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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
lsvalgaard
As you know in Scandinavia and southern Europe will also be snowing in the coming days.
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.
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.
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.
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
Daryl M
Can you explain the changes in ozone differently than solar activity?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp30anim.gif
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.
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.
Thanks for the info and reference, Leif. I’ll look forward to reading your new publication when it comes out.
Don
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.
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 .
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?
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?
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
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
njsnowfan says:
April 12, 2014 at 8:11 am
Sorry, Snowfan, but that link contains no more information about the graph than did the graph itself. Still useless.
w.
Bart says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:57 am
What makes you think I missed it? This is why I ask people to QUOTE MY WORDS—otherwise we end up like this, where no one but you has a clue what you are babbling about.
I’ll take that as an admission that you either don’t care, or more likely, you don’t know.
Taking you at your word, if you don’t care enough to answer questions about your curious beliefs, then why are you posting here? This is a scientific site, so we answer scientific questions and we care about these kinds of things. If you truly don’t care, then please go bother someone else, because around here folks who don’t care are just a waste of electron.
Sadly
w.
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.
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.
Bart says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Damn skippy I stop when in my opinion someone goes off the rails. I’m doing it right here here and now. Why? I stop here because you’ve made an unpleasant accusation that I I have no real issues, I just “make up [something] in my own mind” as an excuse to stop reading.
Now, I can live with that kind of accusation if I know what you are referring to. What is it that you claim I “make up in my own mind”?
You see, despite my express request, you’re accusing me of doing something wrong without quoting what it was that you think is wrong. As a result, I cannot defend myself against whatever might have your knickers in a twist, because I don’t know what I said that set you off. QUOTE MY WORDS if you’d like me to read further in your screed. Is that so hard to understand? And yes, I will stop reading your comment if you accuse me without quoting me. Get used to it.
In any case, Bart, here’s the deal. I’m constantly doing triage on comments. I make every effort to answer scientific objections and questions. So I look at each comment and I must decide … worth a short answer? Worth a long answer? Not worth an answer?
So in general, I’ll read a comment until I realize that there is something important that the commenter and I disagree on.
Rather than continue the discussion and ignore the disagreement, I do one of two things at that point. I either decide it’s a lost cause, stop reading, and move on, OR I stop to deal with the disagreement. To do that, I’ll skim the rest of the comment, but only to see if the disagreement is explained further downstream. Then I’ll reply regarding the disagreement, and usually nothing else.
Once the disagreement is settled one way or the other, then it’s worth moving on. But until it is settled, there’s no point in my going onwards to discuss some other strange claim the commenter might be making further down in their comment.
The issue for me is that I am always short on time. I’m always either doing research, writing up my research, commenting on someone else’s research, or defending my research … and I have a day job. So if someone says something that is e.g contrary to the laws of physics, I haven’t got time to figure out what else they might be mistaken about. Until we can agree on the basics, I see absolutely no point in getting into the details …
Regards,
w.