It's The Evidence, Stupid!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz:

thumb its the sunIt’s the sun, stupid.

And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s what heats the planet.

Unfortunately, the dang facts got in the way again …

Chief among the dang facts is that despite looking in a whole lot of places, I never could find any trace of the 11-year sunspot cycle in any climate records. And believe me, I’ve looked.

You see, I reasoned that no matter whether the mechanism making the sun-climate connection were direct variations in the brightness of the sun, or variations in magnetic fields, or variations in UV, or variations in cosmic rays, or variations in the solar wind, they all run in synchronicity with the sunspots. So no matter the mechanism, it would have a visible ~11-year heartbeat.

I’ve looked for that 11-year rhythm every place I could think of—surface temperature records, sea level records, lake level records, wheat price records, tropospheric temperature records, river flow records. Eventually, I wrote up some of these findings, and I invited readers to point out some record, any record, in which the ~ 11-year sunspot cycle could be seen.

Nothing.

However, I’m a patient man, and to this day, I continue to look for the 11-year cycle. You can’t prove a negative … but you can amass evidence. My latest foray is into the world of atmospheric pressure. I figured that the atmospheric pressure might be more sensitive to variations in something like say the solar wind than the temperature would be.

Let me start, however, by taking a look at the elusive creature at the heart of this quest, the ~11-year sunspot cycle. Here is the periodogram of that cycle, so that we know what kind of signature we’re looking for:

periodogram monthly sunspot recordsFigure 1. Periodogram, showing the strengths of the various-length cycles in the SIDC sunspot data. In order to be able to compare disparate datasets, the values of the cycles are expressed as a percentage of the total range of the underlying data.

As you’d expect, the main peak is at around 11 years. However, the sunspot cycles are not regular, so we also have smaller peaks at nearby cycle lengths. Figure 2 shows an expanded view of the central part of Figure 1, showing only the range from seven to twenty-five years:

periodogram 7 to 25 yr monthly sunspot recordsFigure 2. The same periodogram as in Figure 1, but showing only the 7 – 25 year range. 

Now, there is a temptation to see the central figure as some kind of regular amplitude-modulated signal, with side-lobes. However, that’s not what’s happening here. There is no regular signal. Instead of there being a regular cycle, the length of the sunspot cycle varies widely, from about nine to about 15 years, with most of them in the 10-12 year range. The periodogram is merely showing that variation in cycle length.

In any case, that’s what we’re looking for—some kind of strong signal, with its peak value in the range of about 10-12 years.

As I mentioned above, when I started looking at the climate, like many people I thought “It’s the sun, stupid”, but I had found no data to back that up. So what did I find in my latest search? Well, sweet Fannie Adams, as our cousins across the pond say … here are my results:

periodograms four long term atmospheric pressure recordsFigure 3. Periodograms of four long-term atmospheric pressure records from around the globe.

There are some interesting features of these records.

First, there is a very strong annual cycle. I expected annual cycles, but not ones that large. These cycles are 30% to 60% of the total range of the data. I assume they result in large part from the prevalence of low-pressure areas associated with storms in the local wintertime, combined with some effect from the variations in temperature. I also note that as expected, Tahiti, being nearest to the equator and with little in the way of either temperature variations or low-pressure storms, has the smallest one-year cycle.

Other than semi-annual and annual cycles, however, there is very little power in the other cycle lengths. Figure 4 shows the expanded version of the same data, from seven to twenty-five years. Note the change in scale.

periodogram four longterm atmos. press 7 to 25 yrsFigure 4. Periodograms of four long-term atmospheric pressure records from around the globe.

First, note that unlike the size of the annual cycle, which is half the total swing in pressures, none of these cycles have more than about 4% of the total swing of the atmospheric pressure. These are tiny cycles.

Next, generally there is more power in the ~ 9-year and the ~ 13-14 year ranges than there is in the ~ 11-year cycles.

So … once again, I end up back where I started. I still haven’t found any climate datasets that show any traces of the 11-year sunspot cycles. They may be there in the pressure data, to be sure, it is impossible to prove a negative, I can’t say they’re not there … but if so, they are hiding way, way down in the weeds.

Which of course leads to the obvious question … why no sign of the 11-year solar cycles?

I hold that this shows that the temperature of the system is relatively insensitive to changes in forcing. This, of course, is rank heresy to the current scientific climate paradigm, which holds that ceteris paribus, changes in temperature are a linear function of changes in forcing. I disagree. I say that the temperature of the planet is set by a dynamic thermoregulatory system composed of emergent phenomena that only appear when the surface gets hotter than a certain temperature threshold. These emergent phenomena maintain the temperature of the globe within narrow bounds (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th Century), despite changes in volcanoes, despite changes in aerosols, despite changes in GHGs, despite changes in forcing of all kinds. The regulatory system responds to temperature, not to forcing.

And I say that because of the existence of these thermoregulatory systems, the 11-year variations in the sun’s UV and magnetism and brightness, as well as the volcanic variations and other forcing variations … well, they make little difference.

As a result, once again, I open the Quest for the Holy 11-Year Grail to others. I invite those that believe that “It’s the sun, stupid” to show us the terrestrial climate record that has any sign of being correlated with the 11-year sunspot cycles. I’ve looked. Lots of folks have looked … where is that record? I encourage you to employ whatever methods you want to use to expose the connection—cross-correlation, wavelet analysis, spectrum analysis, fourier analysis, the world is your lobster. Report back your findings, I’d like to put this question to bed.

It’s a lovely Saturday in spring, what could be finer? Gotta get outside and study me some sunshine. I wish you all many such days.

w.

For Clarity: If you disagree with someone, please quote their exact words that you disagree with. It avoids all kinds of pernicious misunderstandings, because it lets us all know exactly where you think they went off the rails.

Why The 11-year Cycle?: Because it is the biggest cycle, and we know all of the other cycles (magnetism, TSI, solar wind) move in synchronicity with the sunspots. As a result, if you want to claim that the climate is responding to say a slow, smaller 100-year cycle in the sunspot data, then by the same token it must be responding more strongly to the larger 11-cycle in the sunspot data, and so the effect should be visible there.

The Subject Of This Post: Please do not mistake this quest for the elusive 11-year cycle in climate datasets as an opportunity for you to propound your favorite theory about approximately 43-year pseudo-cycles due to the opposition of Uranus. If you can’t show me a climate dataset containing an 11-year cycle, your hypothesis is totally off-topic for this post. I encourage you to write it up and send it to Anthony, he may publish it, or to Tallbloke, he might also. I encourage everyone to get their ideas out there. Here on this thread, though, I’m looking for the 11-year cycle sunspot cycle in any terrestrial climate records.

The Common Cycles in Figures 3 and 4: Obviously, the four records in Figs. 3 & 4 have a common one-year cycle. As an indication of the sensitivity of the method that I’m using, consider the two other peaks which are common to all four of the records. These are the six-month cycle, and the 9-year cycle. It is well known that the moon raises tides in the atmosphere just as it does in the ocean. The 9-year periodicity is not uncommon in tidal datasets, and the same is true about the 6-month periodicity. I would say that we’re looking at the signature of the atmospheric tides in those cycle lengths.

Variable-Length Cycles, AKA “Pseudocycles” or “Approximate Cycles”: Some commenters in the past have asserted that my method, which I’ve nicknamed “Slow Fourier Analysis” but which actually seems to be a variant of what might be called direct spectrum analysis, is incapable of detecting variable-length cycles. They talk about a cycle say around sixty years that changes period over time.

However, the sunspot cycle is also quite variable in length … and despite that my method not only picks up the most common cycle length, it shows the strength of the sunspot cycles at the other cycle lengths as well.

A Couple of my Previous Searches for the 11-Year Sunspot Cycle:

Looking at four long-term temperature records here.

A previous look at four more long-term temperature records.

Atmospheric Pressure and Sunspot Data:

Madras

Nagasaki 

Tahiti to 1950  and Tahiti 1951 on (note different units)

Darwin to 1950  and Darwin 1951 on  (note different units)

Sunspots These are from SIDC. Note that per advice from Leif Svalgaard, in the work I did above the pre-1947 values have been increased by 20% to adjust for the change in counting methods. It does not affect this analysis, you can use either one.

For ease of downloading, I’ve also made up a CSV file containing all of the above data, called Long Term Atmospheric Pressure.csv

And for R users, I’ve saved all 5 data files in R format as “Long Pressure Datasets.tab

Code: Man, I hate this part … hang on … let me clean it up a bit … OK, I just whacked out piles of useless stuff and ran it in an empty workspace and it seemed to fly. You need two things, a file called madras pressure.R  and my Slow Fourier Transform Functions.R. Let me know what doesn’t work.

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
668 Comments
May 25, 2014 12:34 pm

Remember most of the suns influence on temperature records over the 11 year solar cycle is dampened out by Stevenson screens and shielded from direct sunlight, they are even oriented facing north to prevent direct sunlight falling on the thermometers.
Why is it assumed that temperature records contain a physical wattage of solar variability when it is clear that the process of measuring temperature removes it, it is continually claimed that the 11 year cycle solar variability is accounted for, but is it?.
There are direct sunlight measurements and It shouldn’t be too difficult to add the solar radiation flux density (W/m2) back onto the temperature record to compensate for the removal of direct sunlight.

Pamela Gray
May 25, 2014 12:43 pm
Pamela Gray
May 25, 2014 12:45 pm

Oops. Wrong link. Just type this into your search engine.
The Ionosphere – Space Environment Center – NOAA

Pamela Gray
May 25, 2014 12:47 pm
John Andrews
May 25, 2014 12:50 pm

Kudos, Willis for finding nothing, reporting it, and generating a great discussion.

Tonyb
May 25, 2014 1:13 pm

Pamela
We were discussing that 1257 reference yesterday
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/#comment-568157
The assertion is complete nonsense. It is difficult from observational evidence to see the effects of even very large volcanos lasting more than a few months let alone precipitating the lia
Tonyb

Pamela Gray
May 25, 2014 1:15 pm
richardscourtney
May 25, 2014 1:25 pm

Willis Eschenbach:
In your comment addressed to Konrad at May 25, 2014 at 9:35 am which is here you ask

the oceans don’t prevent a 1 year cycle in temperature, why would they prevent an 11-year cycle?

Sorry, but that is a profound misunderstanding. The oceans CAUSE the “1 year cycle in temperature”.
I explained this in my above post to you at May 25, 2014 at 12:34 am which is here where I wrote

The reason for the global seasonal temperature change is the different coverage of Northern hemisphere (NH) and Southern hemisphere (SH) by water (land is not as good a heat sink as water) so the seasonal variation is greater in the NH than the SH. This support’s Monckton’s claim of a great oceanic heat sink effect.

Clearly, the oceanic heat sink is so great that the difference between its magnitudes in the NH and SH completely swamps the effect of the change to the Earth’s absorbtion of solar radiation induced by Earth’s varying distance from the Sun around its elliptical orbit. And, also clearly, so large a heat-sink effect can – at least in principle – smooth the smaller effect of a putative variation in solar radiation.
Richard

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 1:27 pm

Here I’ve taken the output from Willis’ SFT for Tahiti SLP and SSN , scaled to be comparable around the 11 year peaks:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=946
The match of peak frequencies is very close . Also notable is the probably lunar peak at 9 years.
As I have been saying for some time, one of the main reasons solar signal cannot be clearly identified and appears to go in and out of phase is because it is mixing with comparable lunar signal.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
” The presence of this strong 9 year cycle will confound attempts to detect the solar signal unless it is recognised. When the two are in phase (working together) the lunar effect will give an exaggerated impression of the scale of the solar signal and when they are out of phase the direct relationship between SSN and temperatures breaks down, leading many to conclude that any such linkage is erroneous or a matter of wishful thinking by less objective observers.”
Willis has succeeded in finding the illusive solar signal. My guess is, if it’s present in SLP in the middle of the Pacific, that won’t be only place it is.
Now, it should be noted that it’s does not stand out as clearly as it does in SSN where the 11y triplet is clearly the main show.
The three peaks have a combined amplitude of 140 , on a scale where the annual variation is 500 (arbitrary units). so it’s not digging around in weeds either.
This all invites further study ( please send next years funding ) . How does the phase compare to the solar variation. Is this a direct reflection of a solar induced change SST , for example, or is it a manifestation of a tropical atmospheric feedback which is cancelling the change in solar ‘forcing’. ?
It raises lots of interesting questions but at least we now know what it looks like so we can analyse it, see where it comes from how large it is and what it means.
Thanks again to Willis for the SFT code. This is would not have been possible with standard Fourier tools which need continuous data.

richardscourtney
May 25, 2014 1:30 pm

Willis:
I have repeatedly tried to make a post without success over the past 2 hours. My posts to this thread vanish. I have posted a comment to the Mods. It remains to be seen if this post appears.
Richard
[Nothing (right now) is in the “to be checked” queue. .mod]

May 25, 2014 1:33 pm

If the Sun doesn’t warm you enough, here’s a Tribute to our Veterans for Memorial Day.
Watch -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIZG0EcJJUs Larry’s dead-on impression of Ray Charles singing ‘America the Beautiful’

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
May 25, 2014 1:48 pm

From Sparks on May 25, 2014 at 12:34 pm:

Remember most of the suns influence on temperature records over the 11 year solar cycle is dampened out by Stevenson screens and shielded from direct sunlight, they are even oriented facing north to prevent direct sunlight falling on the thermometers.
Why is it assumed that temperature records contain a physical wattage of solar variability when it is clear that the process of measuring temperature removes it, it is continually claimed that the 11 year cycle solar variability is accounted for, but is it?.

The Sun is basically THE thing supplying new energy to the land+sea system, nothing else comes close. It warms the land and the oceans, which in turn warms the air. Our temperature records are overwhelmingly measurements of air temperatures.
With an 11 yr solar cycle, that would mean several years of peak warming alternating with several years of depressed warming, with several years of ramping up or down between.
So apparently you are saying the effects of elements of the ongoing solar variations that have durations of several years on air temperatures, are being removed by shielding the measuring instruments from daily and transient heating effects that would prevent them from accurately measuring air temperatures.
By making the air temperature readings as accurate as possible, you remove the 11-yr solar cycle variability signal.
Is that a reasonable summary of what you said? The signal goes away when you take better measurements?

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 2:17 pm

“As a ham myself (H44WE), I can only agree with that … as I’ve said many times, I’d be more than happy to find a corresponding correlation with the climate. Just haven’t been able to find it …”
Well you just have found one effect on climate. An atmospheric one. It’s also atmospheric conditions that favour long distance radio.

May 25, 2014 2:40 pm

Eschenbach,
Sorry, not impressed. Best regards, w.”
I don’t really care if you are impressed, or not. You claimed to be searching, in vain, for climate-related signals with an 11-year cycle.
To quote your exact words,
“I invite those that believe that “It’s the sun, stupid” to show us the terrestrial climate record that has any sign of being correlated with the 11-year sunspot cycles.”
Thinking that perhaps you were serious, and not asking a rhetorical question, taking you at your word, I provided exactly that to you, not my own research, but from a peer-reviewed and published paper by a real scientist. You can scoff at that, as you like. By the way, the Perry paper was merely the first one I found from a 10 second internet search this morning. If you bothered to do a little digging, perhaps you would find the other 11-year cycles in the literature. Or not.
Perry did state a range of 9-12 years for the gyre to rotate, but then your Figure 2 above shows prominent peaks in the center of Perry’s range, yours peaking at 10 and 11 years. Coincidence? Your call. Perhaps it is bird droppings in the Pacific that occasionally warm the water. Maybe it’s all the heat delivered by open-ocean lightning strikes. Perhaps it is hot volcanic ash falling onto the ocean. Surely it can’t be solar radiation. You claim to have lived in the Pacific, perhaps you can tell us all in your oh-so-folksy manner exactly what does heat up the ocean. If Perry is wrong, tell us why. Perry claims it is sunshine that warms the water. Prove him wrong.
And yes, the North Pacific gyre rotates at different speeds, so not all of it rotates like a phonograph record. Perry states this.
So, there you have it. Evidence, peer-reviewed and published, make of it what you will. Apparently, you will try to discredit the paper.
Eleven year climate cycle. Staring you in the face. But, in the Willis World of Wonders, that is not acceptable.
As to your other point, the evidence is clear that absence of sunspots over a prolonged period makes the Earth very cold. The evidence for historical solar minima is not debatable, nor is the resulting cold on Earth debatable. Unless, of course, you have better proof that all those historical records are flat-out wrong. I’d really love to see you try to argue that one.

lgl
May 25, 2014 2:48 pm

http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=946
Thanks Greg but why bother. On this Do-not-want-to-see-anything thread all you will get is, they are so weak, they are a whopping 0,1 year off, the peaks do not show the same power, the peaks are not sharp enough or some other nonsense.

May 25, 2014 2:56 pm

Charles Nelson says:
May 24, 2014 at 5:39 pm
I know Willis is Anthony’s best mate, and I can tell that he’s a funny, intelligent and entertaining guy because I nearly always read what he writes…but this piece should never have been put up on WUWT. It’s basically opinionated garbage.
==============================================================
I read this passage over and over but failed to see where it points out the flaws in Mr. Eschenbach’s logic. While I’m not nearly intelligent enough to offer any particular argumentation either way, I might be one among many who read this website in the hope of absorbing some interesting tidbit such as our abilities and education allow. Well-reasoned to-and-fro is very useful to those of us with no formal training in this field who are trying, over time, to piece it together. Childish outbursts are not.
With due respect, your post does you no credit nor anyone else any service, and I simply cannot imagine why you would write such a thing.

gbaikie
May 25, 2014 2:58 pm

–dbstealey says:
May 25, 2014 at 10:00 am
Steven Mosher says:
May 25, 2014 at 9:28 am: [ “1. …2. …” ]
Steven, where am I? I believed in AGW in the late ’90′s. The planet seemed to be confirming it. But I changed my mind based on more recent data. Now I strongly question that CO2 has more than a minuscule effect on global T.
Where are you, Steven? Based on truly scanty evidence, you are still a firm believer that CO2 is the major cause of global warming.–
I think Steven point is that theory still remains and has not and will not be replaced.
I would say it remains because it is vague. According wiki regarding greenhouse effect is mostly caused by “water vapor”:
“By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So water vapor could be adding 70% and CO2 9%, and if CO2 is adding 9% it is somewhat minuscule. Or all the CO2 in Earth atmosphere is adding about 3 C, and when you consider the portion of CO2 below 200 ppm could adding most of this 3 C.
I would say it’s hard to disprove that if double global CO2 it will add somewhere around 1 C to global temperatures. And if doubling CO2 added only .5 C, Steven would probably still claim the theory is close enough.
Or because theory is so vague, one could still rationalize it.
And if after 100 years CO2 goes from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, the .5 C is such small amount that it’s still so small it can not measured- one could still choose to see the fingerprint of CO2.
What is falsifiable is notion that only greenhouse gas can increase global temperature. And it’s so wrong, that it believer will say, of course it’s not just greenhouse gases. So even though theory claims only greenhouse gases are able to warm Earth, and gives an exact number of 33 C of warming caused by these greenhouses gases. it is indefensible.
Anyone with any sense would therefore conclude that greenhouse theory is pseudo-science.
The malleability of theory identifies it as pseudo-science. Like any pseudo-science, greenhouse effect will continue to be believe in. Something like 70% of people believe we have been visit by space aliens- that is pseudo-science. And some people imagine, the US government is controlled
by space aliens. The difference is most people are smart enough to realize, that visited by space aliens is an idea or belief, and people aren’t serious enough about it, to expect government policy to be based upon it. But that US president will actually “check” to see if space aliens have landed, is considered “prudent” rather than stark raving mad. Though it might be political wise- and it’s funny. But for politician to need to check it out, indicates how mess up people are.
Now, I am not suggesting the Greenhouse effect theory would be “improved” by corrected the wording so it’s more vague about idea of only greenhouse gases cause 33 C of warming. That would be how politicians correct things. As do religions.
Another thing, believer of “theory” know is that one need the bulk of atmosphere [the non greenhouse gases] for the greenhouse gases to “work”. Or they don’t expect Mars with it’s thin atmosphere [which has far more CO2 than Earth’s atmosphere] to be warm. So I suppose the reasoning is the greenhouse gases need an atmosphere to warm. But then again some also claim the bulk of the atmosphere warms the greenhouse gases.
So Steven says Greenhouse Effect theory can be replaced. Or I would say, what else
can tell the kiddies?
Earth is mostly covered with deep ocean of water, the average temperature of this water is about 3 C.The ocean water of tropical ocean receives most the energy of the Sun and this vast mostly uninhabited region is about 40% of total surface area of the Earth. The surface water of ocean in tropics is warmed so as to have average temperature of over 20 C and is the dominant reason why Earth average global temperature is regarded to be around 15 C.
As the average temperature of tropics is more than 15 C, the rest of the world has average temperature of less than 15 C.
Most of land mass of Earth is in the northern hemisphere and 90% of world population lives north of the equator. Most of China and large portion of India’s population is north of tropic of Cancer- not in the tropics. And all of continental US is above the tropics. Countries such as in Europe, or Canada and Russia are more distant from the tropics and have average temperature far below 15 C. Canada and Russia have average temperature near freezing point of water.
Though Europe is warmed significantly by a large ocean current called the Gulf Stream, yet, Europe has average yearly temperature still less than 15 C.
The movement of sun during the year relative to above horizon at noon is about 46 degrees [due to tilt of earth’s axis of 23.4 degrees]. At equator the sun goes past zenith by 23 degrees during summer or winter. Whereas in London, UK [Latitude 51.5 N] at spring or fall Equinox [sun directly over equator- and all Temperate Zone day/night is equal length]. The sun is zenith [90 degree] minus 51.5 degrees. Or 38.5 degree above the horizon. At equator the sun never goes below 90 minus 23.4 degrees: so always is at least 66.6 degrees above horizon at noon.
At London one adds about 23 degrees for midsummer at noon: being 61.5 degrees above horizon [and because earth’s curvature London has longer daylight than equator] and in winter solstice it’s 15.5 degrees above horizon at noon [and shorter daylight than equator].
In Tropics sun is fairly near the zenith all year round, and Temperate Zone during it’s summer of that hemisphere, the sun also somewhat near zenith at noon. And in temperate zone with the sun higher in the sky one gets average daily temperature of summer months higher than 15 C.
Or even far north as is London, during summer it can almost be sort of like tropical weather- if it’s not too cloudy.

William Sears
May 25, 2014 3:00 pm

Willis, you say “That is exactly what I said up above, that the emergent thermoregulatory phenomena make the system quite insensitive to changes in forcing. I agree with you that that is the reason we don’t see such 11-year cycles in climate datasets.”
If the thermoregulatory system can not erase the daily or yearly temperature variation why would it erase any eleven year cycle? I suspect that the historical climatic shifts (warm periods & little ice ages) are too chaotic to fit any set cycle period(s). There may be no single cause.

1 11 12 13 14 15 27