Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir Shaviv called “Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing”, available here. Dr. Shaviv’s paper claims that both the ocean heat content and the ocean sea surface temperature (SST) vary in step with the ~11 year solar cycle. Although it’s not clear what “we” means when he uses it, he says: 
“We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.” Since the ocean heat content data is both spotty and incomplete, I looked to see if the much more extensive SST data actually showed signs of the claimed solar-related variation.
To start with, here’s what Shaviv2008 says about the treatment of the data:
Before deriving the global heat flux from the observed ocean heat content, it is worth while to study in more detail the different data sets we used, and in particular, to better understand their limitations. Since we wish to compare them to each other, we begin by creating comparable data sets, with the same resolution and time range. Thus, we down sample higher resolution data into one year bins and truncate all data sets to the range of 1955 to 2003.
I assume the 1955 start of their data is because the ocean heat content data starts in 1955. Their study uses the HadISST dataset, the “Ice and Sea Surface Temperature” data, so I went to the marvelous KNMI site and got that data to compare to the sunspot data. Here are the untruncated versions of the SIDC sunspot and the HadISST sea surface temperature data.
Figure 1. Sunspot numbers (upper panel) and sea surface temperatures (lower panel).
So … is there a solar component to the SST data? Well, looking at Figure 1, for starters we can say that if there is a solar component to SST, it’s pretty small. How small? Well, for that we need the math. I often start with a cross-correlation. A cross-correlation looks not only at how well correlated two datasets might be. It also shows how well correlated the two datasets are with a lag between the two. Figure 2 shows the cross-correlation between the sunspots and the SST:
Figure 2. Cross-correlation, sunspots and sea surface temperatures. Note that they are not significant at any lag, and that’s without accounting for autocorrelation.
So … I’m not seeing anything significant in the cross-correlation over full overlap of the two datasets, which is the period 1870-2013. However, they haven’t used the full dataset, only the part from 1955 to 2003. That’s only 49 years … and right then I start getting nervous. Remember, we’re looking for an 11-year cycle. So results from that particular half-century of data only represent three complete solar cycles, and that’s skinny … but in any case, here’s cross-correlation on the truncated datasets 1955-2003:
Figure 3. Cross-correlation, truncated sunspots and sea surface temperatures 1955-2003. Note that while they are larger than for the full dataset, they are still not significant at any lag, and that’s without accounting for autocorrelation.
Well, I can see how if all you looked at was the shortened datasets you might believe that there is a correlation between SST and sunspots. Figure 3 at least shows a positive correlation with no lag, one which is almost statistically significant if you ignore autocorrelation.
But remember, in the cross-correlation of the complete dataset shown back in Figure 2, the no-lag correlation is … well … zero. The apparent correlation shown in the half-century dataset disappears entirely when we look at the full 140-year dataset.
This highlights a huge recurring problem with analyzing natural datasets and looking for regular cycles. Regular cycles which are apparently real appear, last for a half century or even a century, and then disappear for a century …
Now, in Shaviv2008, the author suggests a way around this conundrum, viz:
Another way of visualizing the results, is to fold the data over the 11-year solar cycle and average. This reduces the relative contribution of sources uncorrelated with the solar activity as they will tend to average out (whether they are real or noise).
In support of this claim, he shows the following figure:
Figure 4. This shows Figure 5 from the Shaviv2008 paper. Of interest to this post is the top panel, showing the ostensible variation in the averaged cycles.
Now, I’ve used this technique myself. However, if I were to do it, I wouldn’t do it the way he has. He has aligned the solar minimum at time t=0, and then averaged the data for the 11 years after that. If I were doing it, I think I’d align them at the peak, and then take the averages for say six years on either side of the peak.
But in any case, rather than do it my way, I figured I’d see if I could emulate his results. Unfortunately, I ran into some issues right away when I started to do the actual calculations. Here’s the first issue:
Figure 5. The data used in Shaviv2008 to show the putative sunspot-SST relationship.
I’m sure you can see the problem. Because the dataset is so short (n = 49 years), there are only four solar minima—1964, 1976, 1986, and 1996. And since the truncated data ends in 2003, that means that we only have three complete solar cycles during the period.
This leads directly to a second problem, which is the size of the uncertainty of the results of the “folded” data. With only three full cycles to analyze, the uncertainty gets quite large. Here are the three folded datasets, along with the mean and the 95% confidence interval on the mean.
Figure 6. Sea surface temperatures from three full solar cycles, “folded” over the 11-year solar cycle as described in Shaviv2008
Now, when I’m looking for a repetitive cycle, I look at the 95% confidence interval of the mean. If the 95%CI includes the zero line, it means the variation is not significant. The problem in Figure 6, of course, is the fact that there are only three cycles in the dataset. As a result, the 95%CI goes “from the floor to the ceiling”, as the saying goes, and the results are not significant in the slightest.
So why does the Shaviv2008 result shown in Figure 4 look so convincing? Well … it’s because he’s only showing one standard error as the uncertainty in his results, when what is relevant is the 95%CI. If he showed the 95%CI, it would be obvious that the results are not significant.
However, none of that matters. Why not? Well, because the claimed effect disappears when we use the full SST and sunspot datasets. Their common period goes from 1870 through 2013, so there are many more cycles to average. Figure 7 shows the same type of “folded” analysis, except this time for the full period 1870-2013:
Figure 7. Sea surface temperatures from all solar cycles from 1870-2013, “folded” over the 11-year solar cycle as described in Shaviv2008
Here, we see the same thing that was revealed by the cross-correlation. The apparent cycle that seemed to be present in the most recent half-century of the data, the apparent cycle that is shown in Shaviv2008, that cycle disappears entirely when we look at the full dataset. And despite having a much narrower 95%CI because we have more data, once again there is no statistically significant departure from zero. At no time do we see anything unexplainable or unusual at all
And so once again, I find that the claims of a connection between the sun and climate evaporate when they are examined closely.
Let me be clear about what I am saying and not saying here. I am NOT saying that the sun doesn’t affect the climate.
What I am saying is that I still haven’t found any convincing sign of the ~11-year sunspot cycle in any climate dataset, nor has anyone pointed out such a dataset. And without that, it’s very hard to believe that even smaller secular variations in solar strength can have a significant effect on the climate.
So, for what I hope will be the final time, let me put out the challenge once again. Where is the climate dataset that shows the ~11-year sunspot/magnetism/cosmic rays/solar wind cycle? Shaviv echoes many others when he claims that there is some unknown amplification mechanism that makes the effects “about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations” … however, I’m not seeing it. So where can we find this mystery ~11-year cycle?
Please use whatever kind of analysis you prefer to demonstrate the putative 11-year cycle—”folded” analysis as above, cross-correlation, wavelet analysis, whatever.
Regards,
w.
My Usual Request: If you disagree with someone, myself included, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. This prevents many flavors of misunderstanding, and lets us all see just what it is that you think is incorrect.
Subject: This post is about the quest for the 11-year solar cycle. It is not about your pet theory about 19.8 year Jupiter/Saturn synoptic cycles. If you wish to write about them, this is not the place. Take it to Tallbloke’s Talkshop, they enjoy discussing those kinds of cycles. Here, I’m looking for the 11-year sunspot cycles in weather data, so let me ask you kindly to restrict your comments to subjects involving those cycles.
Data and Code: I’ve put the sunspot and HadISST annual data online, along with the R computer code, in a single zipped folder called “Shaviv Folder.zip“
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 10, 2014 at 8:52 am
My apologies, for a second time it seems my lack of clarity has led us astray. When I said “It appears you don’t believe my claim”, by “my claim” I meant my claim that sea water continues to get denser up to the freezing point. As far as I can tell, you don’t believe it. I was not referring to the original claim.
I did NOT mean it the way that it appears you’ve taken it. Because of my original lack of clarity, you thought my original claim was that we’d find ice on the ocean floor, and you quite rightly rejected what you thought I meant.
But it appeared to me that you also rejected the idea that sea water continues to become denser right up to freezing. So before we go further, was I wrong in my understanding? Do you accept that sea water is not (as many people thing) at its densest at 4°C, but instead continues to get denser right up until it freezes?
w.
Konrad. says:
June 10, 2014 at 3:07 am
Konrad, you appear to misunderstand what is going on here. Nir Shaviv made a claim that he could detect the 11-year solar cycle in sea surface temperature records. This was not my claim.
I showed, using his data and his methods, that there is no such significant cycle in the sea surface temperatures. That’s it. End of story. And it’s the same end every time I’ve looked at the story, using the claims of different authors and a whole host of climate datasets.
Since that’s all I’ve done, it’s beyond me why you think this has anything to to do with Tallbloke’s Talkshop (where I’m banned from commenting), or with “saving WUWT” from some imagined embarassment. You seem to think I’m the one making claims. I’m not. I did one simple thing. I showed that Nir Shaviv’s claims that we can detect the solar cycle in the SST to be false. Everything else is just your bizarre imagination.
That is total and complete babble. I did what? I can’t undo what? I just have to wear what? You’re not making sense.
What on earth does that have to do with whether Nir Shaviv’s claims are correct? Are you sure you’re on the right thread?
Again, Konrad, you need to address this to Nir Shaviv. HE is the one claiming that the effect is not “vanishingly small”, but that it is large and significant. HE is the one claiming that we have enough data to show that it exists. Not me. Nir. All I did was show he was wrong.
And “premature dismissal”? I haven’t dismissed anything. Quite the opposite. I’ve made a very public call for evidence that such an effect as you refer to exists … and nobody, including you, has been able to come up with the evidence. Instead, just like you, all they’ve come up with are excuses as to why the evidence doesn’t exist. Your excuse is that 150 years of data is not enough to detect a strong 11-year cycle, I’ll add it to the excuse list.
And your reason may indeed be the case … but if so, it means the solar effect must be really, really small, because if it were significant, we’d have seen its effects in the climate data after a dozen solar cycles.
So yes, as I remarked above, at this point I’ve seen lots and lots of excuses why we can’t find the effect … what I haven’t seen is any evidence. And whether the idea gets dismissed depends on the evidence, not on me, and not on WUWT.
w.
mobihci says:
June 10, 2014 at 3:15 am
Thanks for the quote, mobihci, it makes it clear what you are objecting to.
First, I do not see any implication in my words that the situation is “resolved”. In fact, in the previous paragraph from the one you quoted I said:
That specifically means that the question is NOT resolved.
I was just relating my own experience, as I clearly stated, which is that at this point I’ve looked at a very wide range of both climate datasets and claims of 11-year solar cycles in climate datasets, and I have found no such ~11-year periodicities. Just as with Nir Shaviv’s claims, every one of them has evaporated once it is examined closely.
This is important because if the climate system does not respond to the relatively large 11-year solar fluctuations, it’s difficult to believe it would respond to much smaller long-term variations. Why would it respond to small but not large variations?
Does this “resolve” the question? By no means … but it does put an implicit upper limit on the size of any solar effect, which might be described as “dang small” …
Finally, like Konrad, you seem to think that I am trying to prove something. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead I am trying to falsify something, in the case of this post the claim made by Nir Shaviv of an 11-year cycle being visible in some climate dataset.
As a result, the complexity of the climate you refer to is not an issue. I’m not the one making the claim that a visible 11-year cycle exists in a complex climate system. He is.
I will, however, add your excuse to the list. You claim we can’t see the 11-year solar cycle in climate datasets because the climate is too complex. Got it.
w.
Aaron Smith says:
June 10, 2014 at 10:00 am
Thanks, Aaron. Been there … done that … didn’t find doodly-squat …
Regards,
w.
Re Willis Eschenbach on June 10, 2014 at 11:39 am:
*sigh*
Are you trying to work yourself up into another stent? I got my own collection, they’re like cats, you just go along minding your business and BAM, you wake up stuck with another one or two.
Seriously, recognizing your stress triggers and learning to blow them off because THEY JUST DON’T MATTER is a valuable survival mechanism.
So where are we at? I say “guilty” like “Hey, you rolled through that stop sign. What if a cop saw you?”
You respond like “How DARE you accuse me of embezzlement and murder! You better have some facts to back that up, you slimy lying bastard!!”
Look, if I had taken your SSN data, straight as you presented them, for my calculations, I would have mixed three different significant positions. You data would have caused my error. You published that as your data, it’s a product supplied by you. On certain numbers you claimed too much significance, your presentation showed significance that wasn’t there.
I understand about not rounding for significance midway through operations. So for a spreadsheet column I’d use a straight calculation, but format to display the values rounded to significant digits. I do the same when programming, that’s my practice.
But your data as presented was a product made by you. There was no notice it was unfinished, no warning there were sharp edges needing smoothing.
SIDC already gave their numbers all rounded to tenths. Your product was labeled as SIDC SSN, but was not all rounded to tenths.
It’s not an accusation, no grand indictment. It’s an observation. At this point it’s like I noted “You dropped the plate,” and you responded “No I didn’t, the dog startled me!” IT DOESN’T MATTER. But someone should still sweep up the shards before somebody gets hurt.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Look, kadaka, I don’t have my blood pressure up about this. But telling a man he is “guilty” of something is indeed an accusation, and not an observation. And in particular, when you fail to quote what you were accusing me of being “guilty” of, it is a very unpleasant accusation. I get accused all the time of all kinds of mopery, and I think I can recognize an accusation by now.
Now, you certainly are free not to believe what I say. If you want to insist it’s all peaches and cream, just an “observation”, go right ahead. I’m just telling you what your actions look and feel like from this side of the screen, and it’s not pleasant. However, you can certainly blow off my observation of how you appear from here, it’s your call.
w.
From Willis Eschenbach on June 10, 2014 at 11:48 am:
Alas, dear Willis, I fear this no longer be a right path to be trod.
We both agree that seawater subjected to enough pressure shall yield ice that is dense. We may differ as to whether the ice is still seawater with greater than 0.025 salinity.
We both agree ice is not being formed in the deep ocean.
The basic objectives that arose from my reply to your original statement and also with your reply containing the clarification, are achieved.
Beyond that, we start getting into funny territory. Like how that Fig 5.1 of uncertain provenance does not take pressure into account. But this online freezing point calculator for seawater, with the algorithms referenced, gives me for 35 salinity and pressure of 11,100 (x10 kPa thus 111 MPa, see calculator), which would be seawater at the Challenger Deep depth, a freezing point of -10.281°C, which is very close to what I eyeballed on that log-lin pressure-temperature chart for pure water that I referenced previously.
Pamela Gray says:
June 10, 2014 at 8:16 am
——————————–
Pamela, you are correct. Without the addition of TOA UV measurement all you would be determining is the effect of UV variance on ocean temps below the thermocline, but not whether that UV variance was solar variance or due to internal atmospheric variability such as cloud cover.
In this regard 30 year of satellite records are available but only 10 years of ARGO buoys.
The mechanism for solar influence on ocean temps I am describing is very simple. It is the UV frequencies that vary most between solar cycles. It is the UV frequencies that penetrate deeper than the diurnal overturning layer of the ocean. This allows for a cumulative rather than amplifying effect. While this effect can be demonstrated by empirical experiment, finding it in currently available real world data would be difficult.
It may be possible to use ARGO data (with the readings considered too cold for climastrology replaced) combined with SOHO data and surface meteorological UV-A readings from a island location to detect the mechanism. While ARGO and SOHO are short records, they do span the end of SC23 and the start of SC24.
However while the mechanism may be detectable, records are not long enough to quantify effect on climate.
From Willis Eschenbach on June 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm:
I know what I meant. You have your opinion of it. This is the internet, where such has made for nigh-endless multi-venue flame wars. Which result in those involved looking like pretentious self-absorbed idiots.
What I will blow off is any negative feelings I could feel over what I see as your misunderstanding. Water flowing off a duck’s back under the bridge. But I do worry about how you feel about your observation, for your sake.
But the one thing I have learned hard in this life, is people decide to take offense. I gave up on being offended, I’m better for it. A troll will hound you to keep you worked up. The prey don’t play, the troll go away.
Your decision, your life. Hope it’s a good one.
Konrad, your contention that UV variation can variably warm oceans at depth is questionable. UV is not a very efficient way of heating ocean water. Besides, depending on conditions, the surface skin reflects not a small amount of UV away, which is why we get more of a sunburn around water than around land. So just how are you proposing that what little UV makes it through our atmosphere can then penetrate the ocean surface skin, make it past the thermocline, and heat things up at a deep level? A quick back of the envelope calculation indicates that there will not be enough energy to do that to any degree that can be measured, even with highly accurate equipment!
Pamela Gray says:
June 10, 2014 at 7:09 pm
——————————–
Pamela,
According to ocean biology papers I have read, UV-A still has the power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
This may vary by about 25% between strong and weak solar cycles. Remember that make believe “CO2 forcing” is only supposed to be around 3 w/m2 per doubling.
Variance in UV heating below the diurnal thermocline has sufficient power to be a viable driver of the very minor 0.8C change in global temperature observed over 150 years.
Willis,
I’ve looked at it as well – sorry you didn’t find squat. There clearly is a rise in air temperature for a few days after flares hit earth. You can assume it has no effect on sea surface temperature….. The exact meaning of surface varies according to the measurement method used, it can be between 1 millimetre (0.04 in) and 20 metres (70 ft) below the sea surface.
have you ever swam in an outdoor pool a few weeks after it was opened. You swim around and there are these very warm spots…. and very cold spots. why do you suppose that is? Why wouldn’t the heat evenly diffuse across the pool of water? because it takes work to dispense it. These spots are there even when the pool filter is running.
In other words…. depending on the location of the measurement, the orientation of the earth as the flare hits it…. perhaps the position of the moon as well….. cloud cover on a given day….. (it boils down between the amount of sea surface exposure) There are too many variables within the data that need to be checked to show you the correlation.
Then, of course…. there is downward currents in the ocean. there is miles of water below…. its much more than surface temperature.
When you put a global pot of water in a grand solar maximum…. it takes time to heat it up.
Your satellite surface temperature data IS DIDDLY SQUAT.
From Aaron Smith on June 11, 2014 at 5:52 am:
Because of the temperature sinks. You talk of outdoor pools that were opened, sounds like a public pool. Those are normally made of concrete and in-ground. Now about 10 feet or so into the ground worldwide, you find year-long temps in the fifties Fahrenheit.
So the bottom of the pool is a temperature sink, at the temps that nearly-naked humans like to swim in there would be warmth lost to the ground underneath. Heat would also be lost into the walls, especially corners.
The mass of water under the surface, above the bottom, and away from the walls sees not that much circulation, with the inlets and outlets at the perimeter and the amount of force they can supply minimized to avoid damaging the fleshbags. So that’s the major warmer spot, enough under the surface that the effect of evaporative cooling is negligible.
Especially when energy and temperature differences are so little. If I have a ten gallons in a stainless steel pot on a burner getting enough heat to maintain 73.1°F, then add just enough more that I should get 73.2°, I expect it to take quite some time.
Aaron Smith says:
June 11, 2014 at 5:52 am
Without any data, quotations, code, or documents, that means absolutely nothing.
Unverifiable anecdote.
Say what? You claim that there is “clearly a rise in air temperature for a few days after [solar] flares hit the earth” … then you say that the data has “too many variables” to show the correlation.
If there are too many variables … then how do you know there is a rise in air temperature?
True … and???
If that is true, then how do you explain the fact that the sun can heat up the ocean surface a couple of degrees in a single day?
Thanks for sharing this exciting insightful analysis … but again, since you have provided nothing but your mouth to back it up, I fear your opinion is of little interest to the world of science.
w.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 11, 2014 at 7:34 am
KD, people are using the slow temperature response you are looking at to claim that the 11-year cycle would not be visible. Is that your point here as well? Because I assure you, if you “add just enough more [heat] that should get 73.2°”, it will indeed take “quite some time” to warm up your pot of water.
But not five or six years, not by any stretch of the imagination.
w.
You’ve probably already seen the plot of solar cycle length v. temperature by Durkin, based on data from Friis-Christensen & Lassen:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
“Adjustments” to “data” make temperature history perhaps unfit for any comparison, but until recently the fit looks impressive, IMO.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm (Edit)
KD, if you were a troll, I’d definitely do that. But you’re not. You are someone who is obviously serious and smart and as far from a troll as I can imagine.
Now, if you wish to continue to go around accusing people of being guilty without presenting any evidence, and then being all amazed and noble and condescending when they get upset, that’s your call.
But it has nothing to do with “my decision, my life”. I’m no different from anyone in this regard. When someone whose opinion I value makes an evidence-free attack on me, I protest, just as you or anyone else would.
So if (as it seems) you don’t think you did anything wrong … well, I’m not gonna be the last guy who surprises you by spitting in your face when you make your next mistake in that regard.
And trying to blow it off by saying that you know what you meant? I’m sure you do know what you meant, KD. I’m just trying to get you to realize that what you meant doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in the real world, it’s just more good intentions paving the road to hell.
What counts is the effect your words have … and telling a man he’s “guilty” of something without providing evidence is almost guaranteed to have a bad effect. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Yes, your intentions were good, I accept that … but here’s a tip about how the world works. Regardless of your good intentions, when you falsely claim a man is “guilty” of something without providing evidence to back up your claim, the person you accuse is likely to get upset, and you/re likely to get your face slapped … that’s just how it is.
Finally, when you have offended a man, claiming that you personally “gave up on being offended” doesn’t help your case, it just makes you sound like a prissy jerk. I don’t give a fig how noble you are —when you go around offending people, nobody cares if you don’t get offended. Yeah, OK, you’re enlightened and wonderful and free of earthly cares, you don’t get offended like everyone else does, that’s great … but why do you think that gives you license to offend people?
w.
Has this study been commented upon in this post or prior on the 11-year cycle? I pasted it into another comments section previously. Could be the much discussed here UV variation effect on both stratospheric ozone & sea surface:
http://www.space.com/7195-sun-cycle-alters-earth-climate.html
An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models (I know, I know!) to tackle this question.
The answer, the new study finds, has to do with the Sun’s impact on two seemingly unrelated regions: water in the tropical Pacific Ocean and air in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that runs from around 6 miles (10 km) above Earth’s surface to about 31 miles (50 km).
The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the sun’s influence on some aspects of air movement. This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather.
“The sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America,” said lead author of the study, Gerald Meehl of NCAR. “Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades.”
The findings are detailed in the Aug. 28 issue of the journal Science.
milodonharlani says:
June 11, 2014 at 10:10 am (Edit)
Thanks, (s)milodon. I discussed the Christensen/Lassen study upthread … it’s junk, uses an 11-year boxcar filter that’s guaranteed to create false results.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:02 am
Thanks, milodon. Hadn’t looked at it, and it’s by the the congenital modeler Gerald Meehl of NCAR, not a good sign. At NCAR, amazingly, they actually believe their models … go figure. I also note it was published in 2009 and sank without a trace, probably deservedly so, but hang on while I read it …
…
OK, I just went and took a look. No data were harmed in the writing of the study, it is nothing more than the trivial and uninformative results of three climate models … and from the graphics in the paper, they are crappy climate models.
In any case, I have shown that the current generation of climate models are robotic linear machines, which do nothing more than spit out a lagged and scaled version of the inputs.
As a result, when they are forced with solar changes, they output a lagged linear response to those solar changes … are we surprised?
However, anyone who thinks that says anything about the real world needs to reconsider the linear nature of the models and the non-linear nature of the planet. You can find such solar-model result correlations in just about every model output … but to date, we have no record of such solar effects in the real world, despite my repeated call for contestants.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:33 am
IMO the length of solar cycle correlation with sea surface temperature looks pretty good, despite your rejection of its filter technique. Sorry I didn’t find your prior discussion of it.
The other study sank out of sight, IMO, because it challenges the GHG orthodoxy. The high priests at NCAR practice figurative human sacrifice of non-conformist heretics. But I have to grant that Meehl is indeed a modeler. I can’t evaluate whether the three models his team used are better or worse than most GCMs.
Here’s the abstract:
One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system response to variations in solar output is
how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude
of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability.
Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave
solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in
versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting
together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological
off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial
Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce
low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/HongYan2014-d/MeehlvanLoonetal09-SciencePaper.pdf
Re Willis Eschenbach on June 11, 2014 at 10:20 am:
Did you put out a data file for public view with numbers having more significance than warranted for a final version? Yes.
You are objecting to my saying you are “guilty” of “claiming” too much significance by that act and have demanded an apology.
The wording obviously means much more to you than it does me. Fine, I apologize.
You say I have done this act without presenting any evidence. First time, for an offhand remark, I thought the evidence was obvious from context. You demanded the evidence. So I provided it explicitly.
Will you admit those numbers were shown with too much significance? Or is it true that what I think you’re saying is correct, that it’s allowable as those are intermediate results, despite there being no identification as such? Or is the truth something else?
milodonharlani says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:47 am
Really? That’s your idea of a scientific judgement, that the results “look pretty good”? Me, I think they look like what I’d expect from badly munged data. If you truly think their analysis is good, how about you repeat it without their bogus boxcar filter and give us the results?
w.
By pretty good, I mean that the filter isn’t necessarily bogus.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 11, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Great. Then we’re done with that part of it.
The part I’m not sure you get yet is that telling a man that he is guilty, no matter of what, is a very strong accusation. You are saying that he has knowingly done something that is wrong. I mean, we don’t say a man is “guilty” if he makes a mistake in adding up some numbers, we say he made an error. And you could have said that about my actions, that I’d made an error … but you didn’t.
You also don’t seem to see that since assigning guilt is such a strong accusation, it should NEVER be made without accompanying evidence. Doing that totally deceives the casual reader into thinking you are possibly right, it leaves your accusation unsupported, and it prevents the accused from answering the accusation.
As a result, when you claim a man is “guilty” of something, particularly without specifying what the hell you’re referring to, you’re damned right it will “mean much more to him than to you”. You’re not the one being accused, and more to the point, you obviously toss off such an unpleasant accusation without much thought. It’s clearly nothing to you to make such an uncited, unexplained claim about someones guilt, and in fact you defend it.
However, from this side of the screen, you are claiming that I am a guilty man without saying what you think I’m guilty of. And yes, KD, that obviously means more to me than to you … and that’s exactly the problem. Hopefully, in future you will take your own words as seriously as others out here take them, and lay off the accusations. My own goal in that regard is to never ascribe to bad intentions what is explainable by error and ignorance … and an accusation of guilt is an accusation of conscious wrongdoing.
In any case, I’ll give you the last word on this, I think I’ve said what I have to say.
Best regards to you, and my thanks for the continued dialog,
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Thanks, milodon. You may indeed be right … but where is your evidence? I demonstrated the damage that a 10-year boxcar filter did to sunspot data here. If you think it “isn’t necessarily bogus”, please present your worked example. I’ve provided mine …
The most relevant evidence, of course, would be what I requested above, viz:
Me, I generally don’t go drilling what I think will be a dry well … but if you want to give us your analysis of the paper that you are saying is evidence, I’m all ears.
Best wishes,
w.
No need for me to do so, as the authors themselves discuss the statistical objections to their analysis, as do some of the papers citing their original work:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698.abstract?ijkey=78298c3e6a8587ad21f2d256506815490719ee21&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Some other studies finding solar activity fluctuations correlating with surface temperatures via various proxies, although not necessarily for the 11 year cycle:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5568/673.abstract
OK, quick overview, just when I thought I was out … milodon pulled me back in.
Here’s the Christensen/Lassen abstract:
As I have shown, there is no “80- to 90-year period” in the envelope of the solar data. So they start with a false premise, and their paper is designed to uphold a non-existent relationship.
In addition, they use the unadjusted Zurich sunspot numbers, which contain a spurious trend.
They go on to say:
Unfortunately, Gleissberg showed no such thing, and no such 80-90 year cycle can be demonstrated in the data, as I’ve discussed here and here. However, that didn’t stop C&L from using Gleissbergs flawed method, vis:
Now, there is a leetle teeny tiny problem:
But fear not, the authors have a solution in hand:
This is just too good. They are taking sunspot data, and extracting from that the alternating lengths of the maxima and minima of the cycles. Then they are running a 1-2-2-2-1 filter on those values as though they were evenly spaced in time, which they are definitely not.
Then they are comparing whatever they got from those curious machinations to a 22-year running mean of sea ice extent around Iceland since 1740, and declaring victory.
Of course, they have not bothered with such mundane things as actually figuring out the correlation of the smoothed Iceland sea ice and the munged cycle length data. No mention of that at all. And since they present no correlation figures, of course we also have no accompanying significance figures … here’s their money graph:
ORIGINAL CAPTIONFig. 3. (Top) 22-year running mean of the amount of sea ice around Iceland from 1740 to 1970 during summer months (represented by the number of weeks when ice was observed). (Bottom) Smoothed sunspot cycle lengths from 1740 to 1970 (left-hand scale) and Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (right-hand scale).
Bizarrely, they appear to be using a combination of alternating minima-minima cycle lengths and maxima-to-maxima cycle lengths …
Seriously, that’s all their evidence, Figure 3. No correlation analysis, no r2, no consideration of the foolishness of simply eyeballing two highly and curiously smoothed datasets …
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by Science magazine publishing this kind of pseudo-scientrash, but I always am … I mean, no statistical analysis of the results at all? Really? How does that pass the peer review?
Regards,
w.
PS—Did you notice the oddity about their Figure 3? What they call the “Northern Hemisphere mean temperature” is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is the NH mean temperature sampled only at the time of the sunspot maximum and minima … cute. Real cute. They’ve reduced the 140-year NH temperature dataset to only 19 data points. Of course, they never touch the question of what that does to the significance of their results … and wisely so …
OK, no more pulling you back in, Don Willis. (FWIW, Puzo based the Godfather on the Borgias. Cesare was reputed to have killed his brother Giovanni, but while their father Rodrigo, aka Pope Alexander VI, still lived.)
But it seems you might have enjoyed the trip down memory lane.