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
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Did I miss another follow up question, or did you miss my last reply answering it?
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:11 pm
But IMO it appears prima facie that Gusev, et al (2004) pretty conclusively confirms King (1975) regarding Brazilian rainfall & the 22 year Hale cycle.
Already back in 1977 I considered the Brazilian rainfall ‘correlations’ to be dubious: sometimes positive, sometimes negative, sometimes changing phase, etc. So, the Gusev paper did not impress me.
sturgishooper says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Did I miss another follow up question, or did you miss my last reply answering it?
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm
IMO I did answer the question, and it’s that, yes, of course you should convert C to F or vice versa.
So one should also convert the overcounted spots to unweighted spots or vice versa. right? In both cases it is just a question about a scale factor, right?
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:48 pm
milodon, I took a look at that paper. It’s hilarious. Here’s the money graph:
Their evidence for the relationship is that for part of the record the rainfall kinda sorta moves in negative correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain decreases. But then in about 1940, the rainfall changed somehow, and was a flip in polarity, From that time on, the rainfall kinda sorta moves in positive correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain increases.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … and you buy that?
Well, if so, take a look at the other of the three sites that they claim shows something …
Bizarrely, in this nearby rainfall record, the situation is exactly reversed. In the early times the rain is positively correlated, and in the later record, it is negatively correlated. This is the opposite of the first record.
In addition, this new record flips polarity in about 1920, not 1940 as in the other record.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … while the nearby rainfall does the exact opposite and doesn’t flip at the same time … and meanwhile, the other nearby rainfall doesn’t do either one.
That’s evidence in your world???
My friend, you are truly batting 1000 … the citations you’ve provided have not only been bad. They’ve been execrable. Those two graphs prove that the rainfall there is NOT regulated by the sun.
I agree with Leif. The problem is, as with this study, that when you actually look critically at them, they fall apart. As Leif said, if they hadn’t all fallen apart, if there were some that actually were solid, we wouldn’t be having this discussion …
w.
From sturgishooper on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm:
And how would you build a coffin, with glue and wood pegs? Or like a dugout canoe, grab a chunk of tree trunk and scoop out what you don’t want?
Perhaps you’d make a big box with dovetailed sides and the bottom held in with a dado, with lots of glue on the sides? No glue for the bottom as that’s a floating panel. Of course that’s really a casket, a coffin has a specific shape and it’d be fun to hook together the two side pieces needed at the obtuse angle.
But if you would make yourself a nice casket with dovetailed sides as described with a matching flat lid, you could attach the lid with a piano hinge, throw some cushions on top, and have a nice combination bench and chest until you get around to needing it. Without pounding any nails at all.
Willis writes:
“Their evidence for the relationship is that for part of the record the rainfall kinda sorta moves in negative correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain decreases. But then in about 1940, the rainfall changed somehow, and was a flip in polarity, From that time on, the rainfall kinda sorta moves in positive correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain increases.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … and you buy that?”
Given that UK temperatures, and the AMO both exhibit the same phenomena, I think that we may have something new to learn here in what the responses are to solar cycles during different teleconnection and oceanic modes. And also why you fail to find an 11yr signal in any more than 3 solar cycles worth of weather or climate data:
http://snag.gy/MTnui.jpg
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
“Those two graphs prove that the rainfall there is NOT regulated by the sun.”
No they do not, they suggest that the terrestrial response changes phase according to the major teleconnection and oceanic mode phase.
Milo, you remind me of myself as a little girl picking rocks out of wheat and oat fields. I thought we grew rocks. Every fall or spring (after plowing and before disking and sometimes in the late fall after harvest) we would go out into the field and pick up rocks that sat on the soil surface. We would throw them onto the hay wagon. When full the hay wagon would leave and come back empty. We did the same thing with bales of hay. So I deduced that we grew rocks. So I would go out and find what I thought was a perfect rock and run back to grandma asking, “Gramma, is THIS one a good one?”. It would be a constant question related to what I thought were perfect rocks. Occasionally Grandma would tire of the process and tell me it was not a good rock and I had to go find one that was just a certain way and that it would probably be a long ways away from the hay wagon. I was thrilled with the task and so off I went far away from the hay wagon in search of just that rock.
When I look back on this memory it is pregnant with lessons. Of those that are possibly germane to you is this: Don’t assume that rocks can be grown, even though everything is correlated to look as if you can grow rocks. And decide for yourself whether or not the rock you have in your hand is a good one.
Pamela Gray says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:33 am
You remind me of yourself as a little girl.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:23 am
You failed to analyze their statistical significance calculations. Just presenting the graphs & saying they don’t look good to you doesn’t cut it. So, yet another swing & a miss.
More accurately, you haven’t even really begun to bat yet, but are still in the bullpen, taking practice swings.
When you have examined all the most frequently cited papers on the 11 & 22 year cycles, starting in at least 1923, then you can present an hypothesis. Not before.
I’ve pointed you to where to start. You have the bat & now know where to look for the balls as well.
Batter up.
Willis says:
“Bizarrely, in this nearby rainfall record, the situation is exactly reversed. In the early times the rain is positively correlated, and in the later record, it is negatively correlated. This is the opposite of the first record.”
Surely they must be in different climate zones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortaleza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelotas
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:14 am
Willis can’t be expected to consider the real world when there is a graph to generate, along with hilarity.
The authors made the point that their three sites were located across all the latitude zones of Brazil: tropical (Fortaleza, at ~4 S), subtropical (Campinas, “Grass Fields” at ~23 S) & arguably temperate (Pelotas, at ~32 S, possibly subtropical too, but being on the eastern edge of a continent in the cooler hemisphere, also might be temperate).
More importantly, their climatic zones, as you note, differ. Pelotas is rated as “humid subtropical or temperate (Cfa)”, while Fortaleza has a tropical wet & dry (or savanna) climate (Koppen As, which differs only slightly from Aw, summer & winter not varying that much so near the Equator).
So it’s not in the least bizarre that their situations should be reversed.
milodonharlani says:
“So it’s not in the least bizarre that their situations should be reversed.”
Displacement of the rain band, one region gains while the other region has a deficit:
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_precip
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Excellent graphic.
When living in the windy Amazonian portion of Bolivia, I daily experienced what it shows.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 7:17 am
Indeed such possible connections are still being actively investigated. While Dr. Svalgaard believes that solar effects on WX & climate found between at least the 1920s & 1990s have now all been shown invalid, present researchers disagree, as shown by the results of the 2011 workshop I’ve linked on the NASA site above, & by other recent books & papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG017i004p00724/abstract;jsessionid=5B7E6F143120A4DA465377A5118E03CB.f04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
This 2013 USGS summary reproduces & endorses work from the ’80s & ’90s, including by Roberts, cited in Dr. S’s excellent historical link for his 1975 detection of the 22 year cycle in US droughts:
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/drought/
This textbook, “Space Physics: An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the Heliosphere and Magnetospheres”, by May-Britt Kallenrode, 2004 (Third Edition), finds “amazing” dependence of droughts on Hale cycle:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HnyPP4B4n-4C&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=hale+cycle+drought&source=bl&ots=J-FjuXLhUo&sig=qDPi0F6HKH59VQkZEPbzN2s6-ds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CXiwU6uhCoi6oQS0m4DwCg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=hale%20cycle%20drought&f=false
Not just in the US, but India & elsewhere.
Milodon, I begin to despair. The authors of your chosen study that I analyzed couldn’t find any significant solar cycles using either Fourier or cross-correlation analysis … so they looked at three rainfall datasets, and they came up with the bizarre claim that
• sometimes the rain moves in phase with the a sunspot cycle if you flip the sign of alternate sunspot cycles, and
• sometimes it moves in opposition to the sun if you flip the sign of alternate sunspot cycles, and
• sometimes it switches from one to the other, at different times in different datasets, and
• sometimes it doesn’t react to the sun in any discernible fashion.
I’m sorry, but that hypothesis is not even testable. There’s no meat there, no way to falsify it.
You excoriate me for not calculating the statistics, but I wouldn’t even know where to start in statistically evaluating such a ludicrously vague claim. If you think that there are appropriate statistics for such a situation, you’ll need to identify them.
For me, the fact that one dataset shows one pattern, another shows the opposite pattern, the time of the reversal differs by decades, and the third dataset shows nothing, well, that says everything I need to know. That’s nothing but an ad-hoc patch-up in my book.
However, since you think that you understand the claim well enough to calculate the statistics, please be my guest. Let us know what statistics you would use, and the results that show statistical significance. Please remember to adjust for autocorrelation, and of course, show your work.
Or not … it’s your choice. I say that the underlying hypothesis is far too poorly formed to admit of statistical analysis, so the ball is in your court. Near as I can tell, the hypothesis is as follows:
Sometimes rainfall moves with the sun, and sometimes rainfall moves in opposition to the sun, and sometimes it flips from one to the other, and sometimes it shows no effect at all.
I look forward to your analysis of the statistics, this should be fun … but of course, my expectation you’ll figure out some bogus reason to say you won’t do it.
I gotta say, milodon … your choice of studies is quite … interesting. You’ve accused me many times of doing my research for me … of course, you haven’t done my research, all you’ve done is point at bogus studies and claim that they are the best you can find, and when I’ve actually researched them, I’ve found that they don’t hold water.
But now, you have a chance to actually do my research, because here, I admit it—I’m stumped. It’s all I have no clue at all how to statistically analyze such a farrago of a claim, that rainfall is sometimes this way, sometimes not, and sometimes nothing at all. That claim alone tells me that the relationship is highly unlikely.
But I do look forward to your statistical analysis …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm
I don’t have to, as the authors did the correlation calculations, which you haven’t bothered to analyze.
The research I’ve done for you is to point where you should have started on your quest, rather than picking random data sets which may or may not be appropriate, instead of doing the genuine scientific work of searching rigorously through the literature from the beginning. Start either with the latest literature & work back, or start with the earliest & work forward, which as I’ve repeatedly pointed out is how the authors of genuine scientific papers do it.
What doesn’t wash is continually asking for a single study from commenters, rather than your conducting a thorough literature search before even presuming to assert you can’t find a signal. First you need to look for it in earnest. I would have thought this should be obvious.
Leif has provided an historical starting point, & I a recent one. I hope you’ll now do what you ought to have done at the very beginning & systematically review the literature on evidence for ~11 & 22 year cycles in temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure & other WX & climatic parameters.
I despair of your ever practicing the scientific method.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm
They claim a “correlation between droughts and solar activity at the 99% level” … but no citations and no math to back up the claim.
Perhaps you’d be kind enough to identify the datasets that they have used for the droughts and for the solar activity, as I couldn’t find it anywhere …
Look, milodon, I know that there are hundreds and hundreds of bogus claims out there like this one, long on mouth and short on data. I’ve asked you for your one best dataset. To date you’ve given me five of them, all of which didn’t pass the laugh test.
So for now, I’m done with your ridiculous references. I’m gonna just wait until you provide the data and calculations for your drought claim, and you provide the statistical analysis of your rainfall claim. If you are not willing to provide those, then I’ll just assume that you’re not interested in anything but attacking me and making noise.
But then I knew that already …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm
The references backing up her claim are in the book. The references aren’t ridiculous, but the work of real scientists, which you can’t ignore when baselessly asserting that you’ve been able to find no correlation, for the simple reason that you haven’t looked hard enough, indeed hardly at all.
Should I be done with your ridiculous refusal to practice science, while claiming to be a scientist? Actually, I’d rather you did do a genuine literature search & systematically evaluate your hypothesis against the experiments & analyses of real scientists over the past century, at least.
The references I provide contain dozens if not hundreds of studies, which is my whole point. Yet you ignore them, asking for single ones. That’s no way to run a scientific investigation, as you should know, I’d have thought.
Please get back to us with a blog post when you have done what you failed to do in your two published papers (or letter & paper), ie basic literature search. Pamela showed you the standard, accepted practice, which dates back centuries, for good reason.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:01 pm
The references backing up her claim are in the book. The references aren’t ridiculous, but the work of real scientists
The claims were already dubious back in 1977. There are hundreds of stations to choose from. You can always find some that show what you want. That is called Confirmation Bias. The true test goes something like this: here is a list of 600 stations. Pick a number of them at random and show they exhibit the effect. Only then are the so-called confidence levels valid.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:26 pm
I don’t know if anyone has done that. Failing that operation, a researcher would need to look at the statistical significance of each of the many studies in separate countries & regions, or aggregate the results.
The claims may well have been dubious in 1977, but present workers, presumably in good faith, or at least better than the Carbonari Team are still finding statistically significant correlations.
Many solar references in this list:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/
For instance, Coughlin & Tung (2004) on the 11 year cycle seen in temperature:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JD004873/abstract
“[1] A statistically significant atmospheric signal, which represents the influence of solar radiation changes on our climate, is found in global data (1958–2003). Using a nonlinear, nonstationary time series analysis, called empirical mode decomposition, it is shown that atmospheric temperatures and geopotential heights are composed of five global oscillations and a trend. The fourth mode is synchronized with the 11-year solar flux almost everywhere in the lower atmosphere. Statistical tests show that this signal is different from noise, indicating that there is enhanced warming in the troposphere during times of increased solar radiation.”
Ka-Kit Tung’s more recent paper:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-remarkable-correlation.html
Dunno if it has been linked here before or not.
PS: Tung (2013) in a pre-publication form is among the many cited & discussed in the 2011 workshop to which I’ve repeatedly linked as a rich source of studies finding solar connections to climate.
Also here:
http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/Talks_detail.php?talkID=2297
Sorry not to have consolidated these.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:01 pm
That’s great news, milodon, thanks. However, I couldn’t find them in the book, despite looking, but I’m sure you can point out where they are. Soon as I have them I’ll see what they have to say. The authors imply that they’ve compared droughts and sunspots since 1400 … not sure how that would work.
w.