Guest essay by David Archibald
In the time before the current period of faith-based science, much good work was done on the role of the Sun in controlling climate. One of the best monographs from that time of innocence is Hoyt and Schatten’s The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, published by Oxford University Press in 1997. That book starts with this paragraph:
About 400 years before the birth of Christ, near Mt. Lyscabettus in ancient Greece, the pale orb of the sun rose through the mists. According to habit, Meton recorded the sun’s location on the horizon. In this era when much remained to be discovered, Meton hoped to find predictable changes in the locations of sunrise and moonrise. Although rainy weather had limited his recent observations, this foggy morning he discerned specks on the face of the sun, the culmination of many such blemishes in recent years. On a hunch, Meton began examining his more than 20 years of solar records. These seemed to confirm his belief: when the sun has spots, the weather tends to be wetter and rainier.
So the idea that sunspots and the solar cycle control climate is at least 2,400 years old. In the modern era, the appreciation of sunspots started again in 1610 with telescopic observations by Galileo, Thomas Harriot and others. The solar cycle was discovered by Samual Schwabe in 1843 after 17 years of observations, though William Herschel’s correlation of sunspots and the wheat price in England dates from 1801. A 2003 paper by Pustilnik and Din entitled Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England confirmed Herschel’s observation.
The idea that the Sun controls climate is easy enough to understand. In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.
We know what causes individual sunspots – something to do with magnetic flux tubes rising to the solar surface due to bouyancy. But the cause of the solar cycle itself had remained a mystery until the recent publication of the second edition of Evidence-Based Climate Science, edited by the indefatigable Don Easterbrook. The first edition, published in 2011, contained a paper by Ed Fix, retired B-52 pilot from Ohio, entitled The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation, which demonstrated the modulation of the solar cycle by the gas planets. The second edition expands on that with a co-authored paper (Ed and myself) entitled Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response which details the relative contribution of those planets.
It has long been suspected that the solar cycle is largely influenced by Jupiter due to the closeness of the average length of the solar cycle of 11 years and the orbital period of Jupiter of 11.86 years. In 1984, Schwentek and Elling noted that “the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).” Just over a decade later, Attila Grandpierre confirmed that whatever was causing the solar cycle must be extrinsic to the Sun – which leaves the planets as the causative agent.
Ed Fix’s 2011 paper was important because it provided a physical explanation for solar cycle behaviour. Many of the then observation-derived rules for explaining the fundamental properties of the sunspot cycle had not been quantified until that paper. To a large extent, existing solar science is based on non-mathematical observation, evidenced by Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s various predictions of solar cycle amplitude. The 2011 paper’s treatment of the sunspot cycle as an ideal spring driven by changes in radial acceleration provided a new paradigm. At the same time, this new model is consistent with the solar dynamo theory.
Ed Fix’s model explains why, for extended periods, successive increases in solar cycle amplitude are seen before the system gets out of phase and phase destruction occurs. Individual Hale cycles are not discrete magnetic events. The quantum of flux preserved in the system is the basis for the amplitude of the following cycle. Thus the sunspot cycle memory effect is explained.
The model also explains the Waldemeir effect – that strong cycles reach a maximum of amplitude in the shortest period of time. It also explains the amplitude-period effect (the anti-correlation between the peak amplitude of a cycle and the length of the preceding cycle) and the amplitude-minimum effect (the correlation between cycle amplitude and the activity level at the previous minimum). Ed Fix’s model hindcasts almost perfectly and that very close match, despite the model’s simplicity, suggests that a lot of confidence could be placed in what it is predicting.
Some have doubted the planetary basis of the solar cycle due to the weak effects of the individual planets on the Sun. That is certainly borne out by the work done for the 2016 paper. Figure 1, from that paper, shows that by itself Jupiter has little effect on solar variability:
Figure 1: Simulation model with Jupiter only compared to the full model
Similarly, Figure 2 running the model with only Saturn shows a similarly low amplitude response though with Saturn’s 29 year orbital period instead of Jupiter’s 12 years:
Figure 2: Simulation model with Saturn only compared to the full model
So, if Jupiter and Saturn have little effect on the Sun by themselves, as predicted by many, what does cause the solar cycle? This is the mystery that has not been explained until now.
It turns out that the interaction of Jupiter and Saturn causes most of the solar cycle. The effect on the Sun of these two planets is synergistic rather than additive as shown by Figure 3. It has been said that mathematics is the language of physics. What has been elucidated by this paper is the mathematical basis of the solar cycle.
Figure 3: Simulation model with Jupiter and Saturn compared to the full model
The red line shows the full model which includes Uranus and Neptune as well as Jupiter and Saturn. The difference between the red and blue lines is the effect of Uranus and Neptune. This can be additive or subtractive. In Solar Cycles 18 and 22, Uranus and Neptune increased the amplitude of the solar cycles relative to the model output of Jupiter and Saturn alone. In Solar Cycles 20 and 24, Uranus and Neptune had the effect of reducing the size of those solar cycles. Thus the cold period of the 1970s cooling period associated with Solar Cycle 20 may have been due to the influence of Uranus and Neptune.
Where to from here? Well, there is another big mystery remaining about the Sun. The hemispheres have different activities that are preserved on a multi-cycle basis. That is shown in the following figure:
Figure 4: Sunspot area by solar hemisphere
For the last three cycle, the southern hemisphere has had more sunspot area than the northern hemisphere. Its peak has also been later than that of the northern hemisphere. What could be causing that? It is likely to be the inclination of the orbits of the gas giant planets to the Sun’s equator. Those inclination are:
Jupiter 6.09%
Saturn 5.51%
Uranus 6.48%
Neptune 6.43%
It seems that the next step will be to make a 3D version of Ed Fix’s model.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David, I don’t get it, perhaps because there is no link I can find to the “2016 paper” mentioned in the head post. You say:
Which paper is this referring to?
Next, I don’t understand the red line of the “full model” in your graph.
It does NOT line up with the sunspots. It does NOT have either an 11-year or a 22-year period. I don’t get it. What is it supposed to have to do with the sun?
w.
Who the is Moderating this conversation, Willis?
Sparks, moderation is done by a revolving crew of volunteers around the planet, a crew which most emphatically does NOT include me. I am a guest author, and I have neither the time nor the personality to be a good moderator.
And since we are discussing moderation, let me take this time to thank all of the moderators present and past who have helped make WUWT the success that it is. My hat is off to you. You provide order 24/7 in what can be a most fractious place.
Well done all!
w.
It is explained in this paragraph:
“It has long been suspected that the solar cycle is largely influenced by Jupiter due to the closeness of the average length of the solar cycle of 11 years and the orbital period of Jupiter of 11.86 years. In 1984, Schwentek and Elling noted that “the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).” Just over a decade later, Attila Grandpierre confirmed that whatever was causing the solar cycle must be extrinsic to the Sun – which leaves the planets as the causative agent.”
The fudge factor of ‘times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545)’ sounds like an invocation.
“…. configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545)”
And why on earth would you multiply a period by a distance ratio ?
Numerology.
Greg, I asked a similar question up thread and got no answer. Good luck.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Tom in Florida October 13, 2016 at 7:24 am
““the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).”
Please explain the significance of using these numbers. And what is the 10.8 year solar cycle? There are actually no cycles of 10.8 years length. Perhaps it is all just self justifying numerology.
———————————————————————————————————————————
The paper would be more convincing if they used the ACTUAL sunspot solar cycle but it does not appear to do so. Just some smoothed “somethings”.
From W’s analysis earlier on WUWT “when a signal is so “completely diluted and hidden by noise” that it is lost in the weeds ” Could have also been describing WMAP CBR signal there 🙂
CBR is the physicists equivalent of seeing faces in clouds.
Exactly Greg, it’s a result of algorithms with ever changing coefficients. No map can ever be recreated, and they call it “science”.
More sensitive Planck telescope confirmed observations by WMAP:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos–plus-axis-of-evil
I know everything, there is no escaping my stupidity.
Scratched my bum
Take me of Moderation Willis, stop being a dick!
You’re not getting anything from me as long as I’m Moderated…
Free Speech, MY BALLS…
Moderate this Willis,
I (HEART) being Moderated!
Day 69, been Moderated for so long, sometimes this empty abyss has no meaning, the only item I have left is a small locket, but the locket isn’t important, it’s the beautiful picture of my Captain Caveman. I find funny.
Moderate me I’ll Moderate you!
Moderate all the bad guy’s like me, and be a hero…
CO2 dunn it
Crap, still Moderatedtiano
While I’m Moderated, I may as well discuss anything…
Take me off Moderation
I’m putting you into “moderation” 🙂
..No wonder you are on moderation…! ( P.S. 69 days ain’t nothing compared to me !! )
Sparks, given that we have volunteer moderators, combined with the need to provide moderation 24/7, this means that sometimes there is a delay of an hour or two between someone posting a comment and it being published. Not much Anthony can do about it, it’s the nature of the beast.
However, I see that in this case you are assuming that the planet rotates around your fundamental orifice and that the delay is personally aimed at your corpus delecti … sorry, amigo, but sometimes it actually isn’t all about you …
w.
“Every Picture Tells A Story” don’t it?
http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/sun-etc.jpg
http://www.mrscott.org/uploads/8/4/4/3/8443919/278584.png
http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/antares-etc.jpg
Nice. That really puts it in perspective, Carla.
When (and only when) I can walk out of my house (in the UK) on a July day with clear blue sky and the sun at its highest and not feel any heat on my body, only then will I question whether the sun has any effect on Earth’s climate (mainly the temperature part).
And if you were on the moon without that blue sky (all around you), what would you question?
Nothing!
Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade) October 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
Luc, the question is not now and has never been “whether the sun has any effect on Earth’s climate”. Everyone agrees that it does have such an effect.
The question is whether the small ~11-year variations in the sun produce any detectable effect on the surface climate. To date, no one has shown any conclusive evidence of such an effect, which is why the debate continues to rage.
w.
Hi Willis 🙂 Yes, all the arguments/discussions regarding various ‘effects’ on the climate by many and varied factors will, I feel certain, ensure that they go on into the future. “Settled science” it certainly ain’t!
Nonetheless, I always find it deeply compelling and try to follow all the various arguments for and against (which is why I spend many hours here every day) trying to soak up information in my diminishing grey cells.
But I have observed that there seem to be two schools of thought on the subject of the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate. Probably, as you said, it is down, mostly, to how much of an effect (which is comparable to the effect of CO2 on climate, in some camps). I was simply voicing my own, observed, effect – thereby giving away my personal notion that it has far more effect than some (many?) people give credence to, irrespective of what the mathematical equations, physics laws and ‘energy balances’ may say.
Hope all is well with you and your beautiful ex-fiancee and look forward to reports of your next adventure.
More settled science. A group of astronomers have decided that there are 20 time more galaxies in the universe than we previously thought. This is very convenient because the current theory of the expansion of the universe show that there would need to be about 20 time more energy and mass in the universe than can be derived from observations.
This was regarded as huge problem by cosmologists and physicists …. until today.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/13/hubble-telescope-universe-galaxies-astronomy
Now they have a model to “correct” observations to fit their theory. Sound familiar?
“The question is whether the small ~11-year variations in the sun produce any detectable effect on the surface climate. To date, no one has shown any conclusive evidence of such an effect, which is why the debate continues to rage.”
Small variations my foot, the solar wind varies hugely. You’ve been shown stuff in your own work that you still apparently cannot see, like solar minima and the coldest periods on CET. Whatever solar linkage that you are given, you won’t see it Willis, it’s as simple as that.
Willis, I asked a further question, but it’s down below instead of being in reply to yours!
It’s not just the ~11 or 22-year cycle, but the longer solar variations which affect the climate of Earth and other planets in the system.
It’s the water in the air and in our skin that makes us feel that,
Willis, just a point to clear up, if you would please
So, do I take it from that that the sun does have a recognised, huge, effect on Earth’s climate, but the argument is over the ‘anomaly’ in fluctuations from a norm, produced during its 11-year cycle? I hope I made what I meant, clear.
Exactly, Luc. Everyone knows that the sun affects the climate. The question is, are the tiny 11-year sunspot-related variations big enough to cause a detectable signal in some surface climate dataset?
To date the answer seems to be no, and it’s not for lack of looking …
w.
But, whether the 11 year variation has a discernible impact or not does not settle the question of the long term impact.
It is rather obvious that the Earth has some very long term response mechanisms. These would attenuate forcings with short periods, yet respond to forcings with longer periods.
It is definitely from lack of looking. You simply ignore the hundreds if not thousands of papers showing this connection at high statistical confidence levels.
Or forget about those you have seen but haven’t been able to attack effectively. For instance, you merely dismissed out of hand Reddy’s (1984) discovery of a 52-year cycle in rainfall data for Brazil, without doing any statistical analysis:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/10/noise-assisted-data-analysis/#comment-2093625
Bartemis October 14, 2016 at 12:11 pm
It is rather obvious that the earth responds to both daily and monthly variations in the solar input … so why would an 11-year variation be attenuated?
w.
Chimp October 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm
Oh, please, stop the handwaving and the over-the-top claims. If there were even one study showing an 11-year cycle in some surface dataset at “high statistical confidence levels”, the debate would be over … but the debate rages on.
Me, I’ve analyzed dozens of datasets that people thought were statistically significant, and I’ve found the usual kinds of errors—no Bonferroni correction, no correction for autocorrelation, no allowance for the fact that the sunspot signal is highly cyclical, inappropriate use of boxcar filters, the standard stuff. What I haven’t found is one solid connection between the 11-year variations and the surface weather. Not saying there isn’t such a connection, mind you … just saying that so far, I haven’t seen it.
In response I get my name trashed by people who can’t spell Bonferroni but who love to believe anything that supports their solar preconceptions.
A “52-year cycle”??? What on earth would that have to do with the sun? I’ve never even heard of a 52-year solar cycle.
And no, I did not “dismiss out of hand” the claim. In fact, whoever made the claim didn’t even provide a link to the data. I did find some data which may or may not have been the correct data. Here is my response:
Note that far from dismissing the study as you claim, I went the extra mile. I researched and found the dang data and I analyzed it. I found nothing like a 52-year cycle in my analysis. If you think such a cycle is actually there, then stop waving your hands and making empty claims, and ANALYZE THE DATA I JUST LINKED TO AND SHOW US THE !@ur momisugly#$%^&* 52-YEAR CYCLE YOU THINK IS SO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
Alternatively, you are welcome to provide me with two links—one link to the best solar study you know of, the study that you think has “high statistical confidence levels”, and the other link to the data used in the study. If you provide the two links, I’ll take a look at the study and give you an analysis of whether their analysis is solid, or whether, like so many others, they can’t spell “Bonferroni” either …
w.
PS—Before you repeat your ludicrous claim that I’m not looking, consider my previous work:
Not looking? Osculate my fundament.
Willis Eschenbach October 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm
“It is rather obvious that the earth responds to both daily and monthly variations in the solar input … so why would an 11-year variation be attenuated?”
How is that obvious? We’re talking global here, not just your local patch of ground.
Can’t say I see much of a daily or monthly signal here. There is a fairly strong 4-5 year signal. I suspect that is a modulation of the 11 year solar cycle.
And, FWIW, this is what I think is providing the modulation. I originally posted this on these pages, and HS graciously recorded it for posterity.
Willis,
The few studies you have deigned to look at are a tiny fraction of all. When presented with many papers, you always say, “Just give me one”.
You may have conducted your own “analysis” of the Fortaleza data, but you didn’t show it. You just asserted that there was no such signal. What, as usual, you failed to do was read the original paper. Whether it was linked or not, Dr. Reddy’s 1984 paper should have been easy to find. Why should anyone take your word that there isn’t such a cycle?
Instead of asserting your view ex cathedra, like the Pope, how about looking at Reddy’s actual analysis of the Fortaleza rainfall data? If you can’t find the paper, it’s in his book, “Climate Change: Myths and Realities”, available from Google Books:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=y_GMTXRtxJ8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Dr.+S.+Jeevananda+Reddy+Fortaleza&ots=M3rwhhAqkL&sig=Vo3BRbuaIprozBFiylTZ6b6oVfM#v=onepage&q=Fortaleza&f=false
Chimp October 15, 2016 at 12:18 pm Edit
Chimp, I don’t say “Just give me one”. I say “Give me a link to the one that YOU think is best, along with a link to its data”. I note that rather than actually responding with two links, instead you want to abuse me and my work. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt—put up or shut up. If you have such a pair of links, then post them. If you don’t, don’t whine about my request. It is the only way I know of to winnow through the tons of solar bumph that I could not read in two lifetimes, as well as the only way I know of to convince honest doubters.
See, if I falsify some random solar paper, you’ll just go on believing, because I haven’t falsified the paper you depend on, the strong paper, the paper that made up your mind. Since that one remains unfalsified, you don’t care if I falsify some paper you’ve may never have heard of.
But if you are willing to actually take the time to determine which study you think is the best, and I am able to falsify it, you might have to re-examine your own beliefs.
Which is why most folks, including you (to date), are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is and identify what they think is the most solid study … they know they might not like the results of the analysis …
Hey, it was a comment in a thread, not a formal post, so sue me. I provided the Fortaleza data so that YOU or anyone else who did not believe me could show us that there was such a signal. I welcome your analysis.
Nobody should take my word on anything … or anyone’s word. Nullius in verba.
Regarding whether the paper is “easy to find”, not my problem. I used to go hunting for such things. I no longer do. It is a fruitless exercise. If you wish me to analyze it, provide the two links and I’m happy to do so.
Thanks for finally providing a link, much appreciated.
Reddy says he uses an “auto-regressive analysis” to determine the existence of the 52, 26, 13, and 6.5 year cycles. My first problem with that result is that despite being published in 2008, the Fortaleza data used in the study ends in 1981. This means that Dr. Reddy is diagnosing a purported wave with a 52 year period, in only 133 years of data, less than three full cycles … and in natural datasets, that’s a guarantee you’ll get fooled fooled.
The problem is that these kinds of transient waves appear, last for a few cycles, and disappear again. My rule of thumb? I like to see four full cycles of some wave before I believe it … and even then I’ve been fooled. For example, sunspots lined up with sea levels for about five full sunspot cycles, sixty years or so … but both before and after that interval the cycles fall totally out of sync.
So I’d throw out the 52-year claim from the start. However, it is useful in seeing what they think is happening. What Dr. Reddy has done is to do a Fourier analysis and report the findings as if they were the actual frequencies. That is why each of them is half the period of the previous one (52, 26, 13, and 6.5 years).
The reality is more complex. Periodograms show that a 26-year cycle exists in the first half of the full dataset, but not in the last half of the full dataset. This is exactly the problem I referred to above, that of the disappearing cycles.
And using their shorter dataset, a 12-year cycle exists in the first half, and a 14-year cycle in the second half. Finally a 6.5-year cycle doesn’t show up in either half of the dataset.
So … is there a 52-year cycle? We can’t tell, not enough data. Is there a 26-year cycle? Yes, but only in half of the data. Is there a 13-year cycle? No, there’s 12 in one half and 14 in the other half. And there’s absolutely no sign of a 6.5-year cycle.
My original question still prevails over all of these detailed issues—what do periods of 52, 26, 13, and 6.5 years have to do with the sun even if they did exist and persist in the rainfall data? I know of no solar dataset that shows those periodicities.
w.
Willis, based on your “extensive” (LMAO) publication of papers in reputable scientific journals., I’ll say you have never falsified anything. Remember, what you put in a blog doesn’t count.
Willis Eschenbach October 15, 2016 at 6:26 pm
“My original question still prevails over all of these detailed issues—what do periods of 52, 26, 13, and 6.5 years have to do with the sun even if they did exist and persist in the rainfall data? I know of no solar dataset that shows those periodicities.”
Modulation. Modulation occurs when you have a periodic input and a system that responds with its own natural periodic mechanisms.
Put a pot of water on the stove and alternatingly turn the heat up and down while sloshing the water at its natural frequency, continuing until a steady state is realized. The temperature will vary not at the slosh frequency, not at the burner frequency, but at the modulated frequency of the two.
Please do not pick nits per the above. Of course, you will get different results depending on how vigorously you slosh the water, how hot the burner is, and how close the frequencies are. But, there is a range of the input variables in which you will get just what I said.
The solar wind is another variable to consider. In 2008 it was reported to be 25% lower in strength than the previous solar minimum.
http://sci.esa.int/ulysses/43461-polar-plots-of-the-solar-wind-speed/
Forget mankind’s teeny tiny contribution of CO2…them damnable termites eating our fragile rainforests dwarf the amount of anthropegenic CO2 each day!
Furthemore, almost all the pest control companies are aware that termites, of and by themselves, produce more CO2 than mankind does.
So please sign my petition Grif. I am sending it to all caring and all knowing State Attorney Generals who truly care about climate change.
#TerminexKnew!
Save the planet! Make a difference Griff! Save the rainforests!
Send me $20 bucks and I will give you a nice climate!
Tom Rowan October 14, 2016 at 3:49 am
Close, but not quite right. There’s a good analysis of termite outgassing here. Inter alia it says:
So that’s about 3.5 Gtonnes of CO2 per year, which can be compared to human CO2 emissions of about 33 Gtonnes of CO2/year … which means that humans put out about an order of magnitude more CO2 annually than do termites.
w.
The next sentence of the abstract says 4% and 2% respectively.
The key to this is where the termites’ outgassing comes from. It comes from vegetation, which got the carbon from the atmosphere. It is a cycle. CO2 from termites does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere averaged over a few years because all the added CO2 came from the atmosphere. The CO2 from fossil fuels does not come form the atmosphere so it does add to the amount in the atmosphere averaged over a few million years . It is really very simple.
Tallbloke has been discussing this for a number of years, if I recall. I’m glad that this concept is being discussed more widely.
+1
ulric lyons October 14, 2016 at 4:06 am
So show us the EVIDENCE regarding the relationship between variations in the solar wind and some surface climate variable, Ulric. You can wave your hands all you want and make all the fantastic claims your heart desires … but when I ask for two links, one to the study and one to the data, you go strangely silent …
w.
The literature on this topic is vast. Suggest you read Easterbrook’s “Evidence-based Climate Science” (2011).
Here’s Boberg and Lundstedt’s 2002 paper on “Solar Wind Variations Related to Fluctuations of the North Atlantic Oscillation”, one of many cited in the book:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/full
“A study on a possible solar wind interaction with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is performed. Results are presented suggesting a relationship between the NAO index and the electric field strength E of the solar wind. A possible scenario for the suggested interaction is that an electromagnetic disturbance is generated by the solar wind in the global electric circuit of the ionosphere. This disturbance is then dynamically propagating downward through the atmosphere and subsequently influencing the large-scale pressure system in the North Atlantic region. A relationship is also evident on longer time-scales when using the group sunspot number as a proxy for the solar wind.”
Group SSN counting has of course been conveniently adjusted recently, so dunno if the relationship still holds.
Suggest you take anything Easterbrook writes with a pinch of salt. Don Easterbrook did a WUWT blog post some time ago which included a global temperature graph + projection. Easterbrook appeared to have grafted the lower anomalies of the satellite record (relative to 1981-2010) on to the surface temperature record (relative to 1951-80) in order to make his future projection look realistic.
He was widely criticised by all – even avowed sceptics such as Bob Tisdale.
His book is filled with references to papers finding solar effects on climatic phenomena.
I cited it because it is one source of such studies, of which Willis has never done a systematic survey, as would be required in a traditional scientific paper.
ulric lyons October 14, 2016 at 4:06 am
Thanks, Ulric. I just took another look at that question, to see if I’d missed something the last time you made that claim. I found that just as I had remembered, the correlation between monthly sunspots and the monthly CET is horrendously bad. A cross-correlation analysis shows that the max correlation is a pathetic 0.03, with a laughable p-value of 0.33, and no increase in correlation at any lag … so instead of reporting that news, you squint at the two graphs from from across the room and point out that the two of them kind of line up here and there …
So no, Ulric, I haven’t been “shown stuff”. Instead, you have “claimed stuff”, a very different thing.
If you wish to actually SHOW something about “solar minima and the coldest periods on CET”, there’s this marvelous invention called “mathematics” that you can use to demonstrate the truth or falsity of your claims. Pay particular attention to the part of the so-called “mathematics” that’s named “statistics”, especially the subsection about “statistics of non-normal datasets” …
I do encourage you in all seriousness to come back with your statistical analysis of the solar data, I’d love to see it. Don’t forget to provide two links, one to your analysis and one to the data as used in the analysis, because no investigation of a given analysis can be done without both the analysis itself AND the data as used.
w.
“If you wish to actually SHOW something about “solar minima and the coldest periods on CET””
For the umpteenth time it’s on your own post, the three coldest periods through CET are all during solar minima. Over and out.
ulric lyons October 14, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Sorry, Ulric, but that is totally unclear. You can repeat mud umpteen times and it is still mud.
To start with, I don’t know which three solar minima you’re talking about—Maunder, Dalton, and ??.
Next, I don’t know what you consider the start and end dates for the three solar minima … and without knowing that, how can I compare them to the CET?
In short, your umpteen-times repeated claim is far too poorly posed to be even testable.
Post those dates up of your claimed “solar minima”, and I’m happy to take a look and see if your “three minima” hypothesis is correct.
w.
“Sorry, Ulric, but that is totally unclear.”
No it is extremely simple and very transparent, the three coldest periods on CET, according to the graph on your own post, which I have quoted back to you too many times on too many posts, are all during solar minima.
“To start with, I don’t know which three solar minima you’re talking about—Maunder, Dalton, and ??.”
We have been through that. Refer back to your own post where attempted to make me look a fool for using a name for it that you were unfamiliar with. And of course never apologised.
“Next, I don’t know what you consider the start and end dates for the three solar minima … and without knowing that, how can I compare them to the CET?”
Not that escape routine again Willis, it’s getting very very boring. Just look at the damn graph and admit that the three coldest periods are all patently during solar minima. It’s that simple.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 1:03 am
My goodness, I ask for six simple numbers, the start and end years of your three claimed solar minima, and I get this attack and evasion in return? Really?
Are you truly that incapable of answering a grade-school level question? Give me the six simple numbers detailing your claims and I’m happy to look at the question … but if you can’t be bothered to provide details on your own claims, then I fear that’s on you.
However, it does make me wonder why you don’t want your claim looked into, so much so that you are unwilling to put actual numbers on it …
w.
“Are you truly that incapable of answering a grade-school level question?”
You don’t seem to be, you don’t need the start and end dates. The three coldest periods on CET are all during solar minima, and you cannot disprove that.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 1:57 am
You are right, I cannot disprove your claim, for a simple reason—unless you specify the start and end dates of the minima, there is NOTHING TO DISPROVE. Your claim as it stands is so poorly formed that (as you point out) it is not falsifiable, because nobody knows the time periods you are talking about.
Ulric, it’s as though I were to say “Last summer was warm”. Is that statement falsifiable? No, because “warm” is undefined. No matter what the temperature was, I could claim it was “warm”. In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it generally needs NUMBERS of some kind. If I say “Last summer the July average mean temperature was above 67°F” that is falsifiable, because it contains numbers that allow us to determine if it is true.
It astounds me that you are still unwilling to put numbers on your claim … what are you hiding? Why is it so important to you not to reveal the dates of the three “solar minima” you are discussing? Why are you so unwilling to provide links to your claimed previous expositions? This consistent pattern of evasion is not helping your reputation …
w.
“This consistent pattern of evasion is not helping your reputation …”
?w=840
That is exactly what you are doing by not simply admitting that the three coldest periods through CET, according to the graph on your own post, “are all during solar minima”. Period. Are I don’t believe for a moment that you had forgotten that I had referred to the late 1800’s solar minimum as the Gleissberg Solar Minimum.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 2:43 am
Ulric I’m not sure what you’re seeing in the CET graph. Between ~1750 and ~1920 CET temperatures are pretty much flat – with cyclic fluctuations which are probably related to the AMO. It could be argued that CO2 increases were a contributory factor to the post-1920 trend.
Whatever it’s not obvious to me that the Dalton minimum or the “1800’s solar minimum” had any appreciable effect on Central England temperatures.
In the forty years (1751-1790) before the Dalton Minimum there were a number of very active solar cycles yet the mean CET temperature for that period (9.04 deg C) was virtually the same as for the 1791-1830 Dalton period (9.08 deg C). Where’s the cooling?
The mean temperature for the 40 years following the Dalton minimum (1831-1870) was 9.19 deg C and for the 1871-1910 period it was 9.06 deg C. I think we can safely assume there is not a statistically significant difference between the mean temperatures of any of the 4 x 40 year periods.
There does appear to an anomalous dip in temperature in the Dalton period around 1815 (Tambora??) and another one in around 1880-ish (Krakatoa??). I’m not going to speculate on whether these massive 19th century eruptions would have had a measurable impact on CE temperatures but I’m pretty sure solar activity didn’t.
One of the more interesting things about temperature and time periods, which is on going even in today’s temperature and co2 record, is smoothed, averaged and the actual. On the one hand if you look at the yearly temperature for those minimums the temperature did drop. If you average them over the time period in question, and depending on where you start and end, you can’t show much of a decline or as temperature recovered. It’s deceptive.
It’s a trick.
Similarly, the current co2 record that shows the total co2 per year and equating it with rises in temperature is also a trick. If they showed a graph with the yearly co2 increases ppm with the yearly fluctions of temperature, then it is obvious that co2 follows temperature.
They’ve used this with the solar and temperature record as well. The debate takes on a different spin when looking at it like this. The discussion is endless unless we agree on what we are talking about. Without out a doubt, there were some very cold years, and equally there were some years when the sun was quite during this time period.
Which also leads to some disparity between the co2 record and temperature. If I believe the current relationship between co2 ppm/yr and temperature ( co2 follows temperature which the record shows for the last 60 years) , then I have to believe that co2 levels declined as well, which the record doesn’t show either in total or ppm/yr. I don’t believe I have a full and accurate recoding of co2 levels
It depends on how you play with numbers.
John Finn, the AMO was warm during the late 1880’s solar minimum, simply because negative NAO increases through the colder parts of solar minima. If you cannot see that the three coldest periods are all during solar minima, then you must be blind as a bat too.
rishrac October 15, 2016 at 5:50 am
I’ve looked at ALL the yearly temperatures for “those minumums” and it didn’t drop
What are you on about? What’s a trick? Do you mean the “trick” of using all the temperatures for the period in question rather than simply cherry picking a few cold years.
There in no evidence that the Dalton solar minimum had any effect on Central England temperatures.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 7:46 am
blockquote> John Finn, the AMO was warm during the late 1880’s solar minimum, simply because negative NAO increases through the colder parts of solar minima. If you cannot see that the three coldest periods are all during solar minima, then you must be blind as a bat too. /blockquote>
Ulric – I’ve used the actual numbers in the CET. I’ve calculated the mean temperature for each of 4 successive 40 year periods including the Dalton minimum (1790-1830). There is NO significant – or any – difference between the mean temperatures of any of the 4 periods.
Were there some years with low temperatures during the Dalton (or other “grand” minima) ? Possibly — but the fact the temperatures must have recovered DURING the minimum suggests it wasn’t the low solar activity that caused the dip.
You can argue that the Maunder minimum might have been cooler but the earlier CET readings are definitely suspect.
John,
I don’t think anyone would d@ny that the Maunder was remarkably cold. The thermometer readings from the 17th century in the CET aren’t really any worse than from the 18th century. The less reliable part of the CET is its reconstruction back in time from its mid-17th century instrumental origin.
I suppose that Ulric’s third period of correlation between solar activity and low temperature would be during the Spörer Minimum from about 1460 to 1550. He can correct me if wrong. That interval however would require using reconstructed temperature estimates. Within those ninety years, both temperature and solar activity fluctuated quite a bit.
I’m also not sure that your 40 year averages are ideal for comparative purposes. The basic climatic cycle is alternating cool and warm phases, each of 20-30 years or so. The Maunder cold however lasted around 70 years (often shown 1645-1715), although its trough was c. 1680 to 1710. The Dalton lasted from c. 1790 to 1820.
Other factors contribute to the multidecadal fluctuations besides solar activity, of course.
I haven’t seen the reconstructed and observed (heavily adjusted) CET overlain with this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
John Finn, even if it takes you ten years, keep looking at that graph and get back to me when you have found the three coldest periods.
“So show us the EVIDENCE regarding the relationship between variations in the solar wind and some surface climate variable,”
To have you ignore the same thing yet again after failing to bash any holes in it, why should I bother.
ulric lyons October 14, 2016 at 3:01 pm
Why should you bother to write up and cite your ideas? Because as far as I know, you’ve never presented your solar wind analysis OR your data as used, yet you expect us to believe it based on your word alone …
Or if you have presented it, then what is so hard about giving us a link to your analysis and another link to the data as used, instead of just giving us more excuses for not presenting your claimed evidence?
w.
“Because as far as I know, you’ve never presented your solar wind analysis OR your data as used, yet you expect us to believe it based on your word alone … ”
I have recently presented you evidence of the relationship between variations in the solar wind and a major surface climate variable. So I know for sure that I cannot trust your word.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 1:08 am
Dear heavens, how charming a fellow you are … you’ve quoted only the first part of what I said, and you’ve ignored the immediately following part where I said:
So, since apparently you have presented it, how about you give us the link to your undoubtedly trenchant analysis, and another link to the data, as I requested? Because I’m not going to try to guess where you posted something that I may indeed have read but I certainly don’t remember.
And why is it so hard to get you to post a dang link? It’s as though you want to claim that you have a winning poker hand, but you’re totally unwilling to show it … why might that be?
w.
PS—You can stuff your allegations about trusting my word up your fundamental orifice. My word is good.
On the other hand, my memory of what went on in a particular online interaction at some unknown time in some unknown post among the hundreds of interactions that I have each week and the thousands I have each year is far from 100%.
This is exactly why I said I did not remember you presenting evidence, and I invited you to link to it if you had actually done so—I sometimes don’t remember the details of claims, particularly those from folks like you that give me doubletalk instead of links, and I didn’t want some scumball claiming that I was lying simply because I didn’t remember something. So I didn’t say you hadn’t posted it. Instead I told the truth, that I didn’t remember you posting it, and I asked for links to the analysis and the data if you had posted it.
Despite my unsuccessful attempt to head off your unwarranted nastiness at the pass, however, instead of you simply providing a couple of links, I got ugly untrue accusations from you about my honesty … and no links … does make me wonder what you are hiding.
MODERATOR
Is this not a breach of blog rules from Willis?
“PS—You can stuff your allegations about trusting my word up your fundamental orifice.”
Well, it’s on the line, there’s no curse words in it, and in my opinion Willis is right, you haven’t really presented anything of substance.
Try posting a link to your analysis as he suggests.
“Despite my unsuccessful attempt to head off your unwarranted nastiness at the pass”
You are lost in your own emotional projections, the unwarranted nastiness is clearly coming from you.
Anthony Watts said:
“and in my opinion Willis is right, you haven’t really presented anything of substance.”
I said above why I wouldn’t post it here for him again, he will just ignore it again as he has done previously, just like with the cold periods on CET issue where he refuses to admit that the three coldest periods are all during minima. And this from him: “To start with, I don’t know which three solar minima you’re talking about—Maunder, Dalton, and ??.”, is just a petty duplicity power game, he knows exactly which is the third minimum. I gather you are then fine about him implying that I am a scumball ?
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 2:28 am
Ulric, you called me a liar, saying that you cannot “trust my word” … and you expect me to blow in your ear and tickle your tummy in response? Here’s a protip about the real world:
WHEN YOU CALL AN HONEST MAN A LIAR, EXPECT SOME BLOWBACK!!
I did my best to keep my response civil, to the point, and literarily humorous … I think I succeeded, although obviously YMMV …
w.
“I did my best to keep my response civil”
You do flatter yourself don’t you, it was patently uncivil.
ulric lyons October 15, 2016 at 7:40 am
I do not know the start and end dates of what you are calling the “third minimum”. It is not a recognized or named minimum, it’s something you made up. So no, Ulric, NOBODY knows exactly what you are calling the “third minimum” but YOU … and for unknown reasons, you refuse to reveal the secret.
Regarding me implying that you are a scumball, you called me a liar after I very clearly said I didn’t remember something … so no, I absolutely do not “imply that you are a scumball”.
I state it outright, along with the reason. Only a scumball would accuse a man of lying simply because that man doesn’t remember some trivial incident. Perhaps your friends put up with that kind of underhanded claim without comment.
I do not.
w.
“It is not a recognized or named minimum”
Nonsense, I gave you the link confirming its name on your Maunder-Dalton post where that graph came from.
“Only a scumball would accuse a man of lying”
I didn’t call you a liar, I said that I cannot trust your word. I know the difference, you don’t seem to. You’ve actually lied that I had called you a liar, that makes you the scumball.
“it’s something you made up”
In fact you are making it up that I had made it up. Spreading bullshit,
Chimp October 14, 2016 at 11:49 am
Thanks for that, Chimp, but I’m not going on a data search for any man … or any simian, for that matter. I’ll repeat what I said in capital letters since it appears you are hard of reading:
Until then, you’re just repeating the mistakes of others. Why are so many people on this site highly (and properly) skeptical of alarmist science, but swallow even the most bogus solar claims uncritically and without the slightest attempt to verify them?
And let me add that Don Easterbrook is among the people who is far too credulous of such solar claims.
You (and Don, sadly) both seem to be unclear on a simple concept—the fact that a study has been peer reviewed and published DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS OTHER THAN GARBAGE. To determine its true value, you need to analyze it yourself. And if you are not competent to do so … then you are not competent to cite the study without adding a host of disclaimers saying that you don’t know if the study is valid or not, but you believe it anyhow because it fits your preconceptions …
So please, Chimp, turn up the sensitivity on your skeptic-ometer … you need to start doubting solar studies and not just uncritically swallowing them whole.
w.
David Archibaldl,
Thanks for posting a link to Ed Fix’s 2011 paper.
A couple years ago, I did some similar work in this same area.
There are times when the sun accelerates in one direction and one
or both of the large planets are pulling away in the opposite direction.
There appears to be some correlation between these events and solar
max. But it’s not solid and there is a reason why this is so.
The real influence on solar cycle length comes from acceleration itself
and not the effect of orbiting planets. When the gas giants lose their
eccentricity, they and the sun will lose their acceleration.
Ed points out, there is a relationship between the sun’s acceleration
and the 11.86 year orbital period of jupiter. But . . . jupiter and the sun
have a binary relationship. The sun also orbits the center of mass in
11.86 years (360 degrees). It is the acceleration of our massive sun
that generates force in our solar system, not jupiter.
During the next ice age solar cycle length will increase to 11.86 years,
that is one solar cycle per rotation of the sun. When this happens, it will
be much easier to predict.
The sun orbit the “center of mass” of WHAT in 11.86 years? Please clarify what you mean.
Stock,
The sun orbits the solar system’s center of mass in a looping pattern
with a period of ~19.859 years. This looping pattern is approximately
1.67 rotations around the center or ~602 degrees. The sun rotates
360 degrees around the solar system’s center of mass in approximately
11.86 years.
Please visit Weathercycles.wordpress
” Fibonacci and climate ”
where I explain this subject in more detail