Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
[UPDATE: Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate since it describes the effect of the analysis on the readers, and not the intentions of the authors. Dr. Shaviv and his co-authors have my apologies for my unwarranted accusation of bad faith.]
I see that Dr. Nir Shaviv has a blog post up regarding the recent fixing of problems in the historical sunspot record. He put up several interesting graphs and made several interesting claims, and I wanted to comment on them. To begin with, here’s an overview of his claim about the new sunspot record:
So, what do I think about it [the new sunspot data]? First, I have no idea whether the calibration is correct. They do make a good argument that the SN reconstruction is problematic. Namely, some corrections are probably necessary and there is no reason a priori to think that what they did is invalid. However, their claim about solar activity in general not varying much since the sun came out from the Maunder minimum is wrong. There are other more objective ways to reconstruct solar activity than subjective sunspot counting, and they do show us that solar activity increased over the 20th century. So at most, one can claim that solar activity has various facets, and that the maximum sunspot number is not a good indicator of all of them.
And here is his first graph, comparing the new and old sunspot data:
Figure 1. Dr. Shaviv’s first figure from his blog post, showing the old and new sunspot numbers.
His basic claim is that the changes in historical sunspot numbers don’t make a difference, and that there is still an increase in solar activity over the 20th century. Since both datasets are very similar during the 20th century, the new/old dataset choice makes no difference. However, I wouldn’t say that “solar activity increased over the 20th century”. It increased from 1900 to 1960, and decreased after that.
He then puts up the yearly aa index data, and points out that “The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19th century) clearly shows that the latter part of the 20th century was more active than the latter half of the 19th century.” Well, yes … and the sunspot data says that as well, and again this is true no matter which sunspot dataset is used. So I’m not clear how this adds to his argument.
Next, he examines the beryllium isotope 10Be record. This record is claimed to reflect solar activity. I say it is a very poor proxy for solar activity. I’ve pointed out a variety of problems with this “proxy” in my post here. Dr. Shaviv says:
The longer 10Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20th century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum.
Note that he’s making a brand new claim, that the latter half of the 20th century is more active than anything since 1700. Again, I must point out that both sunspot datasets, new and old, say the exact same thing. However, they differ greatly from the 10Be proxy. In addition, he is also using the 10Be data to tacitly claim a significant increase in solar strength since 1425 or so.
Figure 2. Solar activity proxies, showing concentration of the beryllium isotope 10Be (blue), as well as the sunspots (red). From Dr. Shaviv’s blog post.
So does Figure 2 show that the old sunspot number is correct? Does it show that solar activity has been increasing since 1425, or that the sun has been “particularly active in the latter half of the 20th century”? Well … no. All it shows is that 10Be is a very poor proxy for solar activity. Let me add a few annotation lines to Dr. Shaviv’s graph to illustrate one of the reasons why it’s a bad proxy.
Figure 3. Solar activity proxies as in Figure 2, with added lines connecting the 10Be data to the sunspot record.
I’ve added a horizontal red line at a 10Be concentration of about 1.1 or so. From there, I’ve dropped vertical violet lines to the sunspot data, and then horizontal blue lines over to the sunspot scale.
So … if the marvelous 10Be “solar activity proxy” has an averaged value of 1.1, does that mean that the sunspot level is zero, or twelve, or twenty-four, or thirty-six sunspots per year? I’m sorry, but using 10Be data as a “solar proxy” in that manner doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Dr. Shaviv’s final claim in his blog post is that there is a clear solar effect on the sea level. He says (emphasis mine):
The second point I wanted to write about is a recently published analysis showing that the sun has a large effect on climate, and quantifying it. … Daniel Howard, Henrik Svensmark and I looked at the satellite altimetry data. It is similar to the tide gauge records in that it measures how much heat goes into the ocean by measuring the sea level change (most of the sea level on short time scales is due to thermal expansion). Unsurprisingly, we found that the satellite altimetry showed the same solar-cycle synchronized sea level change as the tide gauge records.
…
You can see in fig. 4 how much the sun and el-Niño can explain a large fraction of the sea level change over yearly to decadal time scales.
In support of this idea that the small approximately 11-year variations in the sun affects the sea level, he posts the following graph:
Figure 4. Graph quoted in Dr. Shaviv’s blog.
Figure 4 is from the paper by Howard, Svensmark, and Shaviv, The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data. Their abstract states (emphasis mine):
Abstract With satellite altimetry data accumulating over the past two decades, the mean sea level (MSL) can now be measured to unprecedented accuracy. We search for physical processes which can explain the sea level variations and find that at least 70% of the variance in the annually smoothed detrended altimetry data can be explained as the combined effect of both the solar forcing and the El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
So to be clear, they are talking about studying how solar forcing and ENSO affect sea level. According to their abstract, they model the sea level, using solar forcing and ENSO as their independent variables, to get the purple line in Figure 4 above. And to be fair, Figure 4 shows a pretty good match between model (purple line) and data (blue dots).
Now, in order to get their model results (lovely purple line) to match the sea level data (blue dots), would you care to know how which solar dataset the authors actually used? Because after the big buildup about the sun, and about solar forcing, I was certainly curious which dataset they would choose. Would they look at TSI, total solar irradiance? Of, since Svensmark is a proponent of solar-modulated cosmic rays affecting the climate, would they use the neutron count dataset that measures cosmic rays? Or would it be something else, solar wind or something … the paper gives the answer.
…
…
…
No solar data. Period.
Not one bit of solar data was used in their study. No aa index data. No TSI (total solar irradiation) data either. No trace of the sunspot data. Not a sign of the cosmic ray information. Nothing about the solar wind. No sign of heliomagnetic information. Rude truth is, no solar data of any kind were harmed in the creation of their model … because no solar data of any kind were used.
Instead, what you see is a seven-tunable-parameter model (purple line), using solely El Nino 3.4 data as the only observational input, that has been fitted to the sea level data (blue dots in Figure 4 above). No solar data was involved at all.
Well, of course when I found that out, I had to go see why they didn’t use the solar data. After all, we have reasonable TSI data and good sunspot data for the period.
Figure 5. Sunspot data (black, at bottom, scale on right) and satellite TSI (total solar irradiance) data (color) from a succession of satellites. SOURCE
I started by doing what the authors did. I used the detrended Colorado sea level data and the Trenberth El Nino 3.4 data. I’ll call the El Nino 3.4 Index the “ENI” for simplicity.
Next I standardized the datasets, which means I transformed them by subtracting out the mean (average) and dividing by the standard deviation. This gives both datasets a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. I often do this to get an idea of how well related a couple of datasets might be, when they are in different units. Note that this standardization procedure does not include any tunable parameters. Here’s the result:
Figure 6. A comparison of the standardized detrended monthly Colorado satellite sea level (red) and the monthly El Nino 3.4 data (black)
As you can see, there is a reasonably good overall correlation between the El Nino 3.4 Index (“ENI”, black) and the detrended sea level (black). Now, what we want to determine is whether the solar variation is a possible explanation for the difference between the ENI and the sea level. To do that we need to look at the “residuals”, which means the part if the sea level data that is NOT explained by the ENI. The procedure is to use the ENI values to calculate the expected corresponding sea level values. Then we subtract those fitted sea level values from the actual sea level values, and what is left are the “residuals”. These residuals are the variations in sea level which are not related to the ENI. The residuals are what we hope is explained by solar fluctuations. Here is a graph of the residuals over the period after we subtract out the El Nino 3.4 variations:
Figure 7. Residual sea level after removal of the El Nino variations.
Now, when the authors saw that, they must have been very happy. That sure looks a whole lot like a solar-related variation to me. So what’s not to like?
Well, as also unfortunately happens at times with my own ideas, a beautiful theory founders on a hidden reef of data. Let me overlay the actual solar variations on top of the residual sea level shown in the figure above. I’m showing both the sunspots and the TSI, so you can see how the sunspots are an excellent proxy for TSI.
Figure 8. Residual sea level as in Figure 7 (black), overlaid with the sunspot (blue) and TSI (red) data. This is the new sunspot data, but for this period the new and old data are nearly identical.
I’m sure you can see the problem the authors faced with using actual solar data … the TSI/sunspot records (red/blue) start out well correlated, with both bottoming out in about 1996. But then, the TSI/sunpots inconveniently peak around 2001 and bottom out around 2008-2009. Meanwhile, sea level peaks at around 2006, about five years after the TSI/sunspots, and doesn’t bottom out until 2011 … no bueno for their lovely theory.
So, just what is a poor scientist supposed to do in such a case? Sadly, what Dr. Shaviv and the other authors decided to do was to just add a simple sine wave to the model and claim that it is the “solar term”. Here’s their graph of their so-called “harmonic solar component” …
Figure 9. The “harmonic solar component” used in their model
And here’s how it fits into the previous figure …
Figure 10. As in Figure 8, but overlaid with their “harmonic solar component” (black/yellow). For clarity I have not shown the underlying TSI/sunspot data, only the gaussian averages (red/blue).
How lovely! You see that a sine wave (black/yellow line) is a pretty good fit to the sea level over the period. The only problem is that despite the authors calling it the “harmonic solar component”, there is nothing “solar” about a sine wave at all. Zero. Nada. It has nothing to do with the sun. Instead, it is merely a 12.6 year sinusoidal cycle that has been fitted to match the sea level data.
And why have they chosen a 12.6 year cycle? The study says:
Last, we take P = 12.6 years, which is the duration of the last solar cycle.
However, I note that the actual length of the last solar cycle was 12.4 years (trough-trough, from the data shown above). I also note that the best fit of the simple sine wave to the residual sea level data gives a “harmonic solar component” with a period of 12.61 years. It is possible that is a coincidence.
Conclusions? In no particular order …
• The 10Be beryllium isotope truly sucks as a solar proxy when used as it was in their study.
• Climate science is in a horrible state when you can pass off a bog-simple 12.6 year sine wave as a “harmonic solar component”. The journal, the peer reviewers, and the authors all share responsibility for this highly misleading study. The study is not about “The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data” as the title claims. Iit’s not about solar anything. Instead, it is about fitting a sine wave to sea level data. That is false advertising, not science of any sort.
• Finally, a seven-parameter model? Have these folks never heard the story of Von Neumann’s elephant? Obviously not … so I attach it for their edification. In any case, they have the following parameters in their model:
The intercept parameter, which adjusts the model results vertically
The trend parameter, which sets the trend of the model results
Three sine wave parameters (amplitude, phase, and period) for their grandly-named “harmonic solar component”
The ENI index parameter, setting the effect of the ENI
The ENI index integral parameter, as they’ve used both the ENI and the integral of the ENI in the model
Seriously? Seven tunable parameters? Von Neumann weeps …
In any case, summer is here, the day is warm … I’m going walking in the solar forcing.
Best to all,
w.
The Usual: If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words that they used that you disagree with. I’m tired of being accused of things I never said. Quote the words you object to so we can all understand what you are getting at.
[UPDATE]: In the comments, Brandon Shollenberger says correctly, albeit quite unpleasantly, that I was remiss in not discussing the authors’ stated reason for using a fitted sine wave in place of the real solar data, so let me remedy that oversight. They say:
The above empirical fit assumed a harmonic solar forcing. Although it is only an approximation, it significantly simplifies the analysis. By describing the radiative forcing anomaly as a complex number: ΔFsolar(t) = ΔFsolar exp(−iωt), each component of the sea level can then be described with a complex amplitude. The phase will then describe a lag or lead relative to the solar forcing.
Let me begin by saying that if the real solar data had fit the sea level record, if the actual solar observations had provided strong and unequivocal support for their hypothesis that tiny variations in the sun affect the sea level, they would have used the real data without a qualm or a question. And rightly so, I’d do the same myself, as would you or anyone. Finding such clear evidence of solar influence would be the jewel in the crown, it would be the final piece to the puzzle that folks have searched for over centuries.
But the fact is, as the graphs above clearly show, the solar data does NOT match up with the sea level residuals, not in any sense. And it also doesn’t match up with the sine wave, so their claim that the sine wave is an “approximation” of the solar data doesn’t hold water either.
As a result, we can start with the certain knowledge that they have left out the main explanation for why they didn’t use the solar data—because it didn’t fit the sea level residual for beans. They’ve put a sine wave in their instead and called it a “harmonic solar component”. I call that highly misleading.
However, there is another, larger reason that describing the sine wave “solar” anything is misleading, which is that it “begs the question”. This oft-misused expression means that the speaker assumes what they are trying to demonstrate—in this case, they assume that the cause is the sun, and go forwards with that unproven, untested, and unlikely assumption. They have assumed that the solar variations are the missing link in explaining sea level variations, but that solar-sealevel connection is exactly what the authors are trying to prove! Circular logic at its finest.
So they can’t assume that connection, they have to demonstrate it … and unfortunately, the solar data doesn’t support it.
Let me try to clarify this by example. Suppose I’m studying the effect of gamma rays on marigold growth. And unfortunately for my lovely hypothesis, the gamma ray data is uncorrelated with the marigold growth data.
But I notice a sine wave can be fitted to the marigold growth data quite well, and the sine wave kinda sorta looks a bit like my gamma ray data, and even better, using the sine wave allows me to “significantly simplify the analysis” … sound familiar? So I throw away all of my gamma ray data, and I just use the sine wave in my analysis.
Here’s the question. Given that there is no gamma ray data of any kind in my study, am I justified in calling the sine wave a “harmonic gamma ray component”, and calling the cycle of the sine wave the “gamma ray cycle”? Or is that misleading?
I say it is misleading as hell, because it leads the reader to believe that gamma rays and the “gamma ray cycle” are indeed the cause of variations in marigold growth, when in fact my gamma ray study showed the opposite, little correlation. Here’s the bottom line. Once I pull out the gamma ray data and replace it with a sine wave, I no longer have a gamma ray model. I have a sine wave model. My sine wave model can only tell me if there is an apparent sine wave component to the marigold growth. It can’t tell me anything about gamma rays because there are none in my model.
Note that the same thing is happening in their paper. Despite the fact that the solar cycle is clearly NOT correlated with the sea level data, and despite the fact that there isn’t one scrap of solar data in their study, they call a simple sine wave a “harmonic solar component”, they ascribe causality to “the Sun”, they call what their model shows “solar forcing”, and they talk at length of “solar cycles” in an effort to persuade the reader that they’ve demonstrated their case about the sun causing sea level variations … when in fact, the data shows the opposite, little correlation. Here’s the bottom line. Once they pull out the solar data and replace it with a sine wave, they no longer have a solar model. They have a sine wave model. Their sine wave model can only only tell us if there is an apparent sine wave component to the sea level. It can’t tell us anything about solar variations because there are none in their model.
And that’s why their paper is misleading. Here’s the simple version. If you have to use a sine wave because the solar data doesn’t fit, you can’t claim it is a “harmonic solar component” when that is what you are trying to prove … even if it ”significantly simplifies the analysis”. It may indeed let you simplify the analysis, or it may not, but that doesn’t magically make it a “harmonic solar component”. It’s a fitted sine wave, and claiming otherwise is misleading.
Finally, the authors never seem to have considered the effect of their replacement of actual data with a sine wave. While it is true that you can do analyses using a sine wave that you can’t do using the real data, because the real data doesn’t look like a sine wave … doesn’t it seem to you that the results of said analyses are likely to apply only to the world of the sine wave, and not to the world of the real data?
Freeman Dyson tells the story of Von Neumann’s elephant (emphasis mine)
We began by calculating meson–proton scattering, using a theory of the strong forces known as pseudoscalar meson theory. By the spring of 1953, after heroic efforts, we had plotted theoretical graphs of meson–proton scattering.We joyfully observed that our calculated numbers agreed pretty well with Fermi’s measured numbers. So I made an appointment to meet with Fermi and show him our results. Proudly, I rode the Greyhound bus from Ithaca to Chicago with a package of our theoretical graphs to show to Fermi.
When I arrived in Fermi’s office, I handed the graphs to Fermi, but he hardly glanced at them. He invited me to sit down, and asked me in a friendly way about the health of my wife and our newborn baby son, now fifty years old. Then he delivered his verdict in a quiet, even voice. “There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics”, he said. “One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and selfconsistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.” I was slightly stunned, but ventured to ask him why he did not consider the pseudoscalar meson theory to be a selfconsistent mathematical formalism. He replied, “Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory because the forces are weak, and when the formalism is ambiguous we have a clear physical picture to guide us.With the pseudoscalar meson theory there is no physical picture, and the forces are so strong that nothing converges. To reach your calculated results, you had to introduce arbitrary cut-off procedures that are not based either on solid physics or on solid mathematics.”
In desperation I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, “How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?”
I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, “Four.”
He said, “I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
With that, the conversation was over. I thanked Fermi for his time and trouble,and sadly took the next bus back to Ithaca to tell the bad news to the students. Because it was important for the students to have their names on a published paper, we did not abandon our calculations immediately. We finished them and wrote a long paper that was duly published in the Physical Review with all our names on it. Then we dispersed to find other lines of work. I escaped to Berkeley, California, to start a new career in condensed-matter physics.
FTA: “So … if the marvelous 10Be “solar activity proxy” has an averaged value of 1.1, does that mean that the sunspot level is zero, or twelve, or twenty-four, or thirty-six sunspots per year?”
So, if the SSN, which is itself a proxy, has an average value of 60, does that indicate 100, 1000, or 10000 W/m^2 coming our way? Why get hung up on one measurement as being only a general indicator of solar activity versus another which is… a general indicator of solar activity?
Bart August 14, 2015 at 10:33 am
Sunspots are more than a “general indicator of solar activity”. They is a very good indicator. The sunspot cycle is very closely related to the cycles of a variety of other solar phenomena (solar wind, magnetic field, etc.).
10Be, on the other hand, is a rubbish indicator of solar activity. Despite that, for political or other reasons it is used as a solar proxy. I show above that it is a very poor proxy, one which says little about solar activity.
And yes, as the sunspot/TSI graph in the head post shows, there is indeed a very close relationship between the sunspot level and the TSI. The relationship is so close, in fact, that it allows us to calculate the TSI, with little error, directly from the sunspots, and tell us whether we have “100, 1000, or 10000 W/m^2 coming our way” (more like changes of tenths of a watt/m2, but you get the idea) … and you absolutely cannot do that with the 10Be data.
So your idea, that they are both “general indicators of solar activity”, is not true. One is an excellent indicator of solar activity, and the other, as I show above, is mostly useless and incorrect.
w.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/education/reu/2010/docs/posters/lois_smith_poster.pdf
TSI has to be looked into the component parts that make it up some of which are anti- correlated making TSI to appear more stable then it is.
Wills says below which he offers no convincing proof to back it up with as usual..
10Be, on the other hand, is a rubbish indicator of solar activity. Despite that, for political or other reasons it is used as a solar proxy.
“One is an excellent indicator of solar activity, and the other, as I show above, is mostly useless and incorrect.”
One is a reasonable indicator of solar activity in terms of irradiance at TOA, at least in the modern era where it can be directly compared, I will grant you that.
The other is an indicator of solar modulated cosmic ray activity. So, which one is more applicable to climate?
Bart August 14, 2015 at 12:02 pm
Thanks, Bart. I fear you overstate the case. The 10Be is CLAIMED to be an indicator of solar cosmic ray activity. But sunspots are well known to be closely correlated with cosmic ray activity … so IF the 10Be were an “indicator of solar modulated cosmic ray activity” as is claimed, it would also be an indicator of sunspots …
… but Figure 3 clearly shows that 10Be is NOT an indicator of sunspots. This conclusion is also backed up by Fourier analysis of the 10Be records, which shows no sign of any 11-year cycle. And since the 11-year cycle is by far the biggest of the solar cycles, the odds of 10Be detecting slow small changes in solar activity seem miniscule.
In other words, the theoretical part of the question is sound. We know that 10Be is produced by the action of cosmic rays. That much is clear. So we would expect 10Be to vary on an 11-year cycle … but it doesn’t.
The problem seems to be that the cosmic ray signal is totally effaced, erased, and lost in the weeds by whatever other variable physical processes affect the eventual fate of the 10Be. Which in my book makes it of little use in estimating historical solar variations.
My best to you,
w.
It seems you are arguing that sunspots are a better indicator of cosmic ray activity on the Earth than an element which is produced by cosmic rays. I find that unlikely. But, it behooves us to ask, what exactly are we measuring?
We should not generally expect or look for 1:1, direct relationships. That is not generally how nature works. I would expect that the rate of deposition of 10Be to be more or less inversely proportional to solar activity, and the actual accumulation of 10Be would then have a long term, smoothed out relationship to solar activity. And, long term, smoothed out versions of SSN look not unlike the 10Be indicator (see above).
I must leave. Lack of further response should not necessarily be construed as acquiescence to or agreement with any further discussion.
Only 2 ounces of 10Be are produced worldwide per year over the whole globe. The 10Be in ice cores was mostly not produced in Greenland or Antarctica, but elsewhere and transported to the polar regions by atmospheric circulation, i.e. depends on the climate and not so much on the Sun, which is why 10Be is only a very rough indicator of solar activity, and an equally good indicator of climate conditions.
Excuse me interrupting, but as Fig 5 shows no sea level rise for twenty years, I’m buying that seafront plot in Charleston SC that I ‘ve had my eye on.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Lionheart, but the sea level data is detrended …
w.
However, having said that, there’s been no acceleration in sea level rise, I’d buy land on the ocean. Well, land on some ocean, don’t like the cold oceans …
w.
Sunspots are the worst indicator for solar activity because they are subjective, and do not tell the whole story.
For some reason coronal holes and associated solar wind speeds are being ignored which are far more important, when it comes to the solar/climate connection which shows al solar minima are not alike.
Salvatore Del Prete August 14, 2015 at 11:05 am
That sounds interesting. So how about you stop talking about it and give us the LINK to the actual data of the “indicator for solar activity” that you think is the best?
For bonus points, you might explain to us why
a) sunspots are “subjective” and
b) if they are “subjective”, why do they fit the TSI data so accurately, and
c) just what your choice as the best indicator might have that none of the other boys and girls have got?
w.
Below is the criteria I have come up with to determine how much activity is taking place on the sun.
Notice I did not include sunspot numbers. Why because they are subjective and easily manipulated.
In addition sunspots do not tell the whole story when it comes to solar activity and I will resend the study showing this to be so in my next post which is the basis for my argument.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
Makes no sense. Do you add them all up to determine “how much activity is taking place on the sun”? Do you average them? What if one goes up and the other goes down? What if they all go down? What does it mean for any one of them to go down, or go up?
w.
What I have done is come up with low average value solar parameters if reached (all of them at the same time over a sufficient duration of time , should have an effect upon the climate if the following two conditions are meant.
Conditions one- these low average solar parameters follow 10 years or of sub-solar activity in general which we have now had post 2005.
Condition two- these low average value solar parameters when reached have a duration of time in excess of normal solar minimum duration of times associated with the quote 11 year sunspot cycle.
I think going forward these solar conditions can be achieved and if so we shall see what climatic effects materialize or do not materialize.
They were achieved during the 2008-2010 lull for the most part and certainly achieved during past prolonged solar minimum periods, if the 2008-2010 short duration solar lull is used as an indicator guide line for the variability the sun can achieve.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JA014342/abstract
This study is the reason why sunspots should not be the tell all indicator for what effects solar activity may or may not have upon the earth.
William Astley had sent this same study.
“If the Sun was so quiet why was the Earth ringing?”
Because of the high-speed streams that occur prior to every minimum
The solar wind cycles are closely following the sunspot cycles. They vary in a different way within the cycle [for good and understood reasons], but as the sunspot cycles go, so go the other cycles. That is: given a sunspot cycle, the solar wind cycle is determined:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
So, the sunspot number is a VERY good measure of what goes on.
Your comment as usual is a silly attempt to confuse. I assume you understand the difference between a solar wind burst and the average of solar wind speed. You have made a number of comments in this forum which are incorrect and which I would assume you know are incorrect. Gavin Schmidt and some of his buddies over at Real Climate do the same thing.
The papers I quoted above noted that coronal holes cause solar wind bursts and coronal hole appearance is not connected with the sunspot cycle. i.e. Coronal holes can appeared late in the solar cycle and did appear late in the solar cycle. The solar wind bursts from coronal holes remove cloud forming ions so even though the solar heliosphere is weak at the end of the solar cycle and GCR is hence high, the high levels of GCR which creates cloud forming ions does result in an increase in cloud cover as the solar wind bursts remove the ions and there is hence no cooling which explains Lockwood’s observation that there use to be correlation of planetary temperature and sunspot count and now there is no longer correlation.
Regardless of what you do or do not say (propaganda and/or incorrect scientific theories do not change reality), the solar cycle has been interrupted and there is now observational evidence of the start of cooling.
The Greenland summer ice melt started two months late this spring and has now ended. The Green Land Ice sheet gained 200 GT this year. Hudson bay sea ice for this point in time of the year is the highest in 20 years. Arctic multiyear ice has increased by 30%.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
While we wait for in your face unequivocal cooling, I have been keeping busy investigating astronomical anomalies and paradoxes (there are more than a hundred astronomical paradoxes and anomalies, truly amazing, the solution drops out if one uses the observations to lead rather than shoving the observations into an incorrect theory, big surprise) that are directly related to how the sun can and does cause cyclic abrupt climate change.
There is a physical explanation for everything that has happened and will happen.
There is a physical explanation for what causes cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record. It’s the sun. Big surprise the sun and stars are significantly different than the standard model and there are piles and piles of astronomical and solar system anomalies/paradoxes to support that assertion.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
the solar cycle has been interrupted
Of course not. This is your invention.
Leif, could you please specify calendar years for your graph? I would like to know reliable these measurements are.
The curves are the average of 11 solar cycles #13-#23, just repeated 6 times to aid in seeing the pattern.
Every cycle shows the same general pattern. The data is reliable enough to show the same pattern in each cycle.
Sorry – … how reliable these measurements are.
Thanks for the link, Salvatore. I don’t understand why you sent it. I don’t think that sunspots are the “tell all indicator” for all possible variations that solar activity might have.
However, sunspots are known to be closely correlated with variations in things like TSI, EUV, magnetic field, cosmic rays, and the like. In some of those cases, e.g. TSI, we can actually use the sunspot numbers to make very accurate estimates of the other quantity.
Finally, even though the sunspots may not be well correlated with other solar phenomena as noted in the study, almost all solar phenomena generally wax and wane in lockstep with the ~11 year variable sunspot cycle. This is clearly visible by doing a Fourier analysis of the relevant solar phenomena.
And this is why I’ve used Fourier analysis to try to determine any possible solar effect on climate observations—not because of sunspots, but because the sun in general runs on the same ~11-year solar cycle. So if solar wind or cosmic rays are affecting the tide levels in Novosibirsk, we would expect to see some kind of ~11-year cycle in the data.
But we don’t …
w.
Thresholds were probably not met. Normal 11 year sunspot cycle not extreme or long enough in duration.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253753797_Earth%27s_rotation_ocean_circulation_and_climatic_changes
This is much more relevant then sunspots.
Salvatore, could I ask you in future to please indicate if your link is paywalled or is just the abstract? I just wasted time following that link, only to find the full study is not available at all at that link.
w.
I will. Thanks.
Gosh Willis,
You had to go through a bunch of effort to debunk some crap.
And then a bunch more work to respond to nit-pick
way more patience than me bro. way more patience
Yeah, and that from the usual peddlers of nonsense and ignorance. No wonder that some people laugh at WUWT.
At least we see dissension and discussion on WUWT. If you happen to pass by SkS all you see is rows of automatons genuflecting in awe before molecules composed of oxygen and carbon. Molecules that were apparently able to cause Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods before these molecules even existed. Clever things these molecular gods, they can even influence the past.
.
Conversely, to those of us capable of independent logical thought, it would appear wholly likely that another agency was at work in these past eras. And there are not many agencies to chose from, that could cause these great variations in climate – especially the big ones, like the ice ages.
One of those possible agencies – in fact the most likely agency – is that great seething ball of fire that causes ALL the weather on this Earth. The Sun. And if I were a solar scientist, who knew more than anyone else about the inner workings and external influences of the Sun, I would dedicate my career towards looking into each and every variability in that seething mass of fire, to see what could be possibly trigger an abrupt change into an ice age.
This would be a voyage of discovery into the unknown, tracking down multiple variables that may only trigger an terrestrial event when they all come into alignment and act in concert. This would be an adventure that would pique the brightest and most enquiring of minds, a cosmic quest that might even determine the onset of the next ice age.
Instead, we have Leif…….
R
a cosmic quest that might even determine the onset of the next ice age.
Glaciations are caused by the action of planets [mainly Jupiter] on the orbit of the Earth, so that quest has already yielded results. Solar activity has nothing to do with that.
Thanks, Mosh and Leif. Yeah, Mosh, I know that this paper is bogus, and the effort to falsify it is not small.
But to misquote someone, for bad science to succeed it is only necessary for good scientists to do nothing …
Regards, and thanks for your contributions,
w.
Lief, if glaciation is caused by Jupiter, why can’t someone come up with a date for the next ice age? Not some date that is off by 10,000 years, but one that is within a hundred or so.
Because it takes thousands of years to build the ice sheet, so when do you declare that the glaciation is there?
Well it may take tens of thousands of years to build a mile high sheet of ice but it seems like it only takes a few hundred to significantly drop the temperature so that an ice sheet can begin to build. What you are essentially saying is that Jupiter has some muti-millenial effect on the earth which sinks us into an ice age and I find that curious and would like to understand better how that could be.
To have a censorship-free forum, everyone has to put up with a few things and have your patience tested on occasion. In exchange for a forum based on free expression I say Lief, let them laugh.
The key words here are “on occasion”. If it happens too often, it stops being funny.
I have sent this again with the errors corrected. I have to run.
What I have done is come up with low average value solar parameters if reached all of them at the same time over a sufficient duration of time , should have an effect upon the climate if the following two conditions are meant.
Condition one- these low average solar parameters follow 10 years of sub-solar activity in general which we have now had post 2005.
Condition two- these low average value solar parameters when reached have a duration of time in excess of normal solar minimum duration of times associated with the quote 11 year sunspot cycle. Let ‘s say 2 years or longer in duration.
I think going forward these solar conditions can be achieved and if so we shall see what climatic effects materialize or do not materialize.
They were achieved during the 2008-2010 lull for the most part and certainly achieved during past prolonged solar minimum periods, if the 2008-2010 short duration solar lull is used as an indicator guide line for the variability the sun can achieve.
Willis.. The sun has no effect whatsoever on climate you are correct I apologise also to L svaalgard
Eliza August 14, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Eliza, I have never said that, nor anything even remotely resembling that. Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine. Your clumsy attempt to imply that I said them is childish, underhanded, and unpleasant.
I have invited you to quote what you think I’ve said that is wrong, and tell me why you think it is wrong. Instead, you try to put words in my mouth …
If you think that kind of action will get you traction on a scientific site, think again. All that does around here is get you laughed at.
w.
In fact the sun has no effect whatsoever on the earth LOL
Quite right, Eliza. I’m glad you have seen the error of your ways and are now willing to accept the be-Lief (Svalgaard system. 🙂
In reply to:
William,
The most important scientific event of this millennium (the interruption to the solar cycle) is obviously underway and you continue to repeat your mantra that the sun cannot abruptly change and/or that solar cycle abrupt changes cannot cause abrupt climate change. I suppose it is unimagined from your perspective that the solar and stellar standard model is fundamentally incorrect.
Normal filtered. Sunspots are now no longer visible. (P.S. In previous cycles sunspots were visible in this filtered view. The sunspots for past cycles were large and long lasting.)
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
Enhanced view of sunspots. Note the tiny short lived sunspots (pores).
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
the solar and stellar standard model is fundamentally incorrect.
The stellar and solar standard models are very successful in describing stellar and solar internal structure and energy production, as evidence by the precise prediction of the neutrino production and by results of helioseismology.
Cycle 24 was predicted [by me] to be weak and similar to other weak cycles. Now, there is evidence that the smallest sunspot are becoming less visible. This might portend a coming grand minimum as we have had in the past.
I find Willis analysis of Shaviv’s paper not to be very helpful and not only for the mudslinging.
I fully support Salvatore Del Prete and William Astley views that the Sun effect Earth’s climate through Ap, aa and from solar wind data.
I have found with my ANN program that ENSO is almost exclusively driven by a combination of the lunar cycle tidal effect and by Sun’s electromagnetic activity. The solar data I use are Ap, Kp and solar wind data.
For me this has now become a fact, the suns affect the climate through the magnetic effect it has on this planet.
Sun’s electromagnetic activity. The solar data I use are Ap, Kp and solar wind data.
You are a bit confused here. The electromagnetic emission by the Sun is called sunlight. The solar wind is particle emission, not a electromagnetic phenomenon. And our analyses show that the solar wind and its influence on cosmic rays closely follow the sunspot group number.
Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) August 14, 2015 at 4:42 pm
And I find your unwillingness to follow simple directions arrogant and unpleasant. If you don’t like my analysis, at least have the common decency to quote the words you disagree with. What you’ve done is nothing but mudslinging, which you claim you don’t like but you seem happy to engage in …
And if you can successfully predict the ENSO as you claim, where is a record of your successful predictions? Or can you only do retrospective predictions with your Ap, Kp, and solar wind data?
For a man with such overarching, overweening claims about your rumored scientific prowess, you are curiously short on links to, you know, results and that kind of thing …
w.
>>Leif
>>Glaciations are caused by the action of planets
>>[mainly Jupiter] on the orbit of the Earth.
Not according to Willis, it is not. And neither have I seen anything definitive in the scientific press. Do you disagree with Willis’ analysis of Milankovitch cycles? You made no adverse comment on his posting:
Into and Out of the Icebox. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/into-and-out-of-the-icebox
.
However, if you KNOW the answer to this perennial puzzle, we would be delighted to hear it. In fact, if you would like to make a guest post here that definitively explains how the ice ages are modulated, I think that much of the scientific world would also be very interested in reading it.
How about it, Leif? Instead of always making disparaging assertions for what CANNOT effect terrestrial weather/climate, how about a paper/article giving us something POSITIVE to grasp onto.
Looking forward in anticipation,
Ralph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
“Because the observed periodicities of climate fit so well with the orbital periods, the orbital theory has overwhelming support.”
See also: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovich.pdf or a bit more accessible:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Milankovich.pdf
Perhaps you could use a somewhat less snotty tone in your comments, it would become you better.
>>Perhaps you could use a somewhat less snotty tone in
>>your comments, it would become you better.
You mean less snotty than your own diatribes?? Now that would be difficult. Might I remind you that you said:
Quote:
“Yeah, and that from the usual peddlers of nonsense and ignorance. No wonder that some people laugh at WUWT.”
Now there was a comment laced with respect and approbation, for a small team who do their best to enlighten the public without sucking a single cent from the government teat.
Might I remind you that were it not for the valiant efforts of WUWT, Climate Audit and others, all of this contrarian information would have been deliberately buried and obscured. You don’t think that SkS or the BBC would tell us that the Hockey Stick was a hoax, that the warming trend depended on just one tree, or that Antarctica is recording record ice levels, do you? If you do, you are sadly mistaken.
So rather than laughing at WUWT, I think those in comfortable scientific ivory towers should be applauding the site. The scientific community in general has been strangely reluctant to point out the obvious errors in climate ‘science’, and so it has been left to those outside the establishment to provide the essential supervision and peer-review that is so sadly lacking in climate ‘science’ today. Again, I think WUWT deserves a round of applause, rather than a scientific laughter.
Ralph
Ok, so I have taken a look at that link, and this appears to be the standard Milankovitch theory. But Willis has already demonstrated that there is little or no correspondence between Milankovitch cycles and ice ages.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/into-and-out-of-the-icebox
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/the-icebox-heats-up
Now you posted on that thread, and yet you chose not to challenge Willis on his analysis. Why was that? Was Willis correct? Has Willis undermined your claims? Is that why you did not reply on that thread?
We are here to learn, but I have to say that your explanations and clarifications are not making much sense. So I ask you again – why was Willis’ analysis of Milankovitch cycles incorrect.
Ralph
ORBITAL MILANKOVICH CYCLES – yes they explain the big pictures but not the short abrupt climatic periods such as the YD. Something else is at play.
ralfellis August 14, 2015 at 11:27 pm Edit
Ralph, that’s exactly why I insist on people quoting what they disagree with … because nobody has a clue what you are referring to when you ask if someone agrees with an entire post.
An entire post! Even I don’t always agree with a whole post I wrote a while ago. In this case, here was my main point, which was the lack of any 100,000 year signal:
So we could start by finding out what you disagreed with in that statement. What is wrong with that claim?
And since that is my main claim in the paper, and I still find nothing wrong with it, then I’m left with the question … just what on earth was ralfellis raving about and trying to attack Leif with?
QUOTE MY WORDS, YOU HOCKEY PUCK! You are accusing me of errors in my work, without having the stones to say what it is you think is wrong. And more underhanded than that, you are using vague handwaving accusations about my work to attack a third person. You have a beef with my work? How about you work up the courage to talk to me about it, since I wrote it? …
w.
Willis
So we could start by finding out what you disagreed with in that statement. What is wrong with that claim?
__________________________________
Sorry, Willis, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I was AGREEING with your post, not disagreeing with it.
The point I was trying to make is that Lief has stated here that he thinks the Milankovitch theory is correct. And he used these links to prove his point:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovich.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Milankovich.pdf
But your two posts have demonstrated that the Milankovitch theory is not that secure at all, because the cycles do not appear to match:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/into-and-out-of-the-icebox
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/the-icebox-heats-up
And yet despite your very informative postings, Leif chose not to debate with you about the validity of the Milankovitch theory – even though he obviously disagrees with what you said. So our resident Solar expert has chosen NOT to enter into a discussion or debate. Why is that? Is it because he knows he will lose that debate?
And the net result of all this is that I – as Mr Layman – am still none the wise as to whether the Milankovitch theory is correct or not.
Thanks,
Ralph
Thanks, Ralph. As you say, we’ve ended up at cross purposes, which is why I continue to ask people to quote what they are talking about.
As to Milankovic, my conclusion was an odd one—I wasn’t so much curious about what started the ice ages as I was by the strength of the ~21000 year cycles. My question was, why don’t we see temperature variations based on those cycles?
Do I think that “Milankovich theory is correct”? I don’t know if that question can be answered in that form, because it is too broad. From one of Leif’s papers quoting Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton Science, 194, 1121, 1976 Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
I would agree with that, noting that it contains a reference to what is called the “100,000 year problem”. I didn’t find anything new in my post, other than to highlight the 100,000 year problem and to wonder about the odd lack of effects from the much larger 20,000 year variations in insolation.
In short, I don’t see much difference between what Leif says and what I said in that post, which may be why he didn’t comment … or he might just have been on holiday and not seen it …
Best regards and thanks for the reply,
w.
>>In short, I don’t see much difference between what Leif
>>says and what I said in that post, which may be why he
>>didn’t comment.
Perhaps, but what Leif said was:
Leif Quote:
Glaciations are caused by the action of planets [mainly Jupiter] on the orbit of the Earth, so that quest has already yielded results. Solar activity has nothing to do with that.
Endquote.
So ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles, with no room for doubt, and therefore we don’t need to look again at solar activity.
But Milankovitch cycles DO NOT explain the regular 100k-year climatic heartbeat. They may be a part of the cause, but they are not a full explanation. So to use Milankovitch cycles as an excuse to stop further research is a capitulation of science. And I cannot get my head around someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as Leif not being piqued by such a mystery, and spurred into further research. I suppose we are all different.
Cheers,
Ralph
So ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles, with no room for doubt, and therefore we don’t need to look again at solar activity.
You are confusing matters. Solar activity is not the cause of glaciations. Milankovich cycles are. Doubt is not the issue, the details are.
Figure 1. Dr. Shaviv’s first figure from his blog post, showing the old and new sunspot numbers.
This figure does not show the old and new sunspot numbers! It shows the level of disagreement between the old Wolf Sunspot Number (blue) and the old Group Sunspot Number (red). (Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/solar-hide-the-decline/)
The observational support for Milankovich is overwhelming. Some of the details are not understood, but that is often the case with complicated issues, so is not a show-stopper. See http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovich.pdf for more.
I did question Willis’s huge temperature change estimate, but let it slide as there seemed to little chance of a correction.
lsvalgaard August 15, 2015 at 12:25 am
“A problem for the solar influence is that the last three cycles were similar to the three cycles about a century ago, while temperatures now are significantly higher than back then”
Hi doc
Absolutely correct, but you omitted the other all important equation’s parameter
Sun is roughly same as it was one hundred years ago, but the intensity of the Earth’s dipole has been falling back, so the magnetospheric resistance to solar penetration is not as strong now as it was one hundred years ago.
Since 1995 the field has stabilised, followed by a gentle rise, hence pause and possibly some cooling .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.gif
Also confirming the matter of the above discussed sea level changes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SLR-MD.gif
but then again the ‘science’ as represented by the status quo advocates is self-constrained and intolerant to diversity of progressive ideas.
Magnetic field sources.
The ionosphere contains ionised atoms resulting from the effect of ultraviolet light from the Sun. Strong electric currents flow in the sunlit hemisphere, which is much more conductive than the night side.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2012/10/magnetic_field_sources/12062588-3-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_sources_medium.jpg
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/Swarm/Earth_s_external_environment
Such drive-by comments have no bearing on the issue. If you want to know about EUV and geomagnetic effects, study this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux-1781-2014.pdf
Swarm is tasked with measuring and untangling the different magnetic signals that stem from Earth’s core, mantle, crust, oceans, ionosphere and magnetosphere – an undertaking that will take at least four years to complete.
In doing so, the mission will provide insight into many natural processes, from those occurring deep inside the planet through to weather in space caused by solar activity. In turn, this information will yield a better understanding of why the magnetic field is weakening.
There is no geomagnetic effect on climate. Your correlations are totally spurious.
There are geomagnetic effects upon the climate because they moderate solar effects, and geological events which in turn moderate the climate.
The particular correlation Vuk claims is completely bogus.
I got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Willis
Appreciate your modeling efforts and interesting graphs.
Re:
You make absolute accusations that I find unwarranted. Please take a deep breath and take a closer look. Note:
i.e., they explicitly take the period and phase of the 23rd solar cycle from published data and approximate that input as the simple harmonic cycle.
Yes it would be better to have used the actual sunspot data, and yes they should have explicitly referenced that data – but they are still using solar input from published data.
Note the previous paper: Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012989.
See section 2.2 Empirical Relation between the OHC (ocean heat content) and SLR (sea level rise)
Contrast:
Thermal Lag from Solar cycle
Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark use the simplest first order approximation of the solar cycle is a sinusoidal magnitude plus a phase for the peak. They then specifically provide for the sea level (an thus ocean warming) to lag from the solar peak.
By thermal modeling, David Stockwell predicts that solar cycle heating will cause a Pi/2 (90 degree) lag in ocean temperatures. i.e. 2.75 years with an 11 year cycle, or 3.2 years with a 12.6 year cycle. Land may respond faster.
David R.B. Stockwell, Accumulation of Solar Irradiance Anomaly as a Mechanism for Global Temperature Dynamics, August 9, 2011, http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1108.0020v1.pdf
David R.B. Stockwell, Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature, August 23, 2011
By fitting, Howard et al. find a solar lag phi = 58°±7. That is 64% of Stockwell’s prediction so of the right order of magnitude for the thermal physics involved. An alternative would be to assume Stockwell’s model of a 90 degree lag, and see how that changes the fit for the other parameters.
Your 12.61 period in the residual level data closely supports Howard et al.’s model of the 12.6 year solar cycle as a driver. Your showing a thermal lag further provides a first order support for Stockwell’s lag model and supports Howard et al., finding of a lag of thermal heating after the solar cycle driver.
Per your comments on Brandon Shollenberger:
Overstated. You showed the period to correlate. I think you are ignoring the ocean’s thermal lag as predicted by Stockwell and fit by Howard et al. I.e. the difference between the direct solar forcing and the integrated consequence.
One improvement would be to find the actual lag from the solar cycle data to the sea level.
(PS climateadj’s comment “TSI should be compared to the *rate of change* in the sea level residuals corresponds to Stockwell’s model.)
Linear rise from LIA
Howard, Shaviv and Svensmark
A linear rise is the simplest model of the long term warming from the Little Ice Age. Akasofu (2010) provides extensive support for this simple ice melting model superimposed with a sinusoidal variation. See:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Natural Science Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2010.211149
Thus I find good first order modeling basis for four of the parameters used by Howard et. al. They then add simple models for other ocean variations. Now the challenge is do the remaining parameters make sense from such a simple model. Or can climate be better or with fewer parameters?
(This approach appears far better than the > 100 parameters of global warming models.)
PS Your von Neuman elephant is a good reminder, but overstates what Howard et. al. Actually do, since they used they explicitly use the solar period and the time of the peak solar magnitude for Cycle 23. They also use the linear rise model where there is substantial evidence such as Akasofu.
Very well put, Mr. Hagen. Based on I Mr. Eschenbach’s very good but limited mastery of a narrow range of knowledge, I consider his needlessly supercilious air of authority in matters beyond that range thoroughly rude, unwarranted and gratuitous.
Tom Anderson August 15, 2015 at 11:40 am
And I consider you a backbiting coward for slinging mud without quoting one single thing that you think I’m wrong about. Come back when you’ve found the stones to actually point out what you disagree with instead of whining about how I’m being “rude” …
w.
… this comment brought to you by Ourboros, who is responsible for all of the self-referential rudeness …
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
David L. Hagen August 15, 2015 at 7:45 am
Thanks for that, David. No, they did NOT do that. They did not use the phase data at all, not in the slightest. They ignored the phase data entirely. They chose 2001.5 as the “time zero” for their sine curve fit, but that is totally arbitrary, and it doesn’t change the phase of the results. It’s just a mathematical set point, it doesn’t alter the sine wave.
And they used a length which is the approximate length of ONE solar period, but which (perhaps by coincidence and perhaps not) is also the exact period length of the best fit to the sea level data. You obviously believe the authors. I think they are totally deceptive, so I have no faith in the “coincidence” …
My faith is even less when e.g. an article in the AMS Journal entitled “An Extended Solar Cycle 23 with Deep Minimum Transition to Cycle 24: Assessments and Climatic Ramifications” puts the cycle 23 length at “153 months”, which is 12.75 years … and my own calculations put it at 12.4 years. So you are welcome to believe that the 12.6 year value is NOT fitted, as are the other six fitted parameters …
But with only one number having a tenuous solar relationship no, David, there really isn’t any solar data in there. No matter what length the best fit threw up, it would be the length of some solar cycle or other.
However, if you insist that the length of the sine wave is “solar data” then here is the sum total of all of the solar data in the entire study:
“12.6 years”
Ooooh, now it’s not just a curve-fitting exercise, it’s now a “solar” curve-fitting exercise with no less than six fitted parameters … and folks seem surprised that the elephant can wiggle his trunk.
Here’s the bad news, David. Adding a sine wave with a period approximately equal to one of the many solar cycles to garbage may make it “solar” garbage to some people, although not to me … but it’s still garbage.
w.
David L. Hagen August 15, 2015 at 7:45 am
David, if the solar data had actually fit the sea level data as you claim, they would have used it. They didn’t use it. Any argument after that is special pleading.
And no, it is not true that I “showed the period to correlate”. For starters, periods can’t correlate, they are a single number, see below. What correlates with the sea level data is the fitted sine wave. The solar data does NOT correlate, and even period of the actual solar data does not match that of the sine wave … as I pointed out.
And finally, when someone says that dataset A is “correlated” or “not correlated” with dataset B, this does NOT mean that they have the same period as you seem to think. “Correlated” means that their measured correlation is large … and you can’t “correlate” two periods, they are just single numbers.
w.
David L. Hagen August 15, 2015 at 7:45 am
David, you’ve lost the thread of the study. They used DETRENDED sea level data, so your entire claim that there is a need for a trend term is nonsense.
You close by saying:
No, they don’t use the “time of the peak solar magnitude”, that’s not true in the slightest. That’s part of the problem—look at the peak magnitudes in Figure 8 above. The solar data peaks in about 2001-2 … and the sine wave peaks in about 2006. If they are using the “time of the peak solar magnitude, then why is the sine peak so different from the time of the peak solar magnitude?
So now, having run out of real objections, you’re just making things up.
And at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, even if you strain credulity to believe that the 12.6 year period is NOT fitted, they still not only have SIX FITTED PARAMETERS, but they have thrown out all of the solar data and replaced it with a sine wave of similar period … and you still defend the study and seem amazed that they can make the elephant wiggle its trunk.
Sorry, amigo … I’m still not impressed by trunk-waving six-parameter models which throw away good data and replace it with a sine wave. Every time I think of that I think of people who remove bones from cadavers for use in transplants … they often replace the real bones with sections of plastic pipe, to make the body appear lifelike.
That’s what these scientists have done. They’ve replaced the real bones of data in the study with plastic pipe to make the results look lifelike … and while this makes it a good study of the effect of plastic pipes on sea level, by its design it can tell us nothing about cows. Why not? No cow data in the study. And it can’t tell us anything about mesons. Same reason, no mesons in the study.
And similarly, regarding solar variations, since there are none in the study …
w.
A quote from Willis, which is excellent.
Second quote from Willis which is excellent.
I have to apologize to Willis for not listening to him carefully enough because if one really listens to what he is saying he is opened to solar, while also saying there are events that can destroy or alter the natural regulatory system of the climate.
So I have a starting point with Willis , which at one time I thought I did not have.
Another point we agree on is if the sun varies enough it will have an impact on the climate. Everyone submits to this ,the disagreement however, is not if solar variation will change the climate but does the sun vary enough to accomplish this?
This leads to my argument with Willis , which is the so called 11 year sunspot normal cycle is not where one is going to be able to find solar/climate connections, because the EXTREMES in solar activity are not strong enough in degree of magnitude or long enough in duration of time to have a climate effect. In addition the 11 year cycle gong from weak to strong sunspot activity cancels the climate effect it may have before any significant impact could come about.
In other words thresholds can not be reached in the climate system due to these 11 year variations in solar activity. This is the wrong place to look if one wants to find a solar climate connection.
The place to look is when the sun enters an extreme period of prolonged minimum solar quiet and when one looks at these periods the data does show a climate/solar correlation to one degree or another.
The problem is there are other factors superimposed upon even this extreme solar variability which although keeps the lower global average temperature trend in place there are periods of rising temperatures within the overall lower temperature trend.
Why ? Because within any global temperature trend initiated by solar variability one has to take into account the following factors;
1. all solar minimum differ as was the case recently with the 1996 solar minimum versus the 2008-2010 solar lull, which effects the climate in a different manner..
2. the stage of where earth is in respect to Milankovitch Cycles is either going to work in concert or against the current trend the solar variability is exerting upon the climate. Right now I would say Milankovitch Cycles are on balance acting in concert with minimum prolonged solar activity.
3. the geo magnetic field can enhance given solar activity effects or diminish given solar activity effects upon the climate. A weaker field compounding given solar effects.
4. land /ocean arrangements and elevations. Right now acting in concert with reduced solar activity very favorable for cooling.
5. the ice dynamic/snow cover which when at a critical stage can enhance or diminish the solar impacts. Right now not that favorable.
6. the rogue terrestrial event such as a super volcanic eruption or the rogue extra terrestrial event such as an impact could turn things upside down in the climate system.
7. this being very important which is the elusive thresholds which I think are out there but I do not know what degree of solar extremes are needed to bring them about, but there must be solar extremes that will bring them about. This is also probably tied into the initial state of the climate , for example point 5, which is to say just how far is the climate system of the earth from that inter –glacial/glacial threshold at the time the prolonged minimum solar conditions commence, which I think go a long way in the climatic effect the given solar variability will have upon the climate. .
8. the normal earth intrinsic climate factors which superimpose themselves upon the big general climatic trend regardless if they are associated directly with given solar activity or not.
9. Lunar input- which could possibly enhance or diminish given solar activity.
My best guess based on the historical climatic record is the solar extremes needed to have a clear climatic impact and not one that is obscured have to be slightly less then quote so called normal 11 year sunspot minimums but more importantly the duration of time has to be longer.
Once this is in when combined with the points in the above the climate result should come about, with the exception if point 6 were to take place.
Possible important (some) secondary effects due to solar activity which in turn can moderate the climate.
cosmic ray change moderates cloud coverage.
ozone changes moderates atmospheric circulation atmospheric.
geological activity moderation.
Any natural regulatory system has bounds on the variations it can control, and there are events that could alter or destroy the regulation.
Willis statement above one more time.
Willis says there are events that could destroy or alter this regulation my question to him is what are the most likely events that can accomplish this?
I am curious to know because so far on balance although he has not closed the door on anything to be fair, I have never heard Willis embrace any one particular item but that might be because it is elusive to him given the studies and research he has done.
Nevertheless Willis, admits one thing or combination of things is out there that does have the ability to alter or destroy the climatic regulation.
For my part I think I am on the correct path through the process of elimination if nothing else and another point which favors an extra- terrestrial event governing effect upon the climate to some degree is the semi cyclic nature of the climatic system of the earth.
It is very hard to believe that random, chaotic earth bond intrinsic events in a system that is non linear to ad insult to injury can somehow change over time in such a way to result in a semi cyclic beat to the climate. It seems highly unlikely.
Toda is an example of how sunspot activity is deceiving when it comes to solar effects.
The sun is almost spotless yet we have coronal holes producing a significant geomagnetic storm.
For dramatic climatic events the solar wind /geo magnetic activity has to be low, in addition to sunspot activity. Sunspot activity does not tell the whole story, and coronal hole effects can linger well after sunspot activity has diminished. This is why duration of time is key in regards to solar minimum activity , not to mention the inherent lag in the climate system due to the oceans..
Such coronal holes occur on the declining phase of every sunspot cycle. Nothing new or mysterious about that.
Neutrons show (inversely) the strength of the solar wind.
“Solar activity can have various facets, and nobody promises us that long term variations in the solar wind will be the same as the long term variations in the sunspot number, so one is not necessarily lousier than the other, they just reflect different parts of the solar activity.”
The strongest solar wind in this series was at the beginning of 2015, which can be seen in the graph of Oulu.
lsvalgaard August 15, 2015 at 8:59 am
“The particular correlation Vuk claims is completely bogus.”
Bogus = Counterfeit or fake
It is nether counterfeit or fake.
The comment is beyond what is considered to be acceptable in a civilised exchange.
Have you plotted the data?
Current position of the ‘north’ magnetic pole at 86N 170E, the ‘south’ pole at 63S 136E
Data are available from NOAA IGRF at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#igrfwmm
Now Dr. Svalgaard download NOAA’s data, for both locations, add sum for two poles and plot the sum, and post the graph.
When you done so you can consider offering an apology for what some of the readers would think an insult.
I suppose you will not, and may try to wriggle out of it, nothing but a graph will be do.
Anyone else is welcome to do the graph.
Doing the graph is akin do what is done here: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
What is bogus is the claim that the correlation represents a physical reality.
I do not make any claims about physical reality since it is an unknown to me, but you appear to be self assured with no reservations.
On the two graphs I posted there are four variables:
Global temperature
CO2 concentration
Rate of sea level rise
Geomagnetic dipole intensity at the surface
There is high degree of mutual correlation with R^2 exceeding 0.8 between any of two, or six possible correlations in total.
Which of the above would you consider if any, to be based on physical reality, and which might be bogus, as you put it so lucidly.
In expectancy of your answer, I shall assume you will go for the ‘settled science’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.gif
since as you can see from the above, global temperature and the CO2 concentration has the highest R^2 of them all, why else (your) the world top rated Stanford university would be making bogus claims to the thousands of the most brilliant young American minds.
Correlation, the stronger it is, the stronger it suggests looking for a cause in physical reality.
==============
Not at all: http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-1.png
It also have to make physical sense, and Vuk’s does not.
see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/claim-some-coastal-dwellers-of-us-at-high-health-risk-from-climate-change/#comment-2008986
Repeating the same old bogus claim does not decrease its ‘bogusness’.
Here is one with even higher R^2:
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-1.png
see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/claim-some-coastal-dwellers-of-us-at-high-health-risk-from-climate-change/#comment-2009061
Current position of the ‘north’ magnetic pole at 86N 170E, the ‘south’ pole at 63S 136E
Question my understanding is if there is a significance to the magnetic pole, the locations only become relevant when they poles drift to low latitudes and or become split into several poles of varied intensity ?
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
Correct.
The highest intensity in the ‘north’ is currently in Siberia, previous 400 or so years was in the vicinity of Hudson Bay. The crossover took place around 1996, about 19 years ago, at the time of the start, now widely recognised global temperature pause.
During the past century the ‘Hudson Bay’ was in inverse while Siberia was in direct relationship with the ‘integrated’ sunspot numbers.
For those interested in the distant link between the N. Atlantic osculations and Siberian magnetic variability we have (as Dr. S would have it) another ‘bogus’ correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YGA1.gif
If the whole of geomagnetics is ‘bogus’, I wonder why the new, by some, highly acclaimed Sunspot numbers series (Clete & Svalgaard) has used geomagnetic signal as one of its metrics or proxy, if you wish.
Do you think that in winter will occur again lock the polar vortex over the Bay of Hudson?
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2eun310.jpg
Polar vortex locations (see Ren quoted illustration above) is determined by the Earth’s magnetic field shown here
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
It was the year 2009.
NASA: Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss in 2011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/arctic/20111002/pia14824-640.jpg
see also
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Willis
Here is a NASA paper you may wish to sink you teeth into: On the Relationship Between Global Land-Ocean Temperature and Various Descriptors of Solar-Geomagnetic Activity and Climate 2014 Wilson, Robert M., NASA
PDF
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it seduces necessity.
==========
lsvalgaard
August 14, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Glaciations are caused by the action of planets
August 14, 2015 at 11:47 p
“Because the observed periodicities of climate fit so well with the orbital periods, the orbital theory has overwhelming support.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovich.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Milankovich.pdf
______________________________________
Leif – you appear to be dodging the issue here. Willis has demonstrated that the Milankovitch cycle theory is not as secure nor as explanatory as you maintain, because the cycles do not match at all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/into-and-out-of-the-icebox
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/the-icebox-heats-up
I asked for an explanation as to how you can still support the Milankovitch cycle theory, in the light of Willis’ analysis. You have made many posts since that time, but have evaded the question. So I ask you again:
The Milankovitch cycle theory has been demonstrated to contain flaws. Do you disagree with Willis’ analysis or not? And if you cannot dispute that analysis, then why do you still claim that Milankovitch cycles explain the ice ages?
Many thanks,
Ralph
then why do you still claim that Milankovitch cycles explain the ice ages?
Because they still do. Some details are murky, but that is normal for complicated issues.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
>>Leif
>>Because they still do.
>>Some details are murky.
Very murky.
But you did not say that in your first assertion. You were giving the impression that the ‘science is settled’, when it is obviously not.
Willis Eschenbach has demonstrated that the variations in insolation due to the Milankovitch cycles do not match the ice-age temperature record.
And the periodicity of the isolation from Milankovitch cycles does not match the ice-age temperature periodicity.
So if Milankovitch cycles are effecting the ice-age temperature record (and I am easily persuaded that there might be a connection here), then the controlling factor is unlikely to be directly linked to variations in insolation. (Especially when the insolation swings merrily back and forth, while the temperature continues to steadily rise or fall, oblivious to the insolation level.) But if it is not insolation that governs ice-age climate — not in a direct fashion at any rate — then what is it?
And please don’t say “its the Milankovitch cycles”, when the mechanism by which those cycles act upon climate is not understood. The “science is obviously not settled”.
Thanks,
Ralph
Science is never ‘settled’, but the Milankovich cycles has so strong observational support that it must be considered the correct explanation as far as we know. The details will be worked out with time.
‘as far as we know’ will be worked out with time. Or not.
===============
This might also be of help to you:
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f11/lectures/week_11.pdf
Sorry, Leif, you are avoiding the question once again.
Like Willis, I see no connection between a seemingly random variable like the Milankovitch cycle, and the regular 100k year heartbeat of the ice-ace cycle. Please explain how the complexities and vagaries of the Milankovitch cycle can result in a steady heartbeat. I think we would all like to know.
And perhaps I should point out that your cutting and pasting random links on this topic, is a sure sign of capitulation. You don’t know the answer and yet you cannot admit you don’t know the answer. But that is not the scientific method.
We all acknowledge your undoubted knowledge and expertise. And so I think we would all appreciate it much more if you went away, thought about it, and came back with a considered opinion and explanation. There IS an answer out there, as to why the Earth has inherited a 100k year climatic heartbeat – but the Milankovitch cycle is NOT the full explanation or answer.
Thanks,
Ralph
Oh, and another thing.
If Milankovitch cycles are the explanation, why did the ice ages change from a 41k year cycle to a 100k year cycle, about a million years ago? The planets have been orbiting and the Earth has been precessing since time immemorial, and I have not seen any explanation as to why they would abruptly change from one periodicity to another.
Ergo, Milankovitch cycles are not the full explanation.
Ralph
They don’t have to be the ‘full’ explanation. They are the basic element of the explanation, with details still to be sorted out. From http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/MilanDefense_GRL.pdf
“The Milankovitch hypothesis is widely held to be one of the cornerstones of climate science. Surprisingly, the hypothesis remains not clearly defined despite an extensive body of research on the link between global ice volume and insolation changes arising from variations in the Earth’s orbit. In this paper, a specific hypothesis is formulated. Basic physical arguments are used to show that, rather than focusing on the absolute global ice volume, it is much more informative to consider the time rate of change of global ice volume. This simple, and dynamically-logical change in perspective is used to show that the available records support a direct, zero-lag, antiphased relationship between the rate of change of global ice volume and summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes. Furthermore, variations in atmospheric CO2 appear to lag the rate of change of global ice volume. This implies only a secondary role for CO2 — a
weaker radiative forcing on the ice sheets than summertime insolation — in driving changes in global ice volume.”
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E16.7.pdf
“At the beginning of the millennium, it seems that the Milankovitch mechanism, which predicts the onset of glaciations from the amount of July sunshine at 65° N latitude, is in good shape. While certain questions remain, the orbital ellipticity, obliquity, and precession clearly have influenced glaciation timing and severity”
“It is now generally agreed that the orbital effect is the primary cause of glacial-interglacial changes in an ice age climate because of development of recent evidence supporting the theory.”
ralfellis
August 16, 2015 at 5:24 am
The 41,000-year obliquity cycle (currently decreasing) is still there, but the 100,000-year eccentricity cycle now dominates in controlling glacial/interglacial phases.
The switch is not a problem for Milankovitch Cycles. It confirms them.
Well, that’s gotta be right; CO2 trails.
========
Mr. Ellis
Milankovic theory is one of cornerstones of science. Its initial interpretation is misplaced, small increment or reduction of insolation can not explain either onset even less rapid exit of the known ice ages.
Regularity of planetary cycles on which it is based is unquestionable, so why the ice ages do not follow the exact pattern?
All major long term climatic changes are consequence of the energy distribution carried by ocean currents. This is regulated by the movements and activity of the major tectonic plates, continuously reforming ocean floor topography. Plates float on viscous substrate and are under influence of long term gravitational force changes, while the short term back and forth changes (regular lunar effect) are simply ineffective due to the ‘low pass filter factor’.
North Atlantic – Arctic oceanic currents ‘gate’ known as Greenland-Scotland ridge has clear evidence of the tectonics signature on at least the last five or six ice ages.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IG.jpg
(black line shows our current position)
Sorry, Vuk, but are you saying that there is a 100k year cycle to ocean-floor spreading? Is there data on that? And even if there was, what could be the causal factor between ocean spreading and ice ages?
Ralph
Well, on that ridge lie corpses strewn.
==============
Earth’s magnetosphere is in the interaction with the solar wind.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/swx-overview-small.gif
“Solar activity can have various facets, and nobody promises us that long term variations in the solar wind will be the same as the long term variations in the sunspot number, so one is not necessarily lousier than the other, they just reflect different parts of the solar activity.”
nobody promises us that long term variations in the solar wind will be the same as the long term variations in the sunspot number,
I promise you that, and have shown it too. So, there goes Shaviv’s argument.