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
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
May 24, 2014 10:59 pm

From norah4you on May 24, 2014 at 9:24 pm:

Had the article author been a real scientist…

At this point I may freely disregard the further scribblings of the comment author as a guano-infused appeal to authority, without merit.
Especially as since we are inundated with CAGW-hyping articles by “climate scientists” who clearly do not act as real scientists, the job title “scientist” bears far less of a correlation with actual performance as a real scientist when climate is involved.
The article author has published in peer-reviewed journals and has extensive experience in data analysis, often climate related, and is self-taught remarkably well. What are the comment author’s qualifications that enable and justify their complaining about his qualifications?

Somebody
May 24, 2014 11:03 pm

The solar cycle is not a perfect cycle. There are many causes that influence climate. Most of them are not perfect cycles or not cycles at all. The climate system is not linear. It’s quite hard to identify a ‘signature’ from the output.
Even what the ‘science’ does the ‘best’:
Effects(human_causes + natural_causes) = Effects(human_causes) + Effects(natural_causes)
is very wrong, because it assumes linearity where there isn’t.

Henk Kraa
May 24, 2014 11:04 pm

If you draw a figure of the sun spots and the dates of the 11 cities skating race in Friesland, Holland, you WILL find a convincing graph for the sun spot cycle.

Mike
May 24, 2014 11:07 pm

@Willis Eschenbach: Did you consider the 10-15 years of lag between changes of sun activity and climate? Did you consider other natural influences like AMO and PDO (and its positive/negative feedbacks like El Nino or the melting Arctic) which can easily change climate by up to a half degree Celsius independent of the actual sun activity? Guess not. Because There would be at least a small correlation between sun activity and climate if these factors are considered (trust me, I check the climate data and facts every day for more than 5 years, I know what I’m talking about).
By all respect, please check all possible facts before contradicting the solar influence on climate. The climate is very, very complex. It’s easy to tell somebody that a certain climate influence doesn’t exist, but it is hard to prove a climate influence because you have to correct ALL other influences first to be able to get the proof of the influence factor on our climate.

May 24, 2014 11:10 pm

Piers Corbyn does long range weather prediction based on the solar magnetic field and weather records. Video here:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/05/follow-the-evidence/

alex
May 24, 2014 11:11 pm

Let us assume, our climate is an oscillator with the eigenfrequency w0.
d^2T/dt^2 + w0^2*T = forcing
The solar forcing has two driving harmonics 11 years and 200 years.
Let us assume the eigenfrequency w0 is about 30 years (inverse).
Then the response to the 11 years forcing is
dT11 ~ forcing11/(w11)^2
the response to the 200 years forcing is
dT200 ~ forcing200/(w0)^2.
So that assuming the same forcing200 and forcing11 (that is not the case!), the relative temperature response is
dT11/dT200 = (w200/w11)^2 = (11/200)^2 = 0.003
According to his “periodogramm”, the 200 year period forcing is at least an order of magnitude stronger than that at 11 years. So that in reality
dT11/dT200 ~ 0.0001.
We estimate that dT200 is about 1 degree Celsius.
That means, the climate response to the 11 year cycle must be somewhere around 1e-4 degree.
You want to measure 0.0001 degree signal?
Don’t be silly.

May 24, 2014 11:11 pm

Moderators: what did I say that got my message bounced?
[Nothing obvious, it was just waiting. .mod]

LT
May 24, 2014 11:11 pm

The problem with trying to directly correlate sunspots cycles with climate is that during each cycle when the sunspots go to 0, the value of tsi, AP index or neutron rates is not relative to prior sunspot cycles when sunspot counts are low. That is why cycle length or some other conversion of the proxy must be used to correlate with climate.

Bernie Hutchins
May 24, 2014 11:12 pm

What I do here is quite simple, but people do tend to throw around terms of spectrum, envelope, and modulations without conviction and/or in erroneous ways. Here I was struck by the 11 vs. 22 year cycle as reminiscent of the well known (but often with a misunderstood 2:1 error) beating in mistuned musical instruments.
The possibility that a periodicity might be 11 years; or it might be 22 years with a “sign reversal” of some sort, leads to a comparison to a musical analog of beating, and then to amplitude modulation and “balanced modulation” (double sideband or just a multiplication). I don’t think for a moment that these lead to much insight regarding solar cycles, but even in the musical cases things can be misleading.
We understand that if one trumpet (for example) is playing A=440 Hz while a second trumpet is mistuned and is playing 442 Hz, that there is a “beating” at the difference frequency, which is 2 Hz, or two beat per second. Every musician believes this. To show this we might try:
Sin(A) + Sin(B) = 2 Sin[ (A+B) / 2] Cos[ (A-B) / 2 ]
Now we have a problem! This shows an average frequency (A+B)/2 = 441 Hz with amplitude controlled by (A-B)/2 = 1 Hz, not 2 Hz! We do hear two beats/second because each Cos has two amplitude lobes for each cycle. We only “perceive” the ENVELOPE at 2 Hz, but there is no 2 Hz in the Fourier spectrum. (Neither is there 441 Hz in the spectrum.) The only frequencies in the spectrum are A and B on the left side of the identity. And the polarity does flip every other lobe (inaudible in the example).
So, could the sunspot cycle really be 22 years, with every other 11 year lobe inverted (flipped magnetic field)? I guess so – hardly a new idea. Being in the envelope (the right side of the identity), neither a 11 years or a 22 years period need be present in the spectrum.
But this is way too simple. The trig identity shows just ordinary balanced modulation on the right side, but the actual SSN “envelope” does NOT resemble balanced modulation (the cosine). If anything, it resembles 100% amplitude modulation, which would not have a polarity reversal every other lobe. So it looks much more like the “power” (square) of the trig identity.
I know FAR too little about solar physics to even imagine a reality corresponding to this simple example. I just want to quantify the obvious toys is seen from the EE playground.

May 24, 2014 11:25 pm

alex says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:57 pm
Yes, but the problem is we have only 400 years of direct sunspot observations and only 100 years of relatively good temperature measurements. This is barely too small to compare.
Tell that to all the people who claim that “it is the Sun, stupid”.

May 24, 2014 11:40 pm

Willis,
Please explain any of your evidense of what you claim? Start with this one:
Can someone please explain the concept of “back radiation”, i.e. electromagnetic radiation (power transfer) in a direction of more intense electromagnetic field strength, at any frequency? Such concept is in opposition to all of Jimmy Maxwell’s equations. Such concept is also in defiance of Gus Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation. In addition such flux, (power transfer) has never been observed, detected, or measured. Where does such fantasy originate and why?

Hoser
May 24, 2014 11:49 pm

Wow. 157 so far took the bait.
[??? .mod]

ren
May 24, 2014 11:51 pm

Whether solar activity affects the climate in shorter intervals? Of course it can be seen that in the cyclic temperature changes in the zone _. Us see changes in temperature in the zone _ above the equator since 1979.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_1979.gif
Can see a high temperature _ in the upper part _. The situation changes in the 80’s.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_1982.gif
Occurs rise in temperature in the central zone _. Temperature changes again in the 90’s. The temperature equalizes.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_1989.gif
Another change occurs suddenly in 2001. Temperatures increase _ in the upper zone and a decrease in the middle, which continues today. Thus, this period lasts for 13 years.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2001.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2014.gif
Please check it out.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/

ren
May 24, 2014 11:54 pm

It should be in the ozone layer. Sorry.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
May 24, 2014 11:59 pm

[snip – very far off topic – this tread is about solar cycles and weather data – mod]

May 25, 2014 12:07 am

Isn’t 11 years half the full cycle, give or take a year or two?
Even if the effect of the sun is 1%, that would account for a large portion of it, wouldn’t it?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
May 25, 2014 12:09 am

There are now words, but perhaps this will do http://tinyurl.com/oyonhfq.

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 12:16 am

Willis: “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. ”
What is the point of doing a spectral analysis if you are going to refuse to believe what it produces.
There are all sorts of variations in the time series which results in an irregular but obvious “cycle”. The point of spectral analysis is to see what makes up those irregular bumps.
The main power is clearly a well defined triplet plus the circa 21y which is obviously related. But with all the intermediate smaller peaks and sub-10y “noise” you will get an irregular result when it’s all added together.
That does not mean that “there is no regular signal. “. It means you’ve found a strong regular signal with notable apparently random noise.
Lief stated in your last look at this that this represented an amplitude modulation. Are you concluding that he’s become a victim of that awful condition, cyclomania, too?
You are doing some interesting work but you seem to have dug your heals in so hard on your conclusion that there is nothing cyclic to be found, that you refuse to accept it even when you prove it yourself.
regards. Greg.

richardscourtney
May 25, 2014 12:34 am

Willis:
I do not know if there is or is not a Sun-climate relationship. I write to comment on a response you made to Lord Monckton’s comment on your article.
In his post at May 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm which is here Lord Monckton wrote

One should not expect the ~11-year cycle to have a major influence on global temperature, owing to the homoeostatic effect of the two boundaries of the atmosphere: the near-infinite heat-sink that is the ocean and the infinite heat-sink that is outer space. Temperature will only change significantly if there is a sufficiently long period of persistently higher-than-normal solar activity (as there was during most of the past century) or lower-than-normal solar activity.

That concurs with the finding of Friis-Christensen and Larsen.
(ref Friis-Frris-Christensen, E & Larsen, K “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”, Science, 1991).
They found that the solar cycle length has an apparent relationship to global temperature.
Ii that finding is correct then the Sun’s variability has significant influence on climate but it would be expected that the ~11-year solar cycle would NOT have a discernible major influence on global climate because – as you say – there is no consistent 11-year cycle length.
The difficulty of your reply is stressed by an answer you provided to Mick in your post at May 24, 2014 at 4:20 pm which is here and includes this

The earth’s temperature swings on the order of 6°C peak to peak over the course of a year. Why would it not respond over an 11-year period?
Or to use your example, it’s as though the chicken soup IS responding to say 3,000 Hz, with a large response, but isn’t responding to the 100 Hz. That’s the puzzle.

The reason for the global seasonal temperature change is the different coverage of Northern hemisphere (NH()and Southern hemisphere (SH) by water (land is not as good a heat sink as water) so the seasonal variation is greater in the NH than the SH. This support’s Monckton’s claim of a great oceanic heat sink effect.
The seasonal variation is a constant length of 1 year so would not be seen as a variation related to solar cycle length. Indeed, any constant cycle would have no discernible effect on cycle length: and only VARIATIONS in cycle length(s) would have climate effects if Friis-Christensen and Larsen are right to some degree.
Please note that I am NOT saying either (or both) of you and Monckton is wrong: I am saying that your answers do not refute Monckton’s comment.
Richard

MikeUK
May 25, 2014 12:40 am

I’d be careful about dismissing correlations solely on the basis that there are periods when they don’t apply. Another effect may be slowly waxing and waning, such that the correlation is intermittent.

May 25, 2014 12:42 am

Greg Goodman says:
May 25, 2014 at 12:16 am
Lief stated in your last look at this that this represented an amplitude modulation. Are you concluding that he’s become a victim of that awful condition, cyclomania, too?
Just from the power spectrum you cannot tell what it is. From the physical process behind the spectrum one concludes that variation is an amplitude modulation. For Willis’s analysis it makes no difference what one assumes.

Peter Azlac
May 25, 2014 12:49 am

J Martin says:
May 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Exactly, we have a system responding to changes in multiple solar activities – TSI, UV level and wavelength, geomagnetic polarity, solar wind, solar flares etc – that affect the surface TSI through cloud formation and surface pressure via formation/destruction of ozone in the stratosphere that affect the position and strength of the jet Streams, buffered by ocean heat capacity and further complicated by heat distribution via ocean and atmospheric currents that are influenced by lunar Saros cycles, changes in the Earth’s electrical field, Stadium waves and other unknowns.
Joanna Haigh has a good review of these solar inputs and potential influences on climate
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu11.html
So why would anyone expect to be able to pick out simple relationships between solar cycles and temperature in the short term (multi decadal) time frame even when they obviously exist on longer time scales. In his articles at ClimateEtc (essential reading for anyone interested in the analysis of climate change), Tomas Milanovic points out the futility of trying to model a complex spatio-temporal chaotic system using average global data like Hadcrut4 which is made up of disparate local data, especially when neither the mathematics not computing power exist to do so. He concludes
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/#more-15591
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/15/ergodicity/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/05/chaos-ergodicity-and-attractors/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

May 25, 2014 12:50 am

[snip – very far off topic. This is a thread about solar cycles in weather data, we won’t divert to a Slayers diversion in this thread. -mod]

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 12:53 am

Interesting to see the lunar influence. A lot of people still seem to think the idea of atmospheric tides is a mental illness too. However, this could also be a consequence of SST changes. These 9 year cycles are clearly present in SST, as is the circa 13-13.5. I have no idea what that relates to but seeing it here in SLP tends to confirm that it is physically real.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoads_pds_9_grp.png
For some reason Nagasaki shows the strongest peak at circa 18y where as the more tropical sites are centred on circa 9 y. Probably latitude related, could be significant. Thanks.
Looking at your Tahiti plot you can see the same 10,11,11.8 frequencies that you found in figure 2. I’d suggest plotting the two together to verify or checking the numbers, but by eye it looks like something very close.
congratulations, I think you’ve found evidence of the illusive 11 year cycle… and it’s comparable to the lunar influence.
One thing to note, this is just spectral analysis splitting the peaks. The power of the modulated solar signal is the sum of those three peaks, so it’s quite significant.

ren
May 25, 2014 12:55 am
1 5 6 7 8 9 27