Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz:
It’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:
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.
Willis writes “Particularly when it appears you haven’t grasped what I’m doing. So I’ll explain it again.”
I can see what you’re doing Willis but let me elaborate. Suppose in cycles 1 and 2 the average amount of UV is lower and then in cycles 3, 4 and 5, its higher. Across all those cycles TSI might have been very similar but you can see that the atmosphere will react differently over the first 22 years than the second 33 years. And you’ll find no obvious 11 year cycle there by looking at TSI.
I’m not saying this is what happened, but I am stressing the point that we simply dont have enough SIM data to be able to understand what’s really happening. Instead we assume TSI is representative of “energy” directed at the earth and gloss over the detail.
Scepticism isn’t about giving an alternative argument, its about spotting flaws in the existing argument and IMO this is a big one with understanding the sun’s role in our climate.
In addition to the comments above about the Hale cycle.
No evidence of an 11 year cycle in temperature data? Well Piers Corbyn agrees with you Willis.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R26PXRrgds&feature=player_detailpage#t=520 ]
The problem is that an analysis of the 11 year periodicity of sunspot data ignores the 22 year Hale cycle. This is because the 11 year cycle of sunspot data are always recorded as positive number counts. This positive number signal fails to capture the fact that alternate sunspots cycles have opposite leading sunspot pair magnetic polarity, the 22 year Hale cycle.
The process of recording all 11 year sunspot cycles as positive number counts removes from the historic record of sunspot data the presence of this alternating positive / negative 22 year magnetic signal. To restore the 22 year Hale cycle to sunspot data it is necessary to count half of the sunspot cycles as positive numbers and alternate these positive counts with negative value sunspot counts for all of the following 11 year cycle. This process of sequential positive value and negative value sunspot cycles restores the magnetic signal to the sunspot data and allows the 22 year frequency Hale cycle, which Piers Corbyn claims can be correlated with world temperature data, to be observed.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 25, 2014 at 10:46 pm
————————————
“Geiger and every other serious scientist I know of thinks that the oceans are a near blackbody for thermal infrared. Actual measurements show the oceans are a near blackbody for thermal infrared (Geiger quotes the measurements made by U. L. Gayevsky).”
And in that lies the critical flaw in the very foundation of the whole radiative GHE hypothesis. It is also the error that prevents an understanding of how a minor variation in UV/SW between solar cycles can cause very minor 0.8C temperature change over 150 years.
And the critical flaw? The oceans are nowhere even close to a “near blackbody”. Firstly the absorption of UV/SW below the diurnal overturning layer allows energy accumulation outside of normal seasonal cycles. If you were hoping to see anything regarding an 11 year cycle that is clearly beyond the resolution of any data available. You would be trying to detect 0.059C change for an 11 year period. This would be lost in noise.
“So I fear that your claims will require more than your assertions to establish them …”
You should know by now that I always do the empirical experiments. Any one can repeat them for themselves. The experiment to check the difference between apparent emissivity of water (~0.95, the setting used to get a reasonable IR measurement of water in surface normal conditions) compared to effective emissivity (the number that should be used for calculating the true ability of water to radiatively cool) is simple.
– Take a warm water sample and prevent evaporative cooling with thin IR transparent film floated onto the surface.
– Using an IR thermometer at emissivity setting of 0.95 measure the surface temperature.
Confirm with surface thermocouple
– Now place the water sample with a cryogenic cooled “sky” and observe the temperature drop in IR reading.
– Adjust emissivity setting down until correct IR temperature reading is regained.
– Repeat the experiment with materials closer to “near blackbody” and compare.
I have found below 0.8 works for water under a -40C “sky”. I could spend more money trying to get a reading under a -270C “sky”, but the is little point. Emissivity of 0.8 is already below the 0.92 UV/SW absorption factor for water. 0.95 is an emissivity setting used to overcome the twin IR thermography problems of cavity effect and Hohlraum effect.
Add to this the fact that water also diverges from “near blackbody” in that it is is a selective surface. For transparent materials, intermittent UV/SW at depth results in a far higher equilibrium temperature than the same radiation absorbed at the surface. Consider that water is a selective surface and you find that our oceans need atmospheric cooling to prevent them becoming a giant evaporation constrained solar pond. And our atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.
If you treat the oceans as a “near blackbody” you cannot see how 10% UV variance between solar cycles can accumulate to cause a very minor 0.8C temperature variation over 150 years.
Sorry about that, the Youtube timestamp did not work.
Trying again.
See Pier’s comments starting at 9:25.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 26, 2014 at 12:10 am:
“In any case, what does your graphic supposedly show? Here’s the periodogram of the solar wind:”
Well if you think a 10.5yr signal is the only thing that matters within all that noise, that’s up to you,
http://snag.gy/99MpL.jpg
I would take an event based look at the correlation in the short term, like how do the monthly Tahiti pressure values compare, or with daily-monthly Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation values. If there is a direct connection with the the solar wind and atmospheric teleconnections, it would have to working down to scales that we regard as weather.
“lsvalgaard says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:49 am
“We know of no other ‘cycles’ drifting in an out of phase, but one can, of course, always ascribe things to causes not known, in which case, anything goes. I would not call that science, though.”
In other words, ACO2 driven climate change.”
No answer (If read/seen). No answer may suggest you agree that, “causes not known” that “we” “ascribe” to consesus (Which is NOT science)?
Willis
“When the surface temperatures can change that rapidly, the “thermal inertia” explanation won’t hold water.”
Change in the surface temperature and the bulk of the ocean are two different things. The surface temperature goes up and down. However, the bulk of the ocean, like the sea level rise, always goes up. Climate is determined by the temperature of the bulk of the oceans. So is the CO2 concentration, as it has been going up like the sea level rise and the bulk of the ocean temperature.
The CO2 does not depend on the surface temperature, but on the bulk of the ocean temperature.
Konrad says:
May 26, 2014 at 6:04 am
“Firstly the absorption of UV/SW below the diurnal overturning layer allows energy accumulation outside of normal seasonal cycles.”
A crucial observation. The oceans absorb visible light in a layer 100 meters deep, but emit IR from a layer only 1mm deep. This does not mean that the first law is violated because over time the same heat that is absorbed is re-emitted. It does not mean that radiation theory is invalid. It means that the oceans trap heat, as you say. Heat that is absorbed in the deep layers must convect to the surface to be re-emitted, and this is a slow process. That is why the oceans act as a major lagging influence on temperature change. It also means that wind or anything else that mixes the surface layer will cause an immediate release of heat, which causes more wind, more heat release until the process is exhausted. This is a phenomenon that must be kept in mind when we are theorizing about ENSO or other convective events such as hurricanes.
Willis sez: “In any case, I just checked his first claim, that the Vaal River flows have a 21-year periodicity … sorry. Using his own data, they have an 18-19 year periodicity, what we used to call “close, but no cigar”. ”
This corroborates my earlier statement about the 19 year weather cycle in that region.
The Vaal River drains and flows through the Summer Rainfall region of Southern Africa. The region has a 19 year (some say 18.6) drought cycle. It is presently 2 years past the peak (the rainy end) which means plentiful rain in summer, raining later (well past the 1 April ‘normal’ start of the dry season) and early rains in late August and September.
The point is that this is a well established climate cycle involving rainfall. When it is not raining it is hotter because it is dry – a lot hotter in summer. It is also colder in winter when it rains late and early. This season will be as miserably cold as it was last year.
The origin of the cycle is probably Metonic http://www.mythicalireland.com/astronomy/moonmovements/metoniccycle.html and involves the way the moon pulls the Indian ocean around the Cape of Good Hope.
Now, what are the chances of finding a small 11 year cycle buried in the records when one so large is smothering everything? Zilch.
Are there places on earth where the local effects of, for example the moon, are far smaller, or invisible? Perhaps that is where to look for evidence of a 10-12 year cycle caused by something solar. If it were found, all it would prove is ‘that there is one’. Yippie-dee.
I find Willis’ question answered with a persistent ‘No.” Doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection, but if there is, it is probably something involving stored heat in the oceans that overcomes the thermo-regulating effects of the thunderstorm/cloud system. Perhaps there are 11 year steps in ocean heat content rather than a ‘cycle’. As land temperatures are predominantly modified by the oceans, then any cycle has to involve ocean heat. One thing is clear: the increase in CO2 concentration is having little effect on anything.
For pete’s sake. Look folks. All you who are looking for a tiny solar variable that is then amplified or damped by Earth’s intrinsic systems disprove your speculations right then and there. Your pet solar variable connection will be swamped by the far more powerful intrinsic variables that affect solar “stuff” (IE SWIR and anything else ol’Sol sends into our atmosphere). If you contend the Earth can amplify it, it can also dampen it. Unless you are willing to admit that for all this to work the way you say it works, the Earth is sentient and knows when to set its own oscillations to amplify solar input. If you say it is a random coupled occurrence, then you must admit that a signal cannot be found.
Point, set, and match.
Greg Goodman says:
May 25, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Resume of evidence so far:
1. 10,11,11.8 triplet in SSN ( probable 11,136 modulation )
2. same triplet found in Tahiti SLP, very close match of frequencies.
3. Very strong 10.8 y peak in cross power spectrum
4. Clear onset of circa 10.7 year pattern in SSN-SLP correlation function on positive lag side
5. First peak is negative peak at ~ 30 months lag ( SLP lagging SSN ).
30 months is just short of a quarter cycle. ( pi/2 lag ? )
6. Neg. correlation : incr. SSN => lower SLP; would indicate a negative feedback.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tahiti_ssn_cc.png?w=843
Point, set, and match.
Now go back to your school books and explain that.
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
Part 1
1.
It appears that no one has asked the very critical question-Where is the credible test/experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists? There is another important question that has not been asked is “Where is the credible experiments that show that reducing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in atmospheric temperature?
Looking at the great quote from Albert Einstein above- If one experiment shows that an important part of the Hypotheses of Greenhouse gas effect cannot be proved or is disproved it is very likely that the Hypotheses is false from beginning to end.
Here is an experiment that shows that at least 5 of the features of the Hypotheses are false and here is a reference to another experiment that shows that another feature is ass backward as presented by the CAGW crowd.
The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”
Another factor that even the meteorologists have not included in there pretend thinking is “evaporative cooling that is occurring on at least 99.95 % of the earth’s surface.
The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E 1-15-2012 Incorporation of comments of Dr.’s Pierre Latour, Dr. Nasif Nahle and others.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 8:40 am
“Point, set, and match.”
Let’s not be fooled, Pamela. The game’s still on. Solar variation does have its effect and will be felt eventually. It’s just a matter of time.
OK, in layman’s eye’s (that is the lower end of laymen in my case), Willis is saying temps do not go up during early cycle climb to max then down during last half of cycle decline…no up then down change over 11 years…BUT, is there a ‘signal’ where temps fall/climb thru-out the whole cycle ? Like the strong cycles 17,18,&19 (temps climb) then SC20 (temps fall) then stronger cycles 21/22 (temps climb). Does this point to some solar connection…not totally…but some?
Greg, which SSN group do you use? There are several out there. And they differ significantly. Their authors even go on to sometimes disagree with themselves! I would even say our SSN data sets differ more so than our temperature data sets. And if we somehow get a corrected set, what will that do to all the papers demonstrating weak correlations between SSN and SLP? So no, my school books do not back you up. Maybe you should read them too? And by the way, I believe what matters in this discussion isn’t Sea Level Pressure but whether or not solar variations are correlated with global temperature data. So far, I haven’t seen anyone here bring forth a valid and reliable piece of data that demonstrates that correlation. With emphasis on valid and reliable. I can smell an elephant’s trunk wriggling from miles away.
Another point, sea level pressure appears to correlate with SSN (depending of course on which SSN data set you use) regionally, not globally. And that brings up all kinds of red flags for me. Sea Level Pressure is up and down in different locations all over the globe having both short and long term noise and trends. It may indeed be just a random occurrence that regional spots will surreptitiously be in sync with SSN. In any case, peer reviewed papers continue to bemoan the fact that a mechanism escapes them.
Weak, weak, weak evidence not fit for an honest to goodness resume. A padded one yes.
an interesting exercise Willis – it answers my bewilderment over not seeing great overall changes around me – but in in the end i’m skeptical over your skepticism – if each sun cycle produced noticeable changes – wouldn’t the connection between it and the climate have been noted long ago – besides – the talk about the Maunder Minimum for example is talk about a series of sun cycles – and i wouldn’t be surprised to find that the effect of the sun on an already complex system like our climate is cumulative and lagging
anyway – examining a sun cycle was a good idea – if your results pan out – it eliminates a blind spot – in those of us who had that blind spot
Let’s hope that the Little Ice Age event some here are alluding to as being in our near future will not occur. Why? It isn’t the lack of sunspots that will keep us in the dark. It’s the volcanic eruptions during The Little Ice Age event that darkened the skies, killing, both directly and indirectly, indiscriminately, and from near and great distances away from the explosions themselves.
From Berthold Klein on May 26, 2014 at 9:35 am:
That gets proven every day, all around the planet. In dry desert areas that lack atmospheric water vapor, said vapor being the most important greenhouse gas of all, the diurnal temperature swings are enormous. Sun comes up, you roast, Sun goes down, you freeze. Lacking the most important greenhouse gas, there is not enough greenhouse gas effect to retain the daily heat at night.
But in the warm humid tropical areas, with plenty of water vapor, the variation is far much less. Granted this is helped by daytime thunderstorms cooling things off, but there is clearly significant retention of daytime heat throughout the night time.
Why must a single credible test/experiment be cited for something as obvious as a cat dunked in water getting wet? However, in the spirit of free and open scientific inquiry, you may confirm that by dunking as many cats as you want. In water no warmer than room temperature, and not with my cats.
Some are commenting that Willis’ “I hold that this shows that the temperature of the system is relatively insensitive to changes in forcing.” isn’t demonstrated in this post. Maybe not, but here’s a simple example of his statement.
The earth’s eccentricity causes 90 watts/m2 more sun-power to the earth in January than July (for comparison CO2 causes a few watts/m2 extra forcing worldwide so far). Yet there doesn’t seem to be any semi-annual signal in the temp data.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 8:40 am
” If you contend the Earth can amplify it, it can also dampen it.”
I must admit I find your post here to be quite confusing. I think pretty much everyone agrees that finding a 0.2% amplitude cycle in a noisy, filtered system like climate is pretty difficult if not impossible. Further, even if it were possible it does not follow that the method presented in this thread would be effective at doing so for a variety of reasons.
If it is difficult to directly detect the solar signal over the short term(and I agree that it is), it does not necessarily follow that it is difficult to detect over the long term. Check out the relationship to the movement of the ITCZ to the solar proxies over time for a good example of such amplification IMO.
In any case, there is no reason to say that all proposed means of amplifying the solar effect must also act (somehow) to also damp it. All we can really say is that we cannot detect an influence of the solar cycle on the temperature over the short term.
In any case, claiming that the game is over is way too premature.
Cheers, 🙂
Mann this thread will not end until the sun goes down….
1,ooo,ooo years a day in the life of a solar cycle.
The theory goes like this: Top down meets with bottom up drivers of global temperature. If the Earth is in an intrinsic bottom up oscillation to take advantage of the top down solar variable, it will amplify it. However if the Earth is in an intrinsic oscillation that is opposite the tiny solar variable’s ability to heat things up, you won’t see the signal in the temperature data. So it stands to reason that the solar signal is probably impossible to find in the short or long term, and therefore does not matter. It can be ignored as a scary scenario. Or a measurable one. Hell, the biggest solar variable only changes Earth’s temperature mathematically by a fraction of a degree. But those who like to impress with maths, go right ahead and calculate these other less energetic jump starter drivers you go on about. I would actually like to see it.
On the other hand one day without the sun, at what [temperature] would that news be given.