It's The Evidence, Stupid!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

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

thumb its the sunIt’s the sun, stupid.

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

Unfortunately, the dang facts got in the way again …

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some interesting features of these records.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

w.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at four long-term temperature records here.

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

Atmospheric Pressure and Sunspot Data:

Madras

Nagasaki 

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

668 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
May 28, 2014 4:11 pm

lsvalgaard says:
May 28, 2014 at 9:42 am
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.
——————————-
How about a correlation probably without any causation?
I note that the geomagnetic field drifted eastward from about AD 1000 to 1400 (during the MWP) & westward from then until now (LIA & Modern Warm Period). But dipole strength has been falling since c. 1850, which should let in more GCRs, making the surface world cloudier & cooler (at least during the day), not warmer.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2014 4:20 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions.svg
That plot (for the positions of the north magnetic pole from 1600 – 1900 (proxies I assume) and measured points 1900 – 2007 indicates that the 1600 and 1700 points were fairly close to the 1960 – 1970 points (further west of the modern points though), but everything since 1980 is way, way further north than anything earlier.
The very rapid movement doesn’t even seem to match the “pause” unless the north magnetic pole’s movement north is counter-acting the rise in CO2. ??? But how would that happen?
More important, how much closer to Russia is the pole now in 2014? Up past 85, 86 north? Odd that the available image dat and maps seem to stop 2 – 4 years ago.

May 28, 2014 7:12 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
May 26, 2014 at 2:42 am
“Without having the data, my comments are:”
“1) LINKS! LINKS TO THE EXACT DATA! Your graph is useless without that.”
Here is the exact data I used. (I posted it above) The temperature data is from the UK met office and the SSN is from Greenwich. I can give you an exact link if you want.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/stornoway-nov-ssn-v-mar-tmin-1875-2009.xls
“2) What is the correlation between the raw datasets?”
“3) What does the cross-correlation look like for all months lag?”
I’ve looked at various combinations over the historical temperature data that the UK met office provides the public, and the correlation is there between ssn and temperature. Stornoway is an example. (you know, when people post a graph, you are able to display them).
“4) Why just November and March?”
It isn’t, nor is it only in one local UK region either.
“5) The centered moving average is a horrible thing. It munges the data mightily. And when you are looking at sunspot data, the 11-year centered moving average is the absolute worst choice possible. See “Sunny Spots Along The Parana River” for a full discussion of these issues.”
I agree, statistical sequencers assume that their function/s are correct, I prefer a manual approach to math, at least until I can confirm that a function is correct or not. This is why I have produced this graph from scratch just for you, because it is reproducible, it shows a ‘horrible’ trend correlating between sunspot and regional UK temperature.
Thanks, getting closer …”
I appreciate Criticism, so no… Thank you Willis.
🙂

Pamela Gray
May 28, 2014 7:37 pm

Regarding the data shown in slide 21 from the above link repeated here:
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
The following link is a short description of how Earth’s wobble changes insolation over many 1000’s of years. This would be in addition to changes due to Earth’s electromagnetic field changes. All of these issues are intrinsic Earth variables that can produce long term trends in solar insolation (radiation at the surface of the Earth). And the mechanics have been figured out. Leif would be the superior source here to tell us which of these variables have the power to create C14 trends in paleo-length proxies. Maybe all of them do. My understanding is that beyond the regular 11-yr cycle affect, the above group of intrinsic sources would be the variables driving paleo-length C14 trends.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html
My final take: I don’t think it is clear from the article Shawnhet has been referring to that the authors ascribed C14 proxies for solar insolation to be driven by solar variation. They may have assumed the reader would understand the generally accepted source of that C14 variation to be intrinsic.

May 28, 2014 8:02 pm

Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 7:37 pm
Solar “insolation” is a strange word to use, what do you mean?
[See below. .mod]

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2014 8:19 pm

Sparks says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:02 pm
(replying to) Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 7:37 pm
Solar “insolation” is a strange word to use, what do you mean?

I’m very surprised you asked, but I appreciate you be brave enough to recognize those times when you don’t recognize a phrase.
Solar Insolation” is a measure of how much solar energy is being deposited on a surface at a specific time of day and day-of-year at a specific latitude and cloud cover/dust/humidity/air condition.
Now, look at each of those conditions very, very carefully!
Solar insolation is in watts/m^2 usually, but you MUST be specific about each condition.
On a flat horizon surface?
On a flat surface, but one angled perpendicular at the sun?
On a flat surface, but on a vertical wall?
On that same vertical wall, but a few hours later in the day?
On a sloped roof, but measured in March?
On the same roof, but measured in mid-July or mid-December?
Above the atmosphere?
if so, at what day of year?
Use Insolation Top-Of-Atmosphere = =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((DOY-3)/365))))
where TSI = 1361 (this year, it is the yearly “average” value
and DOY = day-of-year (remember leap year if you want to be precise!)
(above formula for those processors like Excel which use radians!!!)
Top of Atmosphere Insolation is highest on January 3 at 1410 watts/m^2
It is lowest at 1307 watts/m^2 about July 5 at 1307 watts/m^2
I have a spreadsheet for solar insolation at any specific latitude, any day of year, every hour of day available if you want it.
It has a second section giving the insolation at every latitude on a chosen day-of-year and hour-of-day. That section also has the solar radiation falling on the edge of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice for that day-of-year as well.

May 28, 2014 8:34 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Is that so?

May 28, 2014 8:45 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Top of Atmosphere Insolation is highest on January 3 at 1410 watts/m^2
It is lowest at 1307 watts/m^2 about July 5 at 1307 watts/m^2

Are you attributing 103 watts/m^2 to seasonal variation?

LT
May 28, 2014 9:26 pm

Pamela,
Look at Willis plot, you see the powerful enso cycle,and you see the much weaker 11 year cycle sumper imposed on the side lobes of the Enso cycles, and at you see Watts often tauted double peak at 5+ years, I can see the cycles, the ratio between the power of each of those cycles can tell you about feedbacks And perhaps get some 3D dimensional variant feedback coefficients, that could help the computer models. If the cycles can be measured in the RSS or UAH the computer models can modified to vary the feedbacks with spherical model on a 1 day model.With 30 days of data you can make an accurate 15 year projection if their is a solar connection.
Its coming, don’t you want to know how bad its going to get?

May 28, 2014 9:53 pm

milodonharlani says:
May 28, 2014 at 4:11 pm
“a MUCH larger modulation is due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field”
How about a correlation probably without any causation?

No. The physics is well-understood and we can calculate in detail the variation of cosmic rays as a function of location on the Earth and of time given the variation of the Earth’s magnetic field. The latter may not always be well known, but the uncertainty is in the field, not in the response of the cosmic rays.

bushbunny
May 28, 2014 10:05 pm

It is well known (to some) that sunspot activities and solar flares have some effect on Earth’s weather. They tend to deflect cosmic subatomic particles from Earth, where they can meld with subatomic water molecules and form clouds. Personally this thread is getting a boring. Thanks Willis for bringing this to our attention anyway. Volcano eruptions can produce dust and gases that will hide the sun and therefore cool the surface for a few years. And we cannot control any of this.

bushbunny
May 28, 2014 10:10 pm

O/T Talking about cosmic rays, I have been diagnosed with ET, and researching it is thought cosmic rays (radiation) can cause this too. Don’t know how many of us are prone to leukaemia and the like from this. Interestingly, people who live on high altitudes seem to be more prone, and if they go and live at sea level, platelets return to normal?

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2014 10:16 pm

Sparks says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:45 pm (asking)

RACookPE1978 says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Top of Atmosphere Insolation is highest on January 3 at 1410 watts/m^2
It is lowest at 1307 watts/m^2 about July 5 at 1307 watts/m^2

Are you attributing 103 watts/m^2 to seasonal variation?

It depends on how you view things. That day-to-day change is top-of-atmosphere solar radiation is simply what happens based on the earth’s ever-changign distance from the sun. That changing radiation hits every square meter of the earth’s surface.
BUT .. How the ground and water and oceans are AFFECTED by that changing solar radiation in January, February, March, July, September, October or December DOES vary as the earth’s declination changes each day. So, in the northern hemisphere in early July, we are receiving 103 watts/m^2 less solar radiation each second than in January, but the earth is tilted towards the sun and so – AT A SPECIFIC LATITUDE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ATMOSPHERE we get a seasonal change in radiation as well. July – on a given square meter of ground – gets more radiation than it does in December.
At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice in September, each meter of ice receives 5 times as much solar radiation than does a square meter of sea ice up in the Arctic. At the top of atmosphere, both would get the same radiation.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2014 10:22 pm

bushbunny says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:10 pm
O/T Talking about cosmic rays, I have been diagnosed with ET, and researching it is thought cosmic rays (radiation) can cause this too. Don’t know how many of us are prone to leukaemia and the like from this. Interestingly, people who live on high altitudes seem to be more prone, and if they go and live at sea level, platelets return to normal?

I’m sorry for your diagnosis – And hope, you (like my sister – who has been at sea level her entire life!) both can continue longer fruitful years. My prayers and wishes!
To your question:
Yes. Cosmic rays are much more dangerous at high altitudes than at sea level because of the shielding effect of the air above the person 3600x24x7x52 … In the US naval nuclear program, those of us who were monitored continuously for radiation who worked up high (away from the reactor but closest to the “fresh air” and cosmic rays), got more radiation every year than those below the shielding of steel and water. Airline pilots and attendants get far more radiation than is allowed by the NRC for nuclear plant operators.

Shawnhet
May 28, 2014 10:24 pm

Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 7:37 pm
“All of these issues are intrinsic Earth variables that can produce long term trends in solar insolation (radiation at the surface of the Earth). And the mechanics have been figured out. Leif would be the superior source here to tell us which of these variables have the power to create C14 trends in paleo-length proxies. Maybe all of them do. My understanding is that beyond the regular 11-yr cycle affect, the above group of intrinsic sources would be the variables driving paleo-length C14 trends.”
I’m sorry, Pam but you are still massively confused. Changes in insolation on their own (for instance due to the wobbles in the Earth’s orbit) have precisely **no** ability to affect the formation of C14 in the atmosphere. They are different processes entirely. Formation of C14 is affected by the amount of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere, and the magnetic field of the sun and the Earth.
In order to get to the idea that the changes in C14 are indicative of changes on the surface of the Earth only – you are going to have to propose an all new hypothesis of how the Earth’s magnetic field changes. Fine with me if you can do it but you should not get into the habit of claiming that other papers agree with you when they don’t. The generally accepted source of C14 variation simply cannot be the processes you claim to have caused it.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2014 10:34 pm

http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Look through this chart for a very clear demonstration of the various doses:
One banana.
One day at high altitude, compared to 4 or 5 hours on one long distance flight ….
A chest X-ray compared to a mammogram!
See the nuclear worker limit? The regulators “allow” that much “legally” by procedurally? You get fines and retaliation if anybody gets even 1/10 of that much.

May 28, 2014 11:38 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:56 pm
“I fear that your graph doesn’t show much at all …”
Reproduce it and show me the p-value.

Alastair Brickell
May 28, 2014 11:59 pm

bushbunny says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:05 pm
… Personally this thread is getting a boring. …
——
Nothing could be further from the truth…what an interesting and challenging post by Willis and the fascinating discussion it has generated. We’re all learning things here and that Watts it is all about! Keep the comments coming!

May 29, 2014 1:37 am

Willis,
I see… you have the wrong idea of what my graph is about, you should reproduce it first. waffling about statistics isn’t going to reproduce the graph.

ren
May 29, 2014 1:48 am

RACookPE1978 see the level of radiation 02.25.2014.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7hax.jpg

Pamela Gray
May 29, 2014 5:49 am

Shawnhet, the paper you refer to specifically uses solar insolation (solar radiation: IE the entire spectrum of solar radiation hitting the surface of the Earth) in its metrics. I have adequately pointed out the variables that affect solar insolation. You contend that they use C14 as a proxy for solar insolation. Now that you know solar insolation varies more significantly from intrinsic variables than it does from the solar variable (IE 11 yr cycle), what say you as to the conclusions of the paper? If indeed they use C14 as their proxy to tell us how solar insulation varied as a function of some kind of significant solar metric outside of its 11 yr cycle, I would be skeptical in light of how the Earth is a far stronger source of solar insolation variation. You are not?

Shawnhet
May 29, 2014 8:11 am

Pamela Gray says:
May 29, 2014 at 5:49 am
Pamela, you just aren’t getting it. No one is disputing that insolation can vary quite a bit due to the intrinsic factors you mention. You are claiming however that variations in the sun cannot account for any significant climate changes. I give you a reference that shows how the C14 levels closely track long term climate changes. You have no response to this except to propose an apparently unphysical connection between C14 and *”intrinsic” insolation*. The common, mainstream explanation for this is that the changes in C14 follow solar changes (and the extrinsic component of insolation). You cannot explain the relationship that the Neff paper discovered and you cannot claim that the Neff paper agrees with you. It does not.

May 29, 2014 8:16 am

Shawnhet says:
May 29, 2014 at 8:11 am
I give you a reference that shows how the C14 levels closely track long term climate changes.
That claim does not hold much water. Check slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf