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 25, 2014 3:58 am

11 years is not long enough — I can’t believe what I just read. Find the sunspot chart at MSFC that shows back to the maunder minimum. Then find global warming, the mini ice age, and the pause in global warming on that chart. Find the Vostok Ice Core Data used to teach Yale students about the climate. Then find the industrial revolution on that chart.
This is one of the more misleading articles I have seen on solar activity… like something I’d find on climate.gov.
PS- hi Leif, thanks for having Willy put back the SPF data.

phlogiston
May 25, 2014 3:59 am

Solar cycle forcing is in the same category as CO2 forcing – measurable though tiny, and completely dwarfed into insignificance by the hydrological cycle and oceans.

Stephen Wilde
May 25, 2014 4:00 am

Emergent phenomena are the negative system response to any forcing and they do indeed keep the system stable.
Thus observing a change in the pattern of emergent phenomena is all one would expect to see in response to a forcing element.
Over a single solar cycle the scale of the solar induced change in emergent phenomena is less than that from internal system chaotic variability and even over several solar cycles the solar effect is heavily modulated by a lagging ocean response which can be in or out of phase with that solar variability.
However, over the course of a century and longer we do see a change in emergent phenomena in response to solar changes in the form of variations in the net latitudinal positions of the jet stream tracks and climate zones.
We saw that from the MWP to the LIA to date and even in the changes observed since around 2000 when the jet streams became more meridional at a time of less active sun and the earlier warming trend came to a halt.
So the issue really is as to how and why those latitudinal shifts occur naturally.
It can only happen due to changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

Konrad
May 25, 2014 4:19 am

So no response from Willis to my previous comment…
Come on Willis, is the effective emissivity (NOT apparent emissivity) of water 0.97 or 0.67? Game changer, you know it. But you don’t know how to run the empirical experiment do you lukewarmer?
I do.
I have.
Utterly pwned Willis. And how….
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
But you believe that the oceans are are a “near blackbody”. Therefore you cannot comprehend the solar influence on climate.

William Astley
May 25, 2014 4:20 am

In reply to lsvalgaard
lsvalgaard says: May 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Apart from your musings being incorrect, e.g. as shown by the direct observations of Ap shows both a solar cycle and the lack of any trend over the last 170 years
William:
You are plotting Ap against what? Try plotting Ak (three hour average rather than Ap daily average) against planetary temperature changes for the last 30 years (Oh, you keep forgetting about the peer reviewed paper that did that and found a strong correlation.) Why is there no comment concerning GCR? I cannot figure you out. The planet has started to cool in the same high latitude regions that warmed in the last 70 years. The sun caused the high latitude warming in the last 70 years and the sun is now causing the high latitude cooling.
Planetary cooling has started. There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. Arctic sea ice is predicted to recover to normal this summer. There is now a persistent cold anomaly over Greenland. As we are about to observed the El Niño event will be suppressed due to the lowest solar wind burst strength in roughly 100 years. (As the AGU solar updated noted the density of the solar heliosphere has dropped by 40% which is reducing the magnetic field strength of the solar wind bursts. Due to this change the solar wind bursts are have less affect. The solar wind bursts amplify El Niño events.)
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=27&startmonth=03&startyear=1975&starttime=00%3A00&endday=27&endmonth=04&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Once again about global warming and solar activity by K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi2 and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.
Solar Activity and Global Warming Revisited K. Georgieva, B. Kirov
The solar activity index commonly used for long-term studies is the sunspot number as it has the longest data record. But sunspots reflect only the solar activity originating from closed magnetic field regions. The regions of open magnetic field – coronal holes, sources of high speed solar wind and drivers of recurrent geomagnetic activity, are not accounted for in the sunspot index. It appears that in the last decades the impact of coronal holes has increased which can be explained by the increasing tilt of the heliospheric current sheet. This increased tilt means that the Earth encounters two high speed streams from coronal holes per solar rotation and higher geomagnetic activity. On the other hand, the tilt of the heliospheric current sheet is related to the galactic cosmic rays modulation, and galactic cosmic rays are considered key agents mediating solar activity influences on terrestrial temperature. Therefore, using the sunspot number alone as a measure of solar activity leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity for the global warming in the recent decades.
Evolution of the correlation between solar and geomagnetic activity
Kishcha et al. [21] examined the 23-year (in order to eliminate the solar cycle variation and the even-odd cycle differences) running correlation between aa-index and sunspot number, and found a linear decreasing trend, with a quasi-periodicity of 45-50 years superposed on it. They supposed that the cause of the variations in the so large magnetic activity correlation could be the variation in the time delay of the geomagnetic indices relative to the sunspot number. Further, they speculated that, dividing solar activity into sporadic (related to CME’s and hence to sunspots) and recurrent (related to high-speed solar wind from coronal holes), we can even neglect the sporadic sunspot related activity when comparing with the annual geomagnetic activity indices (William: The driving factor is the change in the solar wind speed which is proportional to the three hour geomagnetic index.)
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate By Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Jaakko Kateenkorva
May 25, 2014 4:21 am

Greg Goodman says: May 25, 2014 at 3:16 am
“SSN is an indication of solar activity.”
Anything is possible depending on how SNN, solar activity and climate are defined. Irrespectively, if <0.01% variations in the total atmospheric gas composition are considered relevant, variations of similar magnitude in the sun's total output are surely analyzed with the same dedication, right?

May 25, 2014 4:26 am

I have enjoyed this discussion.
While I was absorbing the comments.
It occurred to me that the Chicken in the pot analogy may prove the point.
If the pot is sitting on an induction hob.
Is the quest for the energy forcing looking out instead of in.
What IF the earth it self is acting as an induction Hob?
Iron core rotating in a liquid magma.
Inside a magnetic field.
Just a Thought.
Obliged Twobob

May 25, 2014 4:28 am

William Astley says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:20 am
You are plotting Ap against what?
Against time for the past 170 years
Try plotting Ak (three hour average rather than Ap daily average) against planetary temperature changes for the last 30 years
I think the global planetary temperature does not change on a three-hour time-scale, but you seem to believe anything that you carefully select. As the Goracle says: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 4:36 am

Thanks for the SFT R-code Willis. This is definitely a useful addition to the toolbox. Primarily for it’s ability to deal with data having breaks like the Tahiti SLP.
I’ve just printed out the number from the SSN SFT to look at the detail. The “21” is at 21.06 to the resolution available. Now I wanted to look at the bump on the side of the central peak of the triplet. It’s at 10.58y.
Now that is half 21.16 which seems a credible match 21.06 peak . That leads me to wonder whether the 10,11,11,8 triplet is not something physically different from the 10.58/21 peaks.
Maybe this is another reason for the variable shape of the solar peaks. There’s a lesser signal at 10.58 that is drifting in and out of phase with the main 11 x 136 modulated signal.
Like I said, we should not be seeing signed magnetic period in the spectrum of the unsigned SSN data. My reading of this is that the non-linear part that is showing up, and does not have the modulation, has a slightly different frequency. 10.58 compared to 11.0
Perhaps lsvalgaard can comment on anything solar physics may know about that.

May 25, 2014 4:49 am

Greg Goodman says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:36 am
Perhaps lsvalgaard can comment on anything solar physics may know about that.
As far as we know, there is only one solar cycle [and it has an amplitude that seems to vary on a 100-yr time scale for poorly understood reasons, and ‘period’ that is not very stable]. We know of no other ‘cycles’ drifting in an out of phase, but one can, of course, always ascribe things to causes not known, in which case, anything goes. I would not call that science, though.

rbs
May 25, 2014 4:52 am

Willis (and Mike Jonas) — Sir William Herschel’s work on sunspots and wheat prices has been revisited. See
Pustil’nik, Lev, and Gregory Din. “Influence of solar activity on the state of the wheat market in medieval England.” Solar Physics 223.1-2 (2004): 1-2.
There’s a pdf of the paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0312244&amp;

William Astley
May 25, 2014 4:55 am

This graph is total planetary polar sea verses time. As the graph shows polar sea ice has recovered. Polar temperatures and high latitude temperatures are colder due to the increase in low level clouds caused by the increased amount of ions created by the increased amount of GCR that is now striking the earth’s atmosphere in high latitude regions. (The GCR change has the greatest affect at high latitude regions as the due to the orientation and strength of the geomagnetic field.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
Arctic sea ice, notice the recovery.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Antarctic sea ice, note the Antarctic sea ice is not more than 2 sigma above the 30 year average for every month of the year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:28 am
William Astley says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:20 am
You are plotting Ap against what?
Against time for the past 170 years
Try plotting Ak (three hour average rather than Ap daily average) against planetary temperature changes for the last 30 years I think the global planetary temperature does not change on a three-hour time-scale, but you seem to believe anything that you carefully select. As the Goracle says: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
William: What in the world are you talking about? I did not say to plot 3 hour planetary temperature. You do not understand the mechanisms.
The magnitude of Ak, the three hour change to the geomagnetic field, is correlated to how strongly the solar wind burst can remove ions from the atmosphere. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions from high latitude and equatorial regions. A reduction in ions causes a reduction in low level clouds in high latitude regions which causes warming for roughly three to five days, for each significant event.
The number, magnitude, and time between solar wind bursts determines the affect the solar wind bursts have planetary cloud and planetary temperature.
In equatorial regions the reduction in ions changes cloud droplet size which in turn changes how much upward long radiation can pass through the cloud.

Patrick
May 25, 2014 5:02 am

“lsvalgaard says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:49 am
As far as we know, there is only one solar cycle [and it has an amplitude that seems to vary on a 100-yr time scale for poorly understood reasons, and ‘period’ that is not very stable]. We know of no other ‘cycles’ drifting in an out of phase, but one can, of course, always ascribe things to causes not known, in which case, anything goes. I would not call that science, though.”
In other words, ACO2 driven climate change.

May 25, 2014 5:02 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
“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.”
Willis, ignoring my comments won’t make the facts go away. http://snag.gy/5XTIk.jpg

Caleb
May 25, 2014 5:02 am

I did most of my research on sunspot cycles in a bathtub at age three. My mother put an end to my research, due to the size of the waves I generated, which is why I became a writer and not a scientist.
However, looking back, I recall you had to get the timing right. You had to slide forward as the wave went forward and slide back as the wave went back, or else your efforts would be counterproductive. If you made the exact same effort at the wrong time, you would expend the same energy but rather than increasing the wave you would negate the wave.
I figure the sun just doesn’t have its timing right. For one thing, it has to learn to be more regular. I’ve told it over and over to stick to a cycle of exactly eleven years, but the blame thing refuses to listen to me.
If it refuses to be regular, then it has to be more observant and wait for just the right time to slide forward.
Lastly, the sun has to be humble and understand there are other powers in play. This is analogous to there being more than one fanny sliding to and fro in the bathtub, however such symbolism approaches obscenity, so I think I’d better quit.

May 25, 2014 5:05 am

William Astley says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:55 am
William: What in the world are you talking about? I did not say to plot 3 hour planetary temperature. You do not understand the mechanisms.
You said “Try plotting Ak (three hour average rather than Ap daily average) against planetary temperature changes for the last 30 years”,
And your ‘mechanism’ is nonsense, so cannot be understood.

May 25, 2014 5:10 am

Ulric Lyons says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:02 am
“all of the other cycles (magnetism, TSI, solar wind) move in synchronicity with the sunspots.”
Willis, ignoring my comments won’t make the facts go away.

The solar wind speed also [as you show] varies with the sunspot cycle, just in a more complicated manner: http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png

May 25, 2014 5:20 am

lsvalgaard says:
“The solar wind speed also [as you show] varies with the sunspot cycle, just in a more complicated manner:”
Do you see a clear sunspot cycle pattern in the solar wind speed data here then?
http://snag.gy/5XTIk.jpg

thingadonta
May 25, 2014 5:20 am

You wont see much of an 11 year pattern in most records, because the large +ve to -ve amplitude variations and also the period is too short to show up in short term ocean-atmosphere temperature exchange trends. There is too much of a lag effect.
In other words, it’s like turning an air conditioner on and off every 10 seconds or so, but making it stronger each time, and then measuring the effect of this on the temperature of a distant part of a large room. Short term temperature fluctuations might not show up at all, or barely, because it takes time for the longer term heating or cooling trend to disperse through the air in the room. Short term effects are nullified, especially if the period is short and the amplitude variation large. (The oceans are even slower than air, with regards to heat dispersal/exchange).
What you might see however, is a warming or cooling trend over time as long as the overall trend is in one direction, which is also what one sees in the temperature record for the 20th century-a long term warming trend. You would also expect some delay, on the scale of decades, which is also what one sees-the temperature kept rising for several decades once sunspots trends stopped increasing (which also happened to correlate with a positive PDO).

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 5:24 am

lsvalgaard says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:49 am
Greg Goodman says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:36 am
Perhaps lsvalgaard can comment on anything solar physics may know about that.
As far as we know, there is only one solar cycle [and it has an amplitude that seems to vary on a 100-yr time scale for poorly understood reasons, and ‘period’ that is not very stable]. We know of no other ‘cycles’ drifting in an out of phase, but one can, of course, always ascribe things to causes not known, in which case, anything goes. I would not call that science, though.
=====
Thanks the quick out line of what is known of solar cycles.
” but one can, of course, always ascribe things to causes not known, in which case, anything goes. I would not call that science, though.”
Well surely science should start with observation , then analysis of the observations, then attempt to explain and eventually predict behaviour in advance if the explanations are accurate.
One has to initially ascribe an observed pattern to causes unknown , then seek the cause. Otherwise, dismiss it as a fluke of stochastic variability and ignore it.
What happens to this kind of detail in the spectra as a result the proposed corrections to observation would be interesting. Does the adjustment sharpen the spectrum, resolve previously unresolved detail, for example?

May 25, 2014 5:26 am

Ulric Lyons says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:20 am
“The solar wind speed also [as you show] varies with the sunspot cycle, just in a more complicated manner:”Do you see a clear sunspot cycle pattern in the solar wind speed data here then?
Yes. Especially when you have more than ten solar cycles to look at. The important features are a maximum before solar minimum and minima at solar minimum and often at solar maximum too. It is well-understood why that is.

May 25, 2014 5:29 am

If it’s not the sun, then why do ice-ages come and go with orbital variations?

May 25, 2014 5:31 am

Greg Goodman says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:24 am
What happens to this kind of detail in the spectra as a result the proposed corrections to observation would be interesting. Does the adjustment sharpen the spectrum, resolve previously unresolved detail, for example?
Perhaps. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf

Greg Goodman
May 25, 2014 5:31 am

Willis. I don’t see any reason to limit the resolution of the spectrum to monthly intervals. You’re fitting an analytic function. To accurately resolve where the various peaks lie, it would be useful to decrease the step.
Particularly down around five years the freq quantisation is a bit crude.
I’m trying to see what to change to achieve this but if you can suggest what to poke it would be helpful.

Gary Palmgren
May 25, 2014 5:36 am

I have learned the hard way that any time you do an analysis of data, you really need to stop, write down your assumptions and draw a picture of your model. In this article you assume a frequency model and you want to compare frequencies of sun activity to climate features.
Why?
You have the data for sunspots and climate features. Compare them. There is no need to approximate quasi periodic data with frequency analysis to reduce all that lovely data to a frequency and phase angle and throw away all the wonderful information. Use the data!
Spreadsheets are wonderful for checking to see if your proposed analysis will work. Build a spreadsheet and create a parameter that tracks the historical solar activity precisely with some lag. Now add noise to magnitude and time lag. At least one year for the lag noise to simulate how the peak in solar activity is not synchronized with the earths orbit.. Now run your analysis on the parameter you created that does track solar activity. Can your analysis find the original magnitude and lag? How about after throwing in a couple volcanoes?
I have done this type of analysis checking at work and it really is useful. I was able to show that we had to measure the performance of a product to a minimum of one half its life to have a reliable measure of the expected lifetime due to measurement noise.

1 7 8 9 10 11 27