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.

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
293 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

April 14, 2014 1:52 pm

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..

Bart
April 14, 2014 1:54 pm

lsvalgaard says:
April 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm
No, that is not why.
This is pointless.

April 14, 2014 2:00 pm

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.

1sky1
April 14, 2014 5:25 pm

“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.