Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated:
…. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase (sunspot numbers < 40), despite the fact that exactly half of the 306 years during the period of interest fell in the solar inactive phase ….
Now that sounds very impressive, nine out of eleven eruptions came at an inactive solar phase, it must be a real phenomenon … or not.
The problem with this claim is the tiny number of data points, only eleven of them. In fact, nine events out of eleven is within the 95% confidence interval for a fifty/fifty coin flip. This means that despite sounding quite large, his finding is not statistically significant at all.
In any case, since these kinds of claims are made quite often, I thought I’d take a look at the question of whether sunspots affect eruptions. Doesn’t make sense to me, but lots of folks seem to believe it. I started by looking at the biggest eruptions, those with a volcanic explosive index (VEI) equal to five or greater. We’ve had nineteen of them since 1750. It turns out that no less than thirteen out of the nineteen occurred when the monthly sunspot number was quite low, below 40 sunspots … sounds impressive, right?
But a closer examination shows that the result isn’t all that impressive. Figure 1 shows the analysis of the VEI 5 and greater volcanoes compared to the sunspots.
Figure 1. A comparison of the histogram of the monthly sunspot levels during the 19 largest eruptions since 1750, compared to the histogram of all of the monthly sunspot levels since 1750. The vertical axis shows the fraction of the total number of trials in each bin.
As you can see, this result suffers from the same problem as the “Nine of the 11″ claim above—the dataset is so small that you end up with very wide error bars. As a result, despite the fact that thirteen of the nineteen eruptions are in the range of 0-40 sunspots, and none of the results are in the range of 80-120 sunspots, neither of those outcomes is statistically significant.
So obviously, our sample size is too small to tell us much of anything. Let’s look at the next step down, those with a VEI of four or more.
Figure 2. A comparison of the histogram of the monthly sunspot levels during the 127 largest eruptions since 1750, compared to the histogram of all of the monthly sunspot levels since 1750. The vertical axis shows the fraction of the total number of trials in each bin.
Again, we see the same problem. While there are bins with more samples and bins with less samples, in no case are the results statistically significant.
Well, how about a bigger sample yet? Figure 3 shows the eruptions with a VEI of three or more.
Figure 3. A comparison of the histogram of the monthly sunspot levels during the 636 largest eruptions since 1750, and the histogram of all of the monthly sunspot levels since 1750. The vertical axis shows the fraction of the total number of trials in each bin.
Well, it’s not looking any better. Still none of the bins show a statistically significant result. So at this point, lets look at every single volcano in the dataset.
Figure 4. A comparison of the histogram of the monthly sunspot levels during all 4,379 eruptions since 1750 in the dataset, and the histogram of all of the monthly sunspot levels since 1750. The vertical axis shows the fraction of the total number of trials in each bin.
OK, finally we have a couple of bins that are barely statistically significant, the ranges 120-135 sunspots, and 135-150 sunspots.
Now, does this result have meaning? Simple answer is, I don’t know. Here’s the problem. For whatever reason, volcanoes tend to occur in clusters. Here’s a graph showing what I mean regarding the early eruption data …
Figure 5. Graph of earlier eruption dates with each vertical line showing the date of one volcano.
And lest you think that this is just a function of sparse reporting in the early days, here is the more modern data:
Figure 6. Graph of modern eruption dates with each vertical line showing the date of one volcano.
As you can see, nature is naturally “clumpy”, with periods of more volcanoes and less volcanoes. Now I can think of several non-sunspot reasons for this clumping, including shifts in the tectonic plates, or sparse reporting, or repeated eruptions by a single volcano.
The problem arising from the clumped nature of eruptions is that the number of sunspots generally doesn’t change much month to month. The average monthly change in sunspot numbers is only about 13 sunspots. And this means that when we have a “clump” of volcanoes from whatever cause, say one volcano erupting five different times in six months, it will lead to a distortion of the sunspot record because it will incorrectly increase the numbers in that particular bin or bins.
Now, it’s unclear exactly how to adjust for this oddity. I could do it by increasing the size of the error bars using a Monte Carlo analysis … but I’d need to somehow replicate the exact nature of the “clumpiness” of the underlying data for my pseudo-random proxy data. And I haven’t yet figured out how to do that.
Finally, there has been a suggestion that undersea volcanoes are clustered in the early part of the calendar year. I can’t help with the undersea volcanoes, but to investigate a related claim, here is the histogram of the terrestrial volcanoes by calendar month:
Figure 7. Histogram of the month of the occurrence of all recorded volcanoes since 1750. Counts have been adjusted to allow for the different lengths of the months.
There is one month (January) with a slight excess of eruptions. I ascribe this to the naturally clumped nature of volcanoes, although you are free to believe otherwise.
Overall? Well, I’d say that volcanic eruptions are not affected by sunspots, nor do they occur preferentially in a particular month or months. I’d also say that the researcher who seems so impressed by the “Nine of the 11 events …” claim needs to ponder the binomial distribution …
Regards to each of you, rain again here to ease the drought, life is good,
w.
AND OF COURSE … if you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS so that we can all understand the exact nature of your objections.
@Willis:
You don’t specify what statistical test you are running.
If you are using ANOVA or any test that assumes that all volcanic eruptions are from the same population, you are probably wrong. I don’t think it’s a valid test to clump volcanic events into a time period and argue that they represent a population that can be plugged into a stats test. Just because other people do it …
Your Fig. 7 suggests to me that there might be some truth to the monthly eruption probability. The question is, what population is affected, and why aren’t you running a power analysis. Sorry I don’t know the appropriate test. I really should get out more. But you don’t appear to be running the appropriate test either.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html
Thanks, that makes it a positive correlation as I have found and mentioned above, he also suggest using 20 year bins, I used 22 year integral.
from NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland, covering the years 553-1972, reveals several very long periods ranging from ~80 to ~350 years and are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and carbon 14 records. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.
more at: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1989/1989_Stothers_1.pdf
Geologic is all about cause and effect. We try to find this connection by correlation of events, but as is often noted, correlation does not prove cause– it simply makes us look more closely at critical relationships. Willis is exceptionally good at this.
After listening to a paper on correlation at a GSA meeting many decades ago, a well-known geologist commented: “you can find a pattern in a keg of nails if you try hard enough.”
Well, some scientists will look for a pattern in a keg of nails and call it science. They fail to understand that recognizing a pattern is but a tentative start and can lead nowhere.
In the case of volcanoes, there averages 50-60 eruptions/ year. If sunspots cause eruptions, why are there eruptions when there are no sunspots? The obvious answer is that there is another cause. But they cling to their beloved sunspots.
The human mind is not obligated to use mathematical rigor in its curiosity and its quest for identification of patterns in the external world. Human imagination and mental adaptability depend on “fuzzy logic” – best described as the application of hasty generalizations based on insufficient data – to infer that a pattern exists.
When the mind perceives a rare event to recur, it immediately starts asking itself how long it has been since the last such event, and positing that the event will recur after a similar interval. This has been drilled into us since hominids first recognized that the sun will rise again after 1 day, and that there are seasons every year.
For example, the Yellowstone Caldera has given us evidence of several mega-eruptions at apparent intervals of 600,000 to 800,000 years (2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago). The temptation is very strong to apply this apparent periodicity as a template and infer that ‘we are just about due’. With the state of our current knowledge of vulcanism, however, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the next eruption (if there is one) will occur with any different likelihood on either March 1st 2015 or March 1st 2,000,015.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. If we recognize patterns in events as soon as possible, that helps empower us to respond proactively. Neglecting a possible pattern because the data for it is not absolutely persuasive could leave us vulnerable to an avoidable catastrophe.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy for the human mind to abandon an apparent ‘pattern’ once it has been adopted as a paradigm, regardless of how flawed it may be. Sometimes a Truth is accepted only because it outlives the Error.
A god dies only when the last of those who worship him die.
Astrology can be seen as a failed methodological search for patterns. I suspect that astrology is in fact a real effect that was mis-interpreted.
The real effect involved depends on the season on which one’s birthday occurs. For an Aquarian like me, in the northern hemisphere, I was very much more likely to be given birthday presents like books, or models, or board games, and thus an introverted, insider personality results. My brother, in contract, being a Gemini was more likely to get footballs, bicyles, and outdoor pursuits, and hence is more sporty and less booky than I.
If this theory is true, then the patterns should be inverted in the Southern hemisphere, though less pronounced due to the lack of [population] in the colder south.
Old Faithful comes to mind.
tadchem
On the contrary. That very “random predictable randomness” in the Yellowstone pattern means that we can – for all practical purposes – completely eliminate a catastrophic eruption on March 1, 2015. There just are not tremors and swelling of the magma underground that would be required. Now, there also is no way to STOP an eruption should tremors and swelling begin! (But, that large an eruption would require years of buildup – and that buildup could begin at any time – if not already starting the past 600,000 years. yet, even if beginning, will it be -as you pointed out – in 300 (probably not) or 3000 years (could be) or 10,000 years – (maybe) or 30,000 years (too late, probably already happened)? But in 3 years? No.)
But, like CAGW fears, you cannot use the precautionary principle to “avoid” a possible future problem by deliberately causing infinitely greater absolute damage to billions while attempting to stop something that might not happen, will be beneficial if it continues, and has benefits from its very presence (greater CO2 absolutely causing greater plant growth for example), AND allowing more people to live more fruitful lives, cannot be denied.
So true.
Willis, you’ve just shown that ‘though thou be scrappy, thou art kind.
As noted previously, there are roughly 100 astronomical observations/analysis results and paradoxes and unexplained earth phenomenon that support the assertion that the sun and other stars are fundamentally different than what is assumed. How the sun is different than assumed explains why solar changes affect volcanic eruptions and the geomagnetic field.
It is an observational fact that the geomagnetic field intensity started to decline 10 times faster in the mid 1990s. There must be a physical reason why the geomagnetic field suddenly started to decline 10 times faster. It is an observational fact that past abrupt climate changes correlate with geomagnetic field changes and solar magnetic cycle changes. Every physical observed change must have a physical cause.
As these papers note nuclear decay rates on the earth changes seasonally, for some unexplained reason. The experimenters have measured the decay change in both hemispheres and have confirmed the seasonally change in decay rate is not due to temperature changes or pressure changes. The sun is causing the change in decay rate. An observation to support that assertion is the sudden change in nuclear decay rate when there is a solar flare.
An physical explanation as to how solar changes could affect nuclear decay rates and the geomagnetic field could be the reason why there is a delay in the onset of global cooling due to the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. The researchers are appealing to changes in neutrino flux as the cause of the change in the nuclear decay rate, if I understand the mechanisms and what is currently happening to the sun, that belief is not correct.
Solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm or cool by a complex set of mechanisms that modulate the amount of planetary cloud cover and cloud properties. All of the cloud modulation mechanisms are charged based (Changes that affect the amount of ions created in the atmosphere, mechanisms that affect the movement of ions in the atmosphere, and an unexpected mechanism that changes the total charge in the vicinity of the earth will affect cloud formation. Changes in total charge would affect nuclear decay rates, would affect the geomagnetic field, and would affect volcanic activity, there would be a time delay if there was a charge unbalance as current moves to or from the core to attempt to equalize the planet’s net charge. There are multiple observations that support the assertion that there is a significant unexplained charge unbalance and changes in charge unbalance). The amount of ions produced by high speed cosmic particles (solar magnetic cycle changes cause changes to the solar heliosphere – the solar heliosphere extends past the orbit of Pluto and contains magnetic flux which blocks and deflects high speed cosmic particles, mostly protons – which blocks high speed cosmic particles, the high speed cosmic particles create ions in the atmosphere) and charge movement in the ionosphere (solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which changes the amount and properties of clouds in high latitude regions of the planet and in the tropical region.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.0924v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3754
Willis — You say “I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes.” Is there anyone other than Stothers 1989 promoting this somewhat unlikely idea?
Willis the raw data shows otherwise . Major volcanic eruptions and major earthquakes are associated around sunspot minimum.
I will send the data.
http://spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
Here is the data. Willis if you choose not to believe it fine. I do.
This is not a question of believing but showing, in numbers that measure the activity rather than counting how many happened during a ‘minimum’.
No need to get annoyed, either. The data speaks for it, or doesn’t.
We’ve had nineteen of them since 1750. It turns out that no less than thirteen out of the nineteen occurred when the monthly sunspot number was quite low, below 40 sunspots … sounds impressive, right?
FROM WILLIS. END OF STORY.ITIS IMPRESSIVE.
Off topic, but interesting none the less. A person using data from the Big Bear Solar Observatory created a PowerPoint presentation. It analyses variation in the Earth’s albedo based on the measurement of brightness of dark areas of the moon. Those areas would be illuminated by earthshine and thus would be a measure of Earth’s albedo.
The analysis reduces numbers to watts per square meters and concludes the normal variability of albedo is greater than appreciated. Furthermore, natural variability in albedo is more significant in terms of watts per square meter than the hypothesized increase due to CO2 changes.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_1_2_3/presentations/session3/3_06_Palle.pdf
There are some minor problems with the method. Moon has no magnetic field to protect it from direct impact of solar wind. Solar wind (intensity is continuously variable). SW particles electrically charge the lunar dust; result ‘moon dust wind’ altering moons albedo.
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/04/10/10apr_moondustinthewind_resources/chargedmoon_strip.jpg
more at: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/
Does Moon has active volcanoes or a mantle or oceans for that matter.
Is same as like trying a figure out how a cadaver will sweat or tan in the sun, so to speak.
cheers
Clumped nature. I suspect that clumped nature may be due to seismicity setting of volcanoes that otherwise would have waited another few years or so. I haven’t seen any data regarding earthquakes but I suspect it would show clumping. I recall a few years back when a “bump” in a coal mine occurred in Utah. There was a major collapse and some days later a second one that took more lives (rescuers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandall_Canyon_Mine
It following IIRC by a few days the 8.0 major quake in Peru
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Peru_earthquake
When they were doing the investigation, I sent an email suggesting the possibility of the big Peruvian quake having given the mine a shake. No one responded and they apparently cited safety violations as the cause. I also recall distant significant earthquakes after the Bam one in Iran that took 50,000 lives. Anecdotal, I know but maybe this kind of thing could cause clustering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Iran#21st_century
Has anyone taken underwater eruptions into account? There may well be more volcanoes under the sea than on top of it.
The detection rate of eathquakes appears to be inversely related to the number of unsettled square miles of the Earth’s surface.
I can’t find any justification for prefiltering the data by earthquake intensity given that most earthquakes are barely perceptible but no less important than the “big ones”. There are also slow earthquakes that last for months or years. It would be interesting to calculate the energy dissipated by all earthquakes on a per-year basis or even a per-decade basis and which includes every detectable rumble. Regardless of what is discovered it is of no significance because there is nothing in the science that matters in the rush to create climate change policy. It is purely political and any science, real or imagined, is distorted to suit the agenda.
This is very important observation and a totally new information to me:
In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum
(see abstract: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1989/1989_Stothers_1.pdf )
future project for Mr. Eschenbach perhaps?
Climatologists pay attention.
Willis will keep trying to prove solar/climatic connections just are not so even though he has yet to do so.
l
And how do you Salvatore propose to prove solar/climatic connections are so strong and important as you keep claiming.
Any time there is something about some probable considerable impact or effect in climate change considered you keep trying to connect it to the solar effect.
As we are in the arguing of a particular such as, the volcanic activity, how do you propose, that in the case of the sun effecting the volcanic activity, does the sun has a significant climatic impact, as for it to have some considerable force for climate change?
The correlation of the volcanoes with climate change is not as strong as to be considered in its own, only in face value, as a significant climatic forcing for climate change, unless at least is put in a context of a hypothesis as in the case of the Maya Tolstoy’s paper.
She went to trouble of having a new hypothesis to link volcanoes to climate change and in the way show the tidal and M. cycles forcing/climatic connections as a very important issue.
Are you actually piggybacking your solar/climatic connections on her work by some how claiming that she is wrong about tidal and M.cycles forcing while you are right about your solar/climatic connections?
If not then you have to come up with another hypothesis how the volcanoes and volcanic activity would cause climate change or be a significant forcing for climate change, otherwise regardless of what effect there may be from the sun to volcanoes, you still in dry so to speak, as per the assumed solar/climatic connections. whatever that connection or these assumed connections been, not significant or important enough in climatology.
cheers
Salvatore –
I have said for a long time in response to those riding the CO2 train of AGW that the sun is the obvious driver of our climate. Turn off the sun and see what happens to “your” climate ? Too simple ? Well, again, if you turn off the sun you won’t have to worry about the climate – therefore the sun IS the obvious driver no matter what lsvalgaard believes…
Likewise, what would happen to volcanic activity if you turned off the sun ?
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=24955
Spatial Distribution of Seismicity: Relationships with Geomagnetic Z-Component in Geocentric Solar Magnetospheric Coordinate System
“…Black solid line in Figure 6 is an envelope of maximal magnitude (Mmax) in sequential bins of 0.15 size, and red solid line is the linear fit to envelope logas follows:
Mmax=a+bx ; where a = 5.22 ± 0.17, b = 0.78 ± 0.06, with correlation coefficient R = 0.91, standard deviation SD = 0.56, and probability 0.95….”
Michele thanks for that paper which supports about the role of the magnetic field/solar —geological connections.
There is also good evidence of a climate connection.
Piers Corbyns predictions for June 2012 randomly found on Google.
Coincides roughly with 5-15 eruptions.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=9734
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/07/05/active-volcanoes-in-the-world-june-27-july-3-2012/
Piers Corbyn April 2010
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/EarthquakesVolcanoesSolarActivityNEWConnections3.pdf
Figure 5 is actually 5kg of finest organic King Edwards potatoes at Tescos for £4.99 – I swiped it at the self checkout to be sure.
IMHO
I think we should be looking at Earth rotation with respect to Volcanoes and Earthquakes as (1) ONE, of the parameters that might affect them.
If we look at length of day changes as in the image below, we might see the solar cycle decline of recent years.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/lod.1973-2011.jpg
I wish the link to the PDF article was working for;
The IERS Bulletin C and the Prediction of Leap Seconds (2013)
by D. Gambis
In particular;
Figure 3. Leap seconds per year between 1972 and 2010 (courtesy of W. Dick8, 2011)
on page 4 and you might see how sparse the addition of leap seconds have been since 1997.
The next article may provide more clues to the Earthquake, Volcano enigma………….
Earth’s center is out of sync
May 13, 2013
(Phys.org) —We all know that the Earth rotates beneath our feet, but new research from ANU has revealed that the center of the Earth is out of sync with the rest of the planet, frequently speeding up and slowing down.
Associate Professor Hrvoje Tkalcic from the ANU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and his team used earthquake doublets to measure the rotation speed of Earth’s inner core over the last 50 years.
They discovered that not only did the inner core rotate at a different rate to the mantle – the layer between the core and the crust that makes up most of the planet’s interior – but its rotation speed was variable.
“This is the first experimental evidence that the inner core has rotated at a variety of different speeds,” Associate Professor Tkalcic said.
“We found that, compared with the mantle, the inner core was rotating more quickly in the 1970s and 1990s, but slowed down in the 80s. The most dramatic acceleration has possibly occurred in the last few years, although further tests are needed to confirm that observation.
“Interestingly, Edmund Halley, namesake of Halley’s Comet, speculated that the inner shells of the Earth rotate with a different speed back in 1692.”
Scientists have so far assumed the rotation rate of the inner core to be constant because they lacked adequate mathematical methods for interpreting the data, says Associate Professor Tkalcic. A new method applied to earthquake doublets – pairs of almost identical earthquakes that can occur a couple of weeks to 30 or 40 years apart – has provided the solution.
“It’s stunning to see that even 10, 20 or 30 years apart, these earthquakes look so similar. But each pair differs very slightly, and that difference corresponds to the inner core. We have been able to use that small difference to reconstruct a history of how the inner core has rotated over the last 50 years,” he said.
Associate Professor Tkalcic says this new method could help us understand the role of the inner core in creating the magnetic field that allowed life to evolve on Earth by acting as a shield from cosmic radiation.
“What we have developed is a very powerful way to understand the internal structure and dynamics of our planet,” he said.
The research was published in Nature Geoscience.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-earth-center-sync.html
Here’s another pointless effort regarding volcanic periodicity…
Spatial and temporal distribution of large volcanic eruptions from 1750 to 2010
HAO Zhixin1, WANG Huan1,2, *ZHENG Jingyun1
http://www.geogsci.com/fileup/PDF/20140608.pdf
These are their conclusions….
[1] About 90% of the total number of large volcanic eruptions are accounted for by eruptions on the coasts of the Pacific (about 80%) and the islands of the Sumatra–Java volcanic belt (about 10%). Most large volcanic eruptions occurred in the equatorial region, followed by high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. There were significantly more in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. In contrast, very large volcanic eruptions mainly occurred at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, followed by low latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and the equatorial region.
Errr……that’s where a lot of the larger volcanoes are, and the people to see them.
Southern Hemisphere eruptions generally lacked a viewing public.
(2) Large volcanic eruptions were mainly concentrated at elevations of 1000–1500 m and 1000–2000 m.
Hmmn….. that’s how big volcanoes need to get before they can produce a large eruption.
The large submarine eruptions weren’t seen
(3) The greatest numbers of large volcanic eruptions occurred in January and April, with each month accounting for more than 12% of the total, and the number in the summer half-year (from April to September) was slightly higher than that in the winter half-year (October to the following March). In contrast, the number of very large volcanic eruptions was clearly higher in the winter half-year than in the summer half-year.
Statistical significance ?
Whose winter…….?
(4) The year 1870 was the shift point of the cycle change for large volcanic eruptions since 1750. A cycle of 35–50 years was dominant before 1870, but a cycle of 15–25 years prevailed after that. Large volcanic eruptions mainly occurred in 1750–1760, 1776–1795, 1760–1830, 1871–1890, 1911–1920 and 1911–1995, with fewer in other periods.
Very dodgy…..oh well, they got published at least
You seem to be doing what the drug companies do to assess the safety of their drugs, is have a limited sized sample and say see no significant impact of our drug! Now intuitively you would want to check with the Devries cycle and check and see if there is a pattern associated with volcanic activity in solar minimum periods where the earth is contracting and putting ever so slightly more pressure on the core. I think you will find something there. For earthquakes check for large earthquakes after a solar minimum when the sun awakens and you get large coronal outbursts like the ones that happened in 2011 (the japan march 11 and new zealand feb 22 quakes followed large CME’s events by a 1- 2 weeks). I think there are linkages between both earthquakes and volcanos and solar influences.
roger samson February 13, 2015 at 8:24 pm
This is why I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. Roger, I don’t know if you are replying to me or to someone else.
And if you are replying to me, I have no idea what it is that you are objecting to.
As to your suggestions as to what I should “check”, I’m sorry, but I check whatever I think is important. Since you obviously think your proposed relationships are important, intuitively YOU would want to check those things. And since you haven’t done so … why should I bother to do your work for you?
Regards,
w.
PS—You say I should see if there is “a pattern associated with volcanic activity in solar minimum periods” … what on earth do you think that Figures 1-4 in the head post are doing?