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.
Bart says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:31 am
So your hypothesis is that the 11-year solar TSI signal is somehow amplitude modulated to carry another signal at a different frequency, and that upon arrival at the earth, the climate system rectifies the combined signal to remove the carrier frequency entirely and completely, leaving only the modulated signal.
Riiiight … so should I wear something to protect myself from this special amplitude-modulated sunshine, which is presumably carrying some unknown message in an amplitude-modulated manner? I mean, in your opinion would for example a thin layer of aluminum around my main sensory processing center keep this amplitude-modulated signal from affecting me?
I swear, some folks have some decidedly zany physics operating on their planets …
w.
milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm
That’s a convenient claim … but just how much data do we need? Look, milodon, if UV and magnetic flux were in your words an “important influence” on climate, then why after decades and decades of searching are we still discussing the question? Herschel proposed that sunspots affect wheat prices centuries ago … people are still trying to find such a relationship. Yes, I know, every once in a while someone teases something weak out of the data, but why is there nothing conclusive?
It’s because evidence for such a connection, as I show above in what is merely the latest installment of the very long search, has been remarkably elusive.
Now you can certainly claim that we need more data and more time …
But after centuries of searching, while we can never rule out that solar UV and magnetic flux may be influences on climate, it seems very unlikely that they are important influences. From all evidence to date, they are what I would call third-order influences.
w.
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
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…
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.
milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm
From your quotation:
Since the UV varies in lockstep with the sunspots, if that were true, surely it would show up in the temperature as an ~ 11-year cycle. But there is no 11-year cycle in temperatures. Now, I just wandered into this analysis a few days ago. This is all new science to me. I haven’t looked extensively at individual temperature records.
But to date, I haven’t found a single temperature record that shows any power in the 11-year range at all. Not one.
SO … for you and all others that think that such a “strong solar influence” exists, whip out your fourier analysis or your spectrum analysis or your wavelet analysis and bring it on! Let’s get this settled. Find a temperature dataset somewhere that has a strong peak at ~ 11 years, and we can all test it ourselves.
w.
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!
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?
Thanks Willis. Lots of information here.
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
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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?
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.
Bart says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Excellent news.


However, if you’d care to explain the physics behind how the earth is rectifying an AM signal, I’m all ears. I can’t see how that would work.
To start with, to successfully amplitude-modulate a carrier frequency, the carrier frequency is typically much higher than the signal frequency. So we see the signal as a slow change in the amplitude of the carrier. And yes, we can see something like this in the TSI data.
You could see that as an AM signal, I suppose.
Now, IF your hypothesis is correct, then the 11-year variations in TSI get totally “rectified” in some unspecified fashion, not leaving even a hum behind, and we’re left with something like the gold line below as the signal which has been used to modulate the carrier:
The gold line is something akin to your hypothesized rectified AM signal.
Then the temperature is said to follow that gold line somehow … so my question is:
What physical mechanism would make the climate totally and completely insensitive to the large, 11-year cycles in TSI, and yet respond to the much smaller secular variation and drift in the TSI?
That’s the part of the signal processing that I’m not following. What makes it follow the small overall drift and yet ignore the much larger peaks and valleys?
w.
PS—As a ham radio licence holder (H44WE), I am familiar with signal processing concepts of many kinds, including the things you’ve discussed such as sidelobes, carrier frequencies, signal modulation, bandpass filters, overtones, heterodyning, and the like. I’m also familiar with Fourier analysis, although far from an expert, and with the concepts and mathematics of switching between frequency and time domains.
So it’s unclear which basic signal processing concepts of relevance to this discussion you think I don’t understand.
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.
Roy Spencer says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I know exactly how you feel, Dr. Roy. After a while, the old posts start to fade together …
All the best, thanks for the comment,
w.
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.
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
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
brantc says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm
That link is hilarious, Brant, their idea of statistics is a hoot. I should do a post on it. They look at a host of possible correlations between the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Northern Hemisphere Temperature (NHT). They settle on correlations between the two for the following months:
January-February-March,
December-January-February-March,
November-December-January-February-March, and
March-April-May.
Why no February-March-April? Presumably because either the correlations or the astrological signs weren’t favorable … since this claims to be science, I’m guessing it’s bad correlations, not bad astrology.
So let’s see. They’re investigating correlations between 3, 4, and 5 month contiguous chunks of data. There are 12 of each of those for the NAO and for the NHT, for a total of 12 * 3 = 36 individual choices of intervals to compare.
But wait, it gets better. They then divide all the years of record into three groups depending on the length of the sunspot cycle. They call these groups “10-year”, “11-year” and “12-year” so I assume 10-year includes 9-year cycles and 12-year includes 13-year cycles.
And then they pick the best four.
So … out of 36 possibilities, they’ve picked four of them without replacement. There are 36*35*34*33 = 1,413,720 possible ways to pick four of them. Then, as mentioned above, they divided them into three groups by sunspot cycle lengths, calculated all the correlations … and then they seem terribly impressed that some of the results are “significant at a 95% confidence level”, in their words.
Well, duh … with over a million possible combinations to pick from, are we surprised that they’ve been able to pick one of them with lots of correlations?
The mind boggles … the gob is smacked …
w.
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
Don Easterbrook says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:55 pm
What he said.
Don Easterbrook says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:55 pm
milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Both of you seem to misapprehend what I’ve done. I didn’t look to see whether TSI is a cause of global temperature. 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 invited you all above to point out a temperature dataset which has power in the 11-year cycles … not to show that it was connected to TSI. At present, I’m looking for any effect with that kind of periodicity.
IF we can find the 11-year cycles in some dataset or other, THEN we can begin to speculate on what might cause them as Don does above.
But without that, you have an explanation vainly searching for a phenomenon … so I repeat my call for any temperature dataset with a visible 11-year cycle. Like I said, use the tool of your preference, Fourier, spectrum analysis, wavelets, I don’t care … where is that dataset?
w.