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
May 31, 2014 6:32 pm

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:29 pm
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.
since you did not link to them, you have given nothing.

Shawnhet
May 31, 2014 6:51 pm

“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”
Ah, well maybe there is just some confusion about my actual position – I have never said that solar plays a dominant role in climate (I have often said there are many factors). I do believe it is somewhat significant though.
“since you did not link to them, you have given nothing.”
That’s quite disingenuous, frankly. Am I supposed to believe that using Google Scholar is beyond your capabilities? IAC, here are the links:
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleoseminar/pdf/wang05.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X03005156
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/1.short

May 31, 2014 6:55 pm

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:51 pm
Am I supposed to believe that using Google Scholar is beyond your capabilities?
No, but since you are making the claim, the burden is on you.

May 31, 2014 7:19 pm

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:51 pm
IAC, here are the links
As usual, when one actually checks the links the ‘repeatability’ disappears. Here is a comparison between one of your links and the 2003 Fleitmann paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/Stalagmites-and-14C.png
Apart from the spike at 6200 BP, there is little correspondence [repeatability] between the records. So we are back to gullibility and the willingness to believe.

May 31, 2014 7:32 pm

lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 7:19 pm
As usual, when one actually checks the links the ‘repeatability’ disappears.
And there is the usual confusion about units. The 18O scales seem to be reversed [plotted upside down]. And BTW Figure 19 in the 2010 Review has some problems too [check the three curves].

Shawnhet
May 31, 2014 7:42 pm

I’m sorry I can’t make any sense of your page – can you at least tell me what link you think you are comparing to the Fleitmann paper?

bushbunny
May 31, 2014 8:15 pm

With 656 replies to Willis’ essay, what is our conclusion. The sun does effect the climate? (I hope so). Cosmic rays that hit earth create more clouds? Yes. Volcano eruptions if large enough of course and the type of volcanic eruption can cool the earth for a time. (Yes they can) Sea temps can be effected by volcanic eruptions (?) sea temps don’t vary much, unless you are in the tropics or if you swim in Bermuda (very warm). The Gulf Stream keeps North America and UK etc., from freezing. Yes. A warmer period precedes mini ice ages, or glacial periods? Yes it has been proven this has happened in the past. CO2 levels vary and have been higher than today. (Well cold temps don’t encourage plants or trees to grow).
Large cities are generally warmer and create a UHI effect, as wind is diverted around buildings, concrete and glass absorb heat, etc. Desert temps fluctuate during the night and day due to no cloud cover. Cities also create their own pollution. Weather patterns vary depending on where the country is, elevation and tree cover, etc. So – Mann is off his tree.
Sea levels do vary over centuries. Caused by land rising, land sinking, erosion, and the action of the moon on tides. Hmm, isn’t that sufficient to say, that cutting CO2 or methane will do nothing to cool the climate, as per IPCC predictions. Sorry to go on so long, and not give links or whatever.
Over the millennium we have gone from colder periods to hotter periods that do effect human occupation of certain areas around the globe. And we are in a nice interglacial that means, warmer temps suit us better than cold temperatures. Farmers have to adapt and they will.
The volcano in Indonesia is no longer effecting flights from Australia. Unless it blows again.And the bottom line, there is nothing we can do about any of these things, but adapt.

bushbunny
May 31, 2014 8:17 pm

P.S. During a full eclipse of the sun, the temps drop 20 degrees, I suspect F.

Shawnhet
May 31, 2014 8:24 pm

Ok, looking at Leif’s diagram in more detail – I think that I can see what the potential issue is here. It looks like both the Fleitmann and Wang papers (that Leif seems to be comparing) use different techniques to detrend and tune the data. Again, we are looking at residuals to a trend. For myself, I can’t tell just by looking at the graphs whether they are consistent with one another or not.

May 31, 2014 8:33 pm

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 7:42 pm
I’m sorry I can’t make any sense of your page
I presumed that you had actually read your own links. I compare with Figure 3 of
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/1.full.pdf+html
For myself, I can’t tell just by looking at the graphs whether they are consistent with one another or not
Then how can you claim ‘repeatability’?

May 31, 2014 9:27 pm

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:51 pm
Ah, well maybe there is just some confusion about my actual position
I personally don’t have a ‘position’. Having one smacks too much of having an agenda. I’m a scientist and go where the data leads without regards for any ‘position’.

Shawnhet
May 31, 2014 10:09 pm

lsvalgaard says:
May 31, 2014 at 8:33 pm
“I presumed that you had actually read your own links.”
I have read them. I was able to figure out which diagram you were looking at. I still don’t follow your exact point is though.
“Then how can you claim ‘repeatability’?”
??? They did very similar things and came up with similar conclusions. I don’t have access to their data so I am not able to redo their math. If there is a way to just look at the graphs and see that they are not compatible (even though they come up with similar conclusions), it escapes me. The only way I would be able to do that is by starting with the source data which I don’t have access to.

June 1, 2014 1:40 am

Shawnhet says:
May 31, 2014 at 10:09 pm
I have read them. I was able to figure out which diagram you were looking at. I still don’t follow your exact point is though.
The point is that the data is very noisy and that the graphs from the two papers are not very similar so one cannot be said to be supporting the other, thus no repeatability.

LT
June 1, 2014 10:04 pm

Kadaka,
My post here are between me and Willis, I found a correlation of a climate metric that has an 11.86 year cycle, the same as Jupiter and the same cycle as the Sunspot cycle and Willis dismissed and told me to show up to the debate with more than my Johnson, so there is Willis data that he dissmissed as inconclusive, there is solar signal. The debate is over.
It sickens me how little you add to this debate.
~LT

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 3, 2014 4:11 pm

From LT June 1, 2014 at 10:04 pm:

Kadaka,
(…) The debate is over.
It sickens me how little you add to this debate.

Heh heh heh. You’re funny.
And an unapologetic plagiarist.

Martin Lewitt
June 4, 2014 3:51 am

Here are the relevant quotes from the Lean and Rind article I referenced above, as well as Lean and Rind’s discussion of the Camp and Tung results I also referenced. Neither is a reanalysis.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1029/2008GL034864/
“[11] Solar activity is reliably detected in the global historical surface temperature record, for example, producing a peak monthly increase of 0.17 ± 0.01 K from April 1996 (solar minimum) to February 2002 (solar maximum). The 13-month running mean solar cycle change is 0.11 K at one month lag, consistent with the solar cycle signal found in lower troposphere satellite data since 1979 [Douglass and Clader, 2002]. The response is strongest at mid latitudes (near 40°) in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, in the vicinity of the Ferrel cells, which interface the Hadley and Polar cells. The detectable amplitude and rapid response of surface temperatures to decadal solar forcing is consistent with prior analyses of NCEP data, and suggests that the response involves the large-scale dynamical circulation of the atmosphere [Haigh, 2003; van Loon et al., 2004].
[12] The 0.1 K (13-month mean) global solar cycle increase with modest warming at high latitudes (Figure 3) differs markedly from the 0.2 K solar cycle global increase dominated by significant high latitude warming that Camp and Tung [2007] derived by differencing solar cycle maximum and minimum epochs in the NCEP data. Their larger estimates of the solar cycle amplitude may be erroneous because of uncorrected volcanic cooling. Over the NCEP epoch decadal power in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols is approximately in phase during two of the last five solar cycles. This is illustrated in Figure 4, which compares time variations in solar, volcanic and ENSO power in a band from 8.5 to 12.8 years, isolated in the frequency domain by the FFT. Another explanation may be the significant contributions from high latitudes. The NCEP project assimilates available data onto model simulations so that the high latitude fields likely reflect modeled changes, since actual surface temperature observations are confined mainly to the region from 65°S to 70°N [Brohan et al., 2006].”

June 4, 2014 8:32 am

>> bushbunny says:(May 31, 2014 at 8:15 pm):
>>With 656 replies to Willis’ essay, what is our conclusion.
i assume you’re using the royal “our”
my conclusion is that the science of solar effects on earth’s climate is definitely not a settled sience – and that’s its effects are blended in the climate forcing soup – and are difficult – if not impossible to detect – now i know not to go into a climate battle with solar cycle’s blazing
researchers looked at events and found the solar cycle underneath – Willis and others have looked at a solar cycle and didn’t find any events – that’s the type of conundrum that can make exciting science
i for one am interested in the effects of the earth’s magnetic field – others have mentioned it too – its current turbulence might indicate a shift about to occur – i heard in passing that that is accompanied by dramatic climate change – but i heard nothing in detail
thanks Willis

milodonharlani
June 4, 2014 8:47 am

IMO “climate scientists” today d*nying a significant solar influence on climate are akin to those earth scientists of 50 years ago who d*nied that the continents move or that gigantic catastrophic floods can shape the landscape. What might be lacking however is a sufficiently convincing explanation for solar effects comparable to seafloor spreading for observed & inferred continental drift in the 1950s to ’60s & natural selection for observed & inferred evolution in the 1850s to ’60s. IMO one such explanatory mechanism is CCNs induced by GCRs & another could be the effect of UV variation on stratospheric ozone.

1 25 26 27