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.
It was written down on banana leaves! And in many other places on the Earth. But even then, the temperature change was intrinsic to Earth’s atmosphere and its load of ash blocking the Sun.
Pamela, even if you are correct about the top down and bottom up drivers of global warming as you mention above, it does *not* follow necessarily that the solar signal will be undetectable nor that it will not matter. I could give a long, logical justification for this but it is really unnecessary. Take a look at the relationship between ITCZ(inter tropical convergence zone) and the solar proxies over thousands of years. Since solar changes can be shown to affect climate variables, arguments that they cannot do so or they do not matter seem rather moot to me.
Cheers, 🙂
Pamela Gary
Re the 1257 volcano.
We know from contemporary writings, church records and crop records that the climate of the 1250’s was already cool. Undoubtedly some months in 1257 or 1258 were affected by the volcano but the climate quickly recovered to pre 1250 levels.
There was a false start to the lia with a few cool decades towards the end of the 1200’s which cpincided with another couple oflarge eruptions, but it warmed up again with the second half of the 14th century being notably warm and 1362 possibly being the warmest year in the last two thousand.
We have no evidence except theoretical responses from tree rings and moss that the volcanos precipitated the lia.
Tonyb
Pamela
Sorry, but I seem to have given you a new surname. It’s a good one, can you keep it as that’s the one my iPad prefers?
Tonyb
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 10:43 am
The LIA was not caused by volcanic eruptions any more than were previous cool phases of the Holocene, such as the Dark Ages Cold Period. Cool phases have alternated with warm phases since the Holocene Optimum ended about 5000 years ago, as found in paleoclimatic observations from every continent.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 8:40 am
TSI might not vary much, but its UV component does. Solar magnetic flux also shows larger than “tiny” variations. But it’s also true that the earth’s climate system can & does magnify relatively small fluctuations in solar inputs.
I am not convinced that the sun’s influence will result in an 11 year “heartbeat”. I think that the sun’s influence is more of a slow, long term pressure. In the current “weak” pattern, I think that the temperatures will be inclined to sag over time, verses the recent very active pattern where temperature tended to increase. It would be like putting a masive low pass filter onto the sun’s influence. The 11 year cycle would get filtered out.
Even in the balmy Early Cretaceous, a cold snap occurred on schedule with Shaviv et al’s cosmic ray hypothesis:
http://phys.org/news191527326.html
Kate Forney says (May 26, 2014 at 4:30) “I actually see a very useful process unfolding here — something akin to how I would imagine the scientific world working.“. Agree, and it applies in spades to everything that Anthony has provided with WUWT – genuine information, unedited access to data, open discussion, and always there’s the recognition that if the evidence were to swing towards CAGW we would hear all about it on WUWT. Regrettably, it isn’t how the formal scientific world works at all. That world is controlled by gate-keepers protecting their own turf and keeping score by number of papers published. As Max Planck said, “science progresses one funeral at a time”.
I agree with you about personal attack etc. There’s not much of it on WUWT, certainly compared with other websites, but some is inevitable given the volume of traffic. Although in this post of Willis’ I have explained what I think is a flaw (and I suggest a different way of progressing), please understand that I think Willis’ posts while not perfect are all enormously illuminating, and we would all be much poorer without them.
Earth’s magnetic field is important to climate change at high altitudes:
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#inlRlv
Once again people, find the signal in the temperature data. Please. The rest is minutia. Is this really just an academic discussion related to incredibly insignificant temperature changes of a fraction of a degree or one that matters to those who want information on whether or not to put on a sweater when going outside?
You sound as frenzied as the CO2 folks! OMG!!!! It is .3% warmer than 30 years ago! Carry an umbrella!
Call me when these trivial changes matter to the point it shows up on my temperature sensor stuck to my backyard window.
milodonharlani says:
May 26, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 10:43 am
Which is not to say that volcanic events of similar magnitudes during cold phases might be more devastating than during warm climatic intervals. Over any warm or cold cycle (if I may so designate these phenomena) there will be a number of major eruptions of various magnitudes. That was the case during the Late Bronze Age (“Greek Dark Ages”), Dark Ages (Migration) & Little Ice Age Cold Periods as well as during the Minoan, Roman, Medieval & Modern Warm Periods.
http://www.academia.edu/1411970/The_Influence_of_Climatic_Change_on_the_Late_Bronze_Age_Collapse_and_the_Greek_Dark_Ages
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 3:14 pm
IMO the point is that temperature changes attributed by CACA advocates wholly or mainly to CO2 can be better explained by variations in solar irradiance & magnetic flux.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 3:14 pm
“Once again people, find the signal in the temperature data. Please. The rest is minutia.”
Respectfully, I think you are realizing that you are losing the argument here. Just because you can’t find the solar cycle signal in 350 years temperature data that all effects of the sun on climate are minutia. Did you even look at the relationship between the ITCZ and solar proxies like I suggested?
David A: Yes Mathew, but the affect on the atmosphere is the opposite of what one would expect. (More solar insolation in the SH summer = less atmospheric GAT)
Thanks, to you and to Richard S. Courtney.
I know that WUWT and Tallbloke seem to tweak each other’s blog. There is a discussion at Tallbloke “http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/solar-periodic-instability/”. One of the commenters points to URL “https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SOLARSYSTEMAndClimate#6015491995579189778” which indicates that there are is fast and slow sun instability of a mean Schwabe length of 10.54 to 11.4 years. I found the discussion about “Schwabe doublet and triplet waves” very interesting. Most of the interesting information and pointers in the comments. Unfortunately, I am still compiling my list of “quacks” and “trolls” so I could not eliminate all of them when reading comments.
The first encountered pathology must always be ruled out before continuing to search for a cause of disease. Why? It is often the strongest. A case in point. In my previous occupation, this was not uncommon: Some sweet lady in a nursing home has been told she has a tremendous hearing loss and must be fitted with expensive hearing aids. But if one were to otoscope the ear canal, wax impaction significantly skewed the results.
So in looking for the cause of ITCZ shifts, one would be wise to check something nearby with the muscle to move such a massive thing.
Our oceans and their teleconnections with atmospheric systems (IE trade winds, pressure systems, cells, etc) shove each other around. Easily. They are very powerful systems and vary a good deal over both short and long term time spans. ENSO processes can explain ITCZ shifts without considering solar variables.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CIcBEBYwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fshadow.eas.gatech.edu%2F~kcobb%2Fseminar%2Fchiang00.pdf&ei=q-yDU63gMtStyASVwoL4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFMGGLJQwHfoINNc5eOVF7jGh5xJw&sig2=Ylae3ppGMfzh2wasT2rSQw&bvm=bv.67720277,d.aWw
Denying the effect of solar variations on climate reminds me of previous such denials in the history of science. It is just a pure accident that South America happens to look as if it fits into the ins & outs of Africa. It is just a pure accident that some shapes within rocks happen to look like bones & other parts of once living things & that stones that look like sea shells happen to occur atop mountains. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 6:50 pm
You’re missing the point here. You can plausibly try and explain *short term* variations in the movement of the ITCZ in terms of the ENSO(also short term). What you can’t do is explain the **long term** variations in the ITCZ such as what has been done here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379106002265
To explain these long term variations in the ITCZ takes the solar connection that you want to insist is minutia or pathology. It is, demonstrably, neither. Fact is, unless you deal with **all** the evidence, *not just the stuff that supports your position*, your argument will continue to fail.
milo, what a silly analogy. You are better than that.
ENSO is short term only? Really. So the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is derived from ENSO data, and was first suggested by ship logs, is just a figment of my imagination, as well as that of ocean fisherman, Rocky Mountain fish and wildlife experts, and many agriculture scientists.
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm
I think it’s an apropos analogy, if not trenchant. I guess I’m not as good as you supposed, although I thank you for once thinking me so.
IMO in the not too distant future, historians of science will heap scorn upon d*n**rs of a solar influence on climate comparable to the laughs they now expect to raise deriding Wegener’s & Bretz’ 20th & Steno’s 17th century opponents.
With apologies to a neighbor whom I respect & admire (you), it is indeed the sun, on the best evidence. And the earth’s orbital parameters modulating what the sun provides. And varying cosmic ray flux, as modulated by the sun & as sent our way by virtue of our position in the galaxy. Plus other factors, very minor among which is CO2 concentration in the air, which is more an effect than a cause.
Downloadable article. Wonderful description of ENSO teleconnections. It may help the discussion here.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C2205%3ATABTIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Pamela Gray says:
May 26, 2014 at 7:35 pm
The PDO is a climatic phenomenon, since it operates on a multi-decadal time frame. I don’t know if I would call the ENSO short term, but it doesn’t operate on the same time frame as the PDO, which admittedly is related to it.
IMO climate is a 30 year phenomenon, at a minimum. ENSO is annual to decadal, which makes it weather rather than climate. The average of its oscillations however is a climatic phenomenon, & is reflected in the PDO, discovered by a PNW fisheries biologist.
Milo, the PDO data is a derivative of ENSO data. It is a statistical down the line metric that reflects an ENSO oscillation central to the northern part of the Pacific.