Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I realized that like everyone else, up until now I’ve just accepted the idea of cold temperatures being a result of the solar minima as an article of faith … but I’d never actually looked at the data. And in any case, I thought, what temperature data would we have for the Maunder sunspot minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715? So … I went back to the original sources, which as always is a very interesting ride, and I learned a lot.
It turns out that this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature is a fairly recent development. Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”. In that paper, Eddy briefly discusses the question of the relationship between the Maunder sunspot minimum and the global temperature, viz:
The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). There is also a nearly 1 : 1 agreement in sense and time between major excursions in world temperature (as best they are known) and the earlier excursions of the envelope of solar behavior in the record of 14C, particularly when a 14C lag time is allowed for: the Sporer Minimum of the 16th century is coincident with the other severe temperature dip of the Little Ice Age, and the Grand Maximum coincides with the “medieval Climatic Optimum” of the 11th through 13th centuries (75, 76). These coincidences suggest a possible relationship between the overall envelope of the curve of solar activity and terrestrial climate in which the 11-year solar cycle may be effectively filtered out or simply unrelated to the problem. The mechanism of this solar effect on climate may be the simple one of ponderous long-term changes of small amount in the total radiative output of the sun, or solar constant. These long-term drifts in solar radiation may modulate the envelope of the solar cycle through the solar dynamo to produce the observed long-term trends in solar activity. The continuity, or phase, of the 11-year cycle would be independent of this slow, radiative change, but the amplitude could be controlled by it. According to this interpretation, the cyclic coming and going of sunspots would have little effect on the output of solar radiation, or presumably on weather, but the long-term envelope of sunspot activity carries the indelible signature of slow changes in solar radiation which surely affect our climate (77). [see paper for references]
Now, I have to confess, that all struck me as very weak, with more “suggest” and “maybe” and “could” than I prefer in my science. So I thought I’d look to see where he was getting the temperature data to support his claims. It turns out that he was basing his opinion of the temperature during the Maunder minimum on a climate index from H. H. Lamb, viz:
The Little Ice Age lasted roughly from 1430 to 1850 … if we take H. H. Lamb’s index of Paris London Winter Severity as a global indicator.
After some searching, I found the noted climatologist H. H. Lamb’s England winter severity index in his 1965 paper The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel. He doesn’t give the values for his index, but I digitized his graph. Here are Lamb’s results, showing the winter severity in England. Lower values mean more severe winters.
So let me pose you a small puzzle. Knowing that Eddy is basing his claims about a cold Maunder minimum on Lamb’s winter severity index … where in Lamb’s winter severity index would you say that we would find the Maunder and Dalton minima? …
Figure 1. H.H. Lamb’s index of winter severity in England.
As you can see, there is a reasonable variety in the severity of the winters in England. However, it is not immediately apparent just where in there we might find the Maunder and Dalton minima, although there are several clear possibilities. So to move the discussion along, let me reveal where they are:
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the dates of the Maunder and Dalton minima added.
As we might expect, the Maunder minimum is the coldest part of the record. The Dalton minimum is also cold, but not as cold as the Maunder minimum, again as we’d expect. Both of them have warmer periods both before and after the minima, illustrating the effect of the sun on the … on the … hang on … hmmm, that doesn’t look right … let me check my figures …
…
…
…
… uh-oh
…
…
Well, imagine that. I forgot to divide by the square root of minus one, so I got the dates kinda mixed up, and I put both the Maunder and the Dalton 220 years early … here are the actual dates of the solar minima shown in Lamb’s winter severity index.
Figure 3. H.H. Lamb’s England winter severity index, 1100-1950, overlaid with the actual dates of the four solar minima ascribed to that period. Values are decadal averages 1100-1110,1110-1120, etc., and are centered on the decade.
As you can see …
• The cooling during the Wolf minimum is indistinguishable from the two immediately previous episodes of cooling, none of which get much below the overall average.
• The temperature during the Sporer minimum is warmer than the temperature before and after the minimum.
• The coldest and second coldest decades in the record were not associated with solar minima.
• The fastest cooling in the record, from the 1425 decade to the 1435 decade, also was not associated with a solar minimum.
• Contrary to what we’d expect, the Maunder minimum warmed from start to finish.
• The Dalton minimum is unremarkable in any manner other than being warmer than the decade before the start and the decade after the end of the minimum. Oh, and like the Maunder, it also warmed steadily over the period of the minimum.
Urk … that’s what Eddy based his claims on. Not impressed.
Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.
And now, for the first time I’m looking at temperature effects of the solar minima … and I’m in the same boat. The more I look, the less I find.
However, we do have some actual observational evidence for the time period of the most recent of the minima, the Dalton minimum, because the Berkeley Earth temperature record goes back to 1750. And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have, and it is likely quite good for comparison of nearby decades. In any case, here are those results:
Figure 4. The Berkeley Earth land temperature anomaly data, along with the Dalton minimum.
Once again, the data absolutely doesn’t support the idea of the sun ruling the temperature. IF the sun indeed caused the variations during the Dalton minimum, it first made the temperature rise, then fall, then rise again to where it started … sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like what we’d expect. For example, if the low spot around 1815 is caused by low solar input, then why does the temperature start rising then, and rise steadily until the end of the Dalton minimum, while the solar input is not rising at all?
So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?
Now, a few caveats. First, I want to enlist your knowledge and wisdom in the search, so please just give me your one best shot. I’m not interested in someone dumping the results of a google search for “Maunder” on my desk. I want to know what YOU think is the very best evidence that solar minima cause global cooling.
Next, don’t bother saying “the Little Ice Age is the best evidence”. Yes, the Maunder occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). But the Lamb index says that the temperature warmed from the start of the Maunder until the end. Neither the Maunder’s location, which was quite late in the LIA, nor the warming Lamb shows from the start to the end of the Maunder, support the idea that the sun caused the LIA cooling.
Next, please don’t fall into the trap of considering climate model results as data. The problem, as I have shown in a number of posts, is that the global temperature outputs of the modern crop of climate models are nothing but linear transforms of their inputs. And since the models include solar variations among their inputs, those solar variations will indeed appear in the model outputs. If you think that is evidence for solar forcing of temperature … well, this is not the thread for you. So no climate model results, please.
So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?
My regards to you all,
w.
[UPDATE] In the comments, someone said that the Central England Temperature record shows the cooling effects of the solar minima … I’m not finding it:
As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET. Just as in the Lamb winter severity data and the Berkeley Earth data, during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last part of the solar minimum. IF the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would the earth warm up while the sun is still slumping? And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started … how on earth does this support the “solar slump” claim, that at the end of the Dalton minimum it’s warmer than at the start?
The Usual Request: I know this almost never happens, but if you disagree with something that I or someone else has said, please have the common courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS that you disagree with. This prevents much confusion and misunderstanding.
Data: Eddy’s paper, The Maunder Minimum
Lamb’s paper, The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel
Berkeley Earth, land temperature anomalies
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:32 am
Leif The Dye 3 data match the neutron count and ionization chamber trends better than the NGRIP.
The ionization chamber data is not calibrated correctly and should not be spliced to the neutron monitor data. See slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
Leif I note that you did not question my reference to the Maunder and Dalton minima seen in the NGRIP Be data which you seem to think is good .
It is very clear from Fig 1that the rise in Be 10 from about 1640 to the 1700 peak and the sharp peak at about 1810-15 reflects the decline in solar activity which is the most probable cause of the cooling of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Can you accept this as a causal connection and if not why not?
For other readers (Willis and Mosher?) Here is the link – see Fig 1.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL03804-Berggren.pdf
Hey Willis,
You are setting up a tiny bit of a straw man, when you examine the Lamb/Eddy data instead of modern data that fully spans the events and looks beyond temperatures in England, which no doubt has distinct local cyclic behavior superimposed on top of the global trend. If you look at this:
2000 year temperature comparison
then you see that the series of minima do indeed occur across the LIA. If they are integrated phenomena — as Eddy suggests — it isn’t inconceivable that they have a long term, average, impact. But I do agree that it is difficult to see a smoking gun level of correlation in a sane temporal order. Any effect would definitely be mixed with and modulated by other long time constant climate behavior, e.g. thermohaline turnover, modulation of the decadal oscillations.
I don’t quite despair of finding a simple linear causal driver of climate, but based on the data I’ve seen I do keep reducing the probability of one being discovered. It certainly isn’t CO_2. I think that if one generates a scatter plot of CO_2 concentration vs global average temperature as estimated by proxies over the last half-billion years, there is absolutely no meaningful statistical correlation between the two, out to CO_2 concentrations over 10x the present.
rgb
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:29 am
Leif I note that you did not question my reference to the Maunder and Dalton minima seen in the NGRIP Be data which you seem to think is good .
That I do not question everything you say or imply does not mean that I agree with your missives. I tend to concentrate on the most egregious errors.
It is very clear from Fig 1 that the rise in Be 10 from about 1640 to the 1700 peak and the sharp peak at about 1810-15 reflects the decline in solar activity which is the most probable cause of the cooling of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Can you accept this as a causal connection and if not why not?
Those sharp peaks are likely not solar at all. My inclination would be that they are of volcanic origin. Take the peak near 1700 [about in 1705 or so]. We have evidence for widespread solar magnetism just at that time: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
“The historical eclipse observations described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Hence, the red-flash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time”.
This is yet another example of a paper that you omit because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm
I have done your research for you, repeatedly.
Your SOP is to make bold claims on the basis of practically no research. I had to show you all the species which you failed to consider in your first paper, on extinctions, then just recently had to show you all the research finding an ~11 year signal in climate data.
While your statistical analysis is usually good, you fail to realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not less than ordinary. Thorough literature searches at a minimum should precede publishing conclusions, not follow it, provided by readers.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
That the tiny solar variations are the cause of the LIA is an extraordinary claim, so where is the extraordinary evidence for that?
rgbatduke says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:36 am
Dr. Brown, I couldn’t access your link, so went this route:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
This link also allows blowing up the spaghetti graph for the past millennium.
The spikiness during the LIA to which you refer IMO shows up well in the GISP2 ice core series:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
I agree that multivariate factors probably mask whatever primary driver might be operating on the centennial-millennial time scale, if such there be, comparable to insolation as modulated by orbital mechanics for the 10,000 to 100,000 year scale.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:45 am
I don’t think that extraordinary evidence is yet available, which is not to say that there is none. But there is more than for any other candidate as primary driver, if such a forcing exists.
Nor do I consider solar variations all that tiny, given the pronounced fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & in magnetic flux. Perhaps oddly, there do seem to be positive feedbacks for relatively small changes in solar parameters, such as albedo, water vapor concentration & atmospheric & ocean current circulation.
But of course I agree with you that the jury is necessarily still out. Unfortunately climate science is no longer climatology, with far too much emphasis on modeling & not enough on gathering & analyzing actual data, ie observations of the climate system.
For “climate science”, please read “climate computer science”.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:00 am
Nor do I consider solar variations all that tiny, given the pronounced fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & in magnetic flux.
Those spectral variation in TSI give rise to temperature variations less than 0.1 degree and there are no pronounced variations in the magnetic flux, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
***
Konrad says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Beng,
while there is considerable uncertainty regarding TSI, it is fairly safe to say it only varies around 0.1 to 0.2%.
***
Right. 1.5 w/m2 (solar-cycle variance) divided by an average ~1365 w/m2 (TSI) = ~0.1%. But I disagree that there is uncertainty in the sun’s TSI — actually it’s very precise (measured by satellite well away from earth). The uncertainty is how much gets into the earth’s atmospheric/ocean system & how it is absorbed (upper or lower atmosphere, land, ocean).
But that creates a quandary. If someone thinks solar cycles (1.5 w/m2 changes) have significant climate effects, how can they dismiss the 3.7 w/m2 (I’ll accept the IPCC’s number for this argument) for CO2 doubling? As the crazy, grizzled old gold-miner said, “That don’t figure”.
The issue is spectral variance and its effect on energy accumulation in the oceans. Here TSI is not a useful measure as it does not account for depth of energy absorption. For selective surfaces such as our deep transparent oceans, depth of absorption has a significant role in rate of accumulation or discharge. The experiment posted up thread is a clear demonstration of this mechanism.
Not sure which experiment you’re referring to. What you say is correct — energy absorbed below the ocean surface will not show up instantly, but w/some time-delay (and the immediate warming is actually reduced compared to surface-absorbed energy). Bottom-line for me, tho, is watts are watts, and absorption above 50m depth is going to show most of itself in the ocean surface temps in just a few yrs. Volcano Pinatubo blocked solar SW (which some of the visible light & UV gets absorbed below the ocean surface) and its effects were over in a few yrs.
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
in the NGRIP data reflects a decline in the solar magnetic field strength and an increase in the GCRs entering the atmosphere? Thus introducing the possibility of cooling via some version of the Svensmark hypothesis via clouds,aerosols and changing albedo or optical depth. The effect of TSI is seen on the quite different Milankovic time scales- mainly the eccentricity.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
in the NGRIP data reflects a decline in the solar magnetic field strength and an increase in the GCRs entering the atmosphere? Thus introducing the possibility of cooling via some version of the Svensmark hypothesis via clouds,aerosols
by 1700 the solar magnetic field was strong enough to produce a chromosphere http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
““The historical eclipse observations described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. ”
And Svensmark’s hypothesis is pretty much dead by now as evidence for it has evaporated.
One problem with you is that you don’t even bother looking at the links I provide.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
Yet another example of cherry picking [different cherry this time]. Your beloved Dye-3 data shows a flat 10Be flux from 1600 until the end of the century [Figure 1 of Berggren]. Now, the data isn’t all that good, but does illustrate your flitting cherry picking.
I do not believe that obliterating the MWP-LIA a la Mann and the hockey stick is a tenable position. Looks like Willis needs to re-consider his methods or fix his digitizer.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:07 am
The effect of an increased UV component to TSI isn’t limited to air temperature. It has other climatic effects, to include on stratospheric ozone concentration & ocean surface heating & CCN production, although we have disagreed on the extent of its effect on oceanic factors.
The Maunder Minimum papers were informative, thanks very much. As the authors (including Eddy) of the second study observe however, by AD 1706 SSN had already been on the rise for some time & 1715 was the conventional last year of the MM.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:45 am
The effect of an increased UV component to TSI isn’t limited to air temperature. It has other climatic effects, to include on stratospheric ozone concentration & ocean surface heating & CCN production, although we have disagreed on the extent of its effect on oceanic factors.
People have modelling all that and the combined result is in the 0.05-0.1 K range.
As the authors (including Eddy) of the second study observe however, by AD 1706 SSN had already been on the rise for some time & 1715 was the conventional last year of the MM.
The big 10Be spike in cosmic rays was in 1705, c.f. Berggren Figure 1.
rgbatduke says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:36 am
Robert, as always, it’s good to hear from you.
Your linked graph shows the results of three “multi-proxy” reconstructions. One is by Michael Mann, and has been shown at ClimateAudit to have a variety of problems. Another is by Moberg, ditto. The third I haven’t heard of, by Huang … hang on … oh, yeah, I remember now, that’s the borehole data that basically disagrees with all of the other proxies. Boreholes, in fact, are ludicrously bad proxies, see my analysis here. They can’t tell a temperature from a hole in the ground, as the saying goes …
In addition the graph includes proxies like the Kilimanjaro ice core data, which is known to be badly contaminated by human activities. We also have the required collection of discredited stripbark pine proxies in the Mann 2004 dataset, plus others equally bad in the Moberg multi-proxy farrago. Plus a number of other proxy datasets, apparently picked at random.
More to the point for this analysis, look at the other graphic on the page:
This shows the longer view of the same proxies used in your graphic … you sure you want to claim that there is a common solar signal in those? As you can see in the other graphic on the page, these proxy datasets differ from each other by up to three degrees … three degrees. I’m sure not seeing any common signal in those at all.
In addition, we have things like the ODP 658 ocean core … they are interpreting it as a temperature proxy, when in the field it is usually used as a precipitation proxy. In addition, it’s also used in the Moberg multi-proxy analysis, so it is over-represented.
Finally, you say:
I’m sorry, but I see no such thing in that graph. As near as I can tell, there is no common thread at all, and no series of common minima. If you think they are there … then in what years do they occur? Cause I’m not finding them … unless I’m not understanding what you mean by a “series of minima”.
So I have to admit … given these well-known problems with both the individual proxies and the multi-proxy studies, and the near-total lack of agreement between the proxies, and the use of proxies more than once, I’m stunned to see you refer to the average of this pile of random proxy data, including proxies which are known, not suspected but known, to have serious problems, as though it had any meaning at all. It has the famous “upside-down Tiljander” in it, it has the bogus stripbarks, it has the Yamal nonsense, it’s like a rogues gallery of bad proxies … you sure you want to use this as a poster child for solar effects?
Finally, I keep coming up against the lack of the 11-year cycle. We don’t see a significant 11-year cycle in the climate data anywhere. Despite that, when there are two small 11-year cycles in a row (e.g. the “Dalton Minimum”), it’s supposed to cause a detectable depression in the temperature … how does that work?
People on this thread and elsewhere have done a lot of handwaving about “thermal mass” being the reason we can’t find the 11-year cycle in temperature data, but the reality is that we’re not measuring the changing temperature of the entire planet. Instead, we’re measuring changes in the thin top layer of earth, ocean and air. And that top layer swings more than 10°C each and every year … so why on earth would it magically soak up an 11-year cycle? It swings more than a degree on a DAILY cycle, for heavens sake. How does that translate to soaking up an 11-year cycle so thoroughly that no trace of it remains … and yet a much smaller two-cycle reduction in sunspots over a quarter century in the Dalton Minimum is supposed to cause a significant temperature drop?
In conclusion, while I’d love to have an accurate 2000 year dataset to examine for clues to solar cycles as you suggest, the one you have linked to is totally and completely inadequate for such a purpose … too bad, it would have been an interesting study.
Best regards, and thanks as always for your thoughts,
w.
PS—In comparison to the Central England Temperature data, you describe the average of the temperatures which have been calculated (often by arcane and bizarre methods) from the proxies as “modern data”. I have a problem with that, let me try to explain why.
When I was a kid we used to use crickets to tell the temperature by counting their chirps. It is actually not a bad proxy for temperature, much better than stripbark pines.
But I don’t think I’d refer to an estimate of temperatures calculated from an average of cricket chirps and stripbark pines as “modern temperature data” … it may be a modern temperature approximation, or a modern temperature estimate, but “data” to me indicates something a bit more solid than bugs … or stripbark pines, for that matter.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:50 am
Late Be10 spike may be an annual fluctuation during a decade of decline. The winter of 1709 was also historically cold, for instance, although the 1690s was a colder decade.
Eddy’s paper allows that the flashes observed were from the last decade of the MM. Too bad there aren’t observations from the late 17th century, but even after making proper adjustments, there is an average radionuclide signal associated with the lowest stretch of the MM.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:03 am
there is an average radionuclide signal associated with the lowest stretch of the MM.
But it is not a given that that signal is solar. In fact, there is considerable doubt about that, e.g. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“this implies that more than 50% of the 10Be flux increases around, e.g 1700 A.D , 1800 A.D and 1895 A.D is due to non-production related increases”
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:10 am
I couldn’t agree more with the authors (two apparently related, one at Microsoft) that more & better data are required, as per my comments above.
For all previousdiscussions and findings, it is evident that there is no efficient and logical evidence on the causes of the appearance of the sun, so that this discussion can serve to “surplus killing time” with those who think that this is something accomplished.
My question to all: if any of you have real evidence about the causes of climate change and all the causes of phenomena in the sun in our solar system, what would you ask that you pay for such a colossal discovery.?
Would you publish it anywhere without compensation?
Again, note that in these discussions, in general, we can not expect any real solution to the causes of climate change and the emergence of the sun. You discuss Maunder cycle, and if any of you sure that at that time was not possible to identify and measure the number of spots, especially on the far side of the sun you could not register at the time. So, and this cycle is questionable.
Willis says:
“Finally, I keep coming up against the lack of the 11-year cycle. We don’t see a significant 11-year cycle in the climate data anywhere.”
I reckon this is regular enough to forecast from. A warm AMO inter-annual temp’s tend to be out of phase with the solar cycle, while during a cold AMO they are in phase with the solar cycle:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
The reverse of this has been found with temp’s in Edinburgh, page 15:
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:29 am
Willis has been led to studies showing an 11 year cycle, but can’t be made to read them.
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:26 am
what would you ask that you pay for such a colossal discovery.?
Would you publish it anywhere without compensation?
You have this a bit backwards. Scientists usually pay to have their findings published to cover the cost of publication. A recent paper of mine cost me 12,000 US$.