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
tonyb says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:53 am
Tony, thanks for your willingness to return to the discussion.
I’m not sure where you get your claim that the flaws in Mann’s work have had little impact outside of the blogs. The climategate files show clearly that the leading alarmists don’t believe Mann and never have, because they were privy to the flaws long before we were due to his refusal to show his work. And while any meme lasts longer than I might wish, I don’t find any serious scientists currently citing Mann’s Hockeystick in any context … well, except for you. His laughable bitter outbursts against his enemies and his filing of lawsuits have even the activists turning away from him.
I made no such suggestion. I am not saying you should make a “bitter attack”. Read what I said.
I said that for you to bring up his work and say it was “essentially confirmed” was PR for Mann that he couldn’t purchase at any price. Remember, he has attacked Judith bitterly … and there you are on Judith’s blog, blithely quoting the nonsensical NAS report to laud him as though that report had any more value than Mann’s work itself. You are way in over your head, Tony, clearly you haven’t done your homework.
That sounds EXACTLY like you are supporting Dr. Mann. I’m sorry, but Mann’s research was not thorough. It was not a “considerable feat of research”. It was nothing like Manley’s work with the CET.
Instead, it was built on a horrendous mathematical mistake, contained proxies that were recommended not to be used, and had censored results. In addition, he lied about what he had done, and refused to release his data and code.
Any description of his work which fails to note those issues is indeed “supporting Dr. Mann.” You don’t seem to get it. When a guy is a crook, introducing him to your friends without pointing out that he is a crook is both SUPPORTING him, and misleading your friends … and that is exactly what you are doing. I’m not recommending that you get bitter about him. I’m recommending that you stop discussing him as though he were just another honest scientist. He’s not, both he and his work are fraudulent … but nobody would ever discover that by reading your descriptions. From your piece, nobody would ever conclude that there was a problem with his work at all, other than that you disagreed with a few of his conclusions.
Whether Mann’s work is discredited or not is not the issue. And I’m certainly not recommending that you adopt my methods or style, every man has to pick that for himself.
But when you discuss his work without pointing out the mathematical mistakes, the cheating, the bogus proxies, and the lies, you are supporting him.
It has been said that for evil to succeed, it’s only necessary for good men to do nothing … and you are doing nothing in spades when you fail to point out the egregious errors in Mann’s work. That is misleading by omission.
I hope that this makes my objections clearer. Look, I don’t think your a bad guy. I just think you’re in over your head, and you don’t really understand the nature of the guy you’ve gotten in bed with. Please, please, I implore you. Spend a week or so over at ClimateAudit, and do your homework. Mann is not a scientist of any stripe, and for you to discuss him as such damages your reputation and makes you look like a fool.
And you may be many things … but I sincerely doubt that you are a fool.
Best regards,
w.
@ur momisugly Isvalgaard, we did not understand, I ask you, how valuable evidence that would allow the knowledge of the causes of climate change. If America spends on all aspects of these phenomena around 21.4 billion annualy, I would ask for the solution about 1% of that amount, and I think it would be a very small amount compared to how much it would be worth finding.
Here is my last post on this thread regarding the Samalas eruption and its comparison to Tambora. I will not be repeating the links. Please refer to my previous comments for those.
1) The climatic affects of Samalas are, based on all the data and records available, global in nature. Its explosivity gives it a VEI 7 or greater. Ice core data from dozens of cores places it heads above Tambora in terms of stratospheric volume. So I agree with all the authors who have studied the 1257 event. Samalas was more explosive and had greater global impact than Tambora, thus should be, and has been placed in peer reviewed literature, above Tambora in scale (note: wikipedia would not be a sound reference).
2) If it occurred when oceanic heat had reached a maximum discharge state (IE it needed substantial recharging to keep from falling into a normal oscillatory colder state) and that recharging did not happen, the slide into a colder oceanic state would have been initiated and worsened by such a thick solar veil. Indeed, temperature proxies do indicate the oceans had been busy warming the globe via heat discharge. Then came Samalas. ENSO recharge disruption, general circulation patterns and additional veils recorded in ice cores could have triggered and sustained that free fall into deeper cold oceanic states. Why? Because of the tendency of equatorial volcanic eruptions triggering El Nino conditions and a decreased Walker Cell circulation, further reducing oceanic recharge due to the double whammy of veils and clouds.
3) The LIA volcanic trigger, as examined by geochemist Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado published in 2012 is worth revisiting and revising by that same author along with Volcanologist Franck Lavigne of the Université Paris whose seminal work on the identification of the 1257 event was published in 2013. Together they should add a topnotch statistician to the lead team so that statistical analysis will be valid and reliable. They should also add a world class ENSO expert knowledgeable in the mechanics of recharge/discharge ENSO functions to this lead team as this mechanism is a significant part of a plausible driver of the LIA. A solar expert current on reconstructed solar indices should be added who can provide the necessary calculations of TOA irradiance with subsequent solar insolation at the surface throughout the time span of interest. One more addition to the team of investigators would be to add an expert on general circulation models. Together I believe they can build a stronger case than solar-leaning investigators. Anthropogenic researchers need not apply.
In summary, clearly in terms of paleoclimatic records (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html), the timing and extent of all the LIA eruptions is in concert with the LIA temperature proxies. Not so with solar data. The mechanism for the continued slide into colder oceanic states with trade wind/Walker Cell diminution and decreased solar insolation due to sulfur veils is a plausible and data-supported hypothesis capable of affecting solar measures to a far greater degree than ol Sol himself.
Finally, while Sturgis (unknown background or university association) has all manner of opposite opinion related to this entire issue, I wholly place my opinion in agreement with the literature (and have changed my mind about that literature over time), so if I am lying, Sturgis is saying that a dozen or more experts in volcanology, chemistry, global circulation mechanics, and geology are lying, not me. Take your pick. Sturgis. Or peer reviewed and vetted published experts.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
More claims without citations … yawn …
My paper on extinctions was good enough to be published in a scientific journal. Somehow, they didn’t consider my work faulty, as you claim … go figure.
As to “all the research finding an ~11-year cycle in climate”, I’d requested that you give me one, just one, study that you consider valid … and I got garbage, shabby studies, mathematical errors, unsupported claims.
But if you want to bring up that one study right here right now, the one that clearly shows the 11-year cycle in climate, I’m more than happy to look at it. Bring it on, my friend.
And yes, I have asked for people’s assistance in the search. I asked, not you but everyone, to point me to what you think is the best evidence on a couple of subjects, including in this post. I do this because I don’t have a big budget and assistants and graduate students like most scientists have. It’s just me and a computer and not many hours in a day.
So yes, I have asked for peoples assistance, but NOT in doing the research for me as you claim. Instead, I have tried to utilize the knowledge of people who support some theory by asking them to point out the evidence that they think is worthwhile and solid … you seem to see that as some kind of crime, but they are the people most familiar with the claim, who better to ask?
There is more garbage published every day than any one man could possibly read, and the accumulation is immense. As a result, I’ve asked the readers to assist me. After all, I don’t believe in the “11-year cycles in climate” theory, they do.
So I’ve offered them an opportunity to prove me wrong in the simplest way—by identifying a single study that they thought would stand the test of time. A number of people have tried. None have succeeded.
But your claim that my asking people to identify the best evidence for THEIR theory is some kind of failing on my part? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It’s called “crowdsourcing”, look it up sometime.
As to a “thorough literature search”, you’re the guy who claimed my literature search for this post was faulty and that it is “easy” to find pre-1976 articles linking the Maunder minimum to temperatures … and you’re also the guy who then failed to come up with even one such study, much less the number of them that you claimed would be easy to find. So at this point, your opinions on literature searches are … well …
Finally, while it is true that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, the problem is that few people agree on what is an extraordinary claim.
For example, consider the claim that the climate is totally non-responsive to the relatively large 11-year swings in sunspots, but when two small sunspot cycles occur in a row and change the average solar intensity ever so slightly, the climate has a large response. In other words, the claim is that the climate doesn’t respond at all to 11-year solar variations but at the same time it responds strongly to much smaller variations.
Now me, I consider that a quite bizarre and extraordinary claim, and despite it being widely believed, I can’t even find ordinary evidence for it. All we have are hints and coincidences.
So … I asked you and others if you can assist me by pointing me to what you consider to be the strongest evidence you know of, an act which for unknown reasons you find reprehensible.
But despite my request, neither you nor anyone to date has brought up any extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim that the climate ignores large solar variations but responds strongly to small solar variations. Nor, for that matter, has anyone come up with a theoretical mechanism for that … well, except for David Evans goofy “notch filter” theory. But since to date he’s completely refused to reveal the data, code, out-of-sample testing, model, or results of the theory, it’s just an advertisement at this point, and no evidence has been produced. So at present, we still lack even ordinary evidence for this extraordinary theory.
But then, you can’t even find the evidence that you claimed was “easy” to find, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you can’t find evidence for this theory either.
w.
mpainter says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:39 am
Look, this is getting tiresome. QUOTE MY WORDS. I have no clue why or where you think that I am “obliterating the MWP-LIA”, I said nothing even remotely resembling that. Nor do I have any interest or time to spend in trying to figure out what you are babbling about. Without a quotation or other means to tell what on earth has your knickers in a twist, your post is meaningless blather.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:29 am
So your strongest evidence for the existence of a climate cycle in phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle is the fact that over time some given variable goes into and out of phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle???
I swear, sometimes this struggle seems overwhelming.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:35 am
More uncited accusations … yawn …
w.
“And your assertion that science was not conducted before 1935 is plain daft.
Richard”
That is not my assertion. My assertion is that in the cases I present and dozens of others the researchers in NO WAY ever formulated a NULL. period.
They were doing science and they had no need of a null hypothesis.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
Your first point is simply flat out untrue. Samalas was not a VEI 7. It was a VEI 6, ie tephra volume between 10 & 100 cubic kilometers. As has been repeatedly commented here, explosivity is measured by tephra deposition, not sulfates. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
You also keep carping about Wiki, while its list cites sources, often multiple, for its figures, many of which have been linked here, including by you.
Further, as has also been shown from your own cited sources, the sulfate load of Samalas isn’t directly comparable to VEI 7 (~150 cubic kilometers of tephra) Tambora’s because it occurred during a period of lower snow accumulation.
Your second point, if the ocean can be shown to work that way, is also invalid, since that would be only a temporary effect, as your own source said. You’d need a high-sulfate eruption every couple of years for the effect to last, which are not in evidence, to say the least.
All I can say to 3) is, Gifford Miller, really? Talk to Willis about his “study”. Adding more CACA activists to his team would only make it worse.
You still have not shown the supposed climatic effects from Samalas which you allege & claimed to have shown. The best most recent study of its sulfate load in the ice record admits that no such effects are in evidence. There is nothing in the literature to support your faith in Samalas as the cause of the LIA, despite your repeated assertion to that effect.
What does Sturgis’ background have to do with it? He has produced peer-reviewed study after published by experts study devastating your unfounded belief in this volcanic eruption as the cause the LIA, which is comparable to prior regular cool periods in the Holocene & other interglacials following warm periods of similar length, while the studies cited by you weaken rather than support your unfounded case. FWIW, the endowed chair in “Earth & Planetary Science” at Harvard is named after a Sturgis Hooper, not that that counts for anything. It’s currently held by a Warmist, so you might wish to check out his work to see if it could be made to back you up.
In short, your unsupported assertion that Samalas caused the LIA has not a leg upon which to stand. That you have to fall in with CACA spreaders like Miller in a vain quest for such support ought to give you pause rather than reason for maintaining your baseless faith.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:24 am
Uncited???
Did you even read any of the comments in your anti-11-year posts?
You refused even to look at study after study shown you. Have you really forgotten so soon?
With all that yawning, maybe it’s time for your nap.
Leif – checked your link http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“
Heres quote I would cherry pick -( I especially like Fig 5 )
“One does notice a certain “regularity” in the 10Be ice core variations, however. In Figure 5 we show as blue lines, the envelope of the “minima” in the 10Be cyclic intensity variations.
This “envelope” has long term periodic maxima occurring at ~1685, 1815 and 1895 A.D. This
type of variation could possibly be related to long term 10Be production changes. Indeed 22 year
averages (filters) of the 10Be concentration, which smooth out the shorter term cyclic variations,
show broad maxima at approximately these times (McCracken, et al., 2004). These times also,
more or less, coincide with the times of maxima of 14C concentration in tree rings”
On this basis just connect the minima of the HMF on page 11 at
http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed. I’m happy to cherry pick your slide here.
Willis
Re: “this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature”
Vis rgbatduke “If they are integrated phenomena”
Bob Weber
See David Stockwell at Niche Modeling: “Cointegration Primer”
Solar insolation is thermal flux of integration order I(0) while temperature relates to cumulative heat and thus is integration order one or I(1). For quantitative details see Stockwell on “solar accumulation”
From physics, I recommend formally comparing global temperature with the integration of solar insolation.
PS Stockwell notes CO2 is I(2).
For quantitative papers testing CO2 to Temperature see Beenstock et al. Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming etc.
Willis says:
“For example, consider the claim that the climate is totally non-responsive to the relatively large 11-year swings in sunspots..”
Consider my last comment, could the ~11yr signal be phase cancelled out over longer periods?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669182
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:49 am
Nikola, if you wish to profit from your discovery, the most direct way is to begin successfully predicting say next year’s weather. If you can do that regularly, people will pay you big bucks for your forecasts.
Another way is to look at the climate effects that cause large changes in commodity prices, say frosts in Brazil. Then buy commodity futures based on your knowledge, and you’ll be a wealthy man. Of course, for that one you have to put your own money where your mouth is …
But of course, to start with, you have to make the successful predictions … once you’ve got that, the world is yours.
However, you can’t just claim you’ve got a wonderful prediction method. You have to actually make a string of exact, falsifiable, public predictions of climate events, predictions that come true at a level well beyond chance.
So that’s your first step towards eventual profit—tell the world your predictions, and we’ll see if they come to pass. If they do, I assure you, money will no longer be a problem.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:30 am
Yes, uncited, just like this post. You do understand what a citation is, don’t you? You do realize you’re not providing them, don’t you?
Actually … I guess you don’t … yawn …
As I said above, milodon, you are invited to cite the one post you claim I “refused to look at” that you think is the pick of the litter, the best of the bunch, and I’ll review it here and now. And in response to my invitation to put your money where your mouth is … no citations … yawn …
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:33 am
It could be anything, Ulric … but without evidence, such speculation about possible electrical analogues is not meaningful.
w.
I will NOT post on this site again( and many others feel the same way ) until Leif and Willis free run of this site has ended. They are spreading propaganda nothing more, and the only posters that are left to challenge them are weak(much to polite) at best. All the informative strong posters have LEFT for the playing field is not level.
If you look at the commentary from this article by Willis, most of the post are being done by very few people. Many post but from a select few. This trend will continue unless you (Anthony) take some action.
Anthony my prediction is the evidence about solar/climate connections is going to be known to a much greater degree over the next 5 years as the current prolong solar minimum becomes more established once again.
Next prediction is Willis and Leif will wind up with egg on their face as the evidence keeps mounting (not that is hasn’t already) that is contrary to all of their ridiculous nonsense assertions.
.
Willis said:
“So your strongest evidence for the existence of a climate cycle in phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle is the fact that over time some given variable goes into and out of phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle???”
To identify that it does change phase is essential for understanding the responses, rather just assuming that the response should always be in phase. The interesting question is why does it change phase.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:37 am
Why should I post again so many that you have already ignored? You’ll just refuse to look at them again. You know perfectly well where to find them, unless you really have suffered organic brain damage.
If you actually don’t recall refusing to look at links from among the many presented unless the commenters picked one & only one, nor recall whole posts here by Anthony & others citing such studies, then I can’t help you. Yet by the very nature of your assertion, you would have at a minimum to look at dozens of such studies to maintain your position that there is no 11 year signal.
Go back to your last 11 year post & you’ll find all the citations you could ask for. I know what citations are. It’s you I wonder about, since you’re so afraid of clicking on links to cited studies.
Or recall this post by our blog host, upon which you commented:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/
In your responses to comments in your later 11 year posts, you dismissed Meehl’s work mentioned in our host’s post because you didn’t like Meehl’s modeling, while ignoring the many instances of strong 11 year signal recovery in the tropical Pacific, both for temperature & rainfall, cited in it & by commenters. It was the strength of these signals that led Meehl to the modeling to which you objected. As our host’s post said:
“Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
“The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … 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.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.”
The reference to Meehl may have arisen out of my comment on the connection between the 11 year (average) cycle & precipitation. Just off the top of my head, without going back to them, I also recall some studies from Chile which you refused to consider. If I can remember them, why can’t you?
If you’re not too tired, maybe you can go back to them now or look at the papers cited in Meehl, et al showing the solar signal, which you so airily dismissed previously. This is probably one of the Chilean studies:
http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/AD.pdf
Why does everyone else always have to do all your research for you, repeatedly?
Willis said:
“It could be anything, Ulric … but without evidence, such speculation about possible electrical analogues is not meaningful.”
Well it would certainly mess up your periodicity analysis search for a ~11 solar cycle signal in any climate data for any more than a few solar cycles as the responses shift phase with the AMO.
A linear relaxation response that Willis has written about in relation to IPCC models ( see blackbox of chocolates article ) can provide quite a good fit to global averaged SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
It also fits the major ups and downs of CET going back to 1750, although a lot less closely. Since CET is a regional, NH only, land record that is perhaps not surprising.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=975
Willis, here are authors & abstract from another of the studies (or one like it) which you refused to consider in comments to one of your 11-year posts:
http://mtc-m16.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/marciana/2005/01.03.10.15/doc/2.1AS_Rigozo01.pdf
Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozo (1,2), Alan Prestes(2),
Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann(2), Ezequiel Echer(2),
Luís Eduardo Antunes Vieira(2) and
Heloisa Helena de Faria(2)
1Faculdade de Tecnologia Thereza Porto Marques – FAETEC,
CEP 12308-320, Jacareí, Brazil
Fone: 55 12 39524231
2Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais – INPE,
CP 515, 12201-970 São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Fone: 55 12 39456840 – Fax 55 12 39456810
E-MAIL: rodolfo@dge.inpe.br, prestes@dge.inpe.br, nordeman@dge.inpe.br, eecher@dge.inpe.br,
eduardo@dge.inpe.br, hfarai@dge.inpe.br
Abstract
Tree ring index chronologies, representing standardized annual growth rates for Fitzroya cupressoides at
Cordillera de la Costa de Osorno in Chile, have been employed for the search of solar periodicities during the last 400
years. Spectral analysis of tree ring series by multitaper method has determined significant periodicities at about 21 and
10.7 years. These values are close to two known present basic solar activity periods at 22 and 11 years (Hale and
Schwabe cycles). Other periodic component appears at 5 years, which may also be related to solar variations. The short
periods found probably may be due the environmental and climatic influences. The application of band pass filter
techniques shows that the 11 year cycle present in tree ring series correlates with the sunspot numbers with a time lag
of about two years, since AD 1700, the extent of accurate sunspot record interval.
Willis Eschenbach: Mann’s later work is as shabby as MBH98.
I wrote that his later work was “better than mbh98”, and you cite remaining errors to claim “as shabby as” — I think that, despite the remaining errors (and some inconsistency in describing the importance of particular time series, an inconsistency documented at climateaudit and possibly being intentionally deceitful) my ranking is correct. For example, this paper was much better: Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao Ni Science 27 November 2009: 1256-1260. [DOI:10.1126/science.1177303] .
Interestingly, McIntyre studied the supporting online material, a point I’ll come back to.
Please, please, Matthew, do your homework. Go to climateaudit and read about the successive unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the hockeystick.
I have read much at climateaudit, and I cited McIntyre and McKittrick by name, and indirectly through my reference to the Annals of Applied Statistics papers (McShane and Wyner, and many discussants 2011, vol5, . In the supporting online material, it is revealed that Gavin Schmidt helped to correct errors by McKintyre and McKitrick, and by McShane and Wyner — credit where it is due.) In this series of papers as well, McKintyre carefully read the supporting on line material, and taking that som with the som from the aforementioned Science paper, and Mann’s writing at RealClimate, showed that Mann was inconsistent in his claims about the importance of particular time series.
That said, despite its flaws, mbh98 was influential in introducing the method to a generation of climatologists, and following the numerous published debates, most people, including Mann and co-authors, do not repeat the mistakes. It is quite fair to say that Mann is more widely cited and believed than the rest of us combined. Steve McIntyre (and Ross McKittrick) is admirable for his thoroughness and tenacity in following the inconsistencies of Mann’s presentations, and for critiquing Mann directly in the published literature. That you quote McIntyre with respect but say of tonyb’s efforts that if he lies down with dogs he’ll get up with fleas is an inconsistency. Mann’s works must be debated and rebutted in the scientific literature, and anyone who does that is your “natural ally”. Debating Mann in public is the only way to reduce his influence in the long run.
Did you notice that after quoting me and tonyb, you then paraphrased and critiqued the paraphrase? Perhaps some day you’ll reread all of this in order in a relaxed frame of mind.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
Yeah, I figured you’d wimp out … no citations … yawn …
Regarding your request for reasons why you should post what you feel is the one best piece of evidence for the existence of the 11-year cycle in climate datasets, well …
1. It could conclusively prove me wrong.
2. It could actually show the 11-year cycle.
3. It would prove that you are not just blowing smoke.
4. It would be a chance to show that you actually can provide a citation.
5. It would be a contribution to science to take a hard look at the study.
6. It would show that you can tell the good studies from the bad.
7. It’s a chance to show what a total idiot I am if I make some newbie mistake in the analysis.
8. I have no way to know what you think is the best evidence for your hypothesis unless you tell me.
… do you need more reasons? If so, let me know.
Finally, I am asking for ONE citation, so please don’t try your previous trick of heaping my desk with everything you can find on google that mentions sunspots, and then accusing me of ignoring them … ONE citation, to the best piece of evidence that you have. It’s a simple request, milodon, why are you wriggling so hard to get out of it?
w.
Ulric, “To identify that it does change phase is essential for understanding the responses, rather just assuming that the response should always be in phase. The interesting question is why does it change phase.”
While not impossible, I think the idea of shifting phase is a bit tenuous without some direct explanation. I think main reasin is that there is a 9y lunar signal that drifts in and out of phase with the solar signal. Much of what is attributed to solar since 1950 is solar in phase with lunar. ie partially false attribution. In early 20th c. they were out of phase. IMO the lunar signal is a bit larger in around the 9-10y periodicity.
Also tropical SST is very resistant to surface changes in radiation. Probably the reason for the longer timescale and heavy damping of the solar signal is that it is predominantly the deeper penetrating UV that has a long term cumulative effect. Wavelengths that are absorbed at the surface suffer strong negative feedbacks.
Willis seems to be digging his heels in on the presense of not of a statisically significant 11y solar signal as definitve proof of whether there is a solar influence. I think that is a mistake.
A smaller 11y signal may not be “significant” in the presence of others signals or just noise around 11y, that does not prove that a longer term accumulation may not exist and be significant.
The penetration depth of UV could explain how a long term signal circumvents the tropical surface feedbacks of which we are both so fond.