make this comment might have been in the recent post on Svensmark’s solar magentism modulated GCR-CCN hypothesis, but IMO it applies here as well.

Bart
April 11, 2014 1:41 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Here” refers to the post above, in which the plausible physical mechanism was put forward.

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 1:48 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Which is why more data are needed. IMO only then can solar UV & magnetic flux be ruled out as important influences on climate. The required data are lacking.

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 1:50 pm

PS: Courtillot’s analysis does show a strong solar influence, although as noted Svalgaard thinks that his data handling exaggerates the correlation.

Don Easterbrook
April 11, 2014 1:58 pm

Willis,
Sorry—I should have been more specific. I wasn’t thinking of a scatterplot of HadCRUt4 temperature vs. sunspot count. I was thinking of plotting temperature data older than HadCrut4 against time, then plotting sunspot incidence for the same time period, and overlaying the two plots to see if they correlate. This has been done in a general way (e.g., the Maunder and Dalton), but the time scales aren’t very detailed or don’t go back far enough in time (at least not the ones I’ve seen). In order to get better temperature/time resolution I used the original oxygen isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland core and temperatures from the CET record. The original data has plenty of data points so you can choose your own level of detail. Both the GISP2 ice core and the CET show times of significant cooling that correspond to the historical record. Overlaying these plots on a sunspot/time plot for the same time periods shows a remarkable correlation, even for less pronounced temperature variations. The same is true for the Hoyt/Shatten TSI data. Others have published a variety of correlations (see for example, the one by Dan Pangburn referred to in comments), but don’t go back far enough in time.
So why am I asking you this question? What I’m looking for is better resolution than what you see in the published literature and with your phenomenal knack for digging up data, thought you might have a better handle on this.
Don

eco-geek
April 11, 2014 2:24 pm

Willis,
I think I see what you mean. I took the graph in good faith OK I imagined axis values but that seemed fair in context -although it was a little too perfect come to think of it – apart from the short cycles of course. In my interpretation it does contradict what you say but fairly you query what “it” is I should have looked with a more critical eye but the quacks just told me I am going blind and I can barely read the screen already.
eco-geek

Bart
April 11, 2014 2:29 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm
I do not know how you can fail to understand what I have explained. But, it has been obvious for a long time that you do not understand basic signal processing concepts. And, then you compound your ignorance with a bunch of snark. Which is why I generally avoid your posts.
Be that way. Not worth any more of my time…

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 2:43 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm
IMO there are data supportive of an important influence, although discounted by Dr. Svalgaard, ie the Maunder & Dalton Minima. There is also experimental evidence, in that cosmic rays have been shown to create CCNs. To confirm the effect on climate, a long term study of regions in which the formation of clouds is limited by CCN number is called for, IMO.

Steve from Rockwood
April 11, 2014 3:02 pm

There is a lot of calculatus eliminatus going on in the climate science world. Is it in the oceans? No. Mark that F2-104. Is it in the sun spots? No. Make that one million and three. How about the volcanoes? No? Mark that two dozen and four. To find out what is warming the earth you must find out what is not!

Tom in Florida
April 11, 2014 3:03 pm

milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“Dr. Vincent Courtillot points out that total solar irradiance only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% & that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. Hence the variation in UV is 100 times greater than in TSI. ”
=========================================================================
Please help me understand. TSI varies 0.1% and UV makes up about 10% of the TSI and is already included in the 0.1% TSI variance , wouldn’t that mean UV only accounts for 0.01% of the total variance?

April 11, 2014 3:05 pm

Thanks Willis. Lots of information here.

brantc
April 11, 2014 3:17 pm

The Role of the Solar Cycle in the Relationship Between the North Atlantic Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures
“The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is one of the leading modes of climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. It has been shown that it clearly relates to changes in meteorological variables, such as surfacetemperature, at hemispherical scales. However, recent studies have revealed that the NAO spatial patternalso depends upon solar forcing. Therefore, its effects on meteorological variables must vary depending upon this factor. Moreover, it could be that the Sun affects climate through variability patterns, a hypothesis that is the focus of this study. We find that the relationship between the NAO/AO and hemispheric temperature varies depending upon solar activity. The results show a positive significant correlation only when solar activity is high. Also, the results support the idea that solar activity influences tropospheric climate fluctuations in the Northern Hemisphere via the fluctuations of the stratospheric polar vortex.”
http://ephyslab.uvigo.es/publica/documents/file_17418-The%20role%20of%20the%20solar%20cycle%20on%20the%20NAO%20signature%20in%20NH%20surface%20temperature-AAS-2007.pdf

Matthew R Marler
April 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Willis Eschenbach: I read the start and couldn’t make heads or tails of it. For example, perhaps one or the other of you gentlemen could shed some light on this statement:
I couldn’t follow it either. I hope he rewrites it to make better sense.
Also, I liked your responses to Steven Mosher. You might be right.
Good job.

April 11, 2014 3:27 pm

I didn’t remember doing a post on this…so I went back and read it. Sure sounds like my writing. But I still don’t remember it very well. Jeez, I’m getting old. Must have been one of my 1-day studies. 🙂

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 3:33 pm

Tom in Florida says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Total TSI varies by 0.1%, but variation in solar UV is 10%, so relatively more of the variation is from that part of the spectrum than from other parts of TSI. These aren’t actual numbers, but give you the idea:
Low end of the cycle: 1 part UV + 1000.1 parts visible, IR, etc = TSI of 1001.1
High end of the cycle: 1.1 parts UV + 1000.11 parts other = TSI of 1001.21
While UV varies by 10%, the rest of the spectrum varies very little. UV varies a lot more than the rest of the solar spectrum.

Tom in Florida
April 11, 2014 3:40 pm

milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:33 pm
“Total TSI varies by 0.1%, but variation in solar UV is 10%, so relatively more of the variation is from that part of the spectrum than from other parts of TSI. These aren’t actual numbers, but give you the idea:
Low end of the cycle: 1 part UV + 1000.1 parts visible, IR, etc = TSI of 1001.1
High end of the cycle: 1.1 parts UV + 1000.11 parts other = TSI of 1001.21
While UV varies by 10%, the rest of the spectrum varies very little. UV varies a lot more than the rest of the solar spectrum.”
==========================================================================
So 10% of squat is still squat, right?

April 11, 2014 4:07 pm

BTW, Willis, you make a good point that the total temperature signal contained in the 11 year cycle is very small, so whatever signal we deduce could just be coincidental. I think I alluded to this in my post, too.

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 4:23 pm

Tom in Florida says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Not necessarily. It could be big. Nature loves threshold effects, & small changes can make large differences. The state of H2O changes at 32 degrees F, for instance.
When you consider that the sun brightens just one percent every ~110 million years, that 10% amounts to a substantial variation over years to decades, especially as UV rays are more energetic than visible or IR light.
Or consider that a change of one degree C amounts to just 0.35% of our planet’s average T.
If for instance, ozone, the production of which in the stratosphere is mainly by UVC, were to vary 10% over an 11 year cycle, the affect on earth’s climate could be substantial.

April 11, 2014 4:33 pm

Roy Spencer says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I didn’t remember doing a post on this…so I went back and read it. Sure sounds like my writing. But I still don’t remember it very well. Jeez, I’m getting old. Must have been one of my 1-day studies. 🙂
Dr. Spencer
Not to despair, not all is lost. Fig.2 shows peak at 10 year 7 months, solar magnetic (Hale) cycle is about 21.2 years.
I did
this graph
couple of years ago, it looks convincing.
You were nearly there.

A Crooks of Adelaide
April 11, 2014 4:49 pm

Sorry to come in so late but here is the 3.75 and 7.5 year cycles that I picked out in the satelite data!
best seen in the small trough at 3.75 big trough at 7.5 repeat.
Should be a big trough low coming up in 2016

A Crooks of Adelaide
April 11, 2014 4:56 pm

To summarise, the global temperature anomaly graph can be characterised by
combining three simple formulae:
A = 0.18*SIN(((YEAR-1993)/60)*2*3.14159)+0.2
B = 0.1*COS(((YEAR-1982)/7.5)*2*3.14159
C = 0.25*COS(((YEAR -1980)/3.75)*2*3.14159
The overarching trend is a sixty year cycle: = A
The moving 20-month average adds a 7.5 year cycle attenuated by the truncation of
the positive peaks of the 7.5 year cycle : = A + (IF B>0, 0, ELSE = B)
The monthly average combines a 7.5 year cycle with a 3.75 year cycle (i.e. twice the
7.5 year cycle) to capture the pattern where every second trough in the 3.75 year COS
function is significantly deeper the others : = A + (3/4) * B + C
I use http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif
as my source for temp data
Cheers

Don Easterbrook
April 11, 2014 8:55 pm

Looking at TSI as a cause of global temperature probably isn’t going to get anywhere. As Svensmark has pointed out, the sun’s magnet field shields the Earth from cosmic radiation and when the sun’s magnetic field diminishes, more radiation penetrates the atmosphere where ionization induces nucleation of condensation. The resulting cloudiness changes the albedo and results in atmospheric cooling. Low sunspot numbers are indications of reduced solar magnetic fields, which lead to increased cloudiness on Earth. More clouds equals cooling. So to get at the sun’s role in global climate, we need to look for evidence of low solar magnetic fields and increased cosmic radiation. This can be done by looking at production rates of 10Be and 14C in the atmosphere, both of which are controlled by cosmic ray flux. High cosmic ray flux rates increases the rates of production of both of these isotopes, and 10Be and 14C concentrations can be measured in ice cores and CaCO3 cave deposits.
10Be has been measured in ice cores dating back to the 1400s and guess what? 10Be increases sharply at the Wolf Solar Minimum, the Sporer Solar Minimum, the Maunder Solar Minimum, the Dalton Solar Minimum, the 1880-1915 cool period. Plotting sunspot numbers on the same graph shows that each of these spikes in atmospheric 10Be production corresponds to periods of low sunspot numbers.
Measurement of δ14C and δ18O/16O in calcium carbonate cave deposits from about 6500 to 8,300 years ago shows a similar correspondence between radiocarbon and temperature. The δ14C and δ18O/16O curves match so well it’s like they are dancing in step to the same music.
In more recent times, the cool period from 1945 to 1977 occurred during a period of much diminished flux density.
So the progression is the declining solar magnet field removes shielding of the Earth from cosmic radiation and the increased radiation leads to ionization and nucleation of clouds, which reflect solar energy and cooling. Documenting this progression in the past can be made by 10Be and 14C measurements from ice cores and cave deposits.
Sound like a smoking gun?
Don

milodonharlani
April 11, 2014 8:59 pm

Don Easterbrook says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:55 pm
What he said.

Richard
April 11, 2014 9:22 pm

@Willis Eschenbach “The average cyclical swing in TSI over the period of record is 0.6 W/m2. Note that to calculate the equivalent 24/7 average insolation on the earth’s surface you need to divide the W/m2 values by 4. This means that Dr. Roy and others are looking for a temperature signal from a fluctuation in downwelling solar of .15 W/m2 over a decade … and the signal-to-noise ratio on that is frankly depressing. This is the reason for all of the interest in “amplifying” mechanisms such as cosmic ray variations, since the change in TSI itself is too small to do much of anything.”
What do you mean by a downwelling of 0.15 W/m2 over a decade? 0.15 W/m2 multiplied by a decade is a hell of a lot – so maybe you mean something else?
We have accurate readings of TSI from only 26th March 2003. I thought I’d check the data myself. The difference between TSI received from 26/05/2003 to 26/01/2004 and from 4/08/2008 to 6/04/2009, a period of 245 days, is 102 W/m2 or 25.5 W/m2 over the surface of the Earth. That is the Earth received about 1.48×10^16 Watts more during the former period than the latter.
Does this show up in the temperature charts. I think it does. What more of a “signal” do you want?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2014_v5.png

gloccamorra
April 11, 2014 9:22 pm

I got hung up staring at figure 4, since I was earlier looking at a graph of the temperature patterns over the last several ice age stadials. Figure 4 looks like a compressed 110,000 year record of stepped cooling to a low point, with sudden warming of the interstadials. Does the sun employ the same cycle pattern on multiple time scales? I’m beginning to suspect changes in the earth’s orbit aren’t the sole cause of ice ages.

April 11, 2014 10:24 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:11 am
“Do you really conclude that the sun does not have a big influence on our climate? Riddle me this: What is the most influential source of energy that warms our planet?”
1. the sun supplies all the energy.
2. the variations in that power are small.
3. these variations do not influence the CLIMATE
4. climate is the long term average of weather.
There are exceptions. when we look over really long periods you will find evidence that orbital changes do influence the climate and that the faint young sun does as well.
But to the actual point. The changes from 1850 to today are not solar driven
A) the variations are small relative to the changes
B) there is no coherence between the TSI record and the temperature ( which is just PART OF the climate)
C) If you want to identify the cause of the change in temperature, you need to look at something else.
what is not a cause.
1. natural variation. natural variation doesnt explain natural variation.
2. ocean cycles. ocean cycles describe patterns in data they do not ’cause’
a good candidate for study?
well the intuition that the sun is the main cause is good one. the sun supplies the power received.
does anything else cause forcing or change forcing or modulate forcing.
yes: the atmosphere and what it is made of
++++++++++
I asked: “Do you really conclude that the sun does not have a big influence on our climate?”
And you said it supplies all the energy. That’s not completely, true, it supplies most of the energy. But let’s just say it’s 100%. You’re saying that something that supplies all of the energy to our planet does not have a big influence on our planet. And then conclude – and only changes in our atmosphere are responsible.
Of course we would agree the sun affects our climate since it supplies all the energy. And of course changes in atmosphere affect our climate.
I also submit that there is good knowledge of our atmosphere being changed by changes in the sun. This is why your original statement was taken to task.

ren
April 11, 2014 11:02 pm

You have to see that cosmic radiation is concentrated in the middle and high widths, causing changes in the ozone, in accordance with the geomagnetic field. If the magnetic activity of the sun falls, the radiation flux will significantly increase in these areas.
http://terra2.spacenvironment.net/~raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.gif

Don Easterbrook
April 11, 2014 11:12 pm

Willis,
“I looked at whether TSI or anything else that varies in sync with the sunspot cycle is affecting temperature … and so far, the answer is a resounding “No”.
I agree–as I said, I don’t think that the 11-year periodicity in itself is going to tell us much about the relationship between the sun and global temperature. It’s what happens DURING the 11-year cycles that is telling us something, i.e., the sunspot number is a symptom of what is happening with the sun’s magnetic field and that is the most important variable. The incidence of low sunspot numbers of the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton, and 1880-1915 Minimums during cool periods gives us a clue that we should look for evidence of decreased solar magnetic fields at those times. The cool periods span more than one 11-yr cycle, typically up to three cycles of low sunspot numbers. The higher 10Be and 14C isotope production rates during these cycles tell us that the cosmic radiation flux was high and thus the solar magnetic field low. So the solar connection looks very real in the data, but it isn’t going to show up in 11-year periodicity itself. So I don’t think we need to wait for an 11-year periodicity connection to show up before looking at cause-and-effect relationships between the sun and global temperature. The real-time data speaks for itself.
Don

ren
April 11, 2014 11:52 pm

Don Easterbrook
The increase in GCR is just visible especially now, when we have peak activity at 24 cycle.

April 12, 2014 12:39 am

Willis I wonder whether it might be better to pick a single site that has a quality data set, and is not influenced by the UHI effect, and compare its maximum temperatures only, with the various solar measurements.

DonV
April 12, 2014 1:09 am

I thought of something else: a periodicity that should have popped up in the temperature data sets but didn’t.
1) Since the data was monthly values, and
2) Since the sun warms first one half of the world during half of a year and then the other half of the world during the second half, and
3) Since the data was “land” measurement data, and
4) Since there is much more land mass above the equator than below, and
5) Since there are many more temperature measurements in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, . . . . . . .
well shouldn’t there have been a HUGE periodicity spike at 1/2 year when supposedly the sun was warming all of those northern hemisphere temperature guages?

Richard
April 12, 2014 1:10 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:59 pm
It’s possible that you are looking at something different. It is true that the planet moves closer to and further from the sun, and this changes the instantaneous sun strength (although not by as much as you claim).
However, that doesn’t make sense, because you have compared 245 day of solar data from May to January on one hand to 245 days of data from August to April. So I haven’t a clue why you got that result.
But since (as appears to be your habit) you haven’t provided a link to your data, I’m afraid I can’t comment on it.
This is the data Link. It’s from SOURCE. The reason why I didn’t cite it was because I presumed you knew about it. I have taken the daily data of TSI.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#summary_table
It may not agree with any logic of yours but I have got the result because the data says so.

Richard
April 12, 2014 1:20 am

And I might add its May to Jan 2003/4 and Aug to April 2008/9 Those were the periods of Max and Min Solar Irradiance

Richard
April 12, 2014 1:31 am

PS the computation actually comes to about 119 W/m2 (not 102) or 29.8 W/m2 on the Earth’s surface. And that’s a forcing of about 1.73×10^16 Watts over that period

Richard
April 12, 2014 1:36 am

SORCE even

Richard
April 12, 2014 1:42 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:59 pm
You might get a slightly different result as there are some days with 0 data. For these I have taken values in between the ends of the discontinuity.

lgl
April 12, 2014 1:48 am
Richard
April 12, 2014 4:14 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 3:24 am
Richard, from your link, showing the SORCE data:
Now … you do see that the variations over the 11 year cycle are on the order of 0.5 to 1 W/m2? The range of the entire scale of the graph is only 3 W/m2.
So while you may claim that the difference between two 245-day periods is 102 W/m2 … I’m not seeing it in the data you used.

Dear Willis,
Please assume what I have said is gospel. I know not a thing about Kopp or Krivovo or Ball or the IPCC AR5 or that graph, though its shown on the page. On the link I sent you there is the TSI data “Available TSI Data Summary Table/Data Access”. I have downloaded the Full Mission Download, Daily Data, which is in a text file. This gives the daily TSI values starting from 26/02/2003 and ending on 5/04/2014. I have converted that into an Excel file and made a graph of the TSI vs the dates. This gives me a clear picture of the TSI variation with time. There are many gaps in the data. I have filled those in with average values over the period.
As for my “claim” that the difference between two 245-day periods is 102 W/m2 (actually 119 W/m2 as I have later said), this “claim” has arisen by adding the TSI vaues of the two 245 day periods together and then subtracting them, which as you know Excel does for you in the blink of an eye. Those are actual values from the data.

Richard
April 12, 2014 4:23 am

The only real measured data of TSI we have is from 26/02/2003 onwards. All other previous data are reconstructions, mainly from the Sunspot numbers I suspect, and no one really knows if they are true or not.

April 12, 2014 4:31 am

Richard says:
April 12, 2014 at 4:23 am
The only real measured data of TSI we have is from 26/02/2003 onwards. All other previous data are reconstructions, mainly from the Sunspot numbers I suspect, and no one really knows if they are true or not.
Not so. The real data starts in 1978.

Richard
April 12, 2014 4:36 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 4:31 am
Richard says:
April 12, 2014 at 4:23 am
The only real measured data of TSI we have is from 26/02/2003 onwards. All other previous data are reconstructions, mainly from the Sunspot numbers I suspect, and no one really knows if they are true or not.
Not so. The real data starts in 1978.
And where does that come from? Who measured it and how accurate is it? Where is the link to that data?

lgl
April 12, 2014 4:45 am

jeez Willis
If you had scrolled through Leifs pdf you would have fond the ‘synthetic’ years:
9.91
10.78
11.87
and Leifs SSN FFT:
10.04
10.92
11.92
Uh what a difference! But you just do not want to see this do you?

ren
April 12, 2014 5:08 am

From Tuesday 15 April the U.S. touch another wave of arctic air. In Canada frost.
These are the realities associated with solar activity and pressure over the Arctic Circle.

beng
April 12, 2014 6:19 am

Some interesting discussion here — even Mosher does well enough, except for the volcano stuff.
And for the UV aficionados, TSI includes UV, of course. So that’s falsified — again. “Theories” need throwing away when they’re falsified.

April 12, 2014 7:18 am

Richard says:
April 12, 2014 at 4:36 am
“Not so. The real data starts in 1978.”
And where does that come from? Who measured it and how accurate is it? Where is the link to that data?

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu7.html

Don Easterbrook
April 12, 2014 7:46 am

Willis,
First, I would never call you crazy! You’re just plenty smart!
Your last post was 3:33–do you ever sleep!!
“Don, you are making the claim that I discussed upthread. This is the claim that the system somehow is impervious to the large 11-year changes in sunspots / TSI / magnetism / whatever… but at the same time it is exquisitely sensitive to the much smaller slow secular variation and drift of sunspots / TSI / magnetism / whatever.”
I see what you’re getting at here. It’s interesting that the normal variation in sunspots for a single 11-yr cycle is from near zero to ~150-200 sunspots (SSN) with corresponding fluctuations in TSI and AP Index but, as you’ve shown, there isn’t a corresponding 11-yr temperature fluctuation. Your point is well taken, but perhaps there is an explanation for this apparent anomaly. A friend of mine once said, “just because something seems impossible doesn’t necessarily mean that it is—if it happened then it must be possible. You just need to figure it out.” So, just thinking out loud, let’s look at a real situation, say the Dalton. (I tried to paste some graphic data in into the comment box, but it wouldn’t take it, so I’ll send it to you via email).
Cycle 4 (~1785-1795) was a normal cycle with a peak of about 150 sunspots, but in cycle 5 (~1800-1810), sunspots dropped to about 50 and cycle 6 (~1810-1820) was very similar. SSN (sun spot number) in Cycle 7 was a bit higher, but still below normal. Cycle 8 (1835-1845) then popped back up to 150 or so. The CET temperatures dropped about 0.8˚C from Cycle 4 to Cycles 5 and 6, then popped back up ~1.0˚C in Cycle 7. GISP2 oxygen isotope ratios show a similar temperature drop during the Dalton. 10Be production rates in the atmosphere rose sharply during this time. So what do we make of all this? The data is far too consistent to be merely coincidental, so my conclusion is that ‘it happened so it must be possible.’ Similar, consistent data exists for the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and 1880-1915 cool periods. Way beyond ‘coincidence’ probability.
So back to your point about the range of SSN during single cycles and the range during an event like the Dalton. How do we explain that? I don’t know, but the big reduction in sunspots is telling us something. The most significant difference between Cycles 5 and 6 and normal cycles is the low SSN, during which the sun’s magnetic field was presumably lower, accounting for the high 10Be atmospheric production rates. So it would appear that the critical issue here is not the range of SSN, but the fact that during Cycles 5 and 6, they never reach ‘normal’ levels because of a weaker solar magnetic field. The SSN do not drive global climate, they are merely a symptom of weaker solar magnetic field that is allowing increased cosmic radiation to the Earth. Does this make sense? What do you think?
Best to you,
Don

ren
April 12, 2014 7:56 am

lsvalgaard
As you know in Scandinavia and southern Europe will also be snowing in the coming days.

April 12, 2014 7:58 am

Don Easterbrook says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:46 am
The most significant difference between Cycles 5 and 6 and normal cycles is the low SSN, during which the sun’s magnetic field was presumably lower, accounting for the high 10Be atmospheric production rates. So it would appear that the critical issue here is not the range of SSN, but the fact that during Cycles 5 and 6, they never reach ‘normal’ levels because of a weaker solar magnetic field.
First, the SSN during cycles 5 and 6 is very uncertain.
Second, the solar magnetic field causes a variation of UV flux and of the magnetic field in space impacting the Earth. The former we have monitored since 1722 and the latter since the 1830s. There is a good relation between the two so we can estimate with good accuracy the sun’s magnetic field back to at least the middle of the 18th century and cycles 5 and 6 were not unusual seen in perspective of the whole data set.
Third, there is evidence that the high 10Be is not due to the sun, but [probably – but there is discussion about this] to volcanoes and the climate itself. The 10Be in ice cores is not made in the atmosphere above Greenland or Antarctica but elsewhere at lower latitudes and must be transported by atmosphere circulation to the polar regions.

Daryl M
April 12, 2014 8:03 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:53 am
Here is the clue folks. When you believe it has to be the sun, there is NO END to where you can look and how you can look.
No end.
No mathematical end,
no logical end.
You can look for unicorns forever.
and the longer you look the higher your chance of finding a spurious result.
if your goal is actually understanding things.. you’d note that the sun supplies the power. the power doesnt vary much.. and you’d look at something else to explain the changes.
One of my profs told me something that I have never forgotten. I can still hear him saying it in his Polish accent. “Presuppositions have a nasty habit of reappearing as conclusions.” This cuts both ways. Neither those claiming the sun has no influence nor those claiming the sun has influence are immune.

April 12, 2014 8:11 am

Don Easterbrook says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:46 am
Similar, consistent data exists for the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and 1880-1915 cool periods.
For the 1880-1915 period where we have good data, the 10Be data ‘misbehaves’ and is not consistent with anything. A special workshop has recently been dedicated to this misbehavior http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf and the findings [to be published soon] is that the cosmic ray record is at fault and perhaps is not accurate at low solar activity.

njsnowfan
April 12, 2014 8:11 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
” April 11, 2014 at 10:16 am
Thanks, snowfan. Unfortunately, your accompanying graph is useless, because you haven’t specified where you got your data, or how you have massaged it to get it to that form …
In any case, I just did a periodicity analysis on the AMO data. There is no peak of any kind near the 10 year 7 month period, and in fact the periodicity analysis of the AMO (as one would expect) looks very much like the periodicity of the HadCRUT data … no surprise there, because the AMO is just a detrended subset of the global temperature data.”
w.”
Sorry I forgot to put the link Will.
Here it is.
This chart comparing the AMO and the total solar irradiance computed by
Hoyt/Schatten and Willson using multiple solar components and calibrated to the
recent ACRIMSAT satellites is rather convincing for me. It shows a very tight
tracking of the AMO (and not shown AMO+PDO) with TSI since 1900.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_ROLE_OF_THE_OCEANS_IN_CLIMATE_CHANGES_SHORT_AND_LONG_TERM.pdf

ren
April 12, 2014 8:14 am

Daryl M
Can you explain the changes in ozone differently than solar activity?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp30anim.gif

April 12, 2014 8:19 am

Leif, I take it that this particular slowdown of Solar processes as been a driving force behind learning how and why things fluctuate. It seems then that when the Sun seems to be rather sleepier than usual, more can be learned about it and its past behavior? As opposed to an active sunspot popping pot upon the stove.

April 12, 2014 8:21 am

Pamela Gray says:
April 12, 2014 at 8:19 am
Leif, I take it that this particular slowdown of Solar processes as been a driving force behind learning how and why things fluctuate.
Indeed, and that makes it exciting to work in this field right now.

Don Easterbrook
April 12, 2014 9:14 am

Thanks for the info and reference, Leif. I’ll look forward to reading your new publication when it comes out.
Don

April 12, 2014 9:19 am

njsnowfan says:
April 12, 2014 at 8:11 am
This chart comparing the AMO and the total solar irradiance computed by Hoyt/Schatten
Their old TSI guess is totally out of date and should not be used for serious work.

April 12, 2014 9:40 am

Experts need not read, as they already know differently.
North Atlantic is the key to most of the natural variability, home of the AMO, with a vigorous tectonic activity further north.
The area has the longest (350 years) instrumental, most scrutinised, least fiddled and most accurate temperature records available, known as the CET.
So what these three: CET, AMO and NA tectonics tell us?
Rather a lot, if one looks not only at ‘wiggle’ matching, which I shall omit this time, but at the spectral composition .

Bart
April 12, 2014 9:57 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“The gold line is something akin to your hypothesized rectified AM signal.”
How in the world did you miss that before?
“What makes it follow the small overall drift and yet ignore the much larger peaks and valleys?”
There are many ways. But, I don’t care. Vukcevic was commenting on the other candidate I had for explaining things, one which I find more intriguing. But, you didn’t read that far down, didja?

Richard
April 12, 2014 11:32 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:18 am
“Not so. The real data starts in 1978.”
And where does that come from? Who measured it and how accurate is it? Where is the link to that data?
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu7.html

Thanks for that Dr Svalgaard. I note that Nimbus gives far higher values of TSI than SMM/ACRIM which in turn gives higher values than ERBS, SOHO/VIRGO, so the question again arises who is correct or where does the truth lie?

Richard
April 12, 2014 11:41 am

Daryl M says:
April 12, 2014 at 8:03 am
Steven Mosher says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:53 am
Here is the clue folks. When you believe it has to be the sun, there is NO END to where you can look and how you can look…
if your goal is actually understanding things.. you’d note that the sun supplies the power. the power doesnt vary much.. and you’d look at something else to explain the changes.

“One of my profs told me.. “Presuppositions have a nasty habit of reappearing as conclusions.” ”
I’m glad Steven Mosher thinks he “actually understanding things”. That power that “doesnt vary much” regularly plunges the Earth into ice ages when it varies a little.
“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Sherlock Holmes

April 12, 2014 11:42 am

Richard says:
April 12, 2014 at 11:32 am
so the question again arises who is correct or where does the truth lie?
The only one that is ‘correct’ is SORCE/TIM, but the other ones are ‘precise’, that is the variation from day to day, year to year is correct, but the ‘baseline’ is not. The reason is known and can be corrected for. It has to do with a slight design flaw in the earlier instruments that will allow a little bit of extra light to enter the instrument, see: slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/10S1_0616_GKopp.pdf

Bart
April 12, 2014 1:33 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 12:19 pm
What is this curious tic you have? You read as far as you like, then you stop, and argue something you make up in your own mind.
If you want to determine the manner in which the long term demodulated solar signal affects the climate, then you can investigate it as you please, once you have rid yourself of such notions as what “would make the climate totally and completely insensitive to the large, 11-year cycles in TSI”. It isn’t insensitive. It may just have a low SNR, and you wouldn’t be able to pick it out.
OR, IF YOU HAD READ MY EFFING POSTS, you might find that it is conceivably modulated in the climate signal into components near 5 years and 60 years, which are indubitably and readily observable IN THE CLIMATE RECORDS.
THAT is what I care about. We’re not even arguing that point here. Just meandering off into some swamp that you prefer to slog through, but which I have no interest, myself, in entering right now.
Is it really too much to ask that you read my rather pithy posts all the way through before responding? Read the posts at Hockey Schtick or Tallbloke, as well as the comments, for further info. Then, argue with me respectfully and logically ON THE SUBJECT ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE.

April 12, 2014 1:42 pm

beng says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:19 am
Some interesting discussion here — even Mosher does well enough, except for the volcano stuff.
And for the UV aficionados, TSI includes UV, of course. So that’s falsified — again. “Theories” need throwing away when they’re falsified.
+++++++++++
Your comment partially misses the point of people who talk about UV wrt a changing sun. When the sun wanes, there is more UV – a good several times more. And the claim, which is fairly substantial, is that UV has an effect on other things including ozone production. The point is that the atmosphere changes in response to a waning sun. The total TSI is one thing, but causing a change to the atmosphere is a feedback.

April 12, 2014 6:03 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm
You have to figure out HOW it might be not only actually possible, but actually actual. Until then, it’s just another neat trick from a good signal engineer who hasn’t fully considered whether the real world can do what he can do.
The problem with Bart is that he is afflicted with what Ken Schatten calls Cyclomania. First it was sun cycles, now it is moon cycles, there may be more cycles in the offing. Put in a different way: to a hammer everything looks like a nail. He applies the one thing he can do regardless of the physics of the problem.

RobR
April 12, 2014 7:09 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
“To me, this supports my contention that the temperature is thermally regulated by emergent climate phenomena like thunderstorms, El Nino, dust devils, and the PDO. One feature of the system I hypothesize is that it is robust against variations in forcing.”
Willis, your hypothesis on emergence is to me cogent and I am fully convinced, however; it is likely unprovable, as are my thoughts. So here are my thoughts:
1.) The billions of year old Sun radiates at a constant level on the time scale of millennium or tens of millennium. It has some kind of pulse on an 11/22 year cycle, the sun spot cycle.
2.) The Little Ice Age existed and was global.
If either of these statements are untenable to you, then you can stop now and blow me off as a nutcase.
I was once a Process Engineer. We have a process under control ( by Emergence) with an incoming variable, sun spots (well not sun spots themselves but some other parameter tied to them) and a controlled output – temperature. As long as the incoming variable stays within an UCL (Upper Control Limit) and the LCL (Lower Control Limit) the system (temperature) remains Under Control. If the incoming variable exceeds the limits for an extended period of time, the system (temperature) will go out of control – singular or small duration excursions outside of limits may not make the system go out of control.
No correlation analysis will find anything about the incoming variable under these circumstances. Coefficient and p-values will mean nothing.
My understanding of your Emergence hypothesis is that it is energy driven, so the upper control limit in the above idealization is probably rather soft. The Emergence would just keep kicking up and higher temperature would be fully constrained (while there may have been a snowball Earth I have never heard or a fireball one). But not so at the LCL. The LIA occurred and given 1.) above albedo must have increased, reducing energy to fuel Emergence – not that any would be needed. Extended excursions below the LCL could result in high albedo making higher albedo and cold.
I hope this makes sense. My only concern with your Emergence hypothesis is and has been the Little Ice Age. Maybe we should just make it go away.
Rob Rider

G.Kelleher
April 13, 2014 2:37 am

[snip . . your link doesn’t work so please repost with a working link. BTW, insulting people and calling them names is not normally considered a viable method of changing opinion or having a debate . . mod]

April 13, 2014 2:56 am

Moderator , my comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/solar-periodicity/#comment-1611715
I accidentally posted here, but it was meant for the other thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/claim-odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/
no surprise I couldn’t find it there, my apologies to Willis and anyone else concerned.

G.Kelleher
April 13, 2014 4:49 am

Moderation indeed !, a bunch of cretins who can’t handle the basic cause of temperatures rising with the appearance of the Sun and their falling with its disappearance are hardly going to handle global temperatures in any shape or form –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
The single cause of ‘global warming’ hysteria is the lack of a stable narrative and that narrative ain’t going to happen with nuisances like Watts and his troupe pretending to stand in opposition.

April 13, 2014 5:36 am

G.Kelleher says:
April 13, 2014 at 4:49 am
Moderation indeed !, a bunch of cretins who can’t handle the basic cause of temperatures rising with the appearance of the Sun and their falling with its disappearance are hardly going to handle global temperatures in any shape or form
It takes a cretin to claim that
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year”
has any relevance to the topic.

G.Kelleher
April 13, 2014 5:48 am

Isvalgaard
It is a genuine phenomenon that there isn’t a single individual capable of comprehending that when a society can no longer mesh the Sun rising and setting within a 24 hour day with one rotation of the Earth,and that is what the statement actually does,then something more insidious at work than any perceived carbon dioxide hysteria.
Read the amazing work of fiction once again –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
Personally,even with the greatest courtesy, I believe people have truly lost their minds and not so much that they can manage to believe there are more rotations than there are sunrise/sunsets in a year but that when presented with the actual external references which go into discerning the Earth’s dynamics and its effects on terrestrial sciences,including climate,nobody wants to know.

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 8:22 am

Willis says:
“Now, at first glance it looks like there is a peak at about 10 years 7 months as in the TSI. However, there’s an oddity of the periodicity analysis. In addition to showing the cycles, periodicity analysis shows the harmonics of the cycles. In this example, it shows the fundamental cycle with a period of 44 months (3 years 8 months). Then it shows the first harmonic (two cycles) of a 44-month cycle as an 88 month cycle. It is lower and broader than the fundamental. It also shows the second harmonic, in this case with a period of 3 * 44 =132 months, and once again this third peak is lower and broader than the second peak.”
Well looking at the solar metric that has considerable variability, and that does relate at an event level to teleconnections such as ENSO and the AO/NAO, i.e. the solar wind, it does not simply follow the sunspot cycle. There is typically a reduced level just after the cycle minima, and again around the cycle maxima, with an interval of about a third of a cycle, 3.69yrs or 44.33 months for the average cycle. That period would likely be far more consistent than the periods between cycle minima, and particularly the highly variable periods between cycle maxima.

April 13, 2014 8:38 am

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:22 am
the solar wind, it does not simply follow the sunspot cycle.
Actually, it does follow the cycle, but not closely the sunspot numbers, here is the Ap-index since 1844 http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
The various parameters of the solar wind [field strength B, speed V, and density n] also show a solar cycle behavior, but, again, not directly related to the sunspot number, e.g., for the average cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 8:43 am

lsvalgaard says:
“Actually, it does follow the cycle”
Actually the largest drops in the geomag index are as I described, typically just after minimum and around maximum, and you know it.

April 13, 2014 8:47 am

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:43 am
Actually the largest drops in the geomag index are as I described, typically just after minimum and around maximum, and you know it.
The ‘largest’ is not correct. There is a small drop near maximum and a very large drop at minimum. The reason for this is well understood http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
and is simply the combination of the curves for B, V, and n.

Bart
April 13, 2014 8:48 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm
I explained the mechanism above in my very first comment:

To appreciably affect the climate, you might hypothesize that you need to get substantial ocean mixing to store up the heat. That would suggest that perhaps the additional solar heating would be modulated by the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis.

You can disagree if you like. I was pointing out a linkage, and I hedged appropriately. But, if you think nutation is no big deal, then you should go talk to designers who Earthquake-proof the buildings in Tokyo, or the NASA engineers who put nutation dampers aboard their satellites. Nutation is THE dynamical property of interest for stability in spin dynamics.
lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Already anticipated.

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 8:56 am

lsvalgaard says:
“There is a small drop near maximum and a very large drop at minimum.”
Boy have you changed your tune, on another thread a few years back you insisted that the larger drop was at the maximum, and I had to argue the point of the big drop just after minimum with you.

April 13, 2014 9:01 am

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:56 am
Boy have you changed your tune, on another thread a few years back you insisted that the larger drop was at the maximum, and I had to argue the point of the big drop just after minimum with you.
Nonsense, my plots of Ap, and the solar cycle behavior of B, V, and n are old, but if you think otherwise provide a precise link to your argument.

April 13, 2014 9:10 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:48 am
the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis.
If you knew anything at all about the nutation you would know that it is the other way around: changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation modulates the nutation, but in any case, that forcing is too minute to be worth discussing.

April 13, 2014 9:39 am

Remove DC component from Ap index, give it polarity sign of the contemporary solar magnetic field, combine with secular oscillation of the Earth’s magnetic field (as calculated from changes in the core’s angular momentum):
Result
However, that would be a meaningless numerology, would it not?

Bart
April 13, 2014 9:39 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:10 am
You are talking about unforced nutation, the “Chandler Wobble“. This is the forced nutation from Sun and Moon dynamics, which is 30X larger. Read up on it.
The tides are not minute.

April 13, 2014 9:45 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
This is the forced nutation from Sun and Moon dynamics, which is 30X larger.
“The principal term of nutation is due to the regression of the moon’s nodal line and has the same period of 6798 days (18.61 years). It reaches plus or minus 17″ in longitude and 9″ in obliquity. All other terms are much smaller; the next-largest, with a period of 183 days (0.5 year), has amplitudes 1.3″ and 0.6″ respectively”
Enough said.

Bart
April 13, 2014 9:56 am

Com on, Leif. Do I really have to spoon feed this to you? How many kilometers of motion does that represent at the Earth’s surface at the equator? The Earth has a radius of 6378 km. This is what we typically consider a “large” number. Do the math.

April 13, 2014 9:57 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:56 am
Com on, Leif. Do I really have to spoon feed this to you? How many kilometers of motion does that represent at the Earth’s surface at the equator? The Earth has a radius of 6378 km. This is what we typically consider a “large” number. Do the math.
No need to, as you obviously don’t understand what you are talking about. So, don’t bother.

April 13, 2014 9:58 am

vukcevic says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
However, that would be a meaningless numerology, would it not?
It would, so spare us the nonsense.

April 13, 2014 10:12 am

I spent a fun morning watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian. I could not help myself. I thought of Vuk and Ulric and Steven and Bart standing upon their platforms explaining their theories to a now and again enthralled audience who lift up their sandals and gourds, as well as to that small faction who declare “He’s making it up as he goes along!”
Too funny!!!

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 10:12 am

Leif, I cannot find the exact thread that I had in mind at the moment but here is something equivalent:
“Solar wind velocity is often high near solar minimum, where the absence of solar activity favors the creation of large coronal holes”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/hey-dude-where%E2%80%99s-my-solar-ramp-up/#comment-392261

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:14 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:57 am
6378e3 * sqrt(9^2+17^2)/60*pi/180 = 35,687 meters
Yeah, that’s small.

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:22 am

Pamela Gray says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:12 am
Nice to see you brought along your sandals and gourds.

April 13, 2014 10:23 am

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:12 am
“Solar wind velocity is often high near solar minimum, where the absence of solar activity favors the creation of large coronal holes”
Yes, you can see that in my plot http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
where the green curve shows solar wind speed. Note that it peaks just before solar minimum
Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:14 am
Yeah, that’s small.
completely irrelevant. There are three components of the nutation;
1) luni-solar tides
2) polar motion [wobble] due to changes of inertia
3) core nutation
(1) is large, the others are small.
You claim that the nutation moves the oceans around. “the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis”. It is the other way around. /end-spoon-feeding

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:39 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:23 am
No, Leif. The Lunar/Solar induced nutation is due mostly to the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. The Sun and the Moon tug on the Earth’s spin axis, due to the gravity gradient torque (see equation (6.17)). This is well-known and understood.
But, have it your way. It is moot. Either way, it has a strong periodicity of about 18.6 years, and the tilt with respect to the nominal spin axis has a period of half that, at 9.3 years. Combine it with the 11 year solar cycle, and you get 60 years and 5 years. Combine it with a more detailed model of solar activity, with harmonics at 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years, and you get a more complex waveform, which has periodicities in the range of ~60 years, and less than 5 years.
That is what is seen in the temperature records. It is a powerful influence – nothing like the infinitesimal influence of other planets.

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:47 am

“But, have it your way. It is moot.”
It is moot for the argument at hand. But, I hasten to add, it is in no-wise a concession. For the nutational dynamics in general, Leif is wrong. The forced nutation of the Earth’s spin axis is mostly from the oblate mass distribution of the Earth, and the oceans in their entirety form only a small portion of that mass.

April 13, 2014 10:51 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:39 am
It is moot
You avoided responding to the point which was your claim that the nutation moves the oceans around: “the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis”.
That is your nonsense I pointed out.
That is what is seen in the temperature records.
The old saw ‘correlation is not causation’ applies here.

April 13, 2014 10:57 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:47 am
It is moot for the argument at hand. But, I hasten to add, it is in no-wise a concession. For the nutational dynamics in general, Leif is wrong.
OK, I should have said the lunar-solar torques. I guess ‘tides;’ slipped in because you said “The tides are not minute.” Strange how the mind can get trapped,
Anyway, you avoided responding to the point which was your claim that the nutation moves the oceans around: “the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis”.

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:57 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:51 am
See above.

Bart
April 13, 2014 10:58 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:57 am
It is your belief that the movement of the Earth’s spin axis does not affect the tides?

April 13, 2014 11:00 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:57 am
See above.
Not responsive. Let me try this: Verify here that you said and mean “the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis”

Bart
April 13, 2014 11:06 am

It should be obvious to any reasonable onlooker, other than perhaps Pamela in her cheerleader outfit, that the motion of the Earth’s spin axis affects the tides. The motion of the ocean affects the manner in which it stores radiant energy from the Sun. This creates a modulation of the solar cycle with the nutation of the Earth’s spin axis to affect the climate.
It is a powerful influence, and it is, at least at the top level, consistent with observations of temperature variations. That is the point I was trying to make, and I have made it. Since I do not stand a whelk’s chance in a supernova of influencing the hidebound opinions of Dr. Svalgaard, I am going to call it a day. Anything further he has to say on the topic, I refer you to Joe Pesci’s opening argument in the trial portrayed in My Cousin Vinny.

April 13, 2014 11:16 am

Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 11:06 am
I am going to call it a day
Running away from responding to “the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis”.
It should be obvious to any reasonable onlooker, other than perhaps Pamela in her cheerleader outfit, that the motion of the Earth’s spin axis affects the tides.
People that research this, e.g., http://www.leif.org/research/Thesis-Weiss-Ocean-Tides.png do not find this ‘obvious’, but perhaps you would not call them ‘reasonable’.

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 11:20 am

lsvalgaard says:
“Yes, you can see that in my plot http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
where the green curve shows solar wind speed. Note that it peaks just before solar minimum”
What I can see *nearest* to the minima is the low in plasma speed, and the second lowest point is at the maxima, where the density/pressure is also at it’s lowest. So clearly with lows near sunspot minima AND maxima it does not follow the cycle, and I restate my original comment:
Well looking at the solar metric that has considerable variability, and that does relate at an event level to teleconnections such as ENSO and the AO/NAO, i.e. the solar wind, it does not simply follow the sunspot cycle. There is typically a reduced level just after the cycle minima, and again around the cycle maxima, with an interval of about a third of a cycle, 3.69yrs or 44.33 months for the average cycle. That period would likely be more consistent than the periods between cycle minima, and particularly [more consistent than the] the highly variable periods between cycle maxima.

April 13, 2014 11:25 am

Pamela Gray says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:12 am
I thought of Vuk and ……explaining their theories …
Hi Ms. Gray
I am flattered indeed, that you would think of me first, surely my minor persona is hardly worth of your esteemed attention, but that said, I thank you.
In my case, with respect and no reflection on efforts of the others, mentioned or implied, theory hardly, even hypothesis is an unattainable proposition, just an idle mind’s data manipulation.
Dear Ms Gray I wish you a pleasant and effortless progress in all of your endeavours.
m.v

April 13, 2014 11:41 am

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 11:20 am
What I can see *nearest* to the minima is the low in plasma speed, and the second lowest point is at the maxima, where the density/pressure is also at it’s lowest. So clearly with lows near sunspot minima AND maxima it does not follow the cycle,
[You] are not being clear. If we see the same behavior in every cycle, then obviously the variable has a solar cycle variation. All the solar wind parameters have a solar cycle variation that is different from that of the SSN. In particular the solar wind speed has a maximum just before solar minimum. A typical example is for the year 2008. See slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf

April 13, 2014 12:22 pm

Folks, I collect data all the time using research based valid and reliable tools, and am quite familiar with proper as well as improper use of statistics and analysis of statistical result. To the extent that I have put my job on the line for standing behind proper statistical methods. And have suffered for it. Would you be willing to lose your job over your awkward mechanism and statistical nightmare?
You may have fallen into this trap: Wriggle matching between two separate entities that have a variety of short and long term random walk oscillations combined with additional subcomponents and having many variables, can and often are forced to, match. That a match is found is predictable and can even be shown mathematically.
Thought experiment: Randomly generated signal data produced with separate signal generators (to the degree that they are made differently by two different and separate manufacturers, the signals on their face are clearly not the same, and one is on the Moon and the other on the Earth) thus described can be correlated, even highly correlated if analysed and tortured enough. That a plausible mechanism can be made that links the two signal generators is dubious but many will cough one up anyway.
I am bound to suggest that were I to give you guys a data series from the sounds of starlings and a data series from windshield wiper oscillations obtained from a school bus, and call them some kind of sciency sounding universe/galaxie/solar system/moon/Earth/Neptune signal, you would find a correlation and say that one is related to the other, with a plausible mechanism waiting to be found.
Until such a time as the climate trend null hypothesis (intrinsic variability, which DOES have a plausible mechanism) can be dismissed, I recommend this: Accept that you have nothing to show for your research into this or that solar system-related idea or pet theory that can be demonstrated to have superiority over the null condition.
That Leif puts his money where his mouth is, shares his raw data, stands in front of equals and better to present, has been peer reviewed/vetted at every stage, and has proposed reasonable mechanisms, gives him a large leg up compared to you guys. So yes, I readily admit to cheerleading good scientific work once I have vetted it for myself. And based on my reading, I don’t see any comparison at all between Leif’s work and what you all have proposed.

Carla
April 13, 2014 3:08 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 5:36 pm
..Thanks, Mario. I don’t think you quite get what I’ve done. I’ve looked, not for TSI, but for ANYTHING that moves in sync with sunspots. This includes UV, TSI, heliomagnetic field, and cosmic rays. If any of them through any mechanism were affecting the temperature, it would show up as an ~ 11 year signal in the temperature data … but to data, we find no such signal.
This negative result includes, as Beng says, ultraviolet, because UV varies on the same ~ 11 year cycle as the sunspots and the TSI and the cosmic rays.
w.
—————————————————
“””but for ANYTHING that moves “””” pssst don’t go hunting with Willis..lol
Well, I have something that moves, breathes and lives with solar cycle. GCR cosmic radiation messing up solar radiation.. perhaps.. But I’m skeptical of the TSI not varying enough..
This little study from Athens, incorporates the Cosmic Ray Induced Ionization CRII models (1+2) into their local model, giving a global view of GCR induced ionization in Earth’s atmosphere.
Even going so far as to say, that during a Maunder type minimum, the primary cause of ionization in Earth’s Atmosphere would come from GCR…
Calculation of the cosmic ray induced ionization for the region
of Athens
P Makrantoni1, H Mavromichalaki1, I Usoskin2, A Papaioannou1
Abstract. A complete study of ionization induced by cosmic rays, both solar and galactic, in
the atmosphere, is presented. For the computation of the cosmic ray induced ionization, the
CRII model was used [1] as well its new version [2] which is extended to the upper
atmosphere. In this work, this model has been applied to the entire atmosphere, i.e. from
atmospheric depth 0 g/cm2, which corresponds to the upper limit of the atmosphere, to 1025
g/cm2, which corresponds to the surface…
..2. The CRII model
The CRII model is a full numerical model, which computes the cosmic ray induced ionization in the
entire atmosphere, all over the Globe. The model computations reproduce actual measurements of the
atmospheric ionization in the full range of parameters, from Equatorial to Polar Regions and from the
solar minimum to solar maximum.
Roughly, the CRII rate expressed as the number of ion pairs produced in one gram of the ambient
air per second (ion pairs/gr. sec) at a given atmospheric depth x can be represented in as follows:
..3. Results
Using the CRII model [1], [2] a study of the distribution of ionization during the solar cycle 23 on a
monthly and yearly basis was performed. A gradual increase of the ionization rate from the solar
maximum to the solar minimum was observed.
The results at the solar maximum (year 2000) and minimum (year 2010), for a Polar region (Rc=0.1
GV), an Equatorial region (Rc=14.9 GV) and a middle latitude region (Athens, Rc=8.53 GV), as a
function of the atmospheric depth, are presented in Figure 1. It is obvious that during the solar
maximum (2000), the ionization has minimum values, while during the solar minimum (2010), the
ionization is maximum. This indicates that the ionization follows the behavior of the cosmic rays,
which is negatively correlated with the solar activity. It is important to mention that during the solar
maximum, the ionization is almost two times greater at the Poles than in Athens, while during the
solar minimum, it is almost three and a half times greater. In all cases, the ionization rate is maximum
at the atmospheric depth x=100 g/cm2, with a shift to lower atmospheric depths in the Polar regions.
..Furthermore, we compared
these distributions with the value of ionization in the case of zero solar activity, as it was during the
«Maunder Minimum», and found that the ionization in the atmosphere due to cosmic rays is constant
and greatest! This means that the contribution of galactic cosmic rays, even if the contribution of solar
cosmic radiation is negligible, it is essential to the creation of ions in the atmosphere and with the
maximum value of ionization. This may be associated with the Little Ice Age (1645-1715), during
which occurred the Maunder Minimum, i.e. zero solar activity (φ = 0).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012232/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012232.pdf

April 13, 2014 3:30 pm

Carla says:
April 13, 2014 at 3:08 pm
This may be associated with the Little Ice Age (1645-1715), during which occurred the Maunder Minimum, i.e. zero solar activity (φ = 0).
No cigar, Carla, the modulation parameter (φ) was not zero during the MM. In fact, solar modulation of cosmic rays was as strong back then as now.

Ulric Lyons
April 13, 2014 3:45 pm

lsvalgaard says:
“[You] are not being clear. If we see the same behavior in every cycle, then obviously the variable has a solar cycle variation.”
As there are two local minima in the solar wind through each cycle, one just after minimum and another around maximum, the periods between these minima are 3.69yrs, 7.38yrs, and of course both repeating every 11.07yrs on average. So it’s not a simple ~11yr signal. But due to the variation in cycle lengths, the 7.38 and 11.07 periods have more variation in length than the ~3.69yr min-to-max section of the cycles, so the 3.69yr periodicity should be stronger signal.

April 13, 2014 3:49 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 3:45 pm
So it’s not a simple ~11yr signal.
Yes it is as the signal repeats every 11 years. It is not a sine-curve, but who said it was?

April 13, 2014 3:51 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 3:45 pm
so the 3.69yr periodicity should be stronger signal.
You make the same mistake as Bart, believing that there is a physical signal of that length. There is not. The ‘signal’ comes about because there are different physical reasons for the various peaks.

Carla
April 13, 2014 4:42 pm

lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Carla says:
April 13, 2014 at 3:08 pm
This may be associated with the Little Ice Age (1645-1715), during which occurred the Maunder Minimum, i.e. zero solar activity (φ = 0).
No cigar, Carla, the modulation parameter (φ) was not zero during the MM. In fact, solar modulation of cosmic rays was as strong back then as now.
——————————————————
Yes, I know Dr. S.
Since NASA announced the Space Age High in GCR, you have mentioned it a gazillion times, bout the modulation during MM and so ..
Starting to get a phobia about the atmosphere lowering again, but this time a little lower than last time, which was already 38% lower than the time before that..
This GCR ionization doesn’t come with any up and out solar wind and eeeeeek…

April 13, 2014 7:16 pm

Willis say:
“Thanks, Mario. I don’t think you quite get what I’ve done. I’ve looked, not for TSI, but for ANYTHING that moves in sync with sunspots. This includes UV, TSI, heliomagnetic field, and cosmic rays. If any of them through any mechanism were affecting the temperature, it would show up as an ~ 11 year signal in the temperature data … but to data, we find no such signal.”
++++++++++++
Thank you Willis. Is love how you look at data with an open mind, trying to find evidence to support and or debunk claims. This is good science – and why I call you a scientist. Your work can be followed. Makes me appreciate how much mental energy it takes for me to go back to what I’d done in my college years!
That said, I see that you have found that the correlations are not there in the same time domain. I, perhaps wishfully, believe that integrating the sun spot spot cycles with a baseline of about 40, above which accumulates energy and below which reduces energy to our system shows something different. Of course this presumes something magical about the number 40!
The integral of strength of the solar cycles shows a different story, which may or may not be correct. However, I do believe effects (changes in solar output –not just TSI) take time to show up in our temperature records. As the frequency make up of the energy changes there are hypothetically varying physical effects that change as well, which might lead to feedbacks. So Just looking at TSI and what happens in the same time domain won’t show anything obvious.
When we use PWM (pulse width modulation) to control temperature, there are tuning parameters called PID loops (Proportional Integral Derivative) that effects the timing of the input. Without looking into these, we will not necessarily see the signals.

Richard
April 14, 2014 4:43 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:02 am
But all that means is that the average imbalance over the time is 102/245 ≈ 0.4 W/m2, which is well within the variations shown in their dataset. [Actually 119/245 ~ 0.49 W/m2]
Its is well within the range, but that 0.49 is not the Range of the TSI as in, mathematically, the difference between the highest and lowest values but, as you pointed out the average difference over 245 days, which amounts to a hell of a lot of heat energy. And as I pointed out this is reflected in the Temperature record.

Richard
April 14, 2014 4:45 am

Oops just meant he Range to be in bold… but never mind
[Fixed. -w]

Bart
April 14, 2014 10:04 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm
“You are claiming that the nutation is forcing the ocean to slosh … but in fact the tides cause the nutation:”
No. Tidal “forces” are the stresses induced by the gravity gradient. When the paper refers to tidal forces, it is not referring just to the oceans. The oceans comprise only a small part of the mass of the Earth. Most of the nutation comes about because of the oblateness of the Earth acted upon by the gravity gradient torque, as I explained above.
“That was testable … but unfortunately, it failed the test. There is no 5-year cycle in the data.”
There is a close to 5 year quasi-cycle in the data. When you add in more detailed models for the solar cycle, the overall periodicity of the short term components decrease from there. That is enough to indicate that there is potentially a match, and it makes it worth investigating further. Your motion for arbitrary dismissal is denied.
“But most buildings on the planet pay no attention to nutation at all … and certainly not to the nutation of the earth itself. “
Oh, for crying out loud. Yes, Willis, I concede that steel and reinforced concrete respond very little little to the nutation of the Earth. Sheesh.
We are looking for the cause of a 0.7 degC shift over 30 years. This is small. It has a small forcing. And, water is not steel.
“I said that the nutation of the earth was tiny, so small it needs very specialized instruments to measure it.”
A backyard refracting telescope will do. That’s how it was discovered!
“You still haven’t dealt with the fact that your whiz-bang theory failed its very first test…”
It isn’t a “theory”. It is an observation – the lunar-induced nutation cycle is 18.6 years. It can interact with the solar cycle to produce ~60 year and ~5 year cycles. And, that is what is seen in the record.
It is worth investigating further. Given the utter failure of the GHG theory to account for the temperature observations, there is another cause out there somewhere. This one looks promising. If you don’t want to think about it, don’t – no skin off my nose. But, you will never get anywhere puzzling this phenomenon out by capricious dismissal of portentous leads.

Bart
April 14, 2014 10:32 am

“I said that the nutation of the earth was tiny, so small it needs very specialized instruments to measure it.”
BTW, 36 km of motion at the surface is not terrifically “small”.

April 14, 2014 10:38 am

Bart says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:32 am
BTW, 36 km of motion at the surface is not terrifically “small”.
Sigh, it is irrelevant as everything on earth including the oceans and the atmosphere nutates the same amount. We are also rushing around the Sun at 30 km/s, not terrifically small either, but just as irrelevant, or at 230 km/s around in the Galaxy, or at 600 km/s towards the Virgo cluster, etc.

Bart
April 14, 2014 11:22 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:38 am
Sigh, indeed. Nutation is angular acceleration, and the amount of acceleration varies with radius and angular position.
Nutation is THE quantity of interest in dynamical problems involving stability of spinning bodies, as you would know if you had any clue what you were talking about. I have designed, built, and tested nutation dampers in the lab, and published a peer reviewed paper on the subject. I know far, far more about this topic than you ever will.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:51 am
“I gave you a citation showing that the nutation wasn’t “forcing” the tides…”
No, Willis. That is only what you think the paper says. I explained to you what it meant. Your understanding of nutation dynamics is very poor.
Leif was wrong, and so are you, not I. It is very difficult for me to communicate to you on this, because you apparently start out assuming I am wrong, and searching for reasons to support your view. And, you pull out references you do not understand to “prove” me wrong.
One. More. Time. Lunar forcing of Earth’s nutation, with a period of approximately 18.6 years, is produced by the inertia distribution of the Earth interacting with the tidal forces, i.e., the gravity gradient torque. It is NOT primarily an oceanic phenomenon. Read here:

This precession motion is driven by the gravity of the Moon and the Sun acting on the Earth’s equatorial bulge. However, because the Moon orbits the Earth once a month, in a tilted, elliptical orbit, the spin axis also undergoes a smaller set of nutation motions on much shorter time scales (days to years). This is why the line traced by the spin axis appears “bumpy” when viewed up close.

You guys are completely barking up the wrong tree. You are demanding that an expert in these matters defer to your amateur opinion. It is surreal.

Bart
April 14, 2014 11:25 am

Let me highlight that:
This precession motion is driven by the gravity of the Moon and the Sun acting on the Earth’s equatorial bulge.
That is HOW THE MOON GETS A GRIP to produce a torque. If the Earth were a perfect sphere, THERE WOULD BE NO NUTATION!!!
Get a book. Attend a lecture. Do SOMETHING to try to understand the system.

Bart
April 14, 2014 11:26 am

Nutation produces angular acceleration. It is unsteady motion. Though, I’m sure one of you will jump on my earlier imprecision. You guys are clueless and hopeless. I don’t know why I bother.

Richard
April 14, 2014 12:23 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:36 am
Now, while I agree that 0.1 watts per square metre over 245 days over the entire surface of the planet is “a hell of a lot of energy” in some circles, the world is a hell of a big place. Typical downwelling radiation at the surface is about half a kilowatt per square metre … and on that scale, 0.1 W/m2 is not a lot of energy, it’s a pathetically small, almost unmeasurable amount of energy …
Next, I must have missed the part where you show that the half watt variation in the TSI affects the temperature in the slightest … if you could re-link to that it would be great.

Hi Willis, That energy a forcing of about 1.73×10^16 Watts maybe incredibly small compared to the downwelling of about half a kilowatt per square metre (per day?), but its represents an inbalance in the energy being supplied by the Sun. Small differences can cause the temperatures to rise and fall, by small amounts. 0.4 degrees is also small compared to the average temp of 16 degrees.
This is the Link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2014_v5.png
If you notice the temperature during that period 1998-1999 has fallen by about 0.4 degrees compared to the previous period. Incidentally the Sunspot number is also low during that period.

April 14, 2014 12:24 pm

Bart says:
April 14, 2014 at 11:25 am
Get a book.
Read Weiss’s thesis http://www.leif.org/EOS/Thesis-Weis-Ocean-Tides.pdf

Richard
April 14, 2014 12:25 pm

imbalance too

Richard
April 14, 2014 12:30 pm

Or if you take the 13 month running average by about 0.2 C

Bart
April 14, 2014 12:55 pm

lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Perhaps you should read it:
Page 24:

The nutation is caused by periodic variations in the orbits of the moon and earth. It consists of a combination of several constituents with different amplitudes and frequencies between 5 days and 18.6 years. The last two matrices, W and S, describe the influence of the earth rotation parameters.

So, they consider the polar motion to be important, and make sure to model it.
Page 89:

Also, the main variations in polar motion, i.e. free core nutation and Chandler wobble, were taken into account in the calculation, albeit without allowing for feedbacks of these free oscillations with the forced oscillations due to the ocean tides. These assumptions are a valid approximation with sufficient accuracy for the purpose of this study. However, studying the effect of the complete tidal dynamics described by TiME in combination with a non-linear gyro-model for the earth’s rotation like DyMEG (Seitz, 2004) may provide further insight into the dynamics.

Their simulations only cover 400 days at a time, and do not capture 18.6 year effects. However, they suggest further study, coupling the long term polar motion with dissipative dynamics. Quite reasonable. Their meaning is entirely clear to me. Nutation and energy dissipation are the meat and potatoes of spin dynamics.
This is typical. You toss up a paper, without apparently having read it, and claim it contradicts what I am trying to say, while it does nothing of the kind.

April 14, 2014 1:05 pm

Bart says:
April 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm
claim it contradicts what I am trying to say, while it does nothing of the kind.
It contradicts that the ocean sloshes back and forth forced by the nutation. People have been looking for an 18.6 year cycle in ocean tides for a long time, and if there is any, it is very small, of the order of one centimeter in amplitude over 18,6 years. Not exactly ‘sloshing’.

Bart
April 14, 2014 1:47 pm

lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:05 pm
It is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide#Tidal_constituents"well known constituent. And, if it is small, it takes place over a long time. Integrate an 18.6 yearly sinusoid versus a daily one. The multiple in integrated amplitude is 18.6*365.25 = 6794.