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.
Willis,
What do you suppose the cycle on the follwing graph is caused by?
http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg484/ltwells3/NINO_zps5e25f9aa.png
Shawnhet says:
May 29, 2014 at 1:13 pm
I am honestly interested but to me it appears that you simply reflexively dismissed my paper without even reading it.
That paper is old hat and I have read it long ago. It is not convincing. One typical problem is that it only talks about a piece of the whole time series.
lsvalgaard the sun will not listen. Yours.
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=31&endmonth=12&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Sorry.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=31&endmonth=05&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
lsvalgaard says:
May 29, 2014 at 9:45 pm
“That paper is old hat and I have read it long ago. It is not convincing. One typical problem is that it only talks about a piece of the whole time series.”
I presume that you are talking about the following issue(from the paper): “Fourth, stalagmite deposition stopped at 2.7 ky B.P. and restarted from between 1.4 and 0.4 ky B.P. The 18O values of the second growth phase lie within the range of modern stalagmites (Fig. 1).” If that is the case, it seems a little extreme to throw out the entire set of records derived from the stalagmite because a portion is missing. Clearly, the records were not omitted as cherry picking or whatever.
kadaka….may 29 2:22pm….I was just quoting what was being said ‘by scientist’ on this particular program and if you would have read on you would have seen that I say I do not necessarily agree with them…The point I am trying to make is there are hundreds of ‘peer reviewed papers’ out there that say it is the sun,the planets,cosmic rays,CO2, ect ect. and so on and so on….it’s never ending !! And I’m right…no,I’m right…no, he/she’s wrong and waving arms in air and pointing (my mother says that’s rude!)…and like I state later on…”There is only one certainty….nothing is certain!”
Shawnhet says:
May 30, 2014 at 8:15 am
Clearly, the records were not omitted as cherry picking or whatever.
Your faith is touching, but not convincing.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Maybe just coincidence, but the trough of the Wolf Minimum corresponds with the Great Famine of 1315. Clearly, the MWP was becoming unstable towards its end, with a brief rewarming in the late 14th century before descent into the LIA, the onset of which IMO you correctly associate with the Spoerer Minimum.
You shouldn’t need anymore evidence than this
http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg484/ltwells3/NINO_zps5e25f9aa.png
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2014 at 10:48 am
“Clearly, the records were not omitted as cherry picking or whatever. Your faith is touching, but not convincing.”
Well, I suppose I do have faith that people tell the truth until I have evidence that they don’t. The fact that you don’t apparently doesn’t convince me that you have any valid objection to the paper. If the fact that someone *may* be lying is an argument against a paper, there is no reason for the paper you posted earlier to be convincing either.
LT said on May 30, 2014 at 12:24 pm:
I’m convinced. You’re a plagiarist. Your image does not note the source image as from Willis. Also while Willis’ original does not list him by name in the image info, it does have the comment “AppleMark” and a long hexadecimal “signature” that may be traceable to him. This is stripped from your version, which yields “Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows” and has another signature.
You’re also a disk space and bandwidth hogger. The original is a sparse 37.8KB, your bastardization is bloated out to 200.6KB.
Why couldn’t you simply link to his comment or to the image itself, and simply ask him “What does that 12 year peak mean?”
Instead you have the defiled evidence of your unconscionable thievery posted to your freebie Photobucket account, stripped of all provenance, completely lacking even the smallest of notations to recognize the hard effort of he who toiled to painstakingly produce and publish, that which you have brazenly stolen.
You sicken me.
Shawnhet says:
May 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Well, I suppose I do have faith that people tell the truth until I have evidence that they don’t. The fact that you don’t apparently doesn’t convince me that you have any valid objection to the paper.
This has nothing to do with telling the truth. My valid objection to the paper is that it mainly is about insolation changes and a non-objectionable connection between temperature and monsoons. Then there is a small residual decadal variation that may or may not be correlated with 14C.Their Figure 14 is marginal and could easily be a chance coincidence with only a fifth of the variation ‘explained’ by 14C [which in turn is only loosely correlated with solar activity]. Not to speak about the wiggle-matching needed to overcome the uncertainty in dating. The paper I cited took reliable data for the last 100 years and finds [as Willis] no observable correlation with solar activity on decadal time scales.
There are hundreds of papers claiming solar activity connections. If all of these hundreds of paper would agree to the level of correlation, to the timing and amplitudes, and perhaps have a valid physical cause for the claimed connection then we would have a solid scientific basis for the contention that solar activity is an important factor in climate variation, but none of that is there, so the subject remains contentious. fuzzy, and of little use in practical predictions.
O/T Volcanic eruption in Indonesia has caused aircraft to cancel flights. Heading for Northern Australia, Brisbane and Sydney. Lets see if that alters the weather, eh?
[Yeppers. For an On-Topic thread, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/large-volcanic-eruption-in-indonesia-this-years-excuse-for-the-pause/ .mod]
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Couldn’t agree more, Leif. My problem all along has been that yes, there are plenty of hints and intimations that the sun is slightly involved in climate over here, and peripherally connected over there.
But if there were any clear, convincing evidence, we’d have been done with the question long ago. People have been looking for said connection literally for centuries … but where is the evidence?
People in this thread have brought in what they say is evidence … but upon closer examination, it seems to evaporate, and we are left with little but hints, with occasions correlations that appear and disappear like the Cheshire cat, with models all the way down, with relationships so weak that they need three statisticians and a bulldozer to pull them out of the data.
Nowhere is there anything clear, anything convincing. It’s all way, way down in the weeds … and remember, this is after a couple of centuries, not decades but centuries, of searching.
Now, as I said above, I hold that this is merely another consequence of the fact that the global temperature is NOT a linear function of the forcing as the standard climate paradigm claims. Instead, it is thermally regulated by emergent phenomena, and is remarkably resistant to changes in forcing, whether solar or other.
Note that I am not (as Mosher thought) offering this up as any kind of proof of my hypothesis about emergent phenomena. Absence of evidence is the weakest kind of evidence. I am merely saying that I think the results support my hypothesis, and do not support the conventional hypothesis—if the system were as exquisitely tied to forcing as the conventional paradigm claims, we’d see detectable variations in the temperature from all kinds of things, from the 11-year solar changes, from the volcanoes, from CO2.
But we don’t see those variations, which was the point of this post …
w.
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Well, I wish that you would’ve started with this sort of post instead of starting off by saying that folks who disagree with you must be gullible or whatever. It may surprise you to hear that I don’t disagree with all that much in this post, we just have different interpretations. I will address a couple of the most important points.
1st basic issue – proxies are somewhat uncertain (wiggle fitting etc…) this is true but if we want to know anything about long term climate we are forced to use them. Our alternative is just to look at long term climate changes and just say “I don’t know”. There are reasonably well established techniques to deal with this uncertainty IMO.
2nd basic issue – solar effects can only explain a portion of the variation in climate – this is true but I do not agree that the correlation could just as easily be by chance. From the paper: “Results of spectral analysis of both the detrended raw data and finetuned data further reinforce our interpretation that second-order variations in IOM precipitation were triggered by changes in solar activity” At the end of the day, though, climate is complex, people who are expecting a single factor to fully correlate with climate will continue to be disappointed IMO. We don’t rule out CO2 as largely causing the recent temperature changes even though its recent correlation is no better than the amount found here.
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 10:59 am
Well, I wish that you would’ve started with this sort of post instead of starting off by saying that folks who disagree with you must be gullible or whatever.
You are too willing to believe flimsy ‘evidence’ and to appeal to the weight that a ‘published’ paper is supposed to have. I feel a certain [unwarranted] arrogance in your responses to Pamela.
Now, if the stalagmites carry solid evidence of solar activity influence that would be of overwhelming importance. A standard measure of scientific ‘solidity’ is the notion of ‘repeatability’: If you have several records from different stalagmites and the agree in showing a signature of solar activity, then the claim is strengthened immensely. But in a follow-up paper in 2007 by the same authors reporting on the analysis of the stalagmite records from four caves in Oman and Yemen http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-ITCZ-Stalagmites.pdf there is no mention whatsoever of a solar activity or 14C signal. The obvious conclusion is that there is no mention because there is no such signal and that their earlier claim was a fluke. This happens so often in this business: a purported signal disappears when more data is examined. To solar enthusiasts that does not seem to matter. You should have looked further and found the 2007-paper yourself, but, no, you were all too willing to rely only on the 2003-paper. This is where the ‘gullibility’ [or worse] rears its ugly head.
Oh Willis, you certainly know how to provoke the disciples.
What on earth were you thinking? You know full well that provoking the Sun/CO2/extinction crew just forces all the nasties out of the wood work.
You have the patience of a saint. If this t**t had e-mailed that to me then I would have crossed the corridor and beaten the living s**t out of him.
Keep up the good work.
lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 11:25 am
“But in a follow-up paper in 2007 by the same authors reporting on the analysis of the stalagmite records from four caves in Oman and Yemen http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-ITCZ-Stalagmites.pdf there is no mention whatsoever of a solar activity or 14C signal.”
Thank you for the paper. Unfortunately, your statement about it is wrong. It does talk about solar influences multiple times for instance from the Conclusion:
“From 7.8 ka BP to present the mean summer ITCZ continuously migrated southward and ISM intensity and precipitation decreased gradually in response to solar insolation”
There are other multiple uses repetitions of demontrating the solar-climate link using stalagmites if you are interested (here are 3 of them)”
The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate
Late Holocene annual growth in three Alpine stalagmites records the influence of solar activity and the North Atlantic Oscillation on winter climate
Solar forcing of Holocene climate: New insights from a speleothem record, southwestern United States
Respectfully, there may be many problems with my position but being based on non-repeatable science is not one of them ;).
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Thank you for the paper. Unfortunately, your statement about it is wrong. It does talk about solar influences multiple times
It talks about solar insolation due to orbital changes, not to solar activity. This is a good example of your gullibility that you get confused about this.
lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Ok, I’ll eat some crow on this one, Sorry. I did not understand the point you were making. Frankly, I get a bit mad when you start accusing me of being gullible or arrogant.
I stand by my three additional references as proof of repeatability. Just because a paper doesn’t mention a C14 correlation does not mean that they have found anything wrong with the papers that found such a connection. As far as I can tell, they never even looked at the C14 connection one way or another. I do not assume that they looked for it and couldn’t find it just because they don’t mention it.
Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:10 pm
I stand by my three additional references as proof of repeatability.
You didn’t give any references, and your hints do not show repeatability of the effect, just repetitive gullibility.
Just because a paper doesn’t mention a C14 correlation does not mean that they have found anything wrong with the papers that found such a connection.
There is nothing ‘wrong’ with their first paper on this. The same authors did not repeat the claim when looking at more examples. This is good evidence that they didn’t find any signal. Since proving a real solar activity relation would be much more important than just the non-contentious solar insolation connection, I’m sure the authors would have mention it if there had been a clear signal. That they don’t simply shows that there is nothing to report and an admission that their earlier claim was spurious.
Dredging up more examples of shaky correlations does not help. I can show you hundreds of peer-reviewed, published papers that claim a solar activity connection. None of them is conclusive or compelling [otherwise the case would long have been settled and there would be no ‘debate’]
lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“There is nothing ‘wrong’ with their first paper on this. The same authors did not repeat the claim when looking at more examples. This is good evidence that they didn’t find any signal.”
I wouldn’t be so sure of this. Fleitmann, at least, still stands behind the C14 connection as evidenced by the SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE (2010) paper of which he was a co author.
“Dredging up more examples of shaky correlations does not help”
Statistically speaking, it must help. Lot’s of independent confirmation of solar changes accounting for a small amount of climate variation is pretty good evidence that something is going on IMO. Isn’t that exactly what we would expect if we allow that climate is a pretty complex phenomenon? It’s not as though we have any other perfectly complete theory sitting on the shelf anywhere that explains everything that people are just ignoring.
Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I wouldn’t be so sure of this. Fleitmann, at least, still stands behind the C14 connection as evidenced by the SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE (2010) paper of which he was a co author.
But you seem sure of the opposite. And often, being a co-author does not mean complete agreement, but simply that he supplied data or input to the paper.
But, that paper is well-known, so one can check for oneself, The paper is actually rather critical of the solar connection, for example “for the latter part of the twentieth century they consistently find that using realistic variations, solar forcing played only a minor role in global warming, in agreement with the practically constant mean solar forcing since 1980”, and ends with “Further observations and research are required to improve our understanding of solar forcing mechanisms and their impacts on the Earth’s climate”, so the paper is very cautious in its claims.
lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:10 pm
“But you seem sure of the opposite. And often, being a co-author does not mean complete agreement, but simply that he supplied data or input to the paper.”
Respectfully, you are the one that is arguing that the absence of a mention of the C14 connection is evidence that that connection cannot be replicated. I gave three other examples of substantive replication. All I know for sure about your paper is that it doesn’t say anything one another about the link I have been talking about.
I don’t really disagree with the balance of your post. I also think that recent solar influence on climate has been mild, at best.
Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Lot’s of independent confirmation of solar changes accounting for a small amount of climate variation is pretty good evidence that something is going on IMO
There is no doubt that solar activity accounts for a small part of climate variability [of the order of 0.1 degree globally and possibly larger regionally], but that is not the real issue, which is whether solar activity plays a dominant or even significant role in climate variation. And there is no good evidence for that, so gullibility [or worse: agenda] becomes the usual measure as evidenced by your comments here.