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.
“Don’t just talk about change when YOU CAN BE THE CHANGE!”
Great in principal but I’ve contacted Paul years ago and he’s not really interested in other people’s ideas. I’ve wasted enough of my life attempting to contribute code to open source projects to know that it takes ten times more effort to convince someone that their gift to the world is not already perfect, than it does to do the coding to make an improvement.
One of the rare exceptions is gnuplot. An amazingly responsive project. I’ve contributed code and ideas that have been adopted over there. So I suppose, indirectly, I have contributed the WTF already.
There is plenty of independent confirmation that during the LIA there were 4 major pulses of volcanic eruptions that nicely match the temperature proxies. And the mechanism is plausible. However, back to the issue. Here is another paper on shifts that demonstrate non-solar teleconnections intrinsic to Earth.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmos.washington.edu%2F~aaron%2Fnobackup%2Fpapers%2FITCZ_revised.pdf&ei=8NSFU77fEdanyASg9YLQAg&usg=AFQjCNHw0vePcE46LHqiWLNa8sDmvrg6tQ
It seems to me that, once again, these shifts do not have a plausible solar mechanism and can be explained using intrinsic factors.
A paper that brings forth a connection with solar insolation may be the thing that is tripping you up. Solar insolation is not the same thing as TOA solar irradiance. Insolation can vary depending on where it is measured and over what period while TOA solar irradiance and proxies of irradiance will be a remarkably stable metric during that same time period. For example, solar insolation during the LIA can be reasonably calculated based on sulfur and ash atmospheric load (I have linked to that paper before) and can be compared to solar irradiance proxies of the same period demonstrating this difference.
Pamela Gray
Yes, the temperature PROXIES! Tree rings, corals, ice cores?
Dr Mann wrote an elaborate paper as his tree rings didn’t show the 1257 volcano cooling and he wanted to demonstrate why.
The actual observational evidence from the time do NOT show the prolonged cooling. The worst volcanic events may cause a season or two cooling, dependent on their size and location. Quite often the cooling has already been occurring and the volcanic events are merely a continuation.
Nasa confirms there is often winter warming.
Now, who do I believe? Crop Records, Church records and contemporary observations or tree rings?
tonyb
Shawnhet, I read the paper you linked to (and thanks for the link). Extrinsic solar mechanisms are not mentioned (solar insolation is an intrinsic factor). Instead the paper focuses on teleconnections and solar insolation, a reasonable set of mechanisms. Did you mean to link to another paper?
I think we will see a lot more about the beginnings of the LIA and volcanic connections reducing solar insolation. Now that the source has been reasonably identified and calculations made, a much more accurate picture is emerging regarding plausible initial volcanic triggers playing a role in the beginning of the LIA. Stay tuned. I hope that researchers are looking into possible connections with equatorial ENSO recharge disruption as well as other teleconnections to plunging temperatures that then seesawed with additional volcanic eruptions throughout the LIA period.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flgge.osug.fr%2FIMG%2Fpdf%2FCVidal19-03-2014.pdf&ei=YfCFU4D0AY6NyATo_YD4DA&usg=AFQjCNHTQy31CoMDvZ31U5XwWoLnZb6-lQ&bvm=bv.67720277,d.aWw
Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 5:49 am
“Shawnhet, I read the paper you linked to (and thanks for the link). Extrinsic solar mechanisms are not mentioned (solar insolation is an intrinsic factor). Instead the paper focuses on teleconnections and solar insolation, a reasonable set of mechanisms. Did you mean to link to another paper?”
Come on, Pamela. Just because you say that insolation must be an intrinsic factor doesn’t make it so. Seriously, how do you think they are even able to **detect** that insolation changed at all over this timeframe? It sure wasn’t by detecting some intrinsic mechanism *that isn’t operating now and noone knows anything about*.
In point of fact, the changes in insolation are inferred from the changes in radiogenic particles in the over time. See here for a paper that makes this clear. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10708530_Holocene_forcing_of_the_Indian_monsoon_recorded_in_a_stalagmite_from_southern_Oman/file/72e7e51837d0c8b11c.pdf
Now, unless you have some radical new theory that explains how carbon 14 can be intrinsically generated by the Earth and somehow moved to show up in the atmosphere in the levels shown on that paper, there is really nothing else that needs to be said.
Pamela
The observations and records simply don’t tally with the theory. Here under is a prolonged extract from the accounts of 1257/8. Undoubtedly there was a bad year then but the previous few years had ALSO been bad! Very soon after the volcano erupted the climate returned to normal.
There were then decadal swings from warm to cold and back again with the warmth dominating , with 1361/2 being possibly the hottest year on record. The climate declined from around the early 15th century but then picked up again in the first half of the 16th century . In other words the early stages of the LIA were episodic with the worst periods at the end of the 16th early 17th and late 17th century.
The crop records confirm this.
here is the extract;
1253 dry summer and wet autumn with in spring and summer a prolonged drought. Flooding in autumn which dried up after the feast of St Michael happened in spring (drought) contrary to the nature of the season, for at the time of the equinox with the whole weather moderate there is customarily peace in the elements
Brooks and glasspole believe 1252 and 1253 to be the driest of which we have any historical account; see Meteorological magazine 63 1928, page 4.
1254 cold weather in jan and feb ceasing on march 12th. ‘ Mathew paris notes ‘also on this day march 12th the bitter frost ceased which had continued nearly the whole winter that is since the night of the circumcision. ‘
Much north and easterly wind continually blowing in the spring for three months and several days which blasted the flowers and fruit about the calends of july namely in the time of the solstice quite suddenly inundations of rain broke forth with very violent hail of a kind not seen before which lasted for an hour or more breaking off tiles and parts of houses and stripping branches of trees.
M paris notes; Very unseasonable summer from the day of ascencion to the feat of all saints hardy two or three serene days passed without continual disturbance of the air.
In the autumn all the ground bounded by and in the neighbourhood of the sea which they had sown diligently was saturated by salt and found to be devoid of crops as the sea had occupied the land during the winter time
1255 gales in feb and march. From the feast of st valentine for a month a violent wind with heavy rains day and night both by land and sea caused unheard of disturbance.
There was then very unsettled weather the north wind blowing nearly the whole spring which is very inimical to the flowers and sprouting trees. And through the whole of april neither shower nor dew moistened the dry earth or gave it any warmth. The air was parched by the blowing of the north and east wind.
In this summer there was a drought due to the east winds continuing from mid march to the calends of june.
Rain followed and on the third of the ides of july a great tempest of hail in the trent valley marvellously beyond the ordinary nothing like it had been seen before with widespread destruction of crops by floods of water in the valley of the trent such as had not happened for a long time
1255/6 a great gale and rain the whole winter from the feast of all saints until whitsun-this is likely to refer to nov 1st 1255 to june 4th 1256
1256 severe thunderstorms july 25 gales on oct 5th and oct 26th which was unprecedented overturned houses and shook down stones. Possibly duplicates a great storm from oct 26th 1254
Another thunderstorm on nov 16th and on dec 28th, this latter one was very severe with much flooding it was accompanied by a fierce whirlwind. ‘the thunder sounded a sad prophecy for it was in the middle of winter and the cold was more like that of February. Unsettled weather then lasted for three months.
1257 from the first day of February until the first of may the whole of england was turned into a bog and a quagmire by the turbulent winds and the foul storms. (this description might refer to 1256)
Excessive rains in summer with much flooding destruction and loss of hay. Another chronicler noted that before the octave of st benedict there commenced such floods of rain that the earth was downed bridges houses and mills borne away, roads made impassable. Probably lasted until august as some crops were saved.
Mathew paris notes; the past year was sterile and meagre whatever was growing was choke by the floods of autumn for there was neither a temperate nor a serene day nor was even the surface of the lakes hardened up by the frost as is usual, nor were icicles hanging but there were continued inundations of rain until the purification of the blessed virgin
1258 the serene air of autumn and its temperateness continued until the end of January so that nowhere and at no time was the surface of the water frozen up. But from that time to the end of march the north wind continually blew frost snow and intolerable cold prevailed the face of the earth was bound up cultivation was suspended ad young cattle were killed.
The north wind blew continually, when april may and the principal part of june had passed the flowers of plants had scarcely germinated.
Great tempest of flooding rain, snow ice thunder and lighting on the 12th of june causing great flooding on the river seven around bristol and Shrewsbury. Much loss of life. Note; This might refer to 1259.)
General scarcity and expense of wheat due to inundations of previous year. In 1258 autumn crops nearly rotted by autumn rain. Very late and tedious autumn on account of the continual and persistent rains.
Matthew paris notes; now this past year was very dissimilar to all previous years that is it was unhealthy and mortal stormy and exceedingly rainy so much so that although in summer time the harvest seemed promising by the time of autumn continual heavy rains choked the crops .
Terrible thunderstorm on december 1st.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110 Mount Rinjani erution probably May to Oct 1257
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/09/130930-volcano-science-historic-eruption-indonesia-rinjani-mystery-disaster/
http://www.volcano.si.edu/
(volcano info provides a spread sheet of eruptions as excel-saved as ‘volcanos’
1259 everything grew in moderate abundance and the dry weather presented an unexpected sufficiency.
1260 great and prolonged summer drought so that barley and oats remained hidden in the ground even until autumn . however showers then caused germination but they didn’t ripen due to lack of warmth.
——- ——–
There is no observational evidence for the theory propounded. The 1257/8 volcano did not precipitate the LIA nor the ones that followed soon after.
Have you read DR Mann’s paper in which he tries to explain why his tree rings didn’t pick up the volcano signal?
tonyb
I have to say that intrinsic in this context, is just a fancy word for “clueless”.
hmmm. There are other reasons for your variation in carbon isotopes. Look at slide 21 in this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vsxIsLcB_xUC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=solar+insolation+and+radiogenic+particles&source=bl&ots=Tec8lNL-yb&sig=V5gJWRC1pQUJGVkbl7FV9k2Tzzw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AwWGU8q7EIihyASV7ILQDQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=solar%20insolation%20and%20radiogenic%20particles&f=false
For further reading, I would recommend this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vsxIsLcB_xUC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=solar+insolation+and+radiogenic+particles&source=bl&ots=Tec8lNL-yb&sig=V5gJWRC1pQUJGVkbl7FV9k2Tzzw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AwWGU8q7EIihyASV7ILQDQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=solar%20insolation%20and%20radiogenic%20particles&f=false
oops. Here are the slides to a very good powerpoint. Look at slide 21.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~bklinger%2FCLIM690%2Flec9_paleo.pdf&ei=IgiGU6yHOI2qyAS0zYGwCw&usg=AFQjCNEIE7pWV12ImGlxV-DwhRzT_OGKyQ&sig2=3CjXFeIRmQ9wEgToEq9iDw
Geez, Pam. Throw me a bone here. I can’t even see your slide 21 in the whole book. How about a page number and a bit of context? Everything I’ve read suggests that *perhaps* carbon 14 can change *a bit* due to climactic effects but it definitely will change due to changes caused by the sun.
What specifically are you saying is happening? It seems like you are just trying to dodge the issue again.
Shawnhet says:
May 28, 2014 at 9:30 am
Geez, Pam. Throw me a bone here. I can’t even see your slide 21 in the whole book. How about a page number and a bit of context? Everything I’ve read suggests that *perhaps* carbon 14 can change *a bit* due to climactic effects but it definitely will change due to changes caused by the sun.
The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic ray intensity, but a MUCH larger modulation is due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.
Ok, just to keep track of where we are here:
1. Do you agree that when my Neff paper claims that solar insolation correlates well with the movement of the ITCZ, they are talking about the change in solar insolation *caused by the sun* and not some hypothetical “intrinsically” caused insolation change?
2. Since you apparently think that the Neff paper is only detecting changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, what is your explanation for how changes in the Earth’s magnetic field can affect the movement of the ITCZ? Do you have any data that supports your hypothesis?
Probably not exhaustive list of major volcanic eruptions during the latter Medieval Warm Period & LIA (from Wiki, FWIW):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quaternary_volcanic_eruptions
1) Mount Tambora, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia; 1815, Apr 10; VEI 7; 150 cubic kilometres (36 cu mi) of tephra;[2] an estimated 10-120 million tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted, produced the “Year Without a Summer”[23]
2) 1809–10 ice core event; an unknown eruption at a near-equatorial location and a magnitude roughly half that of Tambora, emission of sulfur dioxide around the amount of the 1815 Tambora eruption (ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland).[24] In the year 1808, there were also major eruptions in Urzelina, Azores (Urzelina eruption, fissure vent), Klyuchevskoy, Kamchatka Peninsula,[25] and Taal, Philippines.[26]
Note: Thompson Island, Northeast of Bouvetøya, South Atlantic Ocean, disappeared in the nineteenth century.[27]
3) Grímsvötn, Northeastern Iceland; 1783–1785; Laki; 1783–1784; VEI 6; 14 cubic kilometres of lava, an estimated 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted, produced a Volcanic winter, 1783, on the North Hemisphere.[28]
4) Long Island (Papua New Guinea), Northeast of New Guinea; 1660 ±20; VEI 6; 30 cubic kilometers (7.2 cu mi) of tephra[2]
5) Kolumbo, Santorini, Greece; 1650, Sep 27; VEI 6; 60 cubic kilometers (14.4 cu mi) of tephra[29]
Huaynaputina, Peru; 1600, Feb 19; VEI 6; 30 cubic kilometres (7.2 cu mi) of tephra[30]
7) Billy Mitchell, Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea; 1580 ±20; VEI 6; 14 cubic kilometres (3.4 cu mi) of tephra[2]
8) Bárðarbunga, Northeastern Iceland; 1477; VEI 6; 10 cubic kilometres (2.4 cu mi) of tephra[2]
1452–53 ice core event, New Hebrides arc, Vanuatu; location of this eruption in the South Pacific is uncertain; only pyroclastic flows are found at Kuwae; 36 to 96 cubic kilometres (8.6 to 23.0 cu mi) of tephra; 175-700 million tons of sulfuric acid[31][32][33]
9) Mount Tarawera, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand; 1310 ±12; VEI 5; 5 cubic kilometres (1.2 cu mi) of tephra (Kaharoa eruption)[2]
10) Quilotoa, Ecuador; 1280(?); VEI 6; 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of tephra[2]
11) Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Lombok Island, Indonesia; 1257; 40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra, Arctic and Antarctic Ice cores provide compelling evidence to link the ice core sulfate spike of 1258/1259 A.D. to this volcano.
Dunno how complete the list is, but note that there was a drought around the time of the onset of the LIA, ie between the VEI 5 & VEI 6 eruptions of AD 1310 & 1477. Toward the end of the Medieval Warm Period, c. 1250 to 1350, climate was becoming less stable (some date the LIA as 1350 to 1850; NASA shortens it to 1550-1850, while others think it lasted a little farther into the second half of the 19th century). Notable during the phase of instability was the Great Famine of 1315-17 in northern Europe. Population had greatly increased during the MWP, making normal weather fluctuations more deadly & setting the world up for the Black Death. Wars like the Hundred Years’ in France didn’t help.
The Dark Ages Cold Period which preceded the Medieval Warm Period also featured volcanic eruptions, but so too of course did the MWP & every other warm & cool phase. IMO there is no statistically significant difference between major eruption frequency or power during the two cycles. The late LIA had VEI 7 Tambora, but the Modern Warm Period has had Krakatoa & three other VEI 6 eruptions, for instance. The Medieval Warm Period featured not only the alleged 1257 event & VEI 6 Quilota, but the earlier VEI 7 Tianchi (c. 969) & VEI 6 Ceboruco (c. 920, but not well dated) eruptions. There was also a VEI 6 at c. AD 800.
Actually, there were no recorded VEI 7s during the Dark Ages Cold Period, unless you count Taupo of c. AD 230, although it had its usual share of VEI 6 eruptions.
LT says:
May 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, Lt. Unfortunately I have:
1) no idea what your analysis is, and
2) no idea where to find your analysis, and
3) no idea where in my analysis you claim the 11-year cycle “shows up”, and therefore,
4) no clue what you are on about.
So I don’t know whether I “realize it or not”, because I don’t even know what “it” is on your planet.
Folks, without links, this kind of post is just useless childish babble. I’m not going to go look for your genius work, LT, that’s a fools errand. I’m not going to search the thread to see if I can guess what the heck you are referring to, that’s a mug’s game.
Come back next time with something more in your hand than your Johnson, and we’ll talk.
DEAR FRIENDS, PROVIDE LINKS AND QUOTES SO WE CAN TELL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
You may be 100% right, LT … or you may be 100% wrong, but without links there is no way to know.
w.
Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms
Jiansong Zhou and Ka-Kit Tung
Using yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a “bottom up” mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an alternative to the currently favored “top down” mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.
steven says:
May 28, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Thanks.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1
Cited by
Stergios Misios, Hauke Schmidt. (2013) The role of the oceans in shaping the tropospheric response to the 11 year solar cycle. Geophysical Research Letters 40:24, 6373-6377.
Online publication date: 28-Dec-2013.
CrossRef
Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Daniel M. Mitchell, Scott Osprey, Sarah Ineson, Steven Hardiman, Neal Butchart, Jeff Knight, Rowan Sutton, Kunihiko Kodera. (2013) A lagged response to the 11 year solar cycle in observed winter Atlantic/European weather patterns. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118:24, 13,405-13,420.
Online publication date: 27-Dec-2013.
CrossRef
K.-K. Tung, J. Zhou. (2013) Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:6, 2058-2063.
Online publication date: 5-Feb-2013.
CrossRef
What a novel idea to use data.
So there is some evidence that solar may force ocean heat transport. Does it matter?
Increased ocean heat transports and warmer climate
D. Rind M. Chandler
We investigated the effect of increased ocean heat transports on climate in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model (GCM). The increases used were sufficient to melt all sea ice at high latitudes, and amounted to 15% on the global average. The resulting global climate is 2°C warmer, with temperature increases of some 20°C at high latitudes, and 1°C near the equator.
Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 5:38 am
Good to remind us all of the distinction between insolation at the surface & irradiance at the top of the atmosphere. That’s why I consider cloudiness important, & energy actually delivered to land & especially sea, in which stratospheric ozone levels play a role.
Willis,
You have it right in front of you, you said there was nothing on RSS when there is clearly a peak at about 11.5 years on the RSS. If you were expecting a large spike there you are not going to find one.
http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg484/ltwells3/WillisRssEvidence_zps92266c52.png
The Strongest cycle should be the 60 year (+/- 20) year for PDO, then the next strongest would be a 5 – 9 ENSO, which you show and then a somewhat weaker 11-12 SSN cycle which you show.
Willis,
You should at least make an educated guess about what you would expect to see on a power spectrum, before dismissing the evidence and then ranting about it in a blog. You made the claim that the Sunspot Cycle is the biggest cycle, that is false, its a very small cycle when looking at Earths temperature response, compared with all the other cyclical variations that modulate earths temperature. It should be the smallest peak on any power spectrum. Furthermore you have only discovered the FFT less than 60 days ago. I have been using it for almost 30 years. 33 years of data is more than enough data for an 11 year cycle to show up on a power spectrum, people often confuse the sampling theorem, when it comes to using the FFT as filtering operation vs. using the power spectrum to identify a cycle.
LT, statistically it would not be sufficient. How would you determine significance?