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 12, 2014 at 1:33 pm
OK, my bad. Instead of saying completely insensitive to, I mean that the most sensitive analyses I know of (periodicity, Fourier, wavelet) can’t find the signal … so does that make a difference? I can’t see it, but yes, we can say it has an SNR that is so bad we can’t even find a residual hum, much less a significant signal. Is that better?
My dear friend, I know that it is theoretically possible that it is modulated into components of “near” five and “near” sixty years. There are lots of things that one can do with a signal, split it into parts, heterodyne it, signal analysis offers a host of ways to transform a signal.
What I don’t know is how it is theoretically possible for that to happen in the climate system. I’ve never heard of anything even remotely resembling that occurring in a chaotic system. You are saying that you are driving the system with an 11-year signal, and that there is no detectable response in the 11-year band anywhere in the system … but somehow, all of the energy in the 11-year signal is transferred to two other signals at “near” 5 and 60 years.
Here’s your explanation:
So … the earth wobbles slightly on its axis. You say that what you are calling the radius of nutation varies with a period of 9.3 years.

Now, to start with I don’t understand that. Nutation is a slight “nodding” of the axis of rotation.
Nutation is show by the red line, with the direction of the nutation (inwards and outwards shown) by the red letter N and the arrow.
So … what is the “radius of nutation” you’re referring to?
In any case, let’s agree for the sake of argument that some slight cyclical change occurs in the earth’s obliquity (the angle of the spin axis to the vertical). So what? Seriously, without the finest of astronomical instruments we wouldn’t even know that such a fluctuation exists. So why would you think it would be powerful enough to convert an 11-year solar signal into 5 and 60 year signals without leaving a trace of the original signal?
Look, Bart, I know that you are good in signal analysis. The problem is, the earth isn’t at all good at signal analysis. You can no doubt whip out an electronic circuit that would convert an 11-year input signal into two other signals … but how on earth can the climate system do that trick?
It’s far from enough to say that something is “theoretically possible”. You have to figure out HOW it might be not only actually possible, but actually actual. Until then, it’s just another neat trick from a good signal engineer who hasn’t fully considered whether the real world can do what he can do.
w.
PS: Where is the 5-year cycle you so glibly speak of? I have a 3+ year cycle in a couple of the datasets, but that’s too far from 5 to be a result of your procedure shown above. So where’s the evidence for your theory? Where is the 5-year cycle?
Heck, I don’t even understand the meaning of that length of cycle. The second of your calculations is:
This is called the “synodic cycle” of the two periods, and physically, it is the interval between when the two underlying cycles are in conjunction. I understand that, although I think it’s meaningless in this context … but what is this one:
In any case, I’m not finding the 5 year cycle. There’s a 44 month cycle … but for that to be the result of your calculation for T1, the sunspot cycle (your 11 years) would have to be only 5.3 years … not happening.
In short, you have a theory which has no physical mechanism, is related to a slow change in the miniscule “nutation” of the spin axis, and is missing evidence of a 5-year cycle … perhaps you can see why it’s getting zero traction with me.
Mario Lento says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Thanks, Mario. I don’t think you quite get what I’ve done. I’ve looked, not for TSI, but for ANYTHING that moves in sync with sunspots. This includes UV, TSI, heliomagnetic field, and cosmic rays. If any of them through any mechanism were affecting the temperature, it would show up as an ~ 11 year signal in the temperature data … but to data, we find no such signal.
This negative result includes, as Beng says, ultraviolet, because UV varies on the same ~ 11 year cycle as the sunspots and the TSI and the cosmic rays.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm
You have to figure out HOW it might be not only actually possible, but actually actual. Until then, it’s just another neat trick from a good signal engineer who hasn’t fully considered whether the real world can do what he can do.
The problem with Bart is that he is afflicted with what Ken Schatten calls Cyclomania. First it was sun cycles, now it is moon cycles, there may be more cycles in the offing. Put in a different way: to a hammer everything looks like a nail. He applies the one thing he can do regardless of the physics of the problem.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“To me, this supports my contention that the temperature is thermally regulated by emergent climate phenomena like thunderstorms, El Nino, dust devils, and the PDO. One feature of the system I hypothesize is that it is robust against variations in forcing.”
Willis, your hypothesis on emergence is to me cogent and I am fully convinced, however; it is likely unprovable, as are my thoughts. So here are my thoughts:
1.) The billions of year old Sun radiates at a constant level on the time scale of millennium or tens of millennium. It has some kind of pulse on an 11/22 year cycle, the sun spot cycle.
2.) The Little Ice Age existed and was global.
If either of these statements are untenable to you, then you can stop now and blow me off as a nutcase.
I was once a Process Engineer. We have a process under control ( by Emergence) with an incoming variable, sun spots (well not sun spots themselves but some other parameter tied to them) and a controlled output – temperature. As long as the incoming variable stays within an UCL (Upper Control Limit) and the LCL (Lower Control Limit) the system (temperature) remains Under Control. If the incoming variable exceeds the limits for an extended period of time, the system (temperature) will go out of control – singular or small duration excursions outside of limits may not make the system go out of control.
No correlation analysis will find anything about the incoming variable under these circumstances. Coefficient and p-values will mean nothing.
My understanding of your Emergence hypothesis is that it is energy driven, so the upper control limit in the above idealization is probably rather soft. The Emergence would just keep kicking up and higher temperature would be fully constrained (while there may have been a snowball Earth I have never heard or a fireball one). But not so at the LCL. The LIA occurred and given 1.) above albedo must have increased, reducing energy to fuel Emergence – not that any would be needed. Extended excursions below the LCL could result in high albedo making higher albedo and cold.
I hope this makes sense. My only concern with your Emergence hypothesis is and has been the Little Ice Age. Maybe we should just make it go away.
Rob Rider
It will record the ice in Antarctica.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
[snip . . your link doesn’t work so please repost with a working link. BTW, insulting people and calling them names is not normally considered a viable method of changing opinion or having a debate . . mod]
Moderator , my comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/solar-periodicity/#comment-1611715
I accidentally posted here, but it was meant for the other thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/claim-odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/
no surprise I couldn’t find it there, my apologies to Willis and anyone else concerned.
Moderation indeed !, a bunch of cretins who can’t handle the basic cause of temperatures rising with the appearance of the Sun and their falling with its disappearance are hardly going to handle global temperatures in any shape or form –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
The single cause of ‘global warming’ hysteria is the lack of a stable narrative and that narrative ain’t going to happen with nuisances like Watts and his troupe pretending to stand in opposition.
G.Kelleher says:
April 13, 2014 at 4:49 am
Moderation indeed !, a bunch of cretins who can’t handle the basic cause of temperatures rising with the appearance of the Sun and their falling with its disappearance are hardly going to handle global temperatures in any shape or form
It takes a cretin to claim that
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year”
has any relevance to the topic.
Isvalgaard
It is a genuine phenomenon that there isn’t a single individual capable of comprehending that when a society can no longer mesh the Sun rising and setting within a 24 hour day with one rotation of the Earth,and that is what the statement actually does,then something more insidious at work than any perceived carbon dioxide hysteria.
Read the amazing work of fiction once again –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
Personally,even with the greatest courtesy, I believe people have truly lost their minds and not so much that they can manage to believe there are more rotations than there are sunrise/sunsets in a year but that when presented with the actual external references which go into discerning the Earth’s dynamics and its effects on terrestrial sciences,including climate,nobody wants to know.
Willis says:
“Now, at first glance it looks like there is a peak at about 10 years 7 months as in the TSI. However, there’s an oddity of the periodicity analysis. In addition to showing the cycles, periodicity analysis shows the harmonics of the cycles. In this example, it shows the fundamental cycle with a period of 44 months (3 years 8 months). Then it shows the first harmonic (two cycles) of a 44-month cycle as an 88 month cycle. It is lower and broader than the fundamental. It also shows the second harmonic, in this case with a period of 3 * 44 =132 months, and once again this third peak is lower and broader than the second peak.”
Well looking at the solar metric that has considerable variability, and that does relate at an event level to teleconnections such as ENSO and the AO/NAO, i.e. the solar wind, it does not simply follow the sunspot cycle. There is typically a reduced level just after the cycle minima, and again around the cycle maxima, with an interval of about a third of a cycle, 3.69yrs or 44.33 months for the average cycle. That period would likely be far more consistent than the periods between cycle minima, and particularly the highly variable periods between cycle maxima.
Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:22 am
the solar wind, it does not simply follow the sunspot cycle.
Actually, it does follow the cycle, but not closely the sunspot numbers, here is the Ap-index since 1844 http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
The various parameters of the solar wind [field strength B, speed V, and density n] also show a solar cycle behavior, but, again, not directly related to the sunspot number, e.g., for the average cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
lsvalgaard says:
“Actually, it does follow the cycle”
Actually the largest drops in the geomag index are as I described, typically just after minimum and around maximum, and you know it.
Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:43 am
Actually the largest drops in the geomag index are as I described, typically just after minimum and around maximum, and you know it.
The ‘largest’ is not correct. There is a small drop near maximum and a very large drop at minimum. The reason for this is well understood http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
and is simply the combination of the curves for B, V, and n.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm
I explained the mechanism above in my very first comment:
You can disagree if you like. I was pointing out a linkage, and I hedged appropriately. But, if you think nutation is no big deal, then you should go talk to designers who Earthquake-proof the buildings in Tokyo, or the NASA engineers who put nutation dampers aboard their satellites. Nutation is THE dynamical property of interest for stability in spin dynamics.
lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Already anticipated.
lsvalgaard says:
“There is a small drop near maximum and a very large drop at minimum.”
Boy have you changed your tune, on another thread a few years back you insisted that the larger drop was at the maximum, and I had to argue the point of the big drop just after minimum with you.
Ulric Lyons says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:56 am
Boy have you changed your tune, on another thread a few years back you insisted that the larger drop was at the maximum, and I had to argue the point of the big drop just after minimum with you.
Nonsense, my plots of Ap, and the solar cycle behavior of B, V, and n are old, but if you think otherwise provide a precise link to your argument.
Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:48 am
the sloshing of the oceans as forced by nutation of the Earth’s polar spin axis.
If you knew anything at all about the nutation you would know that it is the other way around: changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation modulates the nutation, but in any case, that forcing is too minute to be worth discussing.
Remove DC component from Ap index, give it polarity sign of the contemporary solar magnetic field, combine with secular oscillation of the Earth’s magnetic field (as calculated from changes in the core’s angular momentum):
Result
However, that would be a meaningless numerology, would it not?
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:10 am
You are talking about unforced nutation, the “Chandler Wobble“. This is the forced nutation from Sun and Moon dynamics, which is 30X larger. Read up on it.
The tides are not minute.
Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
This is the forced nutation from Sun and Moon dynamics, which is 30X larger.
“The principal term of nutation is due to the regression of the moon’s nodal line and has the same period of 6798 days (18.61 years). It reaches plus or minus 17″ in longitude and 9″ in obliquity. All other terms are much smaller; the next-largest, with a period of 183 days (0.5 year), has amplitudes 1.3″ and 0.6″ respectively”
Enough said.
Com on, Leif. Do I really have to spoon feed this to you? How many kilometers of motion does that represent at the Earth’s surface at the equator? The Earth has a radius of 6378 km. This is what we typically consider a “large” number. Do the math.
Bart says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:56 am
Com on, Leif. Do I really have to spoon feed this to you? How many kilometers of motion does that represent at the Earth’s surface at the equator? The Earth has a radius of 6378 km. This is what we typically consider a “large” number. Do the math.
No need to, as you obviously don’t understand what you are talking about. So, don’t bother.
vukcevic says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
However, that would be a meaningless numerology, would it not?
It would, so spare us the nonsense.
I spent a fun morning watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian. I could not help myself. I thought of Vuk and Ulric and Steven and Bart standing upon their platforms explaining their theories to a now and again enthralled audience who lift up their sandals and gourds, as well as to that small faction who declare “He’s making it up as he goes along!”
Too funny!!!