Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz:
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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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.
Figure 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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly lgl , hey, I can only present what the data shows. Some will take note , others will remain dug-in their already made up minds. Par for the course for climate 😉
” 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. ”
Another helping of lobster, sir?
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=948
Seems to be too much noise in cross-correlation to resolve the separte peaks so it comes out centred as a broad peak. But I don’t think there’s much doubt about the result.
Kalte Sonne (Cold Sun) – Many scientists now forecast cooling, perhaps an ice age
By Robert On May 20, 2014 · 21 Comments
..
Russian scientists “refute the thesis
Ulric Lyons says:
May 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Thanks, Ulric. Indeed, both of your graphs prove my point quite clearly. Both the aa index and the number of magnetic storms vary much more widely over the 11 year cycle than they do over a century.
w.
If one matches the IMF with temperatures one will find a strong correlation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Let me try and clarify. As the magnetic signature of each spot is different, the output at arraying wavelengths is different. During high solar activity most sunspots produce outputs in the .6um light spectrum. As they cool or weaken that light wave form slowly elongates down into the 1.2um band. The Sun’s output in general has shifted as well, over the last ten years. One of the papers recently was on solar dimming where they established the change from the visible spectrum to the IR (.6um to 1.2um).
The earths atmosphere treats these bands very differently: http://cnx.org/content/m41579/latest/graphics7.png
This simple shift, if math serves me well, results in a net loss to earths energy budget. As this is not part of the ‘solar cycle’ or at least not the visible one, the net change would cause an increase in cloud formation and reflection while not showing any correlation to the visible solar cycle itself. The net loss would be around 1.7W/M^2 + or – 2W/M^2. Sufficient enough to cause warming or, if a big enough shift, cooling even glaciation.
Re Levitus: “Still looking for the 11-year cycle.”
There is a peak at about 10.6 , BTW what’s that big bump at the end, scales missing? Somewhere between 21 and 22 by counting the dots.
Would it be at all near any of the peaks on this graph?
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=948
Willis does not impress me at all with the points he is trying to get across. They do not reconcile putting it nicely.
So correct Geoffry
WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records edit: (and also seen across the Holocene proxy record). Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.
Eschenbach backing up with another article on the Gleissberg cycle…he just doesnt get it. There is no exact 80-88 year cycle, only a most common gap of 80-88 years between low points in solar
The perceived dimming is due to the energy moving from the visible bands into the IR where water in our atmosphere can then reflect, absorb, or scatter it.
Alec Rawls says:
May 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm
If your best evidence is a sketchy solar proxy reconstruction based on 10Beryllium and stretching back 11,800 years … I’d say you are short on evidence. The 10Be data from Greenland only has a correlation of about 0.07 with the 10Be data from Antarctica, and there is no sign of the 11-year cycle in either one … as a result, a number of people have raised concerns about the use of 10Be as a solar proxy. But those are not the only problems with 10Be … from your cited paper:
I’m sorry, Alec, but I find that study totally unconvincing. Do you have anything with real data instead of a multi-proxy pastiche? I mean … for example, since about 1960, the sunspot numbers have been declining, but the ocean heat content has been increasing. While I have my own considerations about the OHC data, I hardly think the error is that large … how does your hypothesis explain that one?
w.
Reading all the comments…what a confusing pile of contradicting views and “facts” !!!
holts7 says:
May 25, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Reading all the comments…what a confusing pile of contradicting views and “facts” !!!
——————————————————
Science and sausages are interesting to watch being done(made).
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 25, 2014 at 1:48 pm
“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?
Yes I suppose that is what I’m saying, and after removing the solar variability, is there a reason why the clearer solar radiation flux density (W/m2) can’t be added back onto the temperature record for an improved temperature anomaly with a more accurate solar forcing?
Oops. Getting my plots mixed up.
Here’s the Tahiti SSN power spectrum.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=949
Willis says “Thanks, Mick, but I’m not buying that explanation at all. The earth’s temperature swings on the order of 6°C peak to peak over the course of a year. Why would it not respond over an 11-year period? ”
There is approximately 90W/M^2 variation in Top of Atmosphere (ToA) solar radiation at the equator between perihelion and aphelion, which is further amplified by the Earth’s tilt. Hence the strong annual signal for Darwin, Tahiti etc. Meanwhile TSI only varies by around 2W/M^2 between solar cycle maximum and minimum. The variation to orbital mechanics far exceeds the variation due to solar cycles.
Max Hugoson says:
May 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Thanks, Max. Yes, I’m aware of the Svensmark study, but I’d never taken a close look, so I did that today. The claim in the paper is that “Forbush events”, which are rapid several-day decreases in cosmic rays, are accompanied by corresponding drops in daily atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover.

Now … is this connection possible? Sure. To fracture the Bard, there are more things in heaven and earth, Max, than are dreamt of in any climate philosopy …
But even if it happens, does it affect the weather? As usual, I started by going to the source, getting the actual data, and looking at it …
The “Forbush Events” are the “icicles” hanging down from the main curve. Each one represent a very quick drop in cosmic rays, followed by a few days of recovery.
Several things are evident. First, as expected, cosmic rays are well correlated with sunspots. It’s a negative correlation, cosmic rays go down as sunspots and their associated magnetic field go up.
Next, the average size of a “Forbush Event” is perhaps half the size of the ~11-year swings in the data.
And finally, like the cosmic rays themselves, the frequency of the Forbush Events is well correlated with the sunspot cycle. See Fig. 1a here for confirmation.
As a result, we’re faced with the same question. IF the level of cosmic rays has a large effect on daily weather as Svensmark claims, then why don’t we see any trace of that putative effect from the larger 11-year swing in cosmic rays?
w.
“I’m sorry, Alec, but I find that study totally unconvincing. Do you have anything with real data instead of a multi-proxy pastiche? I mean … for example, since about 1960, the sunspot numbers have been declining, but the ocean heat content has been increasing. While I have my own considerations about the OHC data, I hardly think the error is that large … how does your hypothesis explain that one?”
Ocean warming is reflected in sea level rise. One can also include removing water from underground and melting glaciers and whatever. But accurate measurement of rising sea level is a very good proxy for increasing ocean heat- in terms comparing to any other proxy.used in climate science. Or I take sea level estimates and all their complication, over ocean temperature taken from ships.with all their adjustments.
So for at least for last century, sea levels have been rising and sunspots have been increasing:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
Sea level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
In terms of cycles of air temperature, one look at ocean cycles, such as El Nino.
Oceans cover most of Earth. There is higher percentage of ocean in tropics, as compared to north hemisphere. And tropics 23 South to 23 North latitude receives most of energy from the Sun. And the tropical oceans absorb most the energy which is absorbed on Earth. So Earth ocean absorbs vast amounts of energy and it’s doing this over time periods of centuries.
Or turn off the sun, and oceans remain warm [average temperature of ocean is 3 C, so staying warm is remaining around the average temperature] for centuries. The atmosphere cools rapidly, as does surface of land area. So these cycles you looking for are the atmosphere and surface, which are capable of short period changes in temperature, and the ocean is not capable of such short changes [turn off sun and ocean does not change much in terms of years. And put Earth at Mercury’s orbit, and again it will take some time to warm the oceans- though surface and atmosphere will be nearly instantly be affected. So at Mercury distance the ocean will still be absorbed more energy than any other surface on Earth, but it will take centuries to get it to bath water temperature.
What is causing these ocean cycles, is the ocean being warmed by the sun. One has include circulation of less warmed [not even warmed arctic water] falling towards the heat engine at the tropics [and arctic waters being warmed by tropical water going to arctic region to replace it.
So you measuring the wrong thing. A better place to look is ocean current rates if you want any chance to measure the added heat.
MrX says:
May 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Mr. Anonymous, read the dang comments first. Few people think that the ~.1% change in TSI causes anything much. But there are a host of people in this very thread saying that changes in some factor that varies over an ~11-year cycle in parallel with TSI (e.g. UV, magnetism, cosmic rays, sunspots, etc.) can “amplify” the small solar changes to a level where they can affect the weather … and it is that claim that I am investigating.
w.
ZombieSymmetry says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Interesting question, hang on … nope. I just took a look at the periodogram of the monthly Mauna Loa CO2, no 11-year cycle.
w.
mikelorrey says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:54 pm
Because I already looked at eight global temperature records … and because I thought that perhaps an effect would be found. I’ve looked at so many putative connections that have disappeared, I’m starting to grasp at straws.
w.
“As a result, we’re faced with the same question. IF the level of cosmic rays has a large effect on daily weather as Svensmark claims, then why don’t we see any trace of that putative effect from the larger 11-year swing in cosmic rays?”
It’s not “we” don’t see any trace it’s W.E. does not see any trace because he’s got his Ray Charles shades on the and a finger firmly in each ear.
You proposed the game and even helpfully provided a useful tool and links to data. But when you find the link yourself you not only don’t notice but steadfastly refuse to see it when it’s pointed out.
I also used one of the methods you suggested people may want to try and showed even more clearly the link between SLP and SSN in case the first match was not enough for you.
Now you don’t have to reply to me if you don’t wish to, but please stop this ridiculous charade of “nope not sign here either” despite what the data shows.
“It’s The Evidence, Stupid!”
And two minutes after asking his question, mikelorrey says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Care to read the damn post and get off my back? I did what you ask some time ago, you unpleasant man, and I highlighted that fact in the post and linked to the analyses. Do your dang homework, Mike, and when you ask a question, give a man time to answer.
w.
” … and because I thought that perhaps an effect would be found. ”
And you were correct. And it may even be evidence of a feedback if you bother to look.
Willis asks, “If there is no immediate effect from the 11-year cycle, how can there be a long-term cumulative or average effect, when that long-term effect is nothing but the running sum or average of the immediate effect?”
This has been asked and answered by Christopher Monckton here, Monckton of Brenchley says:May 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm (4th paragraph)
David A here, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 pm and here David A says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:50 pm
and Richard Courtney here,richardscourtney says:May 25, 2014 at 1:25
So far you have neither responded or demonstrated you comprehend the thoughts suggested.
Simply put the long term cumulative effect of several, four or more anomalous solar cycles, (high or low) may be required to overwhelm other, or make clear in a GAT graph, as GAT had many disparate factors, so any one factor is not likely to have clear signal in the record. (see my May 24, 2014 at 10:50 pm comment)
if you disagree please show me any one factor that is clearly recorded repeatedly in climate records as causing a one way shift in GAT. (certainly CO2 fails this test) You have demonstrate the inconsistency in volcanic records. I dare say you can find a profound lack of consistency in any one climatic factor.
For influence on climate of solar irradiance & magnetic flux variations on various times scales:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=197
And a prediction:
http://www.coolingnews.com/implication-correlation-solar-activity.html