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
Figure 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.
Figure 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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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.
Figure 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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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.
DonV says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:09 am
Don, that’s a good question, but there is a subtlety in there …
Consider … how many times per year does the sun strongly warm the northern hemisphere in the manner you suggest?
The answer, of course, is once per year … so the phenomenon you mention is simply swept up into the rest of the yearly cycle data. All that your phenomenon does is make it so that the shape of the yearly cycle is not a sine wave.
w.
Richard says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:10 am
Thanks, Richard. I think I see what you’ve done. You say:
It seems that what you have done is summed the TSI over 245 days. The SUM of these over 245 days is 102 W/m2 larger than the sum over the other 245 days.
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.
w.
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.
Oops just meant he Range to be in bold… but never mind
[Fixed. -w]
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.
“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”.
Richard says:
April 14, 2014 at 4:43 am
So that works out to a 24/7 change in average incoming energy of a bit more than 0.1 W/m2 …
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.
Regards,
w.
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 says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:04 am
OK, you don’t like my terminology. Let me restate. You have claimed that the nutation “forces” the tides, vis (emphasis mine):
I gave you a citation showing that the nutation wasn’t “forcing” the tides, and that in fact, the causation went the opposite direction—the tidal forces are creating the nutation. I backed this up with a citation, viz:
Leif Svalgaard made the same point:
Now, you return with some kind of semantic argument that it’s tidal forces and not tides that control the nutation … so what? That’s exactly what my reference said, and in complete contradiction to your earlier claim that the causation goes the other way around.
The point is the same. Your claim that the nutation is “forcing” the tides to slosh is BACKWARDS, no matter what kind of persiflage you bring up to try to gloss over your error.
Bart, I’ll let in on a secret. You ever notice that you get almost no traction around here? You want to know how to get more people to believe you?
ADMIT IT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!!!
You made an ignorant claim, that nutation was causing the oceans to slosh. Two people have pointed out your error and I provided a scientific reference that says clearly that your claim is wrong.
When you continue flailing and trying to cover it up, Bart, everyone just points and laughs. They can read. They know you were wrong, and Leif and I were right. They see you trying your best to spread peanut butter over that fact so no one notices, and failing miserably.
So my advice is, admit your errors and move forwards. You made an ignorant statement about nutation, and someone corrected you. You could learn from that … or you could continue to insist that you were right.
Your choice …
In friendship,
w.
lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:38 am
Thanks, Leif. I was trying to figure out how to answer his irrelevant claim. You’ve done it more clearly than I could.
Your point is clear. When you and everything around you is experiencing the same motion, it doesn’t matter.
The truly bizarre part to me is the missing mechanism. Bart claims that the nutation of the earth, BECAUSE it has a period of 9.3 years, acts to transform an 11-year signal into the combination of two signals, one at 5 years and one at 60 years … but so far, he’s been remarkably shy about explaining the actual mechanism involved in the “nutational transformation” system …
In fact, I don’t even understand the math involved. Oh, I understand the math itself fine, it’s just addition and distraction, but it’s just plucked out of the air with no rhyme or reason. I asked him about that … crickets.
w.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
imbalance too
Or if you take the 13 month running average by about 0.2 C
lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Perhaps you should read it:
Page 24:
So, they consider the polar motion to be important, and make sure to model it.
Page 89:
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.
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’.
Richard says:
April 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Thanks, Richard. Here’s the thing. Yes, as you point out, a tenth of a watt is an imbalance. My point is that in the climate system, it is a miniscule, trivially small imbalance.
First, thanks for the link. That’s the University of Alabama Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit satellite-measured lower tropical temperature, usually referred to as UAH MSU T2LT.


Now, if your claim is that the variation in TSI is affecting the UAH MSU lower tropospheric temperature, you could show it one of two ways. You could either do a periodicity analysis, or a cross-correlation analysis. I did the periodicity analysis in the head post, viz:
As discussed in the head post, there is no sign of the TSI affecting the lower tropical temperature.
OK, so how about a cross-correlation? Hang on … ok, special for you, here it is, hot off the press:
Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. This shows that at any positive lag (TSI leading temperature), the correlation of the TSI and the T2LT temperature is pathetically small.
This is the recurring problem I have, Richard. I started out this quest some years ago thinking that there WOULD be a signal, a sign, some trace of the 11-year sunspot / TSI / heliomagnetism / cosmic rays cycle somewhere in the terrestrial climate records.
But no matter how hard I look, I keep coming up with a null result. So I’m sorry to say, Richard, that to date there is absolutely no evidence of any 11- year TSI-related variations in the UAH MSU T2LT lower tropospheric temperature dataset that you reference. None.
I’ve not only searched myself. I’ve asked other people to BRING ME THE EVIDENCE! If there is a climate dataset that you think shows an 11-year cycle, bring it on … but at this point, I’ve yet to find even one. Nor am I the first man to look, lots of folks have tried. The inescapable conclusion is, any possible effect of the 11-year solar cycle on climate is so small that it lost in the weeds.
Regards,
w.
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.
Bart says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm
It is a well known constituent. And, if it is small, it takes place over a long time
There is an 18.6 year [very small] cycle simply because the positions of the sun and the moon repeat in a 18.6 year cycle, so the luni-solar tidal potential will vary slightly with that period giving rise to a [hard to observe] cm-scale tide, but this has nothing to do with nutation and there is no sloshing of the ocean..
lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm
No, that is not why.
This is pointless.
Bart says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm
This is pointless.
I agree with Willis that this is indeed pointless for the reason he stated.
“Periodicity analysis” is fine for detecting STRICTLY periodic signals exhibiting complex wave-forms, such as musical tones, diurnal cycles, etc. in a noisy record These signals are characterized by LINE spectra at some known fundamental frequency and its harmonics. It can’t, however, decompose a more general signal in a variance-preserving way; the results produced by a whole range of periodicities will not not add up to the original signal sans the noise. There is a categorical difference between strictly periodic and “quasi-periodic” signals, characterized by a spectral CONTINUUM in a narrow band of frequencies. The former will produce a strictly periodic acf (aside from noise contribution at zero lag) that never dies out with increasing lag, whereas the latter will produce an acf with a decaying envelope. Such is the case with SSN data when examined over lags of several decades.