The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle

Guest essay by Andy May and Javier

The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is compelling evidence of a solar cycle of about the same length and phase; suggesting that the solar cycle might be causing the climate cycle. We will present a summary of the evidence, beginning with the original paleontological evidence, followed by the cosmogenic radionuclide (10Be or Beryllium-10 and 14C or Carbon-14) evidence. For more information, a bibliography of many papers discussing topics relevant to the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle can be found here. Only a small portion of the relevant papers are mentioned in this summary post.

In the November 16, 1968 issue of Nature, James R. Bray first proposed the idea of a 2600-year solar-driven climate cycle based primarily upon evidence of Holocene global glacier advances and retreats. We prefer to call this period the Bray Cycle after him, but the same cycle is often called the Hallstatt Cycle. In this post, we will use both names interchangeably to refer both to the climate cycle and the solar cycle. Bray only considered the maximum advance of a glacier field or a major re-advance that reached the near vicinity of the maximum. He used glacier fields in North America, Greenland, Eurasia, New Zealand and South America in the study. The glacial advances were dated using tree rings, lichenometry and radiocarbon dating. Glacial events for the last 13,700 years suggested an optimum interval of 2600 years. He used a “solar index,” based upon sunspots, sunspot cycle length and auroral records that covered the period from 700BC to the present day to show the cause might be a solar cycle. Over this period, the chi-square statistictied the glacial events to solar activity with a score of 28.6 (P<0.001).

While the use of changes in the rate of 14C production as a quantitative indicator of solar activity had not matured in 1968, Bray does mention that glacier records and 14C measurements correlate. He recognizes that 14C increases in periods of low solar activity and decreases in periods of high solar activity. Later researchers take advantage of this relationship to provide more evidence for the Bray cycle and to better estimate its length.

In 1988, Pestiaux, et al. found a strong 2500-year statistically significant cycle in the δ18O (delta-Oxygen-18, an indicator of air temperature) concentration in three deep sea cores taken in the Indian Ocean. Vasiliev and Dergachev (2002) reviewed the available evidence for a ~2400-year climate cycle and summarized (note the dates of the cold periods are all a bit later than the dates we use in this post):

“There are many data confirming the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate. The study of the δ18O concentration in ice core (Dansgaard et al., 1984) showed a ∼2500-year climatic cycle to exist. A ∼2400-year quasiperiod was observed in the δ18O concentration of deep sea core with high sedimentation rates (Pestiaux et al., 1988). Similar periodic behaviour has been found in GRIP2 and GISP ice cores over the last 12 000 years. Glaciological time series indicate that the Holocene was punctuated by a series of ∼2500-year events (O’Brien et al., 1995). The Middle Europe oak dendroclimatology demonstrates that the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 yr. AD), the Hallstattzeit cold epoch (750–400 yr. BC) and the earlier cold epoch (3200–2800 yr. BC) are separated by 2200–2500 years (see Damon and Sonett, 1992, p. 378). The time positions of these epochs are correlated with the periods of large 14C fluctuations …”

O’Brien, et al. in the December 22, 1995 issue of Science describe their geochemical analysis of the Summit Greenland ice cores. The data demonstrates that cooler climates occur at roughly 2600-year intervals in the Holocene. The oldest of these events is the Younger Dryas period cooling event (12,800BP) and the most recent is the Little Ice Age (roughly 700BP to 130BP). We will use BP as years before 1950 in this post. O’Brien continues:

“Cold events identified in our [ice core] glacio-chemical series correspond in timing to records of worldwide Holocene glacier advances and to cold events in paleoclimate records from Europe, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere, as determined by combining glacier advance, oxygen isotope (δ18O), pollen count, tree ring width, and ice core data.”

A plethora of climatic proxy evidence supports a well-established ~2400 year climatic cycle. Even in 1995, using 14C as a climate and/or solar activity proxy was controversial. But, O’Brien continues:

“Although a Δ14C -climate link is controversial, a Holocene climate quasi-cycle of ~2500 years (close to our quasi-2600-year pattern), in phase with Δ14C variations, has been identified by a number of researchers examining glacial moraines, δ18O records from ice cores, and temperature-sensitive tree ring widths.”

Van Geel, et al. (1998) discusses the dramatic rise in 14C during the Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD) and during the Greek Dark Age (roughly 1100BC to 800BC). The history of these cooler periods is fairly well known, so they can provide evidence of the link between 14C concentrations and climate. Van Geel discusses techniques of matching 14C reconstructions with historical and paleontological evidence, like the moss species composition of peat bogs. He also provides archaeological, paleontological and geological evidence that climate change around 850BC occurred simultaneously in both hemispheres. To this point, the 14C and 10Be radionuclide concentrations in the Earth’s carbon cycle and in ice cores, respectively, have mostly been used in a qualitative way. It was difficult to use them to estimate solar activity or climate quantitatively due to problems in determining the computational parameters. For 14C, the problems are removing the long-term geomagnetic variation and estimating the total amount of carbon in the system at the time the 14C was created by cosmic rays. For 10Be, also created by cosmic rays, it is knowing the precipitation rate in the area where the ice core was cut and how it varies over time. Steinhilber, et al., 2012, explain it well, see Figure 1:

Figure 1 (Steinhilber, et al., 2012)

Steinhilber, et al. explain the problems:

14C enters the global carbon cycle, and therefore fluctuations of the atmospheric 14C concentration … measured as Δ14C in tree rings are damped, smoothed, and delayed relative to the 14C production. The effect of the carbon cycle can be removed by inverse carbon cycle modeling. The resulting 14C production rate … is a better measure of the cosmic radiation, but it still contains a climate signal component due to unknown temporal changes of the carbon cycle … In contrast to 14C, aerosol-borne 10Be is removed from the atmosphere relatively fast, within a few years, and stored in natural archives such as polar ice sheets. Because of its short atmospheric residence time, 10Be directly reflects cosmic ray intensity variations with almost no attenuation and a delay of 1–2 y. Uncertainties are introduced mainly on annual time scales by atmospheric mixing processes and wet and dry deposition from the atmosphere to the ice.”

Steinhilber, et al. use 14C concentrations from tree rings and 10Be ice core records from both Greenland and Antarctica. Since both are created by cosmic rays, but suffer from different environmental effects, they use principal component analysis to extract the cosmic ray effect. They found that the first principal component explained 69% of the total variance and used it to model the total radionuclide production rate.

The Bray cycle appears to be closely tied to tight clusters of grand solar maxima and minima. The Little Ice Age Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton grand minima are the best example of a solar grand minima cluster and they fall in a Bray low. The Greek Dark Age and the Homer grand minimum also fall in a Bray low. Significant historical events that fall in Bray lows are labeled in figure 2. A more complete picture of these events can be found here. The Little Ice Age (LIA) is a well-known cold period filled with plagues and suffering due to cold, for more details see here and in Dr. Wolfgang Behringer’s excellent book. The period labelled “GDA” is the Greek Dark Ages, during this Bray low the Late Bronze Age ended and after a period of civilization collapse, the Early Iron Age started. The “Uruk” Bray low event corresponds with the expansion of the Uruk civilization and the growth of some of the world’s first cities. Near the end of the Uruk Bray low, the Middle East transitions from the Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age and cuneiform writing appears.

The earliest Bray low shown corresponds with the beginning of the “LBK” or the Linear Pottery Culture along the Danube River in Europe. This period marks the beginning of the end of the hunter-gatherer culture in Europe and the beginning of the growth of an agricultural economy. We are not certain the LBK and Uruk historical events were determined by Bray lows, we just mention them to position the lows in terms of human history. However, the more recent Greek Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age are well established colder periods with numerous historical climatic crises.

It is interesting that each Bray low corresponds to a major cultural transition. The LBK is roughly the end of the Early Neolithic in Europe, when agriculture started to spread. The Uruk period is when the Middle East transitions from the Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age. The GDA occurs as the Middle East moves from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and the LIA occurs when humans transition from the Pre-industrial era to the Industrial era. Other cultural transitions have been identified in different parts of the world for these periods. Cooler and more difficult climates times do stimulate innovation. This evidence has led some archaeologists, like Weninger et al., 2009, or Roberts et al., 2011, to develop the theory that climate caused environmental stress is an engine to societal change, and they both point to the lows of the Bray cycle as some of the best examples.

Usoskin, et al. (2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics) performed a spectral decomposition of 14C and 10Be curves to 7,000 BC. Once the first component was removed a very strong, in phase, 2400-year cycle was uncovered in both curves as shown in Figure 2. The blue curve is 14C and the red is 10Be, the vertical scale is a computed “sunspot index number.” Solar grand maxima are shown as red stars and solar grand minima are shown as open blue circles. We have historical records establishing the grand minima after 1500BC, the earlier ones are based on a model of 14C and 10Be curves.

Figure 2 (after Usoskin, et al.)

Steinhilber, et al. found that using the first component of a principal component analysis eliminated terrestrial effects from the curves and resulted in a 2200-year cycle. Usoskin, et al. used a related but different statistical technique to remove terrestrial effects and extracted a 2400-year cycle from the data. Usoskin’s Pearson’s coefficient between the 10Be and 14C records was 0.77 which is highly significant (p<10-5). Usoskin notes:

“This Hallstatt cycle has so far either been ascribed to climate variability (Vasiliev & Dergachev 2002) or to geomagnetic fluctuations, particularly geomagnetic pole migration (Vasiliev et al. 2012). However, the fact that the signal we found is in phase and of the same magnitude in the two cosmogenic isotope reconstruction implies that it can hardly be of climatic origin. As already pointed out, 14C and 10Be respond differently to climate changes. In particular, 14C is mostly affected by the ocean ventilation and mixing, while 10Be (in particular, its deposition in central Greenland) is mainly affected by large-scale atmospheric circulation, particularly in the North Atlantic region (Field et al.2006; Heikkila et al. 2009). … We thus conclude that the ≈2400-yr Hallstatt cycle is most likely a property of long-term solar activity.”

McCracken, et al., 2013, also looked at the 10Be data and the 14C data together and separately. He provides the figure below showing how well they match each other at about 2300 years. In this Fourier amplitude spectrum, the 10Be and 14C Bray cycle peaks only differ by 20 years. They also match the cosmic ray modulation function (“Ф”) quite well. The modulation function is described by Gleeson and Axford, 1968.

Figure 3 (McCracken, et al., 2013)

Neither the Bray cycle nor the pattern of clustered grand solar minima are perfectly timed. Both, largely vary around a 2400-year cycle by about 200 years each way. Allowing for this, the Bray cycle lows and the clustered grand solar minima do correspond with major historical cold periods as shown in figure 2. Although the 10Be and 14C records suggest a regular pattern of solar and cosmic ray intensity, the grand solar minima and maxima effects on the Earth’s climate do not depict a dominant periodic behavior. The minima and maxima appear to be modified by other climatic factors that may, in part, be chaotic. That said, there is a tendency for the grand minima to cluster in Bray lows. Usoskin has investigated this and presents a probability function of the tendency, we show this in figure 4. Grand solar minima do occur outside Bray lows, but almost half occur within 250 years of a Bray low.

Figure 4, after Usoskin, 2016

The evidence herein and in the bibliography provided, supports the existence of both a climatic cycle and cosmogenic radionuclide cycle of ~2400 ±200 years that are in phase. The lows of the cosmogenic cycle have a high probability of containing grand solar minima of the Spörer and Maunder type. There are only two possible explanations for this evidence. Either the climate variations are responsible for the changes in cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be, or the solar variability is responsible for the changes in the rate of production of both isotopes and is having a strong effect on the centennial to millennial climatic variability of the planet. The latter explanation is supported by two lines of evidence. For the period of time for which we have records of solar activity, the rate of cosmogenic isotope production correlates with solar activity, as figure 5 shows. Also, the lows of the Bray cycle represent the periods of highest cosmogenic isotope production and are marked by about half of the solar grand minima on record, including the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima. To claim the isotopes represent a climatic contamination is akin to a claim that the cosmogenic isotopes do not represent a solar proxy at all. Given that cosmogenic isotopes are well established as a proxy for solar activity, that claim requires strong evidence that so far does not exist.

Figure 5 (References here and here)

Summary and Conclusions

The Bray cycle was first proposed as a climate cycle driven by a solar cycle of the same length and phase by James Bray in 1968. He correlated glacial advances (representing colder periods) around the world to a sunspot index and concluded that the solar cycle and the cold periods were linked. This was the same conclusion reached, with far more data in 1990 by Hood and Jirikowic, and in 2016 by Usoskin, et al.

At each Bray cycle low, beginning with the Little Ice Age and ending with the Younger Dryas period, there are significant historical and archeological events indicating a colder climate. In addition, Usoskin has shown that grand solar minima tend to cluster in Bray cycle lows. The Bray cycle varies between 2200 and 2600 years from peak to peak, with a most common length of 2300 to 2400 years. The cycle may be much more regular than that, the variation in length could be caused by two other problems. First, our ability to date events in the past is not very accurate, errors of 100 years or more are very common. Second, existing climatic conditions going into a Bray low and the state of other cycles (for example the 1000-year Eddy cycle and the 208-year de Vries cycle) help to determine the Bray cycle effect. A Bray low during a glacial period will be different than a Bray low today. So, the fact that we cannot be precise about the Bray cycle length does not invalidate the cycle.

While the cause of the solar cycle of Bray length is currently unknown, Scafetta, et al. (2016) have suggested that the orbits of the larger planets have a repeating pattern of 2318 years that might be the cause. Proof is elusive, but this is a fascinating area of study.

The Bray cycle has been recognized in glacier advances and re-advances, ice raft data, peat bog studies, δO18 data, and in 10Be and 14C records for almost 50 years. It is supported by historical accounts from Bray lows and archeological data. There is little doubt that the cycle exists, but its exact length and its ultimate cause are unknown. However, much work is being done that should bear fruit with time.

One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame. Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests.

This post is in response to Willis Eschenbach’s posts entitled “Sharpening a Cyclical Shovel” and “The Cosmic Problem with Rays.” His posts were in response to our previous posts on natural climate cycles: Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies, Periodicities in solar variability and climate change: A simple model, and Solar variability and the Earth’s climate.

Advertisements

533 thoughts on “The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle

  1. Many laypeople have suspected just that for years. But I hope the next two solar cycles don’t portend a return to a cooling phase. That would be devastating for global food production.

    • Based on the LIA being the base of the last cycle & the hypothesized cycle length, the model would suggest we have centuries of generally rising temps in front of us

      • Yes, …. if the Bray cycles were/are the only factor determining climate. The correlation of low sunspot activity with colder climate would appear to suggest that there are other factors, too. Some are celestial, others are terrestrial / oceanic.

      • Jeff L,

        From a solar variability point of view we are in a prolonged period of stability similar to the 500 year long Roman Warm Period. It is unlikely that there will be a grand solar minimum at least for the next three centuries. How the climate will be is unknown, as it depends also on other factors.

      • Javier-san:

        The sun will enter a Grand Solar Minimum event from around 2032 because the Umbral Magnetic Field (the force that hold sunspots together) has been collapsing since 1996, after peaking at 3,000 gauss during solar cycle 22. The UMF is currently at 2,000 gauss and once it falls below 1500 gauss around 2032, sunspots will disappear almost entirely and a Grand Solar Minimum will occur (Penn & Livingston et al)…..

        The current solar cycle 24 is the weakest since 1906, the next one staring from 2021 will be the weakest since 1790 (Dalton Minimum), and the one following that will be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum started in 1645, and will be the start of a Grand Solar Minimum event that could last 33~100 years….

        Conversely, the strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred between 1933~1996 (Solanki et al 2001), and likely accounts for most of the warming recovery we enjoyed last century.

        There hasn’t been a discernible global warming trend since the strong solar cycle 22 ended in 1996, despite 30% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years…

        Scientists hypothesizing solar cycles play a significant role in climate should be vindicated by 2021, providing a flat/falling global temp trend becomes apparent between 1996~2021. If that occurs, CAGW will officially be dead as CAGW global warming projections will exceed reality by more than 3 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficent disparity and duration to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis for good.

        We’ll see soon enough…

      • There is also the clear 975 yr cycle. If the low of the LIA was ~1600 CE, then 490+1600=2090 CE. Which the climatists are banking on to continue the CO2 scam.

        But by 2100, we’d better have a lot more going for humanity’s sake than some wind turbines and solar panels.

      • Samurai,

        the next one staring from 2021 will be the weakest since 1790

        This is close enough that you will see you are wrong by ~ 2026, in just 10 years. Possibly even earlier.

        In this one Leif and I agree that the next solar cycle will not be significantly lower than SC24 and might even be slightly higher. This is just a centennial low in solar activity. No grand solar minimum expected until the next millennial low starting around 1550 + 975 = 2525 ± 100 AD. I guess significant solar cooling will not start until 2300-2400 AD.

        There is no discernible correlation between the 11-yr solar cycle and temperatures. That is not the way solar variability affects the climate. Predicting lower temperatures because of a weaker solar cycle is unjustified. The climate is telling us that you have to look at long term solar variability, because short term the noise is too high.

      • This 2010 graph by dr spencer shows the relationship of temperature to the solar cycle. For the given time period, he smoothed the detrended data with a 3 year average to cancel out el ninos and removed pinatubo cooling in the early 90s altogether. Had he simply removed the el ninos of this period (two large ones which coincide with solar minimums) the difference between solar min to max would be even more pronounced… So we should expect to see a drop in temps come 2020 very similar to that which we saw in ’08. (this time without the el nino which followed in 2010 since we just had one) Nice thing is that it’s not too far off. We’ll be able to soon see whether or not the “solar warmists” are right or not. If so, then one would think this spells big trouble for agw, the pause resuming for a period of over two decades. So kick back, relax, get yer popcorn ready and enjoy the show…

      • afonzarelli,

        Roy’s graph doesn’t show for a permissions problem. In any case I know the graph and have it in my hard drive. Obviously the large climatic changes observed in the longer solar cycles have to be based in smaller climate changes for the shorter solar cycles, all the way down to the 11 yr Schwabe cycle. However you soon run into a signal to noise ratio problem. The temperature change during the Schwabe cycle that can be assigned to solar variability is so low, as to be indemonstrable. I do not doubt that Roy’s graph may be correct, but I do not think you can convince the world with those tiny average changes when very large deviations take place from month to month.

      • Joel O’Bryan
        November 24, 2016 at 7:36 pm

        IMO the low of the LIA was closer to AD 1700 than 1600, hence, 490 + ~1690 = 2180. Thus we might not be able to count on Mother Nature’s quite so dramatically supporting skeptics in this century.

        Graph of solar grand minima from Vuk:

        The AD 1690s were chilly, in the depths of the Maunder Minimum and the LIA (regardless of preferred start and end date for that cold period). That trough comports well with a Medieval Warm Period peak around AD 1200 and a previous low during the the Dark Ages CP c. 710, just in time for the Moorish invasion of Spain. I don’t know if peak Roman WP heat was around AD 220 or earlier, but close enough for government work.

  2. One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change

    I would prefer, contributor to climate change.

    • Yes Stephen, it all appears to be the current sum result of a multiplicity of contributors, varying in dominance like a “Rock, Paper, Scissors game.

  3. There do seem to be cycles in climate, and solar activity does seem to be a reasonable cause. I wonder how much noise there is in the proxies for solar activity, as the proxies do not look like a perfect fit for climate or each other (Be10 and C14).

    • C14 has a lot of inertia due to being in a varying carbon cycle. It is nice because it covers the whole world, but imprecise in time. 10Be leaves the atmosphere within a few years and is more precise in time. All proxies have a variable delay due to the environment and climate changes have a variable delay depending upon the state of climate when they occur. This causes fuzziness in the numbers and lots of debate!

      • Andy May November 25, 2016 at 5:18 am Edit

        C14 has a lot of inertia due to being in a varying carbon cycle. It is nice because it covers the whole world, but imprecise in time. 10Be leaves the atmosphere within a few years and is more precise in time. All proxies have a variable delay due to the environment and climate changes have a variable delay depending upon the state of climate when they occur. This causes fuzziness in the numbers and lots of debate!

        First off, what units is the “inertia” of C14 measured in?

        Next, your claim that the ∆14C data is “imprecise in time” is wildly incorrect. In fact, we use the ∆14C data to ESTABLISH the time of articles with an unknown age … how on earth could we do that with something that is “imprecise in time”.

        Next, I’ve pointed out over and over to both you and Javier that the 10Be data from the northern hemisphere is wildly different from the data from the southern hemisphere. Each time you guys just blow on by that and continue to claim that the 10Be records are somehow good. See here for a discussion.

        Next, there is NO SIGN OF THE !!-YEAR SUNSPOT CYCLE IN THE ANNUAL 10Be DATA!!! How on earth people can claim that it is a valid proxy for the sun when it doesn’t even show sunspots is a mystery to me. At least the ∆14C data, for all its problems, shows the sunspot cycle. I discuss this here.

        Finally, Andy, I have to ask you the question I asked Javier … so what? So what if there is a cycle in the sun that lasts somewhere between 2000 and 2700 years? It’s useless for prediction even if we had clear evidence about the cycles. But we don’t. Even Javier puts the trough in the Bray cycle at somewhere between 1450 and 1700 … what use is that?

        I have shown that random addition of sine waves leads to signals that look exactly like the “Bray Cycle” … and I have not seen any evidence that the “Bray Cycle” is anything but that kind of random phenomenon. For example, it doesn’t show up in the previous 11,000 years of the ∆14C data, despite the uncertainty of that data being quite small … why is that?

        But suppose it is a real highly variable cycle … so what? It doesn’t advance our understanding of the sun, or of the climate, or of anything. And it certainly doesn’t allow us to predict the sun, or the climate, or anything. So what good is it? I asked Javier, he says no practical use, it’s pure science … what do you say?

        Like I asked Javier, do you want your epitaph to read

        “He played with millennial cycles, and tried very hard to convince people they were really real”?

        I’m not seeing it … I think you have much more in you than this kind of meaningless mathturbation.

        w.

      • lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 12:12 pm Edit

        Next, there is NO SIGN OF THE 11-YEAR SUNSPOT CYCLE IN THE ANNUAL 10Be DATA
        Willis, there IS a weak sunspot cycle signal in 10Be:

        Thanks, Leif, but whaaa …? I find that wiggle-matching hugely unconvincing. For it to be real, half the time the 10Be flux would have to change BEFORE the solar change, and half the time it would change AFTER the solar change. How can you possibly claim causation of something that happened previously????

        w.

      • Thanks, Leif. I’m not seeing the correlation you speak of in the Berggren annual 10Be Flux NGRIP2 data … here are my results.

        As you can see, the correlation between 10Be flux and sunspots is horrible, p-value = 0.25 … it may relate to just which 10Be dataset is being used.

        w.

      • Indeed, it does depend on which data is used. The reason is that local climate has significant influence [on the order of half] on the 10Be deposition. There IS a weak correlation, though, as we would expect.

      • Willis,

        Just for grins, read about the eastern-Mediterranean Santorini eruption of the Bronze Age that destroyed the Minoan civilization. You’ll find the suggested dates for the event drop precisely into that same 1450-1700 BCE period you mention. There is some squabbling about a century or so, based on C-14 vs seriation dates. My preferred view of these things is that random events display clusterin as was as dispersal. Pattern recognition becomes a matter of Rorschach and the researcher’s mind. We can find just about anything if we look for it, and likewise not find something we are sure is not there.

      • lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm

        Indeed, it does depend on which data is used. The reason is that local climate has significant influence [on the order of half] on the 10Be deposition. There IS a weak correlation, though, as we would expect.

        Leif, I appreciate your reply. Yes, there is a correlation, but “Weak” hardly touches it, with a p-value of 0.24. That’s not just anemic, that’s moribund.

        But there’s a deeper problem. The periodogram shows that the correlation is NOT a result of the aunspot variations, as there is no power at all anywhere in the 9-12 year range …

        This is my main objection to the use of 10Be as a solar proxy … if it doesn’t show the 11-year cycle, and assuredly it does not, then how can it possibly detect longer-term, smaller variations?

        Thanks for your comments,

        w.

      • lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 7:20 pm

        The 10Be data from the Finnish Lake is believed to less climate sensitive, so the sunspot cycle signal should be a bit stronger there, as observed.

        Thanks, Leif. Do you have a link to the data?

        w.

      • lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 8:58 pm

        Leif, thanks for the link to the paper. I digitized the results, so I’ve got the data. As you point out, there’s a table in the paper … but sadly, they include everything BUT the 10Be concentrations. However, the digitization is extremely close, so I’m happy with that.

        As always in this business you have to torture the data to make it confess.
        Here is Berggren’s analysis filtering the data with a window of 8-16 years after removing the trend …

        Well, yeah, if you filter the data with a window of 8-16 years, guess what you’ll find?

        Cycles in that range. Without some kind of significance analysis, I don’t see how that helps.

        And I also don’t get a good correlation using Berggren’s Finnish lake data. The correlation is a pathetic 0.03, with a max correlation at two years lag of only 0.14, an R^2 of only 0.02 at that lag, and a p-value of 0.23 at that lag … meaningless.

        The periodogram also shows very little in the 9-12 year range. There is a peak at around 14 years, but nothing in the 9-12 year range.

        Finally, I’m still not seeing your explanation for the changes in 10Be occurring BEFORE the solar changes. You say it is from errors in the time axis, but the authors say:

        Therefore, we cannot rule out that annual samples
        may to some extent contain material from adjacent
        varves, and in places misinterpretation of varve
        boundaries might have led to a shifting of the time
        scale. However, presence of distinct, easily recognizable
        varves served as fix points for certain years
        (1910, 1931, 1944, 1968) and prevented major errors
        in annual sampling. Comparison of distinctive peaks
        in ash weights determined by sample combustion,
        with variations in mineral content established by Xray
        analysis, indicates that subsamples diverge only
        0–2 years from the X-ray data, which was used to
        establish varve chronology.

        Looks like a max error of a couple of years … but in your graph, the 10Be changes occur up to five years prior to the solar changes.

        So given the very low correlation (0.12 max), the low R^2 (0.02 max), and the miserable p-value (0.23 min), I’d have to say, not seeing the connection of the Finnish lake varve 10Be with the sunspots …

        My best to you, thanks for the link and for fighting the good fight,

        w.

      • There IS noise [e.g. from climate contamination, even if it thought to be small], but the Varves have great potential.
        The analysis of the ice cores is complicated and there are many pitfalls. A recent JGR paper outlines the problems and their solution:
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR2-HMF-B.pdf uses 10Be to calculate the magnetic field in the heliosphere. Here are some of the Figures from the paper:

        Panels b) and c) shows the calculated magnetic field. Note the clear sunspot cycle variation coming from the 10Be data [when suitably treated]. Also note panels a) where the black curve shows the Usoskin and Co. [so beloved by Javier] reconstructions with the excessive minima and too large trend due to incorrect model calculations. The left side compares the field from 10Be with what we get from geomagnetic data, and the right side compares the 10Be field with what we get from the sunspot data.
        There is very good correspondence between the three methods [SSN, GEO, 10Be] showing that we understand the physics and have reached good reconstructions of all three.
        This is major progress and is the result of a workshop I [with colleagues] convened back in 2012:
        http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf

      • Thanks for the paper Leif. I would not have thought the 11 year cycle would show up in 10Be data, but it sure looks like it does.

        Willis, the inertia I was speaking of is the extended delay due to the 14C staying in the carbon cycle for a long time before it settles down in an animal shell or tree ring. Some of the 14C atoms produced on any given day stay in the environment a long time, some not so long. The existing climate, when they are produced, matters. A warmer climate with more vegetation will fix the 14C at one speed and a colder climate, with less vegetation at another speed. Either way, the atom spends more time in the environment than the 10Be. I call that system inertia, I’m not sure if there are other names for it.

      • Andy May November 26, 2016 at 11:26 am

        Willis, the inertia I was speaking of is the extended delay due to the 14C staying in the carbon cycle for a long time before it settles down in an animal shell or tree ring. Some of the 14C atoms produced on any given day stay in the environment a long time, some not so long. The existing climate, when they are produced, matters. A warmer climate with more vegetation will fix the 14C at one speed and a colder climate, with less vegetation at another speed. Either way, the atom spends more time in the environment than the 10Be. I call that system inertia, I’m not sure if there are other names for it.

        Man, it’s like pulling teeth to get you to answer a simple question. You’d said:

        C14 has a lot of inertia due to being in a varying carbon cycle.

        I asked:

        First off, what units is the “inertia” of C14 measured in?

        Instead of a reply, I get bafflegab … so I will ask again:

        WHAT UNITS HAVE YOU USED TO MEASURE THE INERTIA OF 14C SO THAT YOU CAN ASSURE US IT HAS “A LOT OF INERTIA”?

        Is this your typical behavior, to answer a question that wasn’t asked and to not answer a question that was asked? Because I can assure you, Andy. You seem like a good guy, but you are destroying your own scientific reputation by not answering simple questions

        w.

  4. Either the climate variations are responsible for the changes in cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be, or the solar variability is responsible for the changes in the rate of production of both isotopes

    It is not an ‘either, or’ case. BOTH climate variations and solar variability are important, as is increasingly being understood.

    • BOTH climate variations and solar variability are important, as is increasingly being understood.

      Obviously. But within the context of the article, we have a ~ 2400 year climate cycle and a ~ 2400 year cosmogenic cycle, both in phase. Either there is a ~ 2400 year solar variability cycle behind both, which is the most reasonable explanation, or the cosmogenic cycle is caused by climate contamination and the climate cycle has a different cause. This is unlikely because the cosmogenic cycle involves the strongest cosmogenic signal and we know that the cosmogenic signal responds mainly to a solar signal (figure 5).

      • Javier November 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        BOTH climate variations and solar variability are important, as is increasingly being understood.

        Obviously. But within the context of the article, we have a ~ 2400 year climate cycle …

        Dear heavens, javier, surely you don’t think we believe the bogus temperature reconstructions, starting and ending with 31 flavors of Mann 1998, do you?

        I say that you don’t know that there is a 2400 year “climate cycle”, we don’t have the data anywhere to back that up.

        So I’ll ask you the same thing about your claimed Bray temperature cycle as I’ve asked about the Bray solar cycle. This is a simple request that you back up your claims of a Bray temperature cycle by giving us TWO LINKS, one to what you think is the best study that establishes your putative “Bray temperature cycle”, and the other to the data used in the study.

        And don’t try to fob me off with your bogus “Bibliography” at the top of the post. The first paper I looked at there didn’t mention the Bray cycle or any solar cycles. I’m not going digging in that pile.

        Or you could just refuse to back up your claims

        Your choice.

        w.

      • Willis,

        I say that you don’t know that there is a 2400 year “climate cycle”, we don’t have the data anywhere to back that up.

        Your ignorance about the issues that you discuss is patent. Of course there is a 2400 year climate cycle, and there is enough data to write a book about it if someone bothered.

        Here is some of the evidence that you claim it doesn’t exist, and there is plenty more information from other climate proxies.

        I have labeled the figure from Dergachev et al., 2007 “Natural climate variability during the Holocene” so you don’t get lost. What each proxy displays is indicated in the figure legend. I have also put a regular wave on top so you see how regular the cycle is. Please observe that the climate cycle and the cosmogenic cycle are not only in phase, but they both show the same deviations (blue mark), indicating that they are locked. this is not only correlation, it is causation.

        This is a simple request that you back up your claims of a Bray temperature cycle by giving us TWO LINKS, one to what you think is the best study that establishes your putative “Bray temperature cycle”, and the other to the data used in the study.
        Or you could just refuse to back up your claims …

        I refuse to comply. I already went that way once and you didn’t play nice. If you wan to do your analysis your way, you do your homework. I back up my claims the usual way, on peer reviewed published scientific research, that to me has a lot more value that your little data games. I am sure plenty of people will see that you talk about your personal opinion on matters of which you display an appalling lack of knowledge.

        Best regards.

      • I say that you don’t know that there is a 2400 year “climate cycle”, we don’t have the data anywhere to back that up.
        So I’ll ask you the same thing about your claimed Bray temperature cycle as I’ve asked about the Bray solar cycle. This is a simple request that you back up your claims of a Bray temperature cycle by giving us TWO LINKS, one to what you think is the best study that establishes your putative “Bray temperature cycle”, and the other to the data used in the study.
        And don’t try to fob me off with your bogus “Bibliography” at the top of the post. The first paper I looked at there didn’t mention the Bray cycle or any solar cycles. I’m not going digging in that pile.
        Or you could just refuse to back up your claims …

        I totally agree with Javier, we worked hard on the post and the bibliography. The post is the best summary of the literature we could make so it is the single best source. Second and third would be Javier’s posts referenced at the end of this post. But, to really dig into the subject you need to read all of the papers in the bibliography. Remember, it is not just 14C and 10Be, the cosmogenic radionuclides are not even needed to make the case. The overwhelming evidence is in the sedimentological, paleontological, archaeological, historical and glacier data. And, if you are not going to do your homework, why are you making such a fuss? And how can you claim that we “refuse to back up our claims” when you haven’t even read the evidence we have presented? You can’t claim “we don’t have the data” when you haven’t looked at the data we are presenting, right? As to the potential relevance of the cycle, read the historical information about the Little Ice Age and the Greek Dark Ages!

  5. I had an old German physics professor. He worked on the Manhattan project. One of his favorite activities was to chat up the students during the labs. When you would least expect it he would change the signal generator. The highest grade you could get was a D if you did not notice that the input to the system had changed, therefore causing the weird results that you saw. The important take away from all of this is to always measure the INPUT. The AGW crowd seems to ignore this basic tenent.

    • Good point, rather than arguing that the input doesn’t matter and can’t affect the output. Reminds me of when I taught a lab class in physics. The exercise was to demonstrate shielding against radioactive emitters, we had a radioactive sample, thin sheets of lead, and a counter. Add a sheet, take a reading, repeat, plot the curve. One guys curve was a straight line, he kept putting the counter on “Test” not “Measure” so he kept getting the counter’s internal test clock/cal reading! One guy’s results showed counts going down with increasing number of lead sheets, the up, then down, they up a bit, then up a bit, then down. This one was harder to figure out, until we realized that some of the lead sheets had been used around the neutron howitzer we had, a 2 Curie fast neutron source and had been activated and were themselves radioactive. We gave him fresh lead and he got the “right” results. Was a bit of a puzzler for a minute there though!

    • stephana November 24, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      I had an old German physics professor. He worked on the Manhattan project. One of his favorite activities was to chat up the students during the labs. When you would least expect it he would change the signal generator. The highest grade you could get was a D if you did not notice that the input to the system had changed, therefore causing the weird results that you saw. The important take away from all of this is to always measure the INPUT. The AGW crowd seems to ignore this basic tenent.

      The “input” in this case is solar radiation, the familiar sunlight plus UV and IR on the sides. TSI measures the total of all of those frequencies. It averages about 1361 watts per metre squared (W/m2) on a surface perpendicular to the sun at the top of the atmosphere.

      TSI varies from peak to trough of the solar sunspot cycle by about one W/m2. This means that the solar input is stable to within ± 0.5 / 1361 = ± 0.04%. Four HUNDREDTHS of one percent.

      We also know that the claimed long-term excursions from the mean (e.g. “Dalton Minimum”) are less than the 11-year excursions from the mean.

      This is the part that is always a mystery to me. Downwelling radiation at the surface (global 24/7 average) is about half a megawatt. Solar radiation at the surface (global 24/7 average) varies by about plus or minus an eighth of a watt per square metre over the sunspot cycle. So the situation at the surface is the same, the variation in solar is trivially small.

      So, stephana … in a system where the input is stable to within plus or minus four hundredths of a percent, just exactly which measurements of the input do you think people are ignoring, and what difference do you think they would make if we did not ignore them?

      w.

      • And the largest geomagnetic interaction in the solar-system, the suns poles rotate and reverse, strike earth. cause electrical and biochemical activity etc… so therefore the implied “input” in this case is not just solar radiation.

      • Willis, I’m going to disagree with you. That’s the current TSI. When it was 1370, that was more than 0.386% which is substantial considering the energy outputs of the sun. Further, the total variation is ” assumed ” at 0.12%. Yet, when C/AGW did all the math, everything matched. I’m going to say we don’t know.
        Somewhat ironic is that’s the same percentage of co2 in the atmosphere, 0.04%. One is trivial and the other major.

      • I’ve seen in any number of official papers and websites. Then it was 1368, and lately they were saying 1365. It was definitely used as a refuting an argument I made in a paper.

      • Bad science never dies. Perhaps this will set you straight:
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL045777.pdf
        “The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view‐limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument”.

      • Bad science, indeed.

        (X)×(1-0.3)/4 = 239.7 W/m2
        Guess what X is? Then they rounded up some more to get 240.

        I can’t tell whether you are agreeing we me or mocking me. How many sources does it take? 1 ? 3 ? 30? 300?

        Ans: 1370.

      • Of course it was never 1370 in actuality. That didn’t stop them from using that number in official calculations based on faulty equipment. This gets so far away from the original premise that the variations of the sun, which is an assumption at 0.12%, and the change in math that is more double that. A real change mathematically of a drop of 0.12% would put us in a definite cold spell, at this point. Mathematically from the high that was calculated at 1370 to 1361, we should be entering a LIA, yet, when all this was done everything matched using 1370. ( in the year 2001) I have a term for it, painting illusions with numbers. The illusion was that TSI supported the meme of global warming via co2.

      • It makes no difference if you use 1370 or 1361, as long as you keep the difference in TSI constant over time. Nobody is stupid enough to use a mixture of old and new values.

      • You are correct, ” nobody ” would. That’s why I think ” climate change” people are really aliens. Or really stupid people controlled by aliens. You underestimate how seriously stupid some people, especially in management, can be.

      • UV vs reds range varies by MUCH more, and that changes where the energy goes. Deep in the ocean for UV, prompt evaporation of suface for the red end. This interacts with time lags from the two processes to make ocean heat cycles. TSI is a distractor from heat distribution and ozone interactions.

        Look at how much atmospheric height changed when UV drooped off…

      • The UV is measured in milliwatt/m2 [TSI has hundreds of thousands more power] so has very little overall energy. The part of the [upper] atmosphere that changed is a billion times less dense than the air we breathe and is transparent to long wavelengths, so UV has effect there, but not at ground level.

      • Where is that UV measured, what energy level? Leif, surface, stratosphere, ionosphere? That UV has considerable effect in creating ozone which is a significant light interacting molecule.

      • Leif reminds us of the all-important plausibility clause in research. Figure out how much energy is needed to change a powerful system to another regime and keep it there, then go look for driving systems capable, IE having enough power, to do that. The more you have to wrangle proposed weaker drivers, the less robust your conjecture becomes. And CERTAINLY anything measured in milliwatt/m2 would NOT be a robust conjecture.

  6. Has anyone ever charted these cycles along with the Milankovich cycles and planetary alignments? I’m not ascribing some astrological significance, just the tidal forces and the effect on solar activity. And I guess the evolving ocean currents with the closure of the Pacific-Atlantic connection at Panama and its affect on salinity, warm and cold current flows, etc.

    Since most (if not all) have their own periodicity, it might be useful to come up with some models (don’t you hate that word?) and see what happens when they combine to flatten out their effects and when they combine to create (possibly) really cold and really warm periods.

    • “While the cause of the solar cycle of Bray length is currently unknown, Scafetta, et al. (2016) have suggested that the orbits of the larger planets have a repeating pattern of 2318 years that might be the cause. Proof is elusive, but this is a fascinating area of study.”

      I always thought that the landscheidt cycles, studies of the effects of solar system barycenter variation with changes of the alignments of the planets vs solar effects made some sense. I went to look for the old Landscheidt site but what is left is Beyond Landscheidt http://www.landscheidt.info/ I don’t have the knowledge to evaluate whether this thought has some merit or not, but perhaps someone in the readership can comment.

  7. Very good article. As a layman I could follow most of the explanations and the evidence. I am not surprised by the suggestion that solar cycles are ( as Stephen suggests) a contributor to our climate and at that I would suggest, a major one.
    Again, a good article. The connection between the Bray cycle and our planetary system is indeed a intriguing idea. My thanks go to Andy May and Javier!

  8. “Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests.”

    It’s supposed to be a 2600 year cycle. The end of the LIA was, what, 150 years ago? That’s like saying that the reason for the warmest times in millenia is because it’s February.

      • This all smacks of motivated reasoning which is the hallmark of the worst in climatology.

        If this was not an attempt to prove some natural climate cycle and down ply GHE, this article would not have been written. It is not an interest in solar activity that motivates this writing , it is a frankly rather contrived attempt to prove that it is natural rather than AGW.

      • Greg,

        When you talk as if you knew our interest and motivation you are only showing how little you know and how wrong you are.

      • Greg November 24, 2016 at 2:12 pm
        “it is a frankly rather contrived attempt to prove that it is natural rather than AGW.”

        Greg the following quote is from the article by Andy May and Javier. Note the top line. see the words November 16, 1968 ? People were examining the possibility of a solar link way back then. Don’t be in such a hurry read more carefully. Others are. (reading carefully)

        “In the November 16, 1968 issue of Nature, James R. Bray first proposed the idea of a 2600-year solar-driven climate cycle based primarily upon evidence of Holocene global glacier advances and retreats.”

        michael

        by the way guess who had just been elected President, and who was his opponent?

    • Nick,

      As the article explains the evidence supports an important solar variability effect on climate change on the centennial to millennial time scale. The bottom of the LIA was about 1650, so we are looking to a four century long warming trend. This is the scale on which this cycle operates. There is no reason to think that it stopped in 1950.

      • Javier,
        It’s scale that is the problem. We’ve seen rapid warming in the last 40 years. It’s very hard to see that as an effect of a 2600 year cycle. And not reassuring either. If it is the cause, it will go on for centuries.

      • Nick,

        As you will deduct by yourself a ~ 2400 yr solar cycle cannot tell you much about a period of 40 years. However since the modern warming has taken place within a multi-centennial warming trend, it is obvious that the solar cycle must necessarily have contributed to the warming. By how much is impossible to say, but to say that all the warming observed is due to anthropogenic factors is difficult to defend in the light of the evidence.

      • but to say that all the warming observed is due to anthropogenic factors is difficult to defend

        So who, apart from the idiot journos at the Guardian is saying that ?

        It’s certainly not the position of the IPCC.

        Now is probably a good point to start quoting what it is that someone has said and who that someone is.

      • The coldest part of a glaciation is at the end of the cycle while the warmest part of an interglacial is at the beginning (Holocene Optimum). You claim is nothing but a silly a denial of well known facts.

      • Greg,

        So who, apart from the idiot journos at the Guardian is saying that ?
        It’s certainly not the position of the IPCC.

        Well perhaps then you can explain to me where in this AR5 graph is the contribution we are discussing, because it says very clearly that natural contribution to warming is ZERO, both from forcings and variability. Anthropogenic warming is 117% of the observed warming, but anthropogenic cooling gets it down to 100%.

        So it appears the number of idiot journos is really high.

      • “We’ve seen rapid warming in the last 40 years.”

        Nick, in Anthony’s 10th anniversary piece he gave you honorable mention as being “unrelentingly pig-headed”, but kind. (i can’t imagine why… ☺)

        One man’s “rapid warming” is another man’s cyclical variability…

      • Javier, perhaps more to the point is this ipcc graph that shows the modeled anthropogenic rise (pink) verses the modeled natural rise (blue)…

      • “it says very clearly that natural contribution to warming is ZERO”
        Absolutely not. It says very clearly that each of two contributions is between -0.1 and 0.1 °C. And I very much doubt that more than a tiny fraction, if any, of 0.1 °C could be attributed to the Bray cycle.

      • Nick,

        It says very clearly that each of two contributions is between -0.1 and 0.1 °C.

        My oh my, you don’t know how to read a graph. It says 0 ± 0.1 °C. The 0 part expresses the claimed value. The 0.1 part expresses how uncertain they are that it is ZERO, but still they are claiming that it is ZERO.

      • Javier,
        “The 0.1 part expresses how uncertain they are that it is ZERO, but still they are claiming that it is ZERO.”

        Again, absolutely not. The caption to the figure begins:

        Figure 1.9 | Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period…

        They give a likely range and a midpoint, not a claimed ZERO value.

      • “It’s scale that is the problem. We’ve seen rapid warming in the last 40 years.”

        No we haven’t. Some places haven’t warmed at all, some have cooled. You’re still hitching your horse to a “global temperature”. Stupid.

      • Javier November 24, 2016 at 5:40 pm

        Javier, you do not provide a source for you graph or even tell us the number of the graph. Do you expect me to trawl through the whole of AR5 to find it by chance?

        The IPCC has traditionally claimed “majority” defined as >50% of warming is man made. IIRC AR5 in some places now prefers to say AGW is the “dominant” cause, that does not even mean it is >50% simply the largest of a group of factors.

        From AR5 SPM:

        SPM 1.2
        Causes of climate change
        Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
        largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmo-
        spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
        at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic driv-
        ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
        the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}

        Now I don’t want to get into defending IPCC which is a corrupt, intergovernmental body not objective science report but you are incorrect when you say they claim all the warming is due to human causes.

        The error bars on that graph ( while totally unrealistic ) are their get out clause. You can not just ignore the error bars and take the central value.

      • Greg,

        Javier, you do not provide a source for you graph or even tell us the number of the graph. Do you expect me to trawl through the whole of AR5 to find it by chance?

        The figure comes from a link that says: AR5_SYR_Figure_1.9
        If you cannot find your way in AR5 it is not my fault.

        you are incorrect when you say they claim all the warming is due to human causes.

        No. I am not incorrect. You display a very poor knowledge of IPCC claims.

        “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” (1951-2010)
        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf
        1.3.1 page 48.
        The IPCC claims that all the warming since 1951 has been anthropogenic.

        I agree with you that this is stupid. That is why nobody should pay any attention to IPCC claims. It is all politically motivated and not based on empirical evidence.

      • @Javier , by 600 ce, the Chinese already had 3600 years of observing climate, of the 2 almanacs one had a 396, and the other 391 year cycle.

      • “The IPCC claims that all the warming since 1951 has been anthropogenic.”

        Selective quoting there. What they actually said was:

        It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

        You left out the part they bolded, which isn’t saying that at all.

      • Nick,
        If the temperature is near the peak and lasts for hundreds of years, where is the problem. The present level is near the AVERAGE for the last 9000 years as best can be established, and the LIA was the bad player. There is only a problem if the models are correct and the temperature will continue to rise a lot, and this is in contradiction to all present real data. Also electric cars and other tech advances will cause a limit to new long term CO2 production. Actually, the only present proven effect of the increase in CO2 is a greening of Earth.

      • Citing the IPCC, Nick wrote: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

        Figure 1.9 is shown below. Notice the error bars for warming from GHGs and from other anthropogenic effects. Notice the much smaller error bar from combined anthropogenic effects. They certainly didn’t use the proper method for summing uncertainty in this Figure – which justifies making the above “best estimate”!

        All of these error bars come for models – which are tuned to so as to make their best estimate of total human induced warming equal to observed warming – despite the fact that they come up with very different answers for the contribution of GHGs and “other” to observed warming. A careful look at Figure 1 demonstrates that most models must have been tuned to produce a best estimate for observed warming equal to total anthropogenic warming! This couldn’t have happened by chance.

      • TSI is also another example of how they got the right answers. If they had used the current TSI measurements they’d have been off by a third of global warming. I wonder if it really was instrument malfunction. If you start combining error bars, TSI measurements, sink ratios, assumed amounts, placement of thermometers, vast areas of no measurements, readjustment,…. I wonder exactly what do we know.
        Unless predictions that can be made that mirror reality, climate science, in its present form, shouldn’t be called a science. Climate vo do little dolly.

      • Leonard,
        “If the temperature is near the peak and lasts for hundreds of years, where is the problem. The present level is near the AVERAGE for the last 9000 years as best can be established, and the LIA was the bad player.”
        I’ve shown the Marcott and Hadcrut graphs below, as best I can align them. Present is at the max Holocene level, and heading upwards. I see no sign of a peak. Continued rise does not contradict this data, and is to be expected based not just on models, but on physics going back to Arrhenius.

      • Nick,

        Present is at the max Holocene level, and heading upwards.

        No. Present is not even close to max Holocene level. You are comparing proxy temperatures to instrument temperatures and they are apples and oranges. The biology says we are not even close to Holocene altythermal. The species are far off their northern ranges then. The tree line has not climbed even close to where it was. Glaciers and more importantly small permanent ice patches have not receded to where they were during the altythermal. Ocean sediments all over the World have not reached the proxy temperature levels they had.

        Leonard is correct that we are average for the past 9000 years. We have essentially undone all the cooling of the past 5000 years. And you are playing with adjusted numbers that are not going to give you the correct answer.

        And it is not heading up either. Since 2003 it isn’t going anywhere. And nobody knows what it will do next.

    • Nick, it is November, not February. Otherwise I don’t consider “the evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years” to be strong. Irregular cycle? We may be observing a chaotic attractor, but to call it a cycle is misleading.

      • Curious George,

        to call it a cycle is misleading

        There is published evidence in the bibliography linked that indicates that the cycle was present during the Miocene, several million years ago, and evidence also from the last 50,000 years indicates that the cycle is a lot more regular than during the Holocene.

      • Javier, thanks. Could you please provide a direct link?

        I find it remarkable that as we go 50,000 years back the cycle becomes more regular. Usually the older evidence is more uncertain.

      • Curious George,

        The evidence comes from an aspect of the cycle that we have not mentioned in the article. The ~ 2400 year Bray cycle modulates the ~ 205 year de Vries cycle, so the ~ 205 year signal is stronger the closer it is to a ~ 2400 year low. When they look at the variability of 10Be in ice cores band passing only the 180-230 yr periodicity it is possible to see when the de Vries cycle is stronger and the Bray low took place. i have marked the position in red in their figure:

        Adolphi et al., 2014 “Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum”.

        Regarding the Miocene, in Kern et al., 2012. “Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a Late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies.” They compare the Holocen solar activity periodogram with their Miocene climatic proxies and find the ~ 2300-2400 yr periodicity.

  9. Figure 2 shows that C14 and B10 correlate well with the Little Ice Age, they do not seem to correlate with the Medieval Warm Period (approx. 1000 – 1300 AD). WUWT?

    • commieBob,

      The climatic correlation for the ~ 2400 year cycle is only between the lows of the cycle and periods of severe climate worsening. The Medieval Warm period is relatively short and correlates well with a high in the ~ 1000 year Eddy solar cycle, for which the evidence is less strong.

      Here you have a reconstruction of solar activity (black) with a proposed position of the ~ 2400 and ~ 1000 yr solar cycles, with other solar cycles also indicated, for the past 3000 years.

      • The climatic correlation for the ~ 2400 year cycle is only between the lows of the cycle and periods of severe climate worsening.

        This kind of selective handwaving argument does not even start to suggest a correlation which could in term suggest causation. You spend more of you effort arguing whether or not a particular cycle is present or not in the solar proxy but very little effort actually comparing some “climate” variable with a solar proxy.

        whether you realise it or not this is probably because the actual data do not support you “inescapable conclusion”.

      • Greg,
        May I suggest an appropriate climate variable would be the level of jet stream zonality/meridionality combined with total global cloudiness.
        We do not have much data on those features but within the satellite era there is a reasonable match with solar variations as is becoming increasingly apparent.

      • Greg: your attempts to discredit interesting ideas that do not conform to your bigotry merely marks you out as yet another climate denier.

        these periods exist in the palaeontological record, and there is some correlation between isotope, sun radiative output and long term temperature changes. despite your denial of it.

        Your conviction that (presumably ) CO2 is the One True Cause of Climate change and your denial of the facts that it appears to be simply one f many, is blinding you to the reality of climate.

        The science is not settled. And this is science. Real science.

    • Sparks,

      A quiet Sun is a period when the Sun has no activity or very little. No sunspots, coronal emissions or flares. This happens at every 11 year cycle low.

      During solar grand minima, the Sun is permanently in a quiet mode.

      • Why is the “quiet sun level” infinitive?

        You have no idea what a “permanently – quiet mode” of the sun is, do you?

  10. Once again we see wriggle matching without plausible mechanism. The energy in from these supposed external catalysts have to provide enough external change in energy that even a chaotic internally variable system will demonstrate measurable response. Figure out the energy required first, then go look for a mechanism.

    On the other hand, a slowly charging and slowly discharging battery from a stable source of energy will also demonstrate cycles. All internally derived.

    • interactions between cosmic radiation and cloud formation, thus varying albedo, and incoming radiation levels, is what Svensmark’s research is all about.

      clouds are simply ignored in typical climate models – just parameterised and ignored. And yet the simple presence of a cloud where none was before can reduce ground level incoming radiation by a factor of 400% or more. And reduce night time losses by similar amounts. It is no coincidence that the dry parts of Earth show the greatest diurnal temperature ranges.

      And cloud formation is massively non linear. And very ill understood. The modulation of cosmic ray level by solar activity is well established, The mechanism by which cosmic ray level affects cloudiness is partially established through the CLOUD experiments at CERN, but it is ongoing work.

      I am not fully conversant with whether or not the direct visible radiation from the sun varies with these modulations of cosmic rays. My pint is,it doesn’t need to, Variations in the solar and earth magnetospheres is enough to case modulation of cosmic rays, and therefore isotope ratios…

      If this is all too complex and dry, you could always trot over to skeptical science for a simple emotionally satisfying dose of religious dogma.

      Real science isn’t for everyone.

      • A much larger variation of cosmic rays is due to the changing magnetic field of the Earth.

        The little wiggles are the solar modulation. If cosmic rays are important, the climate should vary as the observed actual cosmic ray flux, not just as the tiny solar wiggles.

      • Intrinsically, clouds are highly variable, do not zero out, and have highly significant effects on incoming solar energy before that energy hits Earth’s surface. Ocean currents and temperatures near/at surface are also highly variable, all on their own. Atmospheric pressure systems, both semi-permanent or not, have wide swings, all without extrinsic changes. Earth is an extremely variable planet all by itself. And varies SUBSTANTIALLY compared to other space bodies both near and far. Finding an extremely small extrinsic signal buried in extremely large intrinsic noise is impossible if one is only using a data string derived from thermometers or satellites to measure land, air, and water temperature to half or so a degree, not to mention the gross-scaled paleo-proxies. The post’s premise does not stand up.

  11. Interesting post, though “irregular cycle” strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. Quasicyclical sounds more sciency.

    • The irregularity is due to modulation by other cycles (Milankovitch, ocean and solar) and inertia. The inertia comes from the initial state (glacial or not, mostly) and ocean heat storage. A perfect cycle can only occur in the absence of any other influence. Climate change is complex and isolating individual “forcings” is difficult unless you are the IPCC and you just declare there is only one significant “forcing.”

      • Andy May November 25, 2016 at 5:49 am

        The irregularity is due to modulation by other cycles (Milankovitch, ocean and solar) and inertia.

        So you are saying that the cycles are regular except when cycles are present? Since cycles are always present, this seems like a universal escape clause.

        And how are ocean cycles affecting a cycle in the sun, for heavens sake?

        Andy, the “Bray Cycle” in the ∆14C data is actually two short cycles of about 2000-2100 years, one long one of about 2,700 years, and a final short cycle like the first two. Until you can come up with actual numbers showing just what cycles at what amplitude have combined to create that particular lunacy, I fear you are just making claims with nothing to back them up.

        I fear this is a common failing among folks who study cycles, they wave their hands and say things like “modulation by other cycles” and “change is complex” and think that that actually explains away something.

        w.

      • So you are saying that the cycles are regular except when cycles are present? Since cycles are always present, this seems like a universal escape clause.
        And how are ocean cycles affecting a cycle in the sun, for heavens sake?

        Willis, there are two cycles of roughly 2400 years that are in phase. A solar cycle and a climate cycle. They have different environmental effects. The solar cycle is affected by other solar cycles, or affects other solar cycles. The climate cycle is affected by climate system inertia and ocean cycles. This is clear in the post and in the papers in the bibliography. We shouldn’t have keep re-explaining the same stuff. Read more, comment less.

      • It is not certain there is a solar cycle. If there is a 2400-yr signal in the cosmic ray proxies it is very likely due to climate contamination of your purported 2400-yr ‘cycle’ in climate.

      • Andy May November 26, 2016 at 12:36 pm Edit

        So you are saying that the cycles are regular except when cycles are present? Since cycles are always present, this seems like a universal escape clause.
        And how are ocean cycles affecting a cycle in the sun, for heavens sake?

        Willis, there are two cycles of roughly 2400 years that are in phase. A solar cycle and a climate cycle. They have different environmental effects. The solar cycle is affected by other solar cycles, or affects other solar cycles. The climate cycle is affected by climate system inertia and ocean cycles. This is clear in the post and in the papers in the bibliography. We shouldn’t have keep re-explaining the same stuff. Read more, comment less.

        Thanks, Andy, but as they say in court, “Assumes facts not in evidence”. As Leif pointed out in reply,

        It is not certain there is a solar cycle. If there is a 2400-yr signal in the cosmic ray proxies it is very likely due to climate contamination of your purported 2400-yr ‘cycle’ in climate.

        In addition, as I showed above, the claims for the low points in the so-called “Bray Cycle” cover the entire time from the present back 10000 years, and the claimed “Bray Cycles” range from 1500 to 2500 years.

        Finally, I’ll make my usual request, which is to back up your claims. Just which study shows that “there are two cycles of roughly 2400 years that are in phase”. It can’t be the ∆14C data, it doesn’t have any 2400 year cycles, just 2000 year and 2700 year cycles.

        In any case, it’s time for you to link to the best study that you know of that shows the solar and climate cycles “in phase”. No data, no science.

        I look forward for the link,

        w.

        PS—I wanted to thank you for putting together the bibliography. You’ve done a good job on it. Given all the work that it must have taken to do that, why is it so hard to answer when I ask “Which one of the 93 studies in your bibliography has the strongest evidence for the existence of the Bray Cycle”?

        Because I don’t have enough time left on this earth to waste it plowing through 93 studies, only to be told after each analysis, No, Willis, that’s not the strong study.

        How do I know that will happen?

        I know because it already has happened. Above, I analyzed the first paper in your bibliography that I lit on, because it was the last one in the alphabetical list. Don’t want to be accused of favoritism. That study didn’t say a word about the Bray cycle. I pointed this out. You said in essence, No, Willis, that’s not the strong study.

        So … which one is the strongest one? I AM ASKING FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ARRIVING AT THE TRUTH, ANDY. I don’t have time to dick around with the rest of the padding in your bibliography. If you are the scientist you claim to be, and the scientist that I think you are, in the spirit of scientific transparency you’ll let me in on the secret link to the study that you think is the best one …

        Or not. Again, your choice.

        w.

  12. Greg at 2:12 Trying to back the common allegation about the motives of Michael Mann and the hockey stick climatology into Javier and Mays article is ludicrous. There are historical reasons for the existence of climate cycles apart from various proxies, while the allegation is that Mann wanted to make such cycles go away to strengthen AGW effects of CO2.

    • That is not correct. There is not a close association but it is clear that the periods of solar activity deficit (marked in blue) in the figure have become shorter and shallower during that period. Also the period with six very active solar cycles out of seven between 1930 and 2009 is the longest most intense period on record.

      • Typical cherry picking. Cycles 20 and 24 are tiny and solar activity is low while temperatures are high. Your latest blue period is longer than the one before it. Your purple curve shows the disconnect clearly. And, as usual, you don’t show all the data, e.g. temperatures since 1970.

      • An accumulation of multiple high solar cycles will suppress the effect of individual low solar cycles set within them. lsvalgaard’s objection is therefore not sustainable.

      • Stephen , you seem to be arguing for some kind of thermal inertia in the system which is reasonable. However, you need to state clearly and precisely what you are proposing so that it can be tested.

        I’ve looked at a number of possibilities and have not found anything convincing. However, it is impossible to affirm or disprove what you are suggesting since you don’t actually say what it is. You are not making a testable statement.

      • I agree with the latter statement. Now what are you saying about what we need to do to the solar proxy to get something that does match climate?

      • Greg,
        May I suggest an appropriate climate variable would be the level of jet stream zonality/meridionality combined with total global cloudiness.
        We do not have much data on those features but within the satellite era there is a reasonable match with solar variations as is becoming increasingly apparent.

      • Thanks Stephen, when we have some data I would interested in evaluating that idea.

        In fact, once we have some accurate data on cloud “amount” at all relevant heights, I think we will understand a lot more about climate than we ever will by looking at the Keeling curve.

      • Leif Svalgaard,

        Typical cherry picking

        No, there’s no cherry picking. Moberg’s temperature reconstruction doesn’t go any further.

        Besides I have not said that all the warming is due to solar variability, therefore a perfect match should not be expected. It is clear however that both solar activity and temperatures have been on the increase since the 1660’s, but not uniformly. The Dalton minimum period and the 1900’s were both cold and with lower solar activity. Coincidence? They are mounting.

        This is just solar activity with a 35 yr moving average, a linear trend and a sixth polynomial trend.

      • The linear trend is spurious – having cherry-picked the low 17th century as the starting point. Make a linear trend over the past 2500 years if you want to see the long-term variation.
        And there are other temperature series up to the present than Moberg’s.
        The fact is that the climate and solar activity have not varied the same way the past several centuries.

      • The Dalton minimum period and the 1900’s were both cold and with lower solar activity. Coincidence? They are mounting.
        And solar activity now is on par with the 1900s, but temperatures are the highest ‘ever’. So, the coincidence you fish for is spurious.

      • Hmm. At some point in history, you can align quite a few things with temperature and call it what you want, but no purported cause matches all the times, including solar, oceans and AGW.

        The present te period of 1975 onwards is not a reliable time frame to claim anything. If Javier is right, we will chat about it in 2000 years or so. I will add a note in my calendar. However, the past 20 or so years makes the AGW explanation look a little iffy.

        I wonder, could it be a case of when solar does A, the oceans do B, several volcanoes do C, cooling happens. Take one out of the equation and not much happens. Even if there are 6 or more variables, it would be difficult to have them all line up at the same time.

        I like the solar idea, but it just doesn’t stand up by itself, just like AGW.

      • Leif,

        The linear trend is spurious – having cherry-picked the low 17th century as the starting point. Make a linear trend over the past 2500 years if you want to see the long-term variation.

        But before:

        the climate and solar activity the last 300 years have not followed each other.

        So when I show that indeed solar activity and climate have followed each other for the last 300 years your response is that I cherry picked the dates and should take 2500 years.

        Well sorry, you cherry picked the dates and I showed you wrong on that. Taking 2500 years would give you a full cycle, and therefore the only trend present would be coming from higher order (Milankovitch) cycles.

      • And solar activity now is on par with the 1900s, but temperatures are the highest ‘ever’. So, the coincidence you fish for is spurious.

        No. Solar activity is not on par with the 1900s. Solar cycles 12-16 between 1875 and 1935 were all below second half of the 20th century average solar activity. That’s 5 low activity cycles in a row. So far we have had only one that is not even complete. When it gets to 5 low solar activity cycles in a row, if it does, you will be able to claim that present solar activity is on par with the 1900s.

        The effect of 60 years of reduced solar activity on temperatures cannot be the same that the effect of 7 years. I am surprised you cannot see something so obvious.

      • There is an approximate 100-year variation where generally low cycles and high cycles are found in groups of about five cycles duration. We are just now entering such a low group.

    • javier, it’s not just 7 years. The last three solar cycles have been of decreasing amplitude while temps rise.

      If you want to argue for a significant solar component you need something to account for that rise despite falling SSN. You are providing a good case for AGW.

      • Greg, you are assuming that for solar activity to have an effect on temperatures the effect should be linear and with no delay. When you don’t find that linear effect without delay you claim that solar activity has no effect on temperatures.

        What the evidence shows is that solar activity and temperatures have a better correlation over a multidecadal scale. The amplitude of the last three solar cycles is average for the second half of the 20th century, and clearly above average for the last 400 years. Why would you expect a significant cooling with above average solar activity? It makes no sense.

        We are now having below average solar activity for the past 7 years. If the next cycle is also below average we could start seeing an effect on temperatures over the next couple of decades. Let’s see how much warming CO2 can do on its own, without solar help. i predict that the priests of the CAGW religion are going to be sorely disappointed, but if the Christian Church managed to transition from an apocalyptic sect to a stable religion I don’t see why they can’t do the same and keep living from this climatic circus.

      • Greg,

        It’s the time interval of the increased solar warming that matters. It takes a while for the system to work that accumulated heat off. This year’s super El Nino should help do so.

        The problem is that Gavin and his unindicted Climafia co-conspirators will keep cooking the books long after Gaia has in fact cooled. Maybe indictments will be forthcoming from the Trump Administration. One can only hope.

  13. Van Geel, et al. (1998) discusses the dramatic rise in 14C during the Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD) and during the Greek Dark Age (roughly 1100BC to 800BC). The history of these cooler periods is fairly well known, so they can provide evidence of the link between 14C concentrations and climate. Van Geel discusses techniques of matching 14C reconstructions with historical and paleontological evidence, like the moss species composition of peat bogs.
    ————————————————-
    This simply proves one thing, when it comes to the dramatic rise of 14C during these two cooling periods mentioned, that the CO2 yearly emissions “dramatically declined.
    Further more the link between the Sun and climate it happens to be simply a wide speculative assumption according to this evidence as the drastic rise of C14 mentioned concerns the samples and not the atmospheric concentration of C14 and its variation actually, and there is no way of any actual estimation of that C14 concentration in atmosphere by considering the concentration in the samples as the actual CO2 yearly emissions and its variation can not be actually quantified or relied at by any actual measurement or correct estimations….
    And for as long as the variation of the yearly CO2 emissions effect the C14 concentration in the samples then there is no way that it actually represent the same pattern of the C14 variation in the atmospheric concentration…..it is simply a circular reasoning……”where yes very probably climate effect C14 concentration in the samples and it shows that that must be the actual representation of the C14 concentration which in turn is effected by the sun and therefor sun must be effecting the climate”……….. ,

    cheers

    • Whiten,

      Figure 5 demonstrates that you are incorrect. Changes in cosmogenic isotopes production do to a certain extent represent changes in solar activity, unless you can show that the decrease in CO2 can also increase auroras and decrease sunspots.

  14. Javier
    November 24, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Javier, it is actually very simple, regardless of any graphs you may show, C14 actual concentration in the sample and its variation there is an actual result of the dynamics within the earth system, in these case it is actually the dynamics of the yearly overall CO2 flux, which also impacts the C14 concentration in the atmosphere too, especially in the case of drastic and significant changes,,,,, showing that yearly CO2 flux impacts and effects more the concentration of C14 in the samples and atmosphere than the changes that produce it in the first place do.
    Especially for these two periods mentioned, it is very easy to contemplate that when the actual concentration of C14 in the samples increases dramatically, in the same time the actual C14 concentration in the atmosphere “dramatically” declines………as it moves from atmosphere to the samples, in a way that will overshadow the C14 actual production to effect the C14 actual concentration variation over periods of time in the atmosphere.
    Claiming that the C14 for these two periods in question dramatically increased in the atmosphere because the samples show that, it is a very wide and wrong assumption……leading to a circular reasoning.

    cheers

    • withen,

      You still have not explained how the CO2 flux could affect 10Be and sunspots. If you think that solar activity may be affecting CO2 flux, then we might agree on something.

      • Javier
        November 24, 2016 at 5:53 pm

        withen,

        You still have not explained how the CO2 flux could affect 10Be and sunspots. If you think that solar activity may be affecting CO2 flux, then we might agree on something.
        ——————-

        Thanks for your reply Javier….

        Now, let me first copy-paste from my previous reply to you:
        ” C14 actual concentration in the sample and its variation there is an actual result of the dynamics within the earth system, in these case it is actually the dynamics of the yearly overall CO2 flux,”

        The C2 flux is not the only meaningful and impactive force within the earth system dynamics, but in the case of the C14 seems the one that can not be ignored, as far as I can tell…

        Also, the atmospheric thermodynamics and H2O dynamics are and could be impactive enough,, especially the H2O dynamics or the H2O cycle in the case of the 10Be, in the context of climate change and evn the weather in accordance with the given time periods..
        Simply not considering and ignoring such effects and impacts from the earth system dynamics (atmosphere one) renders the case of 10Be as irrelevant evidence……… when in same time, as explain it to Andy in my reply, 10Be as a proxy or data in its own does not even make it as of even any circumstantial value.
        Its value stands as “artificially” raised first to circumstantial and then to some kind of conclusive only in connection, corroboration and validation by the other proxy, the C14 one…..otherwise as far as I can tell, for the time being, up to now, 10Be as a proxy has no any actual value in its own,,,,,,,, too messy and incoherent, from my point of view.

        cheers

      • whiten, I see. You get rid of the 10Be data that does not support your interpretation by a swift disqualification with a wave of your hand. How do you disqualify the sunspot data?

    • dC14 is only one line of evidence here. We are very familiar with its flaws. d18O, 10Be, and paleontological evidence (including glacier data and iceberg data) are conclusive on their own.

      • paleontological evidence (including glacier data and iceberg data) are conclusive on their own
        ‘Suggestive’ would be a better word than the absolute ‘conclusive’. Dictionary definition:
        Conclusive: “putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability”.

      • A very clever approach to support and strengthen the Javier’s request in his last reply to me ,which I hopefully will respond shortly after..
        d14C is only one line of evidence yes, and in its own does not make it further than circumstantial, in any way of approach to interpretation, if it is not validated by corroboration with other evidence…..

        Look at the very first picture in your post, it means that neither C14 or 10Be can make it as more than circumstantial evidence in their own as data or proxies.when considering that one may not support and validate the other……even worse, as far as I can tell, the 10Be data consisting as a proxy is much more messy and incoherent as to make it in its own even to the circumstantial evidence….no good for any thing in its own….when in the same time C14 still good as a proxy as a circumstantial evidence…
        10Be is no better than the single tree in Jamal, when the other assumed tree on the other side of the world, the C14 fails to validate it……..

        the rest of my own argument about the 10Be as data or proxy you may just get it at my following reply to Javier, ,,,,,but still please do contemplate the meaning of the first picture in your post……

        Also I got to be honest and tell you, that as this being fryday,, I may be one too many drinks up…:)

        I may not even be as polite as Isvalgaard below, by saying that what you consider as conclusive evidence barely make it as circumstantial at best…and not always….

      • Suggestive’ would be a better word than the absolute ‘conclusive’.

        I may not even be as polite as Isvalgaard below, by saying that what you consider as conclusive evidence barely make it as circumstantial at best…and not always….

        Isvalgaard and whiten, You are skeptical, which is a good thing. But, speaking for myself here, Javier may think differently, I find the sum total of the geological, paleontological, archaeological, historical, glacial, iceberg, sedimentological (dO18), 14C and 10Be data referred to in the post as conclusive evidence that a ~2400-year climate cycle exists and that it has an extraterrestrial source. Just my opinion. I suspect if you spent as much time reviewing the evidence as I have you would probably agree. It is very hard to get so much evidence to line up time-wise this well in the geological world in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Now is the extraterrestrial source a solar cycle, or orbital variations? Who knows, probably one or the other. If a solar cycle is it TSI? Magnetic field strength? Solar wind variations? More work needs to be done.

      • that it has an extraterrestrial source
        What is the evidence for your opinion that the source is extraterrestrial? Why can it not be internal to the climate system?

      • This does seem that May is perhaps inadvertently making an ad ignorantium argument, that as we do not know what causes the cycles, it must be extraterrestrial influences. Reading this thread, and it looks like enough evidence to sustain an argument, but not good enough evidence to really settle anything (other than that there needs to be better evidence).

      • What is the evidence for your opinion that the source is extraterrestrial? Why can it not be internal to the climate system?

        I cannot answer for Andy, but since I share his opinion in this matter, I can give you mine. The evidence for an extraterrestrial source for the climate cycle is that the cosmogenic cycle that is phase locked with the climate cycle is linked to solar activity during the Wolff, Spörer, and specially Maunder solar grand minima. Solar activity and cosmogenic isotope production also agree on the Dalton minimum and 1900 minimum, two other known cold periods. All this periods for the last 700 years show a good correlation between solar activity, cosmogenic isotope production and climate. That’s why we think the climate cycle has a solar origin, because the opposite, that the solar cycle has a climate origin, looks highly improbable. And even if we have no good mechanism for a solar cycle to cause a climate cycle, it doesn’t look as far fetched as some other unknown cause creating both the solar and Earth climate cycles.

        700 years of correlation between solar activity and climate certainly look much better than the 25 years than CO2 and temperatures can claim (1975-2000).

      • This does seem that May is perhaps inadvertently making an ad ignorantium argument, that as we do not know what causes the cycles, it must be extraterrestrial influences. Reading this thread, and it looks like enough evidence to sustain an argument, but not good enough evidence to really settle anything (other than that there needs to be better evidence).

        Tom Halla and Leif, This puts it well. There is enough evidence to strongly suggest an extraterrestrial source, but the argument is of the “what else could it be type” and very unsatisfying. Let’s hope the astrophysicists can bail us out here.

      • There is enough evidence to strongly suggest an extraterrestrial source

        AGW is global, so following your ‘logic’ that global effects are extraterrestrial, you would advocate that AGW is also extraterrestrial. Not compelling.

        There is curious thing with the cycles: cyclomaniacs think that the climate cannot have cycles on its own, but are happy positing that the Sun has such cycles. In a certain sense the Sun is a simpler system than the Earth’s climate [on account of being hot], and it is very hard to induce major cycles in solar output. Cycles require a memory, and hot bodies have a hard time to keep a memory.

      • I thought we had agreed that maxima [which is a good proxy for energy in] has been dropping
        in line with the SSN of the last 100 years or so.

        we also completely agreed to disagree on SSN before that time,
        e.g. remember we discussed issues like
        how big is a spot
        how good is good vision
        what magnification
        what if there are clouds for months
        and a number of new ‘versions’ of spot reading of spots measured before the 1900s

      • Because there are many observers their differences wash out. The Sunspot Number and Group Numbers are good [and agree with the cosmic ray record, so if your curve disagrees you are just wrong. Being wrong is OK [you are in good company], but not admitting it is not so good. But, such are people: some are reasonable, some are not. Choose your category.

  15. The changes in C14 merely represent a proxy for changes in solar activity. The direction of the relationship between C14 and CO2 is irrelevant if BOTH act as proxies for solar activity and I contend that they do.

    The variation in the amount of solar energy entering the oceans as a resuilt of solar induced cloudiness changes must also affect the amount of CO2 held by the ocean water into which sunlight penetrates.

    As for the cause of the cloudiness variations see here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

    I first set out that proposal in 2010.

    • Stephen, your theory still makes a lot of sense to me!
      just something I have come to realize: it is not only ozone being formed TOA by the most energetic particles coming from the sun. Above the oceans peroxides are formed as there are OH radicals present. IMO peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone, if OH is present.
      Look at the similarities of the absorption spectra of ozone and peroxide…..they look exactly alike and these two components do exactly the same thing: protect us from the most horrible radiation spewed by the sun (UV-C)
      Hence there never was an ozone hole. Can you believe it. It is just that nobody ever measured peroxides in that ‘hole’….

      from N2 and O2 there are also nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA by the most energetic particles coming from the sun.

  16. One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame.

    Well the funny thing is that the article spends little time even discussing this. I don’t see a single graph presenting any “climate” variable plotted against any proxy of solar variability.

    As a result the ” inescapable conclusion” escapes me.

    • Greg,

      Well the funny thing is that the article spends little time even discussing this.

      The article discusses the evidence for a climate cycle and a cosmogenic cycle, that are in phase, and argues that the cosmogenic cycle can only be due to a solar variability cycle.

      You might disagree with the conclusions, but what you are asking for is a different article. Why don’t you bother yourself to go to the links provided? For example:
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/

      Plenty of climate variables plotted against proxies of solar variability, there.

      • Well if you think those graphs are so convincing why do you not present them here. If this article supposed show that the “cosmogenic cycle ” is “in phase” why don’t you show this aclaimedly obvious result here before claiming “inescapable” conclusions from something that you did not show.

        This is just the kind of BS science that warmists have been force feeding us for decades. I have been strongly critical of that work and will apply the same standards to what I read here.

      • Well if you think those graphs are so convincing why do you not present them here.

        Each article has a purpose and has to present only a small part of the evidence. If you would like Andy’s or my articles to be different, you can write your own.

        I have been strongly critical of that work and will apply the same standards to what I read here.

        I see that having you here there is no need any longer for peer reviewed scientific literature. Your standards are so much better than scientific journal’s, that we can dispense with them.

        In case you haven’t noticed, we are not presenting our work, but the status of the field in the published scientific literature. Saying that you believe it is not up to your standards means nothing to me.

  17. To quote the President-elect, I maintain an open mind. But inside this possible Bray solar period are significant, historically well documented events like MWP and LIA that are not explained by it. During MWP, Vikings were buried in Greenland churchyards that are now permafrost. The last Thames ice fair of the LIA was 1810. So there is a lot more natural variation going on that may be more climatologically important.
    And, I also find all paleoproxies to be at best suspect. That includes 10Be and 18O, and any ice core reconstruction due to local condition and dating problems. Plus more, like Mg/Ca and alkenones in marine sediments. Essay Cause and Effect fives a nice analysis of the Shakun paleoproxy hash.
    There are probably much stronger, simpler arguments refuting CAGW–if that is the goal.

      • Which is the point I made above and I think accounts for the general weakness arguments presented. You’d need a fair bit of bias confirmation to see any of this as “inescapable”.

      • SW, am familiar with your solar arguments and remain very unpersuaded for several reasons. You want these off line, get to me thru Jo Nova or AWAtts, or otherwise. I ‘hide’ in plain sight behind no atavar.
        Must agree with Dr. Svaalgard. You ahould go only where the actual best data leads without ‘unjust’ manipulation. Now, that last phrase is subject to some debate. But only by those with significant statisitcal chops. Yours?

      • Leif

        And if that is the goal, we are drifting into agenda-driven arguments.

        That is not the goal. This is a pure scientific issue. I personally don’t give a damn if CO2 is causing the warming or not, because I consider the warming to be net beneficial both to humans and ecosystems.

        This is not an argument of whether it is the Sun or not. This is an argument that there is quite strong evidence that solar variability affects climate variability, and this is an issue that has been discussed by scientists for decades. As a scientist I consider that the advance of knowledge is a worthy goal in itself, even if as a society we decide to completely abandon fossil fuels. They are separate issues. A better knowledge on how the Sun affects climate will help us prepare for future climate changes that might not be as beneficial as the present one.

    • The study of the causes of past climate variations cannot prove or disprove the assertion
      that human activity can change the climate. Nobody is stating that CO2 levels are the only
      cause of climate change but rather that it is one cause. What such studies can do is help
      estimate the climate sensitivity to particular forcings. And if you want to claim that changes
      in the rate that cosmic rays are hitting the earth will change the climate (through increased rates of cloud formation) then the climate sensitivity must be high. And if it is high then the
      likely hood of a significant rise in temperature due to increased CO2 is also high.

      • if you want to claim that changes in the rate that cosmic rays are hitting the earth will change the climate (through increased rates of cloud formation) then the climate sensitivity must be high.

        Neither I nor Andy has made such claim. Personally I believe Svensmark’s theory on changes in cosmic rays being important for climate change to be incorrect and fundamentally flawed.

    • Rud,

      But inside this possible Bray solar period are significant, historically well documented events like MWP and LIA that are not explained by it.
      There are probably much stronger, simpler arguments refuting CAGW–if that is the goal.

      The LIA is partially explained by the Bray cycle if you have read the article.

      This is just one of the cycles operating in the climate. Your argument is akin to expect that the Milankovitch obliquity cycle should be able to explain the 8.2 kyr event. There appears to be three main cycles operating in the centennial to millennial scale, the ~ 2400 and ~ 1000 yr solar cycles, and the ~ 1500 yr oceanic cycle. Together they explain every Bond event. On top of that we have volcanic activity, changes in greenhouse gases, meltwater pulses. The multidecadal and multimillennial variabilities. The oceanic oscillations and the atmospheric oscillations. Now why should we expect that a single cycle would explain the climatic history of the planet? Why should we expect that even if solar variability has a significant effect on climate variability changes in solar activity should match changes in global temperatures?

      This is very complex stuff. What we are doing is to dissect contributions. Here we have shown that the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle has produced five periods of significant climate change during the Holocene, and therefore is responsible for the worsening and later improvement of the climate during periods of several centuries. Despite being a ~ 2400 yr cycle, we are only 400 years from its last low, so we are in one of such periods, luckily on the improving part. To think that this has nothing to do with the global warming that the planet is experiencing since the LIA is unwarranted. Whatever warming we are producing is added to the natural warming from the LIA.

      • Javier, is there any “guesstimate” as to how much warming we would expect to see attributed (from the minimum to the maximum) to the 2,400 year cycle alone? thanx…

      • aforanzelli,

        It is hard to say because we lack good temperature reconstructions, but my guess is that a Bray low can cause a drop of 0.3-0.5°C. It is even more difficult to say what happens during a maximum, because maxima are not well defined in the cycle. I don’t think it could cause more warming than half of that, because there are no really warming events during the Holocene. The only warming events that take place are when recovering from a previous cooling. All in all the range could be something like 0.4-0.7 °C over a millennia or so. i don’t really think it explains all the warming we have seen. Perhaps more like half of it.

      • And actually it probably has more effect on precipitations than on temperatures, drying up some places and bringing more rain to others. This is discussed in more detail in the article published in Climate Etc.

      • Javier, you are claiming one pseudo-cycle is relevant and when it does not match it is because of another pseudo-cycle which you have not looked at in detail. This is special pleading. Most of your claims to similarity are hand-waving generalities about it’s a bit warmer / cooler here when one pseudo-cycle it high / low. That is full of subjective cherry picking, neatly avoiding times then it does not work.

        If you think there is a correlation between two variables, plot them on the same graph so we can see and evaluate that claim.

      • Greg,

        you are claiming one pseudo-cycle is relevant and when it does not match it is because of another pseudo-cycle which you have not looked at in detail.

        Who says I have not looked at it in detail? I have looked at cosmogenic data and climatic data for the Holocene and the relevant bibliography in quite a lot of detail. Your demand for perfect explanations over a complicated issue is a good example of fallacious argumentation.

        If you think there is a correlation between two variables, plot them on the same graph so we can see and evaluate that claim.

        Stop requesting that I do some work to satisfy your curiosity, unless you are prepared to pay my consultant fees.

    • Rud, I doubt a solar variability argument could ever refute CAGW. But, Javier and I think it has some non-zero effect. Thus it should not be ignored as the IPCC is doing. How can you ignore it and claim high confidence? Note figure 10.5 in AR5, chapter 10 (Javier posted another version of the same figure above) claims that all natural “forcings” are zero between 1951 to 2010, not just solar. So, the ocean cycles are zero also? For a period of almost 60 years??? Give me a break.

  18. Solar has been generally declining for the last three cycles, while SST has not done more that a plateau plus recent rise.

    It does match the early 20th c. rise. and the dip around the end of the 19th. c.

    That means if you want to suggest a strong solar component to surface temperature, you’d need something like GHE to make the recent warming match.

    Enhanced solar seems like a good argument in favour of AGW to me.

      • Re: Warmists in the Ivory Towers: Tuning is their game and they are loath to sing their stance off key. JCurry has recently published the tuning issue with models. What shocks me is their inability to see this tuning through the robust null hypothesis lens. The megaphone of bias shouts: “We have created models to understand how the climate system works.” It should be the quiet voice of double blind standards: “We have created purposely biased models for others to blindly compare to actual climate data to see if our models are incorrectly hind/forecasting.”

    • Greg,

      I have no doubt that the increase in GHGs has caused some warming. I think we have pretty good evidence in the global glacier retreat that has gone way beyond general Neoglacial trend. I have no problem with that. However I don’t think the warming is either bad or dangerous. Nor do I think it is going to proceed much further. I am quite optimistic about the climate for the next decades unlike most people from both sides of the debate that are either worried about escalating warming or impending cooling. Compared to the LIA this is like just another day in paradise. Pre-industrial climate sucked.

      • @ Javier, I thought that there might be some warming caused by GHG too. But some idiot years ago was going on about 38 BMT of co2 per year. After I started looking into it, I don’t think there is any. Because of the agenda driven science, I’m not certain whether or not the underlying general warming trend isn’t responsible for all of the rise in co2. How much of the rise in total co2 is related to anthropogenic co2 is unknown. The accounting of the numbers don’t match. Restatement of numbers without basis further conflicts the picture.
        I can say 2 things with a high degree of confidence: co2 follows temperature, there has been an underlying warming trend. Nowhere is the record of co2 born out that co2 follows temperature than the last 15 to 20 years. Despite year over year increases of at least a BMT, constant proportional rises per year didn’t.

        ( I have to repeat that every time, because the stupid and ignorant will run to their graph showing total co2 and temperature. The graph you won’t see is the one with ppm per year and temperature. Of course NOAA is hard at work adjusting the numbers now that it has been brought to their attention )

      • @javier
        //I have no doubt that the increase in GHGs has caused some warming.

        Yes, if one considers water vapor to be a GHG. How much do you think CO2 contributes?

        I believe that CO2, per se, has very little or no effect on mean surface temperatures. My ‘proof’ of this is that CO2 is almost 30 times more abundant (by column volume) on Mars than Earth. Yet the mean surface temperature is 210K, i.e. same as the black body temperature.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/ingenious-or-misleading-rational-for-the-pause/comment-page-1/#comment-2218562
        http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AlbertEydelman.shtml

        There is virtually no water vapor in Mars’ atmosphere, it’s 95% CO2. So it doesn’t have any warming effect at all on Mars.

        Yes, I know that CO2 does strongly absorb IR. But so does the Earth’s surface, which also absorbs around 60% of incoming solar irradiance, so it is merely a component of the black body radiation. (To see this, think of the CO2 under the planetary boundary layer as part of the “surface”.)

      • @me
        //…(by column volume)…

        I should say by column mass. In other words, the mass of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere, normalized by unit of surface area, is approx 30 times greater than the normalized mass of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. The actual volumes depend on gravity, so is irrelevant here.

      • Johanus,

        Yes, if one considers water vapor to be a GHG. How much do you think CO2 contributes?

        Clearly nobody in the World could answer that question with any hope of giving a relevant answer. My opinion is based on the state of the cryosphere, that has receded way beyond what could be expected from the last 5000 years trend. It is consistent with CO2 having a maximum effect when the air has very low absolute water content, that is when the air is very cold, as it is over the cryosphere. It is the most sensitive test in my opinion.

      • Latest information from the Scott and Shackleton log books is that the Antarctic part of the Cryosphere has not changed much at all over 100 years and ice there may have increased somewhat.
        The Arctic may simply be highly variable due to the flows of warm water into the Arctic and we may have started satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice at a historically high point in the 1970s
        So, the Cryosphere might not be a good guide.
        Stephen Wilde

      • Johanus, Murray Salby’s textbook on Atmospheric Physics suggests that, on average, >90% of the radiative greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface is from water vapor (figure 8.24, page 242). But, it varies with absolute humidity. So, it is less at the poles and in deserts, especially the Sahara.

      • wildeco2014,

        Scott and Shackleton log books is that the Antarctic part of the Cryosphere has not changed much at all over 100 years and ice there may have increased somewhat.

        Scott and Shackleton could only talk about what they saw at a given time in a given place. Scientists have been painstakingly reconstructing what glaciers have been doing all over the World.

        The situation indicates the global glacier cryosphere is way more reduced from what it should be expected from Neoglacial trend, and similar to where it was ~ 5000 years ago. That’s why we are finding remains of that time in melting glaciers all over the World, like Ötzi, the ice-man from Tyrol.

        The excessive glacier melting can be reasonably attributed to CO2 warming, as the physics indicates that glaciers should be one of the most sensitive sensors to CO2 warming due to the low content of H2O vapor in very cold air. Obviously this does not say that global climate has warmed as much as glaciers. Most places have higher H2O content and therefore have experienced less CO2 warming. We are still well within Holocene variability, but warmer that what corresponds to this time in the Holocene. We should really enjoy it.

      • lsvalgaard November 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm

        Neither of these show any Bray ‘cycle’.

        You have to dose them with special statistical sauce and then squint at them from across the room.

        w.

      • Leif,

        Neither of these show any Bray ‘cycle’.

        Glaciers respond as much to temperature changes as to precipitation changes. We have a good example during the Spörer minimum, that it is known to have been very cold in Europe yet precipitations were so below average that seeds were killed in the fields by mid-winter cold because of lack of a protective layer of snow (historic accounts), and Alpine glaciers didn’t advance, while in other parts of the World they did advance.

        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/figure-13.png?w=500&h=634

        Bray already showed in 1968 that global glacier data does support the ~ 2400 yr cycle, as does the iceberg data of Bond et al., 2001, while at the same time registering many other cold periods that do not belong to the ~ 2400 year cycle.

  19. The statement that “In 1988, Pestiaux, et al. found a strong 2500-year statistically significant cycle in the δ18O (delta-Oxygen-18, an indicator of air temperature) concentration in three deep sea cores taken in the Indian Ocean.” is incorrect. They
    found a signal in one of the cores and it was absent in the other two. In fact looking
    at that paper the first surprising thing is that there appears to be no common signal
    in all three core samples. The second thing is that they explain the frequencies as
    a linear combination of forcing frequencies due to the fact that the climate is a nonlinear
    oscillator and use the fact that there is a 2500 year cycle as evidence for a much
    longer solar cycles with 19000, 23000 and 41000 periods.

    So if you want to quote Pestiaux then you would also need to state why their conclusions
    are wrong. This paper also highlights a fundamental flaw in trying to assign causes to
    any periodic signal — since the climate is nonlinear a period signal with period f can be caused by a driving force with a completely different period. Hopf bifurcations for example
    occur resulting in a periodic output for a fixed constant input (think of a flag waving in the
    wind).

    • Germinio, Sorry it took so long to respond. The paper we refer to is Pestiaux, et al. (1988). They examined the O18 isotope ratios in both Planktonic and Benthic foraminifera. Here we are only concerned with the Planktonic forams, they are more sensitive to climate changes. There Table IV summarizes the results and estimates error in three ways. In cores MD73025 and MD76135 then found a planktonic cycle of 2.3 and 2.6 respectively. Both are significant at the <0.05 level. The third core (MD76131) has a 2.7kyr cycle statistically significant at <0.2. The error bars on all three cores overlap, the mean is 2.5kyr, std dev of 0.5kyr (Table V and Fig. 6). The third core (MD76131) is an outlier in many respects. I refer to you to the paper for details. I do not see how this is contradicted in their conclusions, can you point out the contradiction specifically?

  20. outliers…

    I learn a great deal from where data departs from models and where 2 data sets depart. So I have learned, and made a profitable business, from examining outliers. The greater the outlier the higher the likelihood the data point harbors a new undescribed feature. Many of my discoveries come from outliers.

    So it seems to me the link exists between solar activity and terrestrial climate. The differences where the correlation breaks down may well be opportunities to learn something new.

    Thanks for this post. This subject matter is my favorite at WUWT.

    • PW, a couple of personal observations on a sated Thanksgiving evening. (Warning, turkey proteins can be soporiphic, but my daughter’s husbands first Chicago Webber Kettle charcoal grilled 16 pounder turkey somehow just made me giddy today with familial happiness in the presence of two children and three grandchildren– except next time they shall carve with a proper slicing knife, not me with a super shaperened Standard large French chef knife).
      We all learn when experimental (observational) data departs from hypothetical expectations. The pause has returned. Antarctic sea ice has grown. Earth has greened. That sort of stuff.
      One must have much more caution when the data itself is suspect. Much unmeasured land temps. Many of those suspect for microsite and UHI reasons. Most ocean temps unsampled; those that were subject to great errors.
      So, I conclude the following today. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. No, we do not know the magnitude of the GHE because of unknown magnitudes ( even signs) of feedbacks. Yes, observational sensitivity is about half of already falsified two other ways climate models. So on the evidence, enjoy Thanksgiving and stop worrying.

      • ristvan,
        Happy Thanksgiving first. I am giddy also, at least for a little while.
        “One must have much more caution when the data itself is suspect.”

        Isn’t that the truth right there. Outliers are a delight when one can trust the data. Alas you are sadly correct about the unmeasured land area and the wide wide oceans..

        :)

        Now I will put my feet up and lock my fingers on my distended belly….. worries fade …ahhhh.

  21. Javier,

    What was happening in 10,000 BC?

    Michael Hudson, the economic historian, ganged up with fellow experts in archeology, Assyriology, Egyptology, Ancient this and Ancient that, etc., to form a symposium at The Peabody Institute about 20 years ago.

    The symposium publishes books on their findings every few years. The latest book, Labour in the Ancient World was released last year five years late because his colleagues’ discoveries in their respective fields had taken quantum leaps in historical importance since 2,000 AD. They found the original invoices for the trades hired to build the Pyramids, and the menus and invoices for the enormous and frequent beer and roasted-meat feasts used to entice and keep skilled workers culled from across the Mesopotamian region. They were not slaves.

    The most interesting discoveries were the enormous public works that were being built in 10,000 BC in Turkey, and the obvious skillset required to produce them. The 20th C claim that they were a bunch of cavemen with Freddie Flintstone stools turns out to be a myth.

    Here is Hudson in an Australian radio interview about the book:
    http://www.earthsharing.org.au/2015/04/michael-hudson-labor-in-the-ancient-world/

    This is the transcript:
    http://michael-hudson.com/2015/04/sovereignty-in-the-ancient-near-east/

    The account is fascinating, but the cost of the book is prohibitive.

    The weather must have been liveable.

    • MRW,

      What was happening in 10,000 BC?

      It must have been a little bit later. 10,000 BC (12,000 BP) was still the Younger Dryas cooling period. Still better than the previous Last Glacial Maximum, and obviously very livable in tropical and subtropical areas with enhanced precipitation over the glacial period. Humankind was undoubtedly expanding its numbers with the arrival of the interglacial. It is around 500 years later when one of the best periods starts, the Holocene Climatic Optimum. It is still cold in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere because the ice sheets have not completely melted yet, but in the fertile crescent climatic conditions are ideal, with a lot more precipitations than today, probably because due to high northern summer insolation the ITCZ travels further North bringing rains to the Green Sahara and the Middle East. It is in this context, when humans start to domesticate plants in what is considered pre-agriculture, and population increases greatly. In the Southern part of today’s Turkey humans develop complex civilization, building Gobekli Tepe and who knows what else that has been lost. Solar cycles where very strong at the time, but between 11,500 and 10,300 BP conditions were probably very good. Also afterwards, between 10,000 BP and 9,300 BP.

      Humans at the time had a higher cranial capacity. The size of the human brain has been decreasing for the last 10,000 years. the cause for that is discussed, but people of the time could not have been less smart than we are.

    • “The most interesting discoveries were the enormous public works that were being built in 10,000 BC in Turkey,.. The weather must have been liveable.”

      Of course the climate was liveable. At 38 degrees latitude, Turkey was ice-free even during the glacial period. The biblical city of Jericho dates back to 11,000 BP and Aleppo in Syria 13,000 BP

  22. My layman’s opinion is that we are in an interglacial period during which it warm and warms…until it doesn’t and back into an ice age.

  23. IT IS A COMBINATION OF WEAK SOLAR/GEO MAGNETIC FIELDS WHICH WILL CAUSE THE CLIMATE TO COOL.

    The cooling has already started and this trend will continue as long as magnetic fields remain weak.

    Everything AGW s theory has predicted from a +AO evolving over time to a lower tropospheric hot spot, to decreasing OLR has failed to come about. .

    The distribution of warm and cold temperatures across the globe is wrong as well as the magnitude of the rise as called for by this theory. In addition the decline in global temperatures has now set in and will be accelerating gong forward putting an end to this theory.

    In addition this period of time in the climate is in no way unique.

    My theory (in a nutshell) is 1000x better then AGW theory . My theory is based on the following: Which is weak solar/geomagnetic fields when in sync IF the degree of duration and magnitude of change is long/strong enough will push the terrestrial items that govern the climate into a cooling mode.

    Terrestrial items
    sea surface temperatures
    major volcanic activity
    global cloud coverage
    global snow coverage
    global sea ice coverage
    atmospheric circulation pattern changes
    oceanic current changes

    NOTE- a change of just 1/2 of 1 percent in albedo will wipe out all of the last century warming, and that is what I expect will come about due to the weakening magnetic situation which will drive the terrestrial items that control the climate of the earth in a direction which will increase the albedo of the earth.

    It is happening now not 5 years from now not 100 years from now but right now.

    • The cooling has already started and this trend will continue as long as magnetic fields remain weak.
      No. 2016 is the hottest year ‘evah’. No cooling in sight.

  24. And in spite of all the long term evidence, the WMO defines climate as average weather over 30 years. In my 7 decades I have only witnessed weather like my grand parents and great grand parents before me and their ancestors before them. No one alive today has probably witnessed true identifiable climate change. Climate is regional, weather is whatever you see when you look outside or at a satellite image of the earth. My grandparents and parents drove mules/horses to till the land and lived to see man walk on the moon. My ancestors traveled to and from India and Australia and to North America from Europe. The weather they talked about is the same as we see today, perhaps not as severe. Is less severe weather climate change?

    Wait till next year. (Common saying on the farm/ranch.) This year, 10% of the central and northern Alberta crops were under snow or too wet to harvest. Is that because of “Global Warming” or just weather?

    Me? I betting on weather.

    Plus technology has made all weather pretty bearable compared to 100 years ago. Easy to weather the weather in our synthetic clothing and fossil fueled housing.

  25. …. support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales. ….

    d

    You are on the correct track. The sun causes cyclic climate change, including massive climate change such the Younger Dryas 12,900 BP climate change event.

    The Younger Dryas climate change ‘event’ occurred when solar insolation at 65N was maximum.

    12,900 years ago the earth cooled from interglacial warm to glacial cold, (the ice sheets returned, North Atlantic ocean froze each winter to a latitude mid- Spain (UK average year average temperature for 1200 years minus 3C) with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade.

    The YD cooling period lasted for 1200 years, after which the planet warmed back to interglacial temperatures.

    The YD event is a Heinrich event which occur roughly every 10,000 years. The Heinrich events are the largest change in climate. The Heinrich events initiate and terminate the interglacial periods.

    Comment: There has a theory that the YD event has caused by a melt water pulse. That theory was disproved as the massive melt water pulse occurred a 1000 years before the YD event (no evidence of any cooling at that time). Another problem with the melt water pulse theory is basic modelling (peer reviewed) shows that a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current would only cause slight cooling of Northern Europe, a factor of roughly ten less than the observed cooling.

    In the last decade, the geomagnetic field specialists have found that the geomagnetic field changes cyclically and the cyclic change to the geomagnetic field correlate to cyclic warming and cooling of the planet. In addition the have found the cyclic changes to the geomagnetic field correlate to solar cycle changes.

    The cyclic and in some cases, very, very, large changes to the direction and magnitude of the geomagnetic field are too rapid and too large to have been caused by a change in the convection motion of the liquid core.

    Even if there was mechanism that could cause cyclic abrupt changes in convection flow in the liquid core, a change in convection flow in the liquid core cannot could not cause the changes to the geomagnetic field. Field changes caused by a change in liquid core convection is resisted by a back EMF that is generated in the mantel which limits the rapidity of any core based change to the field for both direction and magnitude.

    The sun is causing the change to the geomagnetic field. There are no other suspects. There must be a physical explanation for ever thing that has or will happen.

    The sun causes cyclic climate change by directly modulating the cosmic ray flux and modulating cosmic ray flux.

    There are roughly 200 astronomical paradoxes and anomalies in peer reviewed papers that are explained by how the sun caused the geomagnetic field to change.

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

    Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

    Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.

    http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/1/gubbinsd4.pdf

    Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
    Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought. We have investigated a possible mechanism for the instability of the geodynamo by calculating the critical Rayleigh number (Rc) for the onset of convection in a rotating spherical shell permeated by an imposed magnetic field with both toroidal and poloidal components.

    Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998). One of us (Gubbins 1999) has suggested that this is evidence of a rapid natural timescale (500 yr) in the outer core, and that the magnetic field is usually prevented from reversing completely by the longer diffusion time of the inner core (2 to 5 kyr). This raises a number of important but difficult questions for geodynamo theory. How can the geomagnetic field change so rapidly and dramatically? Can slight variations of the geomagnetic field affect the dynamics of core convection significantly? If so, is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?

    • The sun is causing the change to the geomagnetic field. There are no other suspects. There must be a physical explanation for ever thing that has or will happen.

      Even so, the Sun is not causing the changes to the main field of the Earth, originating in the Earth’s core.

      The sun causes cyclic climate change by directly modulating the cosmic ray flux and modulating cosmic ray flux.
      Repeating it, does not make it any more true. The main modulator is the changing field of the Earth.

  26. Solar cycle changes caused the majority of warming in last 150 years. If that assertion is correct, global warming is reversible.

    There continues be observational support (for example the sudden change to the North magnetic pole drift velocity for example and a tenfold increase in the drop in the geomagnetic field intensity, the 11 year delay in the start in cooling from the drop in the solar cycle, the massive coronal holes on the surface of the sun) for the assertion the solar cycle has been interrupted which is different than a simple slowdown in the solar cycle.

    The warming in the last 150 years has primarily high latitude which is the same as in the past during the cyclic warming and cooling events that correlate with solar cycle changes.

  27. “The Middle Europe oak dendroclimatology demonstrates that the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 yr. AD), the Hallstattzeit cold epoch (750–400 yr. BC) …”.
    ======================================
    Off topic: the name ‘Hallstatt’ will be familiar to those interested in European pre-Celtic / Celtic archaeology and history.
    Hallstatt is the town in Austria near where rich burial sites were found of an iron-using distinctively Celtic culture which flourished from ~700 to ~400 BC.

  28. Thank you to all these scientists contributing to this thread. As a humanities graduate with insatiable curiosity I continue to learn from your comments.

  29. I don’t understand the point of this whole exercise. Let us suppose that there actually is a cycle that ranges (according to the data above) from 2200 to 2500 years. In fact, the ∆14C records don’t show that cycle, they show a cycle that ranges between 2000 and 2700 years, but contains nothing in the 2200 to 2500 year period.

    SO … suppose this is some kind of real and lasting cycle, and as Javier has claimed it might last for 2000 years and it might last for 2700 years and it might be anything in betwen.

    What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang cycle is gonna be 2000 years or 2700 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions. And if we look at the past, since the cycle might be anything from 2000 to 2700 years, we can claim just about anything as being this cycle … but again, SO WHAT???

    I mean, let’s imagine that we’ve conclusively proven that this 2000-year to 2700-year cycle actually exists … how on earth does that help us here on earth? It can’t tell us anything about either the future or the past, so what the hell good is it to us?

    Regards to all,

    w.

    • Willis,

      I don’t understand the point of this whole exercise. Let us suppose that there actually is a cycle that ranges (according to the data above) from 2200 to 2500 years.

      What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang cycle is gonna be 2000 years or 2700 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions.

      We know that Milankovitch orbital cycles and the glacial cycle are related and that interglacials can take place at any time between 80,000-120,000 years, and that they last any time between 8,000-28,000 years.
      “What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang interglacial is gonna be 12000 years or 28000 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions.”
      Your approach is not a scientific one. We study cycles because they exist. The usefulness of science is removed from the studies, but it is indubitable.

      Also:

      as Javier has claimed it might last for 2000 years and it might last for 2700 years and it might be anything in betwen

      You keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it any truer.

      Let’s take the Berilium data from ice cores (letter d).

      It shows a probable Bray cycle low at 17,700 BP. Let’s take the Spörer minimum as the center of the last Bray cycle low at 500 BP (1450 AD). The average duration for the cycle in the last 20,000 years is then (17700 – 500)/7 = 2460 years

      Now let’s check predicted versus observed:
      1. Chosen 17,700
      2. Predicted 15,240. Observed 15,000 (Be data)
      4. Predicted 12,780. Observed 12,600 (C & Be data. Younger Dryas)
      5. Predicted 10,320. Observed 10,300 (Boreal GSM. 10.3 kyr event)
      6. Predicted 7,860. Observed 7,700 (Jericho cluster GSM. 7,7 kyr event)
      7. Predicted 5,400. Observed 5,500 (Sumerian cluster GSM. 5.2 kyr event)
      8. Predicted 2,940. Observed 2,800 (Homer minimum. 2,8 kyr event. GDA)
      9. Chosen 500. (Wolff/Spörer/Maunder cluster GSM. LIA)

      Evidence from cosmogenic and climatic data for numbers 5 to 9 is provided here:
      https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/

      Given that there is a significant dating uncertainty I would say that the match is excellent and in no way supports your assertion that the cycle can be anyway from 2000 to 2700 years.

      Number 10 in that series should be around 3,900 ± 150 AD. There is an increased probability that our interglacial will end around that date.

      Best regards.

      • Since most climate theories extend beyond human lifetimes, the main value of alternative theories is to keep doubt in the system and perhaps keep folks from attempting to fool with a climate which we really have insufficient data to truly understand. Our ability to actually have any significant long term impact upon our climate is very doubtful, at best. Destroying the fossil fuel markets and industrial efficiency, spraying SO2 into our atmosphere, or even nuclear war would likely have little effect upon long term climate.

        Scientific inquiry is, indeed, justified for its own sake but it is unlikely that science history will even portray the truth, such as it is, accurately without political ramifications again due to the long time frames involved and the fickleness of human vanity. A significant extraterrestrial strike will change the ballgame in any event and at the very least introduce more doubt into what is a very chaotic system, not to mention potentially eliminating future climate historians.

    • Javier’s reply is excellent and I only have this to add. To understand how climate changes, we need to understand the effect of solar variability and long term ocean cycles. There are many of these cycles, some are very clear in the record, some less so. The Bray cycle is one of the clearest in the record. So establishing it in our thinking is critical to move forward with this work.

      The usefulness of an established Bray cycle in the scientific process is that it shows all of the warming since our records began in the 19th century cannot be due to man. Further, it shows that the effect of solar variability is not zero from 1951 to 2010 as the IPCC assumes. We have no idea how much the Bray cycle, since the LIA, has contributed to warming, but we do know (IMHO) that it is greater than zero. The Eddy cycle is also trending up since the LIA and it likely has an impact as well, but we have not addressed it in this post. I suspect other long term natural cycles are important as well (de Vries cycle for example), but these need to be studies and quantified, not ignored.

      Science is its own reward. I was a professional scientist for 42 years and was always challenged on the value/applicability of my work by various bosses. Now I do science for fun, it is much more rewarding when you do it for fun and to learn. The solar cycles and the ocean cycles need to be studied, we cannot continue to assume, without proof, that they have no effect. That is quite foolish. Just my opinion.

      • The solar cycles and the ocean cycles need to be studied, we cannot continue to assume, without proof, that they have no effect.
        We cannot assume that the solar cycles have a dominant [or major, or significant] effect without proof, especially since solar activity and climate have not correlated the past 300 years.

      • Leif,

        especially since solar activity and climate have not correlated the past 300 years

        That you keep saying that doesn’t make it any truer.

        I find the correlation between climate and solar activity good enough to support that solar variability is an important factor in climate change. Obviously it is not the only forcing, so we should not expect a perfect match.

        Now comes the part when after I demonstrate a good correlation you change the tune and claim that it is due to a climate contamination of the solar proxy. To save time I will put again figure 5 for the same period.

      • You are much too gullible. Some peaks coincide with cooling, some with warming. Considering the well-established climate contamination to the 10Be record, one cannot separate the influences.

      • Some peaks coincide with cooling, some with warming.

        As they should unless you are prepared to claim that volcanic eruptions and other climate forcings should not have an effect on climate for you to believe in a solar variability effect on climate.

        Considering the well-established climate contamination to the 10Be record, one cannot separate the influences.

        I knew we would come to that after I showed the correlation. There is no need to separate the influences. 14C and 10Be have completely separate deposition pathways and therefore partially self-correct for some climatic effects when both are taken into consideration. And since the 2400 year cycle is based on the most outstanding cosmogenic signal during grand solar minima, it is impossible that climate contamination might account for that and 14C and 10Be remain a valid proxy for solar activity. And everybody in the field accepts that cosmogenic isotopes are valid solar activity proxies and as such are used in every article that deals with solar variability in the past. So you are handwaving your climate contamination card, while the signal we are analyzing is just too strong to be a problem of systemic noise or contamination. You do believe that solar grand maxima exist and have a strong effect on cosmogenic isotopes production rate, don’t you? Then bite the bullet and accept what almost every paleoclimatologist accepts.

      • “You do believe that solar grand maxima exist”
        Sorry that was a typo. I meant Solar Grand Minima, i.e. the periods of maximal rate of cosmogenic isotopes production.

      • It is difficult to know when what you write makes sense, but if you meant minima, then there are issues that you may not be aware of, e.g. that the equation [Gleeson & Axford’s] used for deriving the cosmic ray modulation is not valid during deep solar minima [as it assumes the corona is spherically symmetric, which it is not at minima]. As a result the derived solar activity often becomes negative [meaningless] at grand minima.

      • the equation [Gleeson & Axford’s] used for deriving the cosmic ray modulation is not valid during deep solar minima

        Yes, i ignored that, but I fail to see how that affects the point being made that Solar Grand Minima are the periods of highest ∆14C and ∆10Be, and that Solar Grand Minima distribution defines a ~ 2400 yr cycle.

        The question therefore still is:
        “You do believe that solar grand minima exist and have a strong effect on cosmogenic isotopes production rate, don’t you? Then bite the bullet and accept what almost every paleoclimatologist accepts.”

      • Leif,

        Like what almost every Climate Scientist accepts about AGW….

        I understand that you did your sunspot number tuning by consensus. And not everybody agrees.

        The problem is that your position that no conclusions can be drawn to support the existence of the 2400 year cycle because of proxy climatic contamination does not have enough evidence. The existence of this cycle is not a controversial issue and it is accepted almost unanimously whenever mentioned in the literature. That’s why you always cite your personal opinion, while I can cite dozens of articles to back mine.

        It is very likely that you are wrong on this one.

      • sunspot number tuning by consensus
        No, not at all. By critical examination of the raw data.

        Since there is a strong climate element in the radionuclide record, it is not surprising that some coincidences can be found, regardless of the consensus of almost all researchers you quote.
        There is no evidence and no viable mechanism linking the long-term climate record to solar cycles.

      • Leif,

        By critical examination of the raw data

        And approved in a congress by consensus as you have said at WUWT. That’s why it is an international number.

        There is no evidence and no viable mechanism linking the long-term climate record to solar cycles.

        There’s plenty of evidence as we have showed in the article and comments, and the mechanism is being worked out with interesting hypothesis like stratospheric warming from UV.

        Your position in this topic is not reflected in the scientific literature. That’s why you never back it up with references. Your quantification that half of the cosmogenic signal is climate induced seems like being pulled out of your hat. Where is the evidence?

      • And approved in a congress by consensus
        It was approved because the evidence is compelling. Of course, there will always be a dwindling rearguard opposition clinging to the old, obsolete series, because the revised series undermines their pet theories.

        Your position in this topic is not reflected in the scientific literature. That’s why you never back it up with references
        It is pretty well generally accepted that there is a climate signal in the 10Be data, check out the discussion in the Varve-paper I linked to, and the Owens paper on heliospheric magnetic field determination, referred to earlier. Or the papers by Webber and higbie that I have referred you to in earlier posts. This last paper has had problems with publication because it exposes an inconvenient truth [the climate signal in the cosmic ray proxies].

      • There is no evidence and no viable mechanism linking the long-term climate record to solar cycles.

        I would agree to a point. While we cannot definitively link the 2400-year climate cycle to a 2400-year solar cycle, they are in phase and have the same length. It is not conclusive evidence, but suggestive of a link. And a mechanism is missing, is it the solar dynamo? An orbital thing? Solar wind variations? Without a good well accepted mechanism it is hard to be definitive.

        But, the climate cycle can be shown to exist, in phase and of approximately the same length in all of the areas (glacial, iceberg, historical records, foram fossils, etc., etc.) in both the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time. Strongly suggestive of an extraterrestrial link.

      • Leif,

        It was approved because the evidence is compelling.

        That’s exactly what the CAGW consensus says. It looks like the same arguments. But don’t get me wrong. I always accept the data from the experts in a field unless there is evidence that it is wrong. I have no problem with the revised SSN and am confident that it represents an improvement. You won’t see me using the old SSN. But you cannot poo-poo on the Bray (Hallstatt) solar cycle consensus, while pushing your own consensus on SSN.

        It is pretty well generally accepted that there is a climate signal in the 10Be data

        There’s no discussing that, but that climate signal has not been shown to invalidate a conclusion that comes from the analysis of 14C, 10Be, and GSM distribution. Your position can be taken to question absolutely everything that science believes to be true as every dataset has noise and contaminations.

      • Your position can be taken to question absolutely everything that science believes to be true as every dataset has noise and contaminations
        The issue is if the contamination is serious enough to invalidate too much extrapolation and signal confounding.
        Here are some papers that you should check out:

        Field CV, Schmidt GA, Koch D, Salyk C (2006): Modeling production and climate-related impacts on 10Be concentration in ice cores. J Geophys Res 111 (D15107). doi: 10.1029/2005JD006410

        Aldahan A, Hedfors J, Possnert G, Kulan A, Berggren A-M, Soderstrom C (2008): Atmospheric impact on beryllium isotopes as solar activity proxy. Geophys Res Lett 35. doi: 10.1029/2008GL035189

        Belmaker R, Lazar B, Tepelyakov N, Stein M, Beer J (2008): 10Be in Lake Lisan sediments—A proxy for production or climate? Earth Planet Sci Lett 269:448–457

        Owens et al. 2016:
        “The extracted cosmic ray record may be affected by such factors as terrestrial climate effects on the deposition into the reservoirs in which they are measured”

        As I said, it is generally accepted that there is climate contamination. One can argue if it is 20% or 35%, or more than 50%. It is large enough to make suspect any correlations with climate itself.

      • Leif,
        Sincere thanks for the bibliography. I will check it up.

        it is generally accepted that there is climate contamination. One can argue if it is 20% or 35%, or more than 50%. It is large enough to make suspect any correlations with climate itself.

        It doesn’t affect the existence of the ~ 2400 yr solar activity cycle. We do have direct evidence for solar activity during the Maunder minimum when we can link a cosmogenic grand minimum (maximal production) to a solar activity grand minimum. And we have indirect evidence from naked-eye SSN and auroral records of a similar link for the Spörer and Wolff solar and cosmogenic grand minima. The conclusion is that climate contamination is not enough to affect the identification of solar grand minima from cosmogenic records unless climate cooling affects sunspots in the Sun, and auroras. So the evidence is quite clear. As the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle is grounded also in the Solar Grand Minima distribution, the available evidence supports the reality of a solar activity ~ 2400 yr cycle regardless of how much climate contamination is in the data.

      • And we have indirect evidence from naked-eye SSN and auroral records of a similar link for the Spörer and Wolff solar and cosmogenic grand minima.
        That ‘evidence’ is flimsy at best and would only cover one 2400-yr ‘cycle’.

      • That ‘evidence’ is flimsy at best and would only cover one 2400-yr ‘cycle’.

        Yes it is flimsy and unreliable, but the difference between no auroras and lots of auroras is clear enough to identify grand solar minima in that record. And that identification fully agrees with the temporal position of solar grand minima according to cosmogenic isotopes.

        That the evidence only covers one cycle is no obstacle. It confirms that cosmogenic grand minima (maximal rate of production) coincide with solar activity grand minima, and that is enough to confirm the ~ 2400-yr solar activity cycle.

      • difference between no auroras and lots of auroras is clear enough to identify grand solar minima in that record
        Show the difference…

        That the evidence only covers one cycle is no obstacle. It confirms that cosmogenic grand minima (maximal rate of production) coincide with solar activity grand minima
        A bit of circular reasoning here…

      • Leif,

        Show the difference…

        You know the data much better than I do. You should stop playing this game.

        It is not too late for you to change your opinion (again) and recognize that solar variability has a 3-5 times bigger impact on climate on the centennial to millennial time scale than currently assumed. That is what the evidence says.

        The 2400 year climate cycle is real
        The 2400 year cosmogenic cycle is real
        The 2400 year solar activity cycle is real

        All the rest we have to find out. But we won’t if we negate the evidence.

      • No 2400-yr cycle in those 1000 years of ‘data’. So, your claim is not substantiated. Your earlier post suggested that we had thousands of years of auroral sightings [which we don’t] such that they would support a 2400-yr cycle. So, again you are overplaying your hand. And keep repeating the mantra that all your cycles exist does not make them do so.
        And, as usual, you only show a selected part of the record. Here is the data since 1500 [providing the missing part]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf

      • No 2400-yr cycle in those 1000 years of ‘data’.

        You keep playing “the game” to try to confuse people.
        The auroral data, together with sunspot data, supports a correlation between solar activity and cosmogenic isotope production for over 700 years despite your feeble claims for climate contamination. No climate contamination in aurorae and sunspots, sorry.

        The identification of the last 6 grand solar minima: Roman, Oort, Wolff, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton, in both solar activity records (aurorae and sunspots) and cosmogenic isotope records, lends credibility to the previous grand solar minima identified in the cosmogenic isotope records for the past 10,000 years. The distribution of those grand solar minima of the past 10,000 years supports the existence of the 2400 year cycle. This is the argument that you cannot dismiss, no matter how much you spin the discussion.

        And, as usual, you only show a selected part of the record. Here is the data since 1500 [providing the missing part]:

        I show what is shown in my source. With the population explosion and progress, the number of auroral reports also explodes. But since 1625 we have the sunspot data which is as you have pointed is less flimsy. So why would you want to use aurorae for that period?

      • supports a correlation between solar activity and cosmogenic isotope production for over 700 years despite your feeble claims for climate contamination.
        Of course there is a correlation, but there is also a climate contamination. This makes the amplitude of the solar variation smaller, making the case for solar influence on climate weaker. But in any event, the 2400-yr ‘cycle’ in cosmic rays is so weak that it is not significant, and the dips to unphysical [negative] values of solar activity [below the floor in HMF b] are likely climate related to begin with.

        Here I have been nice and indicated with shading where the contamination probably is present:

        You might want to overplot what you consider to be the best temperature record for this interval.

      • Leif,

        Of course there is a correlation, but there is also a climate contamination. This makes the amplitude of the solar variation smaller, making the case for solar influence on climate weaker.

        This makes no sense to me. The climate variation is what it is and if it is the result of the solar variability it is the result of whatever solar variability has taken place. The evidence supports that the climate cycle is the result of the solar variability cycle because both show a good correlation with the cosmogenic cycle, specially in the presence and distribution of grand solar minima. If changes in isotopes production correlate with changes in solar activity, as it has been shown repeatedly, and changes in climate correlate with changes in isotopes production as it has also been shown, then the simplest explanation is that solar variability has an important effect on climate change.

        Here I have been nice and indicated with shading where the contamination probably is present:

        That is very ugly what you have just done. That is not your figure. It is Steinhilber et al., 2010 “Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides”.

        You have not shaded anything in that figure, and you have been very naughty. Let’s see what the authors of that figure say about “your contaminated shading”:

        Ouch! you have been caught lying. Cutting the figure caption to say that it supports you when the authors actually support me and saying that you have shaded the places where contamination takes place when in reality the shades indicate the Hallstatt cycle minima as I say. You really are prepared to go to extremes to defend your bias.

      • Perhaps I should have been more precise: I presented a figure with shading left in [I thought you would like the shading]. Steinhilber notes that the Halstatt cycle is really ~1000 years. Also note that the derived solar magnetic field is unphysically negative, showing that the reconstruction breaks down at times, and that is the cause of the very deep minima, rather than the much more modest solar signal [as McCracken also showed]. Now, in your zeal you neglected to overplot the carefully selected climate data. I suspect that you might find cold periods, just when Steinhilber’s reconstruction breaks down [due to climate contamination].

        The evidence supports that the climate cycle is the result of the solar variability cycle because both show a good correlation with the cosmogenic cycle
        Here your ‘reasoning’ is circular as [supposedly] solar activity is derived from the cosmogentic data.

      • I have said this before: you are not up to the latest literature, e.g. this one:
        Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, September 2016, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 641–644:
        “The Hallstatt solar cycle from radiocarbon data” by M. G. Ogurtsov:
        Abstract: “The data on the 14C concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere are studied on a time span of 50000 years. It is shown that the Hallstatt cycle (a temporal variation with a period of 1500–2000 years) has been present in this series for at least 30000 years. However, this cycle is not purely of solar origin; nonsolar (supposedly climatic) factors contribute into it in certain epochs.”

        Your cycle is sometimes hard to see:

      • Leif,

        Perhaps I should have been more precise

        I agree. Perhaps you should have said that the authors of the figure you were using against my arguments, actually supported my arguments. As far as I know Steinhilber’s group is one of the leading groups in past solar activity reconstruction.

        Steinhilber notes that the Halstatt cycle is really ~1000 years.

        You have not read that paper carefully. It says:

        “During the past 9300 years, we find that there were four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of about 2250 years. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters around the years -5300, -3400, -1100, and +1500 A.D. corresponding to the Hallstatt cycle minima. The last cluster lasted from +1300 to +1800 A.D. including the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minima.”

        Now, in your zeal you neglected to overplot the carefully selected climate data. I suspect that you might find cold periods, just when Steinhilber’s reconstruction breaks down [due to climate contamination].

        I find significant climate change at the lows of the solar Bray (Hallstatt) cycle, as predicted by the solar variability-climate change hypothesis. You say it is climate contamination. Steinhilber et al., defend that it is solar.

        Here your ‘reasoning’ is circular as [supposedly] solar activity is derived from the cosmogentic data.

        You got it backwards. It is the changes in solar activity that produce the changes in cosmogenic isotopes.

      • I know Steinhilber’s group is one of the leading groups in past solar activity reconstruction
        Steinhilber has left the field and is no longer an active scientist.

        It is the changes in solar activity that produce the changes in cosmogenic isotopes
        And it is climate contamination that produces the unphysical very deep [even negative] solar minima.

      • Leif,

        I have said this before: you are not up to the latest literature, e.g. this one:
        Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, September 2016, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 641–644:
        “The Hallstatt solar cycle from radiocarbon data” by M. G. Ogurtsov

        That may be so, but an obscure article publish originally in Russian in “Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya” is not going to prove it.

        And this article has a serious problem. The periodicity they find is:
        “As is seen from Fourier spectra of the restored components, most of them fall at the variation of 1786 years.”
        That ain’t the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle. Given the period analyzed where they find the signal between -40,000 to -20,000, and given that the signal is absent from the last 10,000 years of data (the Holocene), it is clear that they are detecting the 1740-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. So yes, it is a climate contamination, but no, it is not the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle. So another article that you cite that doesn’t support you. As you see (and know perfectly well) my position is a lot better grounded on the scientific literature than yours, and a lot better grounded on the evidence too.

      • That ain’t the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle
        Because, perhaps, that cycle isn’t really there.
        You seem to take your failure rather personally. Advice: don’t.

      • Leif,

        Because, perhaps, that cycle isn’t really there.

        It has been shown to be present during that time through the modulation of the de Vries 205 yr cycle in the 10Be record, that shows a ~ 2400 yr periodicity, as has been discussed and illustrated with figures in the comments here.

        I am not taking anything personally, and I haven’t noticed any failure from my part. I enjoy discussing with you and I consider it a privilege to discuss with someone who knows so much. I am getting from you relevant bibliography and the impetus to sharpen and improve my arguments. You are still wrong on this issue, but that doesn’t diminish you at all. Everybody is wrong on something and knowing a lot about something doesn’t protect from falling to cognitive biases. What you and I think about the Bray cycle is irrelevant. Science will find out. Scientists are constantly adding more and more data and the evidence on the Bray cycle is growing. We now know a lot more about it than we did 15 years ago, since a lot of the evidence is from this century. Eventually the real impact of solar variability on climate change will be measured, perhaps within the next decades if we continue getting lower than average solar variability. In the end your defense of the role of solar variability in climate change when you were younger will be vindicated.

      • Well, your faith in this is strong. Mine is weak. I have studied this subject for 50 years and others have been at it for almost 400 years. No compelling evidence and no plausible mechanism have been found. As you have found out, there are MANY, MANY claims, but in my book they all fall short and are wanting. I have had the privilege to discuss this in person with the foremost luminaries in this field [McCracken, Beer, Siscoe, Usoskin, Wang, Lockwood, a.o.] and much have been learned and many past misconceptions and exaggerated claims have been corrected, but no resolution has been arrived at. It may take us another century or two to debunk fully the wild speculations of the past.

      • That ain’t the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle
        Because, perhaps, that cycle isn’t really there.
        You seem to take your failure rather personally. Advice: don’t.

        Leif, By all means keep looking for a reference that disputes the Bray climate cycle or, for that matter the Bray solar cycle. There may be one out there. Both Javier and I would like to see it. As you say, perhaps it isn’t really there. But, 48 years of research, by dozens of people, say it is. So, until you find a valid reference or can show some data that says otherwise, prudence dictates we assume they are both there. You seem to be saying “It isn’t there because I say so.” That will not fly.

  30. Fascinating discussion.

    Very interesting, and somewhat amusing, to witness the defence of most people’s ‘confirmation bias’. Many on here would deny having one. I admit mine: “It’s the sun, stupid!” (lol). Who doesn’t look for confirmation of, maybe just a tiny, long-held belief in something? That belief becomes even stronger when one has gone out of their way to show, in minute detail, how right they believe they are.

    Personally, I take great pleasure from reading all the opposing views on a subject. This confirms my own bias that verily, the science is not settled. Therefore all the BS spouted by the AGW crowd is exactly that.

    Off topic but can anyone throw any light on something for me, please? Although my comment is, as usual, innocuous and adds nothing ‘sciency’ to the discussion, it may answer my own question – (I shall watch the time it is posted). Having refreshed this page to look for recent comments going by the time-stamp, I am confused as (being in the UK) I am eight hours ahead of California, which I guess is where this blog is based, I see recent comments only seven hours behind UK time (currently the same as UTC). So what time is shown by the time-stamps and why is it set to that time?

    • Mr. Ozade,
      discussion was with substance, the topic difficult, 100dres of replies…..but
      one can see that there is some major topic entirely missing, NOBODY
      goes into this….and for this reason, the scientific answer cannot be found
      with the presnted type of arguments in this post.
      Missing is the discussion of EARTH ORBITAL CHANGES,
      Isvalgaard points out that there were NO SUN output changes over the
      past 300 years and he is right. For this reason, only the Earth orbit
      is capable to produce such cold periods as the LIA, the Younger Dryas,
      the Ice Ages….. the Sun´s OUTPUT stays the same, but in July, only
      1320 W/m2 arrives on the top of the atmosphere, whereas in Jan 1407
      W/m2 arrives much more…. this is a difference of 90 W/m2!! The Orbit
      has the POTENTIAL of governing the climate…..more on
      http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
      Solar changes are peanuts, what does the climate change? The ORBIT.
      JS

  31. “What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang cycle is gonna be 2000 years or 2700 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions. And if we look at the past, since the cycle might be anything from 2000 to 2700 years, we can claim just about anything as being this cycle … but again, SO WHAT???”

    I would suggest that it is an exercise in hunting for any/all possible means to refute AGW.
    Simples.
    Just like the “Wot did the MWP then?”.
    IMO: lot’s of pretty graphs that invent dips/troughs that would not be seen unless you had them in mind before drawing.
    Curve fitting, and coming on here usually draws the awe-inspired claps and cheers.
    For once most peeps see the Emperor is, err, embarrassed.

  32. It suggests that natural variations are big enough to account for observations to the extent that our influence may be close to or at zero. Even for a cycle 2000 years long or more there is enough natural variation within that cycle and other observed cycles to reassure us so that we need not or should not accept ‘blame’ for what we have seen thus far.

      • There is much to critique about the amplifier-needed AGW hypothesis, including the mismatch of energy supplied by just the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and the energy needed to change a massively strong climate system from one regime to another and keep it there.

  33. My theory (in a nutshell) is 1000x better then AGW theory . My theory is based on the following: Which is weak solar/geomagnetic fields when in sync IF the degree of duration and magnitude of change is long/strong enough will push the terrestrial items that govern the climate into a cooling mode.

    Terrestrial items
    sea surface temperatures
    major volcanic activity
    global cloud coverage
    global snow coverage
    global sea ice coverage
    atmospheric circulation pattern changes
    oceanic current changes

    The cooling I think has started and the above items which should respond to very weal magnetic fields that being solar/geo magnetic should be able to result in the albedo of the earth to increase. Even a 1/2 of 1% increase n the albedo would wipe just about al of the last century’s warming.

    • The cooling I think has started
      There is no evidence for cooling. On the contrary, warming is still here. That you think cooling has started is not evidence.

  34. The YD guys would suggest that the 2400 year periodicity is due to earth crossing relatively thick portions of the Taurus Complex debris stream. However, there has not been nearly enough data gathered to reconstruct those periods. So at this time, it is mostly arm waving, though with some possibilities that are being explored. Cheers –

  35. That there is a natural warming trend that started with the end of the little ice age does not seem to be in dispute, whatever its cause. The larger this trend the less important AGW must be. Pinning down the magnitude of the natural warming trend would seem to me to be key to estimating the magnitude of AGW for the future. 0.4 degrees C of the warming trend over the last 100 years occurred before 1970. This, in my opinion, approximates the magnitude of the natural warming trend. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 100 ppm is responsible for no more than about 0.4 degrees C of the total rise.

    • I do not know how accurate your estimates are, but you are correct that no estimate of AGW is possible without a good estimate of natural warming. Assuming the natural warming over the period to be zero is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned. Science is hard work, we divide the possibilities into small chunks that can be defined and solved and work on them one-by-one until we explain it all. There are no lightning flashes of brilliant simple solutions to problems like you see in films, most if it is a hard slog through mountains of data that have to be carefully and painstakingly organized.

  36. Here is my take: The gross-scale inertia of the system predicts warmth for the century. What little it may continue to get warmer is not an issue in terms of the identified cycle. There is a proposed, “…formulation of the thermal bipolar see-saw concept is qualitatively analogous to that of (9) in that it implies the existence of a heat reservoir that convolves the northern signal, producing a southern signal with a longer characteristic time scale.” This seems the best we have so far. And given the lack of an extrinsic solar data variation correlation to this swing, we can dismiss it as an extrinsic driver. Unless of course we want the solar data to wriggle an Elephant’s trunk.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.420.2030&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  37. Javier November 25, 2016 at 3:53 am

    Willis,

    I don’t understand the point of this whole exercise. Let us suppose that there actually is a cycle that ranges (according to the data above) from 2200 to 2500 years.

    What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang cycle is gonna be 2000 years or 2700 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions.

    We know that Milankovitch orbital cycles and the glacial cycle are related and that interglacials can take place at any time between 80,000-120,000 years, and that they last any time between 8,000-28,000 years.

    “What does that gain us? I mean, we don’t know if this dang interglacial is gonna be 12000 years or 28000 years, so it’s useless for any kinds of predictions.”

    Your approach is not a scientific one. We study cycles because they exist. The usefulness of science is removed from the studies, but it is indubitable.

    Javier, it’s perfectly OK by me if you want to study meaningless cycles just “because they exist”. All that tells me is that you agree with me that the cycles are useless.

    Also:

    as Javier has claimed it might last for 2000 years and it might last for 2700 years and it might be anything in betwen

    You keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it any truer.

    javier, I pointed out to you that the CEEMD analysis shows that the cycles are wildly variable, viz:

    And the situation with the cycle of around 2400 years is similarly complex. It’s shown in Mode C9. It shows a ~ 2100-year cycle for a few cycles, then a long cycle of about 2700 years, then a final cycle of about 2100 years. All of these combine together to give a best Fourier fit for a 2400-year cycle … but that is not what is actually happening. In fact it is a string of shorter cycles with a long cycle in the middle.

    So again, let me ask you: is there 2400-year cycle in the ∆14c data? Well, not as we generally understand a 2400 year cycle. However, the CEEMD analysis does make it clear why y’all get different values for the putative cycle … because it is a mix of various cycles coming and going. And remember, this is just a short cherry-picked section of the data. If we add more years, things don’t get better …

    Your reply was that yes the cycles vary … but so do the sunspot cycles. The discussion starts here.

    In any case, are you now denying that the “Bray” cycle in the ∆14C data is highly variable?

    Let’s take the Berilium data from ice cores (letter d).

    Well, since the beryllium data from the north pole is totally different from the beryllium data from the south pole, I’m sure if you picked the right one, and you adjust your cycle length to be just what matches the data, I’m sure you can match the data somewhere. I’m sure you can do it by “wiggle-matching”, which is what you’ve done here. That’s where you stand across the room and claim that the wiggles kinda look like each other …

    It shows a probable Bray cycle low at 17,700 BP. Let’s take the Spörer minimum as the center of the last Bray cycle low at 500 BP (1450 AD). The average duration for the cycle in the last 20,000 years is then (17700 – 500)/7 = 2460 years

    Now let’s check predicted versus observed:
    1. Chosen 17,700
    2. Predicted 15,240. Observed 15,000 (Be data)
    4. Predicted 12,780. Observed 12,600 (C & Be data. Younger Dryas)
    5. Predicted 10,320. Observed 10,300 (Boreal GSM. 10.3 kyr event)
    6. Predicted 7,860. Observed 7,700 (Jericho cluster GSM. 7,7 kyr event)
    7. Predicted 5,400. Observed 5,500 (Sumerian cluster GSM. 5.2 kyr event)
    8. Predicted 2,940. Observed 2,800 (Homer minimum. 2,8 kyr event. GDA)
    9. Chosen 500. (Wolff/Spörer/Maunder cluster GSM. LIA)

    Evidence from cosmogenic and climatic data for numbers 5 to 9 is provided here:
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/

    Given that there is a significant dating uncertainty I would say that the match is excellent and in no way supports your assertion that the cycle can be anyway from 2000 to 2700 years.

    Number 10 in that series should be around 3,900 ± 150 AD. There is an increased probability that our interglacial will end around that date.

    First, I didn’t make an “assertion” that the so called “Bray cycles” in the ∆14C data vary from 2000 to 2700 years. I MEASURED THEM using a CEEMD analysis. Here it is, the “Bray Cycle” is in empirical mode C9.

    You truly should learn to use CEEMD, Javier, I can guarantee the results will surprise you. You get to have your choice of explanations for that variation in cycle length, but you don’t get your choice of facts.

    Second, you’ve cobbled together Beryllium data (but of course not all of it since it disagrees with itself), plus ∆14C data from 12,600 years ago that you’ve told us is too old to be used in calculation. Then you’ve added in putative “Grand Solar Minima” for which your data is of the vaguest type. I tried to follow your link to your sources, but it just leads to your previous post, so it’s not at all clear just what the “Sumerian Cluster Grand Solar Minimum” is when it is at home.

    So yes, Javier, you’ve managed to line up a bunch of pre-selected dates, each of which has huge uncertainties. You say, for example, that there is a ‘Wolff/Spörer/Maunder cluster GSM” [grand solar minimum] … say what? I never heard anyone but you try to jam those three quite distinct time periods into one “GSM”, and then arbitrarily assign it a date of 1450 … that’s A QUARTER OF A MILLENNIUM before the actual Maunder minimum.

    Here’s the bottom line. I agree that if you play fast and loose with the data and you choose your start and end points very carefully and you allow up to a quarter of a millennium of slop factor you can make things line up if you squint at them from across the room, but again i have to ask … SO WHAT? Because if it is true as you say above that all that this is is a scientific wankfest with no possible practical use, just science for science’s sake … then why do it? It reminds me of the old joke:

    What’s the difference between a mouse running a maze, and a solar cycloholic running a maze?

    The answer is, when you take the cheese out of the maze, the mouse stops running … I mean truly, Javier, do you want your epitaph to read:

    Here Lies Javier
    He Went Around In Cycles
    He Says He’ll Be Back In Exactly 2460 Years

    Because me, I’m trying to accomplish things on this planet before I take my definitive journey … however, it’s always true that YMMV …

    w.

    • Willis,

      it’s perfectly OK by me if you want to study meaningless cycles just “because they exist”.

      Thanks. Most people do not consider Milankovitch cycles as meaningles even though they do not affect their lives. To understand climate change you have to understand its cycles at every time scale from millions of years to decades. That includes the 2400 year solar cycle.

      I pointed out to you that the CEEMD analysis shows that the cycles are wildly variable.

      And I pointed to you that your results are in disagreement with the published science on the subject. As many scientists have done and keep doing this analysis in many different ways, with different isotopes, and different techniques and keep reporting the same result, your result doesn’t have the same credibility.

      are you now denying that the “Bray” cycle in the ∆14C data is highly variable?

      The cosmogenic Bray cycle does not rest exclusively on ∆14C data. The integrated ∆14C and ∆10Be analysis that reconstructs solar activity is the way to go, as Steinhilber showed.

      First, I didn’t make an “assertion” that the so called “Bray cycles” in the ∆14C data vary from 2000 to 2700 years. I MEASURED THEM using a CEEMD analysis.

      And you got an answer, but your answer differs from what other scientists with more experience and knowledge have published. I rather go with their answer.

      Then you’ve added in putative “Grand Solar Minima” for which your data is of the vaguest type.

      There are several publications dealing with Grand Solar Minima, what they are, and their distribution in time. I am not responsible for the accumulated knowledge that you ignore.

      You say, for example, that there is a ‘Wolff/Spörer/Maunder cluster GSM” [grand solar minimum] … say what? I never heard anyone but you try to jam those three quite distinct time periods into one “GSM”

      Yes. It is amazing how much you ignore about the issues you write about. And the problem is that you rather come challenging me in the comments that dedicate 30 seconds to google scholar to find out.

      You will see why you don’t have my confidence when you try to challenge the 2400 yr solar cycle. You simply ignore everything that has been discovered about that cycle for decades. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that all that is wrong, not on me to prove you wrong.

      SO WHAT? Because if it is true as you say above that all that this is is a scientific wankfest with no possible practical use, just science for science’s sake … then why do it?

      You are not the first one to challenge the usefulness of basic science versus applied science. It is one more symptom of your ignorance of all things science. The thing is that you can never anticipate what science is going to produce. In this case you cannot understand how the climate got to be what it is and how it is likely to evolve without understanding the contribution from solar variability. it is one of the reasons why climate models do not work.

      Because me, I’m trying to accomplish things on this planet before I take my definitive journey

      Kudos to you. I am sure that your efforts to convince WUWT clientele that your amateurish approach to scientific issues yields better results than the traditional scientific approach will make a long lasting contribution to progress.

      Best regards.

    • Willis agree or not with me I have definitive solar parameters which say if reached will cause the climate to cool and that is happening now in my opinion.

      I also say if the solar parameters are reached and global temperatures do not go down that I will be wrong.

      What I am trying to say is I am being very clear and predicting a turn in the climate before it really has happened to any significant degree.

      • I also say if the solar parameters are reached and global temperatures do not go down that I will be wrong.
        As long as you don’t say WHEN this point is to be reached, your statement has no value.

    • Willis,
      I see your comments are addressed to Javier, however, I wrote both the first draft of the post and the last, so I will take a stab at answering your challenges. Javier had considerable input to the post and knows much more about the Bray cycle than I do, so he may have additional comments. But, mostly, this post is a summary of previous work by other researchers. We’ve cited what we think are the best papers on the Bray cycle. The details you might want to see are in these other publications.

      —————————————-
      “javier, I pointed out to you that the CEEMD analysis shows that the cycles are wildly variable, viz:”

      Willis, here you are applying a micrometer to a brick. 14C is formed by cosmic rays and then immediately enters the carbon cycle. How long it stays in the carbon cycle before being “frozen” in a tree ring or a foraminifer shell is unknown. How much carbon is in the carbon cycle at the time of formation is also unknown.
      10Be is also formed by cosmic rays, but stays in the environment a shorter time. It is deposited in ice at the poles within a year or two of being formed, so the time delay is much shorter. It is affected by precipitation rate though.
      So, both have terrestrial environmental effects, but a common origin in the atmosphere. We need to find the common source and exclude the terrestrial effects, spectral decomposition and principle components are perfect techniques for this (see post for references, basically Steinhilber and Usoskin) . Both have been used and come up with similar cycle lengths that are in phase. Principal components: 2200 years and spectral decomposition 2400 years. Considering the very best dating techniques and data are +- 100 years, this is a good match.

      —————————————
      “Well, since the beryllium data from the north pole is totally different from the beryllium data from the south pole, I’m sure if you picked the right one, and you adjust your cycle length to be just what matches the data, I’m sure you can match the data somewhere. I’m sure you can do it by “wiggle-matching”, which is what you’ve done here. That’s where you stand across the room and claim that the wiggles kinda look like each other …”

      I’m a geoscientist by training and I used to “wiggle match” for a living. We call it “correlating,” it is what all geoscience is based upon. Of course, the 10Be curves in Antarctica are different from those in the Arctic, they are separated by 12,000 miles! There is no ice bridge! So, we match the curves by correlating them. As long as you can count the years in the cores, this is a valid and standard technique in all Earth sciences.
      Because the terrestrial effects have a shorter delay with 10Be, the timing is better. 14C is fuzzier time-wise.
      “First, I didn’t make an “assertion” that the so called “Bray cycles” in the ∆14C data vary from 2000 to 2700 years.”
      You need to stop worrying about the 14C cycle lengths. The 14C cycle length is the worst measure of the actual Bray cycle length that we have due to terrestrial carbon cycle problems. 10Be is much better for timing. For more accurate timing in more recent times, we can use historical records and often very accurate glacial advance timing (Bray, Bond and many others). 14C is a minor player, it is useful, but not for timing. It is useful because it is available world-wide.

      —————————————
      “Here’s the bottom line. I agree that if you play fast and loose with the data and you choose your start and end points very carefully and you allow up to a quarter of a millennium of slop factor you can make things line up if you squint at them from across the room, but again i have to ask … SO WHAT?”

      First of all, I can assure you that Javier never plays fast and loose with the data. In a true scientific debate, ad hominem attacks are never appropriate. Let’s stick with the science please. Second, a quarter of a millennium of slop factor is what we have. Carbon-14 dating (at the very best!) is +- 100 years. And those are the dates we normally work with. All geology is done by correlation, if you don’t like squinting at geological records across the room then most of our geological science is out the window. This is not an acceptable objection, correlation has been used to determine common geological records on every continent of the world since the very earliest days of geology. The “father of geology” William Smith used it in the early 19th century. This is an everyday technique for many thousands of geologists.
      Andy

  38. There is no doubt that our climate has been changing even over the relatively short timescale that includes the Roman period, Medieval warm period and the little Ice Age, not to mention the recent blip.

    Solar activity has been changing too, with some coincidental matches but no overall correlation. That does not surprise me. The length and bunching of consecutive solar cycles of similar (high or low) activity seems to have some importance. It makes me think of the threshold reactions found in nature. Processes such as ripening of fruit or flowering of plants usually involve the effect of temperature and/or light on the production of a chemical such as a protein. The level builds up then resets to zero and keeps doing this until a threshold is passed. This prevents the premature trigger of the biological change.

    I tend to think of low solar activity causing cooling when the low activity cycles are low enough, short enough and high enough in frequency. Just any old low activity cycle will not do the job, hence the lack of correlation.

    Switching to another argument, the most likely influence on climate is cloud coverage and its albedo consequences. Combining both thoughts, perhaps solar induced clouds are normally short lived or transient, but if they are produced at a high enough frequency, they effectively become continuous and have a dramatic effect on climate.

    Now, that last bit was just made up to illustrate the threshold effect and to illustrate why correlation is not the only way of looking for cause and effect. As I said, the threshold trick is very common in nature.

    A final thought is that there is much circumstantial evidence to suggest that solar activity has a role in influencing our climate, though clearly, we do not yet understand the mechanism. There is no evidence over the same time period to believe that carbon dioxide has any effect at all.

  39. Andy May November 25, 2016 at 11:17 am Edit

    dC14 is only one line of evidence here. We are very familiar with its flaws. d18O, 10Be, and paleontological evidence (including glacier data and iceberg data) are conclusive on their own.

    Andy, this is just more handwaving. Please provide a link to the actual datasets that you are claiming support the Bray cycle. You could provide a link to the studies as well the datasets, but it’s not necessary, because solar studies and claims generally provide more heat than light on the subject …

    As to whether they are “conclusive”, if they were we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    As to you being “very familiar” with the flaws of the ∆14C, I don’t think that you’ve truly grasped the nettle exposed by the CEEMD analysis of the ∆14Cdata. There are NO cycles in that data between 2100 and 2600 years. Neither you nor Javier have done anything but say that that’s just fine. It’s not.

    w.

    • There are NO cycles in that data between 2100 and 2600 years. Neither you nor Javier have done anything but say that that’s just fine. It’s not.

      Willis, the complete bibliography is in the first paragraph of the post. Everything you need to prove to yourself that the climate and solar cycles exists in that bibliography, I made it for you. I don’t know where you are getting the wild idea the Bray cycle doesn’t exist, it has been found by James Bray, Vasiliev and Dergachev, Steinhilber, Bond, Usoskin,and on and on. I’m not sure, maybe Javier found someone besides you that looked and couldn’t find it; but in all of my reading I didn’t.

      As to you being “very familiar” with the flaws of the ∆14C, I don’t think that you’ve truly grasped the nettle exposed by the CEEMD analysis of the ∆14Cdata.

      As a geoscientist, I am very familiar with spectral decomposition. CEEMD is a variety of that tricky technique. I suspect the data you fed into it or the specific code you used. I think you use R, I use it as well. Send me your R data and code and I’ll look it over. If you can’t find the cycle, the problem is in one or the other. The cycle has been found by everyone else I know who has looked in the available 14C data, the 10Be data, the glacial advances, the historical data, the dO18 sediment data. It is a worldwide cycle and there is a better than a 95% to 99% chance it is linked to and extraterrestrial cycle of the same length (probably solar).

      I think the problem is you are looking at the elephant in the room with a microscope. Step back and look at the larger picture. Micrometers are not appropriate for measuring bricks. There are a lot of ways to go wrong with spectral decomposition. That said, I think Usoskin et al. (2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics) did a good job with it. Start there and with their data. It is the basis of figure 2 in the post.

      Do you know of anyone that agrees with you that the Bray climate and solar cycles do not exist? I don’t.

      • there is a better than a 95% to 99% chance it is linked to an extraterrestrial cycle of the same length.
        You cannot say ‘an extraterrestrial cycle’ without specifying exactly which one. And you cannot discount that the climate has this cycle as part of its natural internal variability.

      • Andy May November 25, 2016 at 3:27 pm

        There are NO cycles in that data between 2100 and 2600 years. Neither you nor Javier have done anything but say that that’s just fine. It’s not.

        Willis, the complete bibliography is in the first paragraph of the post. Everything you need to prove to yourself that the climate and solar cycles exists in that bibliography, I made it for you. I don’t know where you are getting the wild idea the Bray cycle doesn’t exist, it has been found by James Bray, Vasiliev and Dergachev, Steinhilber, Bond, Usoskin,and on and on. I’m not sure, maybe Javier found someone besides you that looked and couldn’t find it; but in all of my reading I didn’t.

        Yes, and the “Gleissberg Cycle”, which was found by Gleissberg, and agreed upon by a raft of people, doesn’t even show up in half the sunspot data … but you believe in it. I don’t. The difference is, I’m not impressed by names like Bray and Gleissberg, and you are.

        As to you being “very familiar” with the flaws of the ∆14C, I don’t think that you’ve truly grasped the nettle exposed by the CEEMD analysis of the ∆14Cdata.

        As a geoscientist, I am very familiar with spectral decomposition. CEEMD is a variety of that tricky technique. I suspect the data you fed into it or the specific code you used. I think you use R, I use it as well.

        Andy, since you say are very familiar with CEEMD, how about you present YOUR own CEEMD analysis of the data? Never mind my analysis, you know CEEMD you say, so give us your own breakdown of the intrinsic modes ∆14C data so we can see if it agrees with mine or not.

        And as to whether you’ve “grasped the nettle” exposed by the CEEMD analysis, you claim you have … BUT YOU HAVEN’T EVEN DONE THE DAMN ANALYSIS!!

        Andy, you seem to accept the things you agree with without the slightest attempt at replication to see if they are true. Such credulity in any scientific field is lethal, but in the solar field it is lunacy. The amount of bogus claims of significance in the solar field is huge. Bear in mind that across the board something like half the peer-reviewed studies are overturned in a couple years … and that solar studies is no exception, quite the opposite.

        Meanwhile you seem to think it’s valid science to ignore my contradictory analysis without replicating it either … do you not test or replicate anything? You think it’s enough to wave your hands and say magic words like “tricky technique” and “I suspect the data” to falsify a mathematical analysis?

        I await your CEEMD analysis … or you could just blow off scientific replication …

        w.

        PS—I am still waiting for either you or Javier (or anyone else) to provide me TWO SIMPLE LINKS, one to the study you think best establishes the Bray Cycle, and the other to the data they used. I’ve asked repeatedly. Your choice to not provide two simple links is telling …

        PPS— You say that “the complete bibliography is in the first paragraph of the post”, but your document dump claiming to support the Bray cycle is a joke. I just took a look at the final document. It says (emphasis mine):

        Aim: It has long been assumed that deteriorating climate (cooling and warming above the norm) could shrink the carrying capacity of agrarian lands, depriving the human population of sufficient food. Population collapses (i.e. negative population growth) follow. However, this human-ecological relationship has rarely been verified scientifically, and evidence of warming-caused disaster has never been found. This research sought to explore quantitatively the temporal pattern, spatial pattern and triggers of population collapses in relation to climate change at the global scale over 1100 years.

        Location: Various countries/regions in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) during the pre-industrial era.

        Methods: We performed time-series analysis to examine the association between temperature change and country-wide/region-wide population collapses in different climatic zones. All of the known population collapse incidents in the NH in the period CE 800-1900 were included in our data analysis.

        Results: Nearly 90% of population collapses in various NH countries/regions occurred during periods of climate deterioration characterized by shrinking carrying capacity of the land. In addition, we found that cooling dampened the human ecosystem and brought about 80% of the collapses in warmer humid, cooler humid and dry zones, while warming adversely affected the ecosystems in dry and tropical humid zones. All of the population collapses and growth declines in periods of warm climate occurred in dry and tropical humid zones. Malthusian checks (famines, wars and epidemics) were the dominant triggers of population collapses, which peaked dramatically when climate deteriorated.

        Main conclusions: Global demographic catastrophes and most population collapse incidents occurred in periods with great climate change, owing to overpopulation caused by diminished carrying capacity of the land and the resultant outbreak of Malthusian checks. Impacts of cooling or warming on land carrying capacity varied geographically, as a result of the diversified ecosystems in different parts of the Earth. The observed climate-population synchrony challenges Malthusian theory and demonstrates that it is not population growth alone but climate-induced subsistence shortage and population growth working synergistically, that cause large-scale human population collapses on the long-term scale.

        Not one damn word about the Bray cycle, not one word about cycles of any kind. Pathetic.

        This might give you a clue why I ask for TWO LINKS rather than a garbage pile data-dump like your “Bibliography”. I’m sorry, but a study covering 1100 years will NOT tell us a damn thing about the Bray cycle.

        You’re wasting my time, Andy. Send me the two links to the study and data you think is best, I’m tired of this runaround.

      • Willis, the best posts summarizing the Bray cycle and the other major cycles are this one and those by Javier referenced in this post. I consider all of the papers in the bibliography to be important if you want to understand the subject. There are a lot more, I did cull the list down and I had some in there that I later removed. As for the history papers, like the one you cite, they are to show that the impacts of climate change in Bray lows are significant. To show that this cycle produces very significant climate change. The historical, archaeological, paleontological, and glacier advance data; which you seem to want to ignore, is actually the most important data. 10Be is nice for timing because it has a low lag time, 14C is somewhat useful because it is worldwide; but the other data is actually what makes this whole topic relevant.

      • Andy May November 26, 2016 at 5:05 am

        Willis, the best posts summarizing the Bray cycle and the other major cycles are this one and those by Javier referenced in this post.

        Look, Andy, if you don’t have the albondigas to BACK UP YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS by providing a link to one damn study and another to its data, just say so. I don’t care if you are unwilling to back up your claims, but I hate being put off with platitudes, and and I’m totally uninterested in long lists of stuff that might or might not be a total waste of time.

        I am very unwilling to go through your list once more. I generally don’t do that even once, but because you seem like a good guy, I tried that with your list … foolish me. The first paper I grabbed from your list of the best studies supporting the Bray Cycle had an odd characteristic. IT DIDN’T SAY ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT BRAY!! More timewasting, you’ve just steered me into fifteen minutes of nothing.

        You’ve already suckered me into your game once, Andy, and I didn’t even get a T-shirt. You don’t get to play me for a fool twice. You can either back up your claim with two links, one to a paper and the other to its data, or you can continue with the bafflegab.

        I’ve also invited you to back up your claims about my CEEMD analysis by providing your own CEEMD analysis … you waved your hands and said my analysis was likely wrong, and there are likely folks here who take you at your word. Me, I’m a scientist, nullius in verba. So I gave you the chance you won’t give me. You have a link to my study and to the data, you know, the two links you keep shying away from, so you are free to back up your claim that my analysis is wrong … again, crickets.

        Meanwhile, Leif Svalgaard took me up on the challenge that you and Javier are running from. He provided a link to the study and the data which he thought made the strongest case for the 10Be data. It was a very poor study, as it turns out, but he gets huge props from me for having the scientific honesty to put it up for examination.

        So you could do what Leif and other actual scientists do, and PUT YOUR CLAIMS TO THE TEST by letting us know just why you believe as you do. I’m not asking for your password, or the keys to your car, or a list of every study that is of interest—just a link to the one study you think is the solidest, and another link to the data that they used.

        You have a chance here to make your case and prove me wrong. The fact that neither you nor Javier has been willing to put your own claims to the test is … well … let me call it “not encouraging” and leave it at that.

        Or you can continue with your line of patter and your fast tapdancing around the question … I gotta confess, it is a bizarre mix of funny and tragic watching you guys try to get out of backing up your own claims.

        Your choice,

        w.

  40. I suppose an obvious suggestion from my comment above at 2:00pm is to ask if anyone has done a study of the solar activity over a bunch of like cycles? Sort of area under the cycle envelope, or integral vs temperature.

    • Complex systems, especially nonlinear ones, almost never produce simple responses to highly variable, wide-band inputs. The apparent lack of periodic temperature variations always neatly in phase with narrow-band solar cycles thus should be expected. That does not, however, preclude much-more-complicated causal connections which may be restricted to certain frequency bands beyond the Hale cycle or to integral or envelope properties of the solar activity. While the large amplitude of the Hale and/or Wolfe cycles produces negligibly small overall correlation between temperature and solar activity, the possibility of strongly coherent behavior in other frequency bands of various bandwidths very much remains.

      Unfortunately, the analyses that we see in paleoclimatology are usually little more than visual time-domain comparisons or raw periodograms of proxy data records. What is needed as a serious starting point for scientific insight are proper cross-spectrum analyses in the context of stochastically linearized system theory, which takes into account the signal-envelope characteristics (defined by Hilbert transforms) as well as the spectral transfer functions of the proxies. Without such analyses, what we get is largely tendentious conjectures tempestuously argued in a roiling sea of misconceptions about complex system behavior. Tealeaf readings should never be mistaken for science.

      • 1sky1 November 25, 2016 at 4:25 pm

        Complex systems, especially nonlinear ones, almost never produce simple responses to highly variable, wide-band inputs. The apparent lack of periodic temperature variations always neatly in phase with narrow-band solar cycles thus should be expected.

        Thanks, 1sky1. You mean that we shouldn’t expect periodic temperature variations neatly in phase with the daily solar cycles? Does that also mean that we shouldn’t expect periodic temperature variations neatly in phase with the annual solar cycles?

        My question is, since the planet produces simple temperature responses to daily and annual solar variations quite quickly, responses that are neatly in phase (constant phase lag) with changes in daily and annual solar input, why do so many people believe that at eleven years things change fundamentally and completely, such that suddenly it fails to produce simple responses to eleven year solar variations?

        And again: IF we need “cross-spectrum analyses in the context of stochastically linearized system theory, which takes into account the signal-envelope characteristics (defined by Hilbert transforms) as well as the spectral transfer functions of the proxies” to see what is happening with the 11-year cycles, how come we can see the daily and annual temperature responses without the need of such statistical analysis?

        w.

      • My question is, since the planet produces simple temperature responses to daily and annual solar variations quite quickly, responses that are neatly in phase (constant phase lag) with changes in daily and annual solar input, why do so many people believe that at eleven years things change fundamentally and completely, such that suddenly it fails to produce simple responses to eleven year solar variations?

        Lack of basic analytic comprehension of system response to input is what prompts such questions.

        Clearly the very strong, astronomically produced, strictly periodic variations of insolation produce strong periodic diurnal and annual temperature cycles, with relatively minor perturbations. By contrast the 11-yr. narrow-band Schwabe cycle of sunspots produces only very weak variations of insolation with a similar temperature response that gets buried in very wide-band temperature fluctuations and measurement noise.

        By contrast, the response to wide-band random excitations depends critically upon specific features of the transfer function of the system. If it contains strongly resonant peaks, corresponding narrow-band, quasi-cyclical variations will be produced. Without such high-Q response characteristics, the response will be far more irregular (wider band), prompting the impression in analytically unschooled minds that there is no real causal connection. That seems to be the case with quasi-centennial and longer variations. \

        I don’t intend to spend any more time explaining such basics here, when scores of well-written introductory texts are available to anyone seriously interested in learning, as opposed to posturing and arguing.

      • 1sky1 November 25, 2016 at 5:52 pm

        My question is, since the planet produces simple temperature responses to daily and annual solar variations quite quickly, responses that are neatly in phase (constant phase lag) with changes in daily and annual solar input, why do so many people believe that at eleven years things change fundamentally and completely, such that suddenly it fails to produce simple responses to eleven year solar variations?

        Lack of basic analytic comprehension of system response to input is what prompts such questions.

        Lack of basic decency is what prompts such answers.

        Clearly the very strong, astronomically produced, strictly periodic variations of insolation produce strong periodic diurnal and annual temperature cycles, with relatively minor perturbations. By contrast the 11-yr. narrow-band Schwabe cycle of sunspots produces only very weak variations of insolation with a similar temperature response that gets buried in very wide-band temperature fluctuations and measurement noise.

        Huh? Now you’ve changed your argument entirely. Now you say that we can’t see the 11-year sunspot cycle reflected in the climate, not because it’s 11-years, not because it is wide-band or narrow-band, but because it’s too weak a signal to make it out of the noise … but then we already knew that.

        Move the goalposts much?

        By contrast, the response to wide-band random excitations depends critically upon specific features of the transfer function of the system. If it contains strongly resonant peaks, corresponding narrow-band, quasi-cyclical variations will be produced. Without such high-Q response characteristics, the response will be far more irregular (wider band), prompting the impression in analytically unschooled minds that there is no real causal connection. That seems to be the case with quasi-centennial and longer variations. \

        First off, I’m not clear how say an annual swing in TSI and an 11-year swing in TSI differ from the perspective of the earth.

        Next, I’m not clear why you say the 11-year signal is “narrow band”, but the 12-month signal is “wide band” … so far your explanation doesn’t explain, it simply names. We have variations in the sun that peak once per day, once per year, and once per decade or a bit more. Why do you say that they are fundamentally different?

        Finally, your explanation sounds a lot like the curious “11-year notch filter” arguments of JoNova and David Evans, which is that the sun-earth transfer function has a period-sensitive component. Of course, neither you nor they tell us what the physical basis might be for such a period-sensitive transfer function. I mean, when the surface gets an extra W/m2 of TSI, it doesn’t know if that’s because the day is going towards noon, or the year is going towards summer, or the 11-year cycle is peaking. So why would it respond to the changes in one differently from the changes in the others?

        I don’t intend to spend any more time explaining such basics here, when scores of well-written introductory texts are available to anyone seriously interested in learning, as opposed to posturing and arguing.

        And it’s such a pleasure to talk to you too.

        In fact, in your interchanges you seem to get to the point very quickly where you tell us you are unwilling to explain anything further about how your ideas apply to the actual physics of the climate … I can believe that part, at least, although perhaps “unable” is more accurate than “unwilling”.

        I’ve never seen you explain anything on this site, 1sky1. All you ever provide is claims that your giant brain has discovered a truly remarkable proof, which this website is too small to contain … and once again, you’re heading for the door.

        Here’s the issue, 1sky1. Like many signal engineers, you know that you can take say a radio signal, catch it with an antenna, amplify it, heterodyne it with a second signal, split off the sideband, extract the envelope, rectify the result, and come out with the audio of Frank Sinatra singing “I Did It My Way”.

        The problem is that like many signal engineers, you also think that those kinds of transformations occur in the climate system so commonly that you can simply posit them as being the explanation for something, without any attempt to actually find a physical explanation for each of the necessary transformations.

        My experience is that

        1) As predicted by the Constructal Law, the climate system is very highly damped, so that it doesn’t “resonate” for beans. It’s a common characteristic of natural systems of a wide variety of kinds, which is why we don’t have wooden church bells.

        2) Many of the common electronics components, such as amplifiers and rectifiers and antennas and frequency doublers, have no obvious analogues in the climate system.

        3) Thermal radiation is very different from radio waves. For example, you say ” If it contains strongly resonant peaks, corresponding narrow-band, quasi-cyclical variations will be produced.”

        But I know of no natural system that, if you drive it thermally at a certain frequency, will begin to “resonate”. I don’t even know what that would look like. I mean, “resonate” generally means that if you remove the signal it will continue “ringing”.

        But what kind of natural climate-related system has a temperature that continues to go up and down after the driving thermal signal is removed? I know of none, but you have based your entire claim on that postulated “resonance”.

        Do you have even one example of such a system where temperature tends to rise and fall after the driving thermal signal is removed? If so, now would be the time to break it out …

        And this is why I always am very cautious when signal engineers start wanting to lecture me about resonances and notch filters and the like … there are few correspondences between the world of an electronics lab and the climate.

        Ah, well.

        w.

      • Next, I’m not clear why you say the 11-year signal is “narrow band”, but the 12-month signal is “wide band” … so far your explanation doesn’t explain, it simply names. We have variations in the sun that peak once per day, once per year, and once per decade or a bit more. Why do you say that they are fundamentally different?

        Willis, I think that 1sky1 is referring to is that the longer cycles (“wide band”) have a larger effect on the climate. This is well established in the bibliography, I provided for you, especially in the articles on history that you don’t seem to like. I think you are misreading the “12 month” part. The shorter cycles (like the 11 year cycle) have a very small effect due to system inertia probably.

      • Willis:

        You claim:

        “Now you’ve changed your argument entirely

        This disingenuous retort to my brief explanation of the different responses of the climate system to periodic, narrow-band, and wide-band excitation of various magnitude is precisely what I don’t have time for.

        Prompted by a sage commenter’s observation that deeper insight into the issue of very long climatic cycles is required, I originally wrote that “complex systems, especially nonlinear ones, almost never produce simple responses to highly variable, WIDE-BAND inputs.” Clearly, I had “much-more-complicated causal connections which may be restricted to certain frequency bands beyond the Hale cycle” in mind. It is YOU who moved the goal posts entirely by questioning that assertion via examples of response to very large but short STRICTLY PERIODIC insolation cycles and small NARROW-BAND random variations due to the ~11-y Schwabe cycle.

        All that your long-winded retort establishes here is not only lack of any clear concept of the significance of excitation bandwidth but also the lack of objective comprehension of what was actually said.

        BTW, I’m not a signal engineer nor an idle comment writer, but an analytically-trained geophysicist who enjoys amateur football far more than amateurish postures of doing science.

      • 1sky1 November 26, 2016 at 4:26 pm
        Willis:

        You claim:
        “Now you’ve changed your argument entirely

        This disingenuous retort to my brief explanation of the different responses of the climate system to periodic, narrow-band, and wide-band excitation of various magnitude is precisely what I don’t have time for.

        You keep claiming that you don’t have time, but here you are again.

        I keep hoping that you are telling the truth about not having enough time to keep bothering us … so far, no luck.

        Ah, well,

        w.

  41. A few final thoughts before I pack it in for the evening. I have speculated that the size and shape of the envelope around low activity solar cycles have a relationship with cooling and the envelope around active cycles affects warming.

    The important point is that correlation is not the only proof of causation. Most solar-climate discussions are obsessed with correlation and particularly its absence.

    I’ve discussed threshold mechanisms, but there are other solar induced possibilities. In a previous post, I’ve mentioned the possibility of solar magnetic fields directing cosmic dust and other extraneous matter towards our atmosphere, leading to albedo changes at times determined by the solar cycle.

    The solar wind, consisting of charged particles and influenced in terms of speed and direction by solar activity and magnetic field, interact with our earth’s field. Such particles interact with cloud chambers, proving that they have cloud seeding potential. It is entirely possible that they correlate with solar activity modulated by other variables such as the earth’s magnetic field or the gravimetric and magnetic influences of other planets in our solar system.

    The general point I am making is that the solar effect on climate may not be direct and obvious, but may be indirect and modified by other variables. Correlation may not be strong, but circumstantial evidence is a strong clue. There is obviously at least one other variable involved. A more creative, innovative outlook is required. This has been lacking in a science dominated by a single, assumed and largely incorrect driver.

    Lack of correlation can involve dynamic delays, thresholds, and other constructs. Lack of correlation is a clue, not a stopper. The challenge is to find the missing factor.

    We need some innovative thinking to solve this question. I put my money on solar activity and albedo, but the relationship is not as simple as that.

    • I certainly agree a lot more work needs to be done in this area. Just assuming that solar variability is zero, when there is so much evidence that isn’t true is silly. As you note there are a lot of ways the sun could have an influence. Solar wind, changes in the sun’s magnetic field and other factors may be important.

      • Nobody assumes that solar variability is zero. That you say things like that casts doubt on your sincerity.
        Solar wind, changes in the sun’s magnetic field and other factors may be important
        All solar parameters follow the sunspot cycle. There is almost no energy in the solar wind and magnetic field, so it is wishful thinking that they [and other, even less energetic, factors] may be important.

      • No they don’t. Here is what they say [page 885]: ” The effect of solar forcing on GMST trends has been found to be small, with less than 0.1°C warming attributable to combined solar and volcanic forcing over the 1951–2010 period”. That is totally in line with what one would expect.

      • The effect of solar forcing on GMST trends has been found to be small, with less than 0.1°C warming attributable to combined solar and volcanic forcing over the 1951–2010 period”.

        <0.1C +-0.1C is still zero to me Leif, sorry.

      • Leif,

        That is how much the Sun can contribute.

        Hmm, no. You can talk about solar variability, but we ignore the climate response to that variability. It is perfectly possible and indeed is supported by evidence that in the centennial to millennial scale the climate response is far stronger. The thing is that small changes accumulated over very long periods have a disproportionate effect to what they have over short periods.

      • It has not been shown that the climate varies like that. On the contrary, if the Earth warms, it radiates more and so cools down again. The climate has negative feedback.

      • Globally, climatic temperatures respond not only to variations in direct solar excitation, but to adaptive variations in the planetary response characteristics of the ever-changing Earth. While changing albedo due to changing vegetation and glaciation is perhaps the most obvious factor, there may be other, more indirect factors–internal or external–that affect wide-band variations on time-scales intermediate between the ice ages and the patently periodic seasonal and diurnal cycles. Given the crude analytic tools and unreliable data of “climate science,” little should be dismissed out of hand on the basis of arm-waving notions of over-riding “feedback.”

      • Leif,

        It has not been shown that the climate varies like that.

        Yes it has. Climate changes to Milankovitch orbital changes are a good example. Orbital changes cause far less changes in hemispheric solar energy than the seasonal changes during the year, however as their effect accumulates over thousands of years, their impact on the climate is huge, being able to produce or melt huge ice sheets several kilometers thick over big areas of the planet. And it all happens despite negative feedbacks and Earth’s capacity to radiate as much energy as it receives.

  42. Javier or Andy,, I’m perplexed by this, and looking at the original documents hasn’t helped.

    The link to the source of that image, which once again you’ve omitted, is here. Please add links to your graphs. I’m getting damn sick of having to go on a google hunt and spending far too long to find a document when you know (or should know) exactly where it can be found.

    My problem with your graph is this. There are four panels with orange lines in them. In each case it is identified as 10Be or 14C normalized, both in the caption and on the graph itself.

    So … why are the first three orange lines identical, and the fourth one totally different? It’s perfectly regular and obviously an interference pattern between two or more underlying perfectly regular frequencies … why?

    What am I missing here?

    I also place absolutely no credence on the black line in (d) which is supposed to be ∆14C records from the Hulu cave speleothem. I’ve looked at the cited original study here, and I find nothing like that, either in their graphics or in their description.

    Again, what am I missing?

    w.

    • So … why are the first three orange lines identical, and the fourth one totally different? It’s perfectly regular and obviously an interference pattern between two or more underlying perfectly regular frequencies … why?

      “A: is the 10Be concentration (thin green line) from GRIP ice cores, the orange line in A, B, C is the 10Be flux. The blue line in b is the d14C in tree rings (without timescale changes). “C”: d14C from the speleothem. “D” is an extracted solar de Vries cycle (180-230 yrs). This is a display of the latest high-resolution 10Be record from GRIP, the supplementary data includes all of this. They are trying to show how well (or poorly) the 10Be and the 14C data compare after normalization. See the text for details. The supplementary data shows that the extracted de Vries cycle matches the Holocene records, this is evidence that their normalization process is working. Figure 1 in the same paper shows the raw data, unnormalized.

      You seem less interested in the evidence for the Bray cycle and more interested in d14C and d10Be specifically. There is a good paper on the cosmogenic radionuclide records, their problems and how to fix them that I did not include in the bibliography because it did not relate to the Bray cycle much, but it does discuss the radionuclides. See it here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252303485_Constraints_on_long-term_changes_in_solar_activity_from_the_range_of_variability_of_cosmogenic_radionuclide_records

      Plus Adolphi’s paper is good on the subject as well. Just remember the 14C and 10Be data only play a minor role in supporting the Bray cycle.

    • Willis,

      Please add links to your graphs. I’m getting damn sick of having to go on a google hunt and spending far too long to find a document when you know (or should know) exactly where it can be found.

      Well, that’s too bad. I have all these papers on my hard drive, so to provide a link I have to do exactly the same work. However I am willing to provide a link if available and somebody requests it. Doing all that work to put a link that probably nobody will use is a waste of effort. So feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide.

    • Willis,

      What am I missing here?

      Reading the figure caption?
      (d) is band passed for 180-230 yr to highlight the signal in the de Vries range.

  43. Javier November 24, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Curious George,

    The evidence comes from an aspect of the cycle that we have not mentioned in the article. The ~ 2400 year Bray cycle modulates the ~ 205 year de Vries cycle, so the ~ 205 year signal is stronger the closer it is to a ~ 2400 year low.

    Javier, I’m not seeing how this is supposed to work. If you add a 205-year and a 2400-year cycle, you don’t get anything that looks like panel (d) above. The short-period signal just gets added to the long-period signal, it’s not modulated.

    Panel (d) is a modulation pattern between two signals with similar periods, not a modulation pattern between a 205-year and a 2400-year cycle.

    What am I missing? You need to demonstrate just how a long-period cycle modulates a short-period cycle to give something like panel (d).

    w.

    • Panel (d) is a modulation pattern between two signals with similar periods, not a modulation pattern between a 205-year and a 2400-year cycle.
      What am I missing? You need to demonstrate just how a long-period cycle modulates a short-period cycle to give something like panel (d).

      Panel d in Figure 2 is the evidence Willis. It’s in the unscaled data. The swings in the shorter cycles are larger in Bray lows. There were very warm periods in the little ice age due to this effect. The data (in the radiogenic nuclides, paleontological, archaeological, and historical) show this pattern. I’ve not seen a physical explanation for it, but it is well supported in the data from many sources.

      Sorry we can’t give you a tidy package. This is ongoing research, come back in 300 years, maybe everyone will have figured it out by then.

      • Lordy. Without a mechanism, you overstate the case for wriggle matching. You might as well say that prior to age 13, hormone levels were low. Then they became significant till around age 60. Hormones are now trending down. Now that’s a good match for the previous cold regime followed by a warming trend. So based on current diminution of hormones, Earth should begin to cool again. Why can I connect me with climate? Because I found one human cycle, mine, that matches how the climate has changed. Maybe in 300 years, someone else will figure out the mechanism.

        The post isn’t even low hanging fruit.

      • Pamela,

        Thinks are real whether there is a mechanism or not. Lightning was known to be a real phenomenon millennia before anybody could propose a credible mechanism. You cannot discount evidence for lack of mechanism.

    • Willis,

      I’m not seeing how this is supposed to work. If you add a 205-year and a 2400-year cycle, you don’t get anything that looks like panel (d) above.

      That much is clear. This is well discussed in the bibliography. The signal of the 205-year cycle depends on the 2400-year cycle. It is maximal at the lows of the 2400-year cycle and minimal at the highs. Both cycles are not independent.

  44. Duster November 25, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    Willis,

    Just for grins, read about the eastern-Mediterranean Santorini eruption of the Bronze Age that destroyed the Minoan civilization. You’ll find the suggested dates for the event drop precisely into that same 1450-1700 BCE period you mention. There is some squabbling about a century or so, based on C-14 vs seriation dates.

    Actually, there is much better dating than that, 1613 ± 7 years … but I’m not sure what you think this has to do with what I wrote. A quotation of my words would go a long way towards figuring what you’re talking about.

    w.

  45. lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 11:24 pm Edit

    There IS noise [e.g. from climate contamination, even if it thought to be small], but the Varves have great potential.

    Thanks as always for your prompt and detailed response, Leif. However, I don’t understand the above comment. The correlation between varve 10Be and sunspots is 0.12, the R^2 is 0.02, and the p-value is 0.23, and at times the 10Be, which normally should LAG the sunspot data by a couple years, actually LEADS it by five years, a net error of 7 years, far greater than stated uncertainty … I gotta say, Leif, you’re starting to sound like the solar folks making mountains out of molehills. How on earth can that have “great potential”? What kind of silk purse are you planning to make out of that sow’s ear?

    The analysis of the ice cores is complicated and there are many pitfalls. A recent JGR paper outlines the problems and their solution:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR2-HMF-B.pdf uses 10Be to calculate the magnetic field in the heliosphere. Here are some of the Figures from the paper:

    Panels b) and c) shows the calculated magnetic field. Note the clear sunspot cycle variation coming from the 10Be data [when suitably treated]. Also note panels a) where the black curve shows the Usoskin and Co. [so beloved by Javier] reconstructions with the excessive minima and too large trend due to incorrect model calculations. The left side compares the field from 10Be with what we get from geomagnetic data, and the right side compares the 10Be field with what we get from the sunspot data.
    There is very good correspondence between the three methods [SSN, GEO, 10Be] showing that we understand the physics and have reached good reconstructions of all three.
    This is major progress and is the result of a workshop I [with colleagues] convened back in 2012:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf

    I’m starting to despair here. The authors describe their procedure as:

    All time series (including B[GEO] and B[SSN]) have been passed through a 1,4,6,4,1 binomial filter [Aubury and Luk, 1996] to remove the high-amplitude variations due to the 20% standard deviation variability of the annual 10Be data.

    Now, even a noob knows that you never do significance tests on smoothed data without a very close look at the autocorrelation, and a strong consideration of the Slutsky-Yule effect … but they have done exactly that. THIS ALONE RENDERS EVERY ONE OF THEIR RESULTS MEANINGLESS. Don’t believe me? Read what Matt Briggs, Statistician to the Stars has to say in his three part series entitled “Do not smooth time series, you hockey puck!” here, here, and here,

    Did nobody in your workshop bring this up?

    Then they go ahead and define their statistical significance level …

    (Correlation coefficients are all significant at the 90% level, though differences between correlation coefficients, using a Fisher r-to-z transformation, are not.)

    Why is the statistical confidence level set at 90%? The combination of that low level plus the smoothing virtually guarantees spurious results …

    Finally, in the lowest panel of their data, they’ve used an 11-year boxcar filter on the data. This is a HORRIBLE filter to use with sunspot related data, because part of the time the sunspot period is longer than 11-years, and the rest of the time it’s shorter. Here’s an image showing what an 11-year boxcar filter does to sunspot data:

    As you can see, an 11-year filter REVERSES THE PEAKS AND VALLEYS, but it only does it half the time, when the sunspot period is shorter than 11 years. The other half of the time it does NOT reverse the peaks and valleys. Net result? They’ve just turned their valid data into garbage, with half the peaks at random magically transmuted into valleys … and apparently, not one of the authors knows enough about statistics to even realize there might be a problem using a boxcar filter

    I’m sorry, amigo, but their statistical treatment of the data is a joke. They’ve used an 11-year boxcar filter, calculated significance without adjusting for autocorrelation, set the significance level at 90%, and calculated significance using smoothed data. Committing any one of those four statistical no-no’s marks them as amateurs. But committing all four of them?

    Conclusions? Just one. They desperately need to hire a statistician to slap them up alongside the head, because at present their paper doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s no better than the rest of the solar cyclomaniacal garbage I have to deal with. Sorry to be so direct, Leif, but it’s a terrible paper.

    You said above that to find the signal in the 10Be data “is complicated”, but hey, it’s not that hard—all you have to do is just ignore a fistful of standard statistical procedures and there you are!

    Is there a signal in the data? Perhaps there is, perhaps not … but they certainly haven’t demonstrated it either way.

    w.

    PS—you pointed me to the Finnish varve data. That data disagrees completely with the data that your cited study is using … go figure.

    • On the 14641 filter: it removes high-frequency annual noise so is very appropriate. The Tables show the correlation both with and without the filter so you can judge the effect for yourself. The 90% confidence level is derived from Monte-Carlo analysis of 10,000 realizations [described in paper 1, Owens et al. 2016].
      On the 11-year running mean: we are not interested in treating anomalies, but in the actual absolute level of B. For that purpose the tiny ‘inversions’ don’t matter.
      The main point is that the sunspot cycle is clearly seen in the B[GCR derived from 10Be] data, in phase with the B[SSN] and is hardly an artifact introduced by the filtering.
      As I said: this paper is MAJOR progress.

      • Don’t waste your time. Nothing that comes out of a scientific article but doesn’t come out of his computer will ever look like progress to him.

      • It is never a waste of time to clarify matters.
        It is a waste of time to say the same thing over and over again [cyclomania] and expect that repetition will do the trick.

      • lsvalgaard November 26, 2016 at 7:11 am

        On the 14641 filter: it removes high-frequency annual noise so is very appropriate. The Tables show the correlation both with and without the filter so you can judge the effect for yourself.

        The tables show the correlation, but not the p-value, of the SMOOTHED datasets. You’ll have to point me to anything about any unsmoothed datasets because except for the following statement, I find nothing about unsmoothed correlation:

        All time series (including B[GEO] and B[SSN]) have been passed through a 1,4,6,4,1 binomial filter [Aubury and Luk, 1996] to remove the high-amplitude variations due to the 20% standard deviation variability of the annual 10Be data.

        In other words, there are no unsmoothed time series being used. So I’ll have to ask for a more specific reference to the statistics for the unsmoothed data, I can’t find it.

        The underlying problem is, they’ve taken autocorrelated data, and smoothed it, which increases the autocorrelation. Then they’ve calculated significance without taking into account the autocorrelation. These datasets are highly autocorrelated, and it plays hob with the statistics.

        The 90% confidence level is derived from Monte-Carlo analysis of 10,000 realizations [described in paper 1, Owens et al. 2016].

        I saw your comment and I said Huh? Why would they use a Monte Carlo analysis without first showing the results of the standard analysis? So I looked back at the paper in question, the one your linked to (Owens 2016). It says nothing about using Monte Carlo analysis to establish significance. If they did a Monte Carlo analysis I can’t find any mention of it.

        In fact, the only thing they say in the whole paper about statistical significance is:

        (Correlation coefficients are all significant at the 90% level, though differences between correlation coefficients, using a Fisher r-to-z transformation, are not.)

        There is no discussion of Monte Carlo, there is no mention of autocorrelation, there is no discussion of smoothing and its effects on statistics. Just that one statement.

        So I’ll have to ask you for a more specific reference to your claim about Monte Carlo.

        Finally, I see I was not clear. The problem I was pointing at is not how they established whether the data was significant at the 90% level, although that is a separate issue. I was referring to the choice of the 90% level in place of the almost universal 95% level … I know why I think they’ve done that. I say it’s because their results are NOT significant at 95% … or else that’s what they would have used. Makes me nervous.

        On the 11-year running mean: we are not interested in treating anomalies, but in the actual absolute level of B. For that purpose the tiny ‘inversions’ don’t matter.

        I find that part of the graph very unconvincing. There is very little correlation between the changes in the “absolute level of B”. The

        The main point is that the sunspot cycle is clearly seen in the B[GCR derived from 10Be] data, in phase with the B[SSN] and is hardly an artifact introduced by the filtering.

        I gotta say, comparing the output of model A to model B doesn’t particularly impress me, Leif. What you mean is that the MODELED heliomagnetic field strength based on 10BE data is similar to the MODELED heliomagnetic strength based on SSN.

        Perhaps I’m just a suspicious man, but I don’t see how one could dig an 11-year signal out of the 10Be data, when an 11-year signal is NOT present in a periodogram and it is NOT present in a CEEMD analysis. The idea that you could get an 11-year cycle out of that is absolutely possible, I could write a model to do it … but since the 11-year signal is NOT present in the 10Be data, I find it unbelievable that it is real.

        As I said: this paper is MAJOR progress.

        As I said, the fact that two computer models agree means nothing unless they expose the nuts and bolts of their models and show how they have generated the 11-year cycle in the 10Be data. I say “generated”, because an 11-year signal is assuredly not in the 10Be data. So there must be some kind of special sauce to no only generate such a signal, but to have it correspond almost exactly with the modeled SSN results. Nature just doesn’t line up that neatly. Heck, as you pointed out above, sometimes the 10Be changes BEFORE the sunspots, and you just waved your hands and said there was always uncertainty … but the various computer models line up almost perfectly.

        I find that highly improbable … about as improbable as their claim that all of their results, every single one, are statistically significant.

        I’m sorry, Leif, but if I were a reviewer I’d recommend against publishing until they included the following:

        1. An analysis of the unsmoothed data.

        2. A discussion of autocorrelation and its effects on the results.

        3. A justification for using an 11-year boxcar filter on data which varies above and below an 11-year period.

        4. A justification for calculating significance using smoothed data. Once again I refer you to Matt Briggs, PhD in Statistics, who said (emphasis in original):

        Now I’m going to tell you the great truth of time series analysis. Ready? Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!

        Which, of course is exactly what they did.

        5. An explanation of how they turned a 10Be dataset which contains no trace of an 11-year cycle into something with a very strong 11-year cycle that almost exactly mimics the 11-year sunspot cycle. I don’t believe in magic, and I’m definitely the “nullius in verba” man.

        6. A justification for the relaxed statistical standard of 90% rather than 95%.

        7. An explanation of how they calculated their statistical significance.

        Or I could just cut to the chase and suggest that they bring an actual PhD statistician on board so that once he stopped laughing, he could straighten them out … I’ve heard some journals are requiring a statistician vet any data-heavy papers, and it’s a good idea.

        I’m sorry, Leif, but I’ve been fooled too many times, and the correlations in this study are far too good to be true. Every single result is claimed to be significant … sorry, not buying it. In real observations nothing is ever that neat. I’d have to get an explanation of their model before I believed it. Things too good to be true, like this kind of MAJOR progress, usually are.

        My best to you, and my thanks for the continuing discussion,

        w.

      • The story is along one and requires some effort on your part.
        BTW, I’m not a co-author of those papers, partly because I’m tired of people saying that all this is my personal effort. It is not. It is a collective effort of relevant experts [check out the full list of authors].

        Let me first deal with the Monte Carlo stuff.
        Here is the money quote from Owens at al, 2016
        [paper 1 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR1-HMI-B.pdf%5D:
        “The shaded areas show the uncertainty bands, determined as follows: We find the best geometric-mean fit [York et al., 2004] between B[LEA2013] (or B[S2014]) and B[OBS], then introduce a random error to each point, drawn from a two-sided Gaussian distribution, before refitting the data. This is performed 10,000 times and the 90% confidence interval is taken. The best estimate of B is then taken to be the median of the 10,000 fits.”

        The relationship between the SSN and B is not modeled, but is an empirical fit, based on the raw [yearly data]. See e,g, Section 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf . Similarly, the relationship between the geomagnetic index and HMF B is shown in Section 5 of that paper. More details here: http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf

        As I said: the output of the workshop is MAJOR progress in our understanding of the long-term variation of solar activity and its manifestations in geomagnetic and cosmic ray variations.

      • the correlations in this study are far too good to be true. Every single result is claimed to be significant … sorry, not buying it. In real observations nothing is ever that neat.
        The wondrous thing is that it really is that neat. I repeat: no models, no statistics needed. All just relying on good old data. I have working for 13+ years on this and have finally convinced the field’s experts that I was correct all along. You may find my first paper [published in 2003] on this of interest:
        http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf
        Essentially, nothing that changed. With 13 years more data, the relationships have only been shored up better. Very satisfying.

      • Leif,
        Thanks very much for the link to Owens, et al. This is a major step forward as you say. Just the beginning of a new technique and more data is needed, but it looks very promising! I will watch for more.

      • Leif,

        It is a waste of time to say the same thing over and over again [cyclomania] and expect that repetition will do the trick.

        I find it curious that you would say that when the workshop proposal of which you are a co-author says:

        “The ~170-yr record we obtain will be critical to the resolution of this debate. It will also help to substantiate the existence of the various cycles [Gleissberg (~90 yr), de Vries (208 yr), Eddy (960 yr), and Hallstatt (2300 yr)] that have thus far been identified in the longest-term reconstructions of B.
        http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf

        Is this a case of you defending one thing in scientific circles and a different thing here?

      • Javier,
        Leif does like to play the devil’s advocate. Perhaps it is a good way of gauging someone’s knowledge or intuition.You never know exactly where you stand with him, but the debate is always lively…..addictive even…

      • No, that was then, this is now. The precise goal of the workshop was to look into those ‘cycles’. As a result, the longest ‘cycles’ have fallen by the wayside.

      • Leif,

        No, that was then, this is now. The precise goal of the workshop was to look into those ‘cycles’. As a result, the longest ‘cycles’ have fallen by the wayside.

        So you say here. But so far modern reconstructions of past solar activity based on cosmogenic isotopes have increased the signal for the longest cycles, not decreased it. So it looks like the longest cycles are getting healthier despite your opinion. 45 years of progress since the cosmogenic record was established, and the myth is getting stronger. Your side appears to be losing this one.

      • But so far modern reconstructions of past solar activity based on cosmogenic isotopes have increased the signal for the longest cycles, not decreased it.
        [sigh]. Back in 2007 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/McCracken-2007-JGR-HMF-B.pdf ] McCracken thought there was evidence for a 2300-yr cycle “The cosmogenic cosmic ray data exhibit a 2300-year periodicity, and it is proposed that the steadily increasing HMF since the 15th century represents the first quarter cycle of an associated 2300-year periodicity in the HMF.”
        Research since then [http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR2-HMF-B.pdf] has erased that secular increase, so there is no longer evidence for the purported ‘first quarter cycle’ of a 2300-yr periodicity.

      • Research since then [http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR2-HMF-B.pdf] has erased that secular increase

        There is no need for a secular increase in the last 400 years to support the cycle. The cycle is based on the position of Grand Solar Minima. SGM had become more conspicuous in modern reconstructions, not less.

      • lsvalgaard November 26, 2016 at 9:57 pm

        The story is along one and requires some effort on your part.
        BTW, I’m not a co-author of those papers, partly because I’m tired of people saying that all this is my personal effort. It is not. It is a collective effort of relevant experts [check out the full list of authors].

        Let me first deal with the Monte Carlo stuff.
        Here is the money quote from Owens at al, 2016
        [paper 1 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR1-HMI-B.pdf%5D:
        “The shaded areas show the uncertainty bands, determined as follows: We find the best geometric-mean fit [York et al., 2004] between B[LEA2013] (or B[S2014]) and B[OBS], then introduce a random error to each point, drawn from a two-sided Gaussian distribution, before refitting the data. This is performed 10,000 times and the 90% confidence interval is taken. The best estimate of B is then taken to be the median of the 10,000 fits.”

        Ah, I see part of the problem. You’ve been referring to a paper that you didn’t mention or link to before. That helps a lot.

        As to the Monte Carlo effort, that always sounds good, but I fear that the devil is in the details. I fail to see how merely introducing minor errors into a dataset even begins to explore the parameter space. To begin with, the results will depend very sensitively on the standard deviation of the errors thus introduced … if you add small errors you’ll get a small 90%CI, and if you add big errors you’ll get a big 90%CI.

        Next, I’ve never once read of this type of a Monte Carlo analysis. Is there some kind of documentation or explanation of how you go about deciding how big an error you introduce?

        Finally, it seems like that MC method is not asking the right question. I’d want to know, for SIMILAR datasets, how wide the CI results would be. The trick is to use the right pseudo-data. By “similar” I don’t mean that you’ve simply added a small error to each data point. I mean datasets with a similar structure (typically but not always done by using an ARMA model) which are NOT just a slightly shaken version of the original.

        The relationship between the SSN and B is not modeled, but is an empirical fit, based on the raw [yearly data]. See e,g, Section 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf . Similarly, the relationship between the geomagnetic index and HMF B is shown in Section 5 of that paper. More details here: http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf

        Thanks for that clarification, that helps a lot.

        As I said: the output of the workshop is MAJOR progress in our understanding of the long-term variation of solar activity and its manifestations in geomagnetic and cosmic ray variations.

        I’m going through the links, and replicating their results. More to follow.

        As always, thanks for your assistance in all of this.

        w.

      • Leif, thanks so much for the two links, one to the McCracken paper and the other to their dataset. It is a fascinating study, and so far at least, I’m able to replicate their results.

        One preliminary question. They seem to be using 10Be concentration data in lieu of 10Be flux data … any thoughts on why? My understanding was that the flux data reflected the actual changes in the GCRs, but I’ve been wrong before …

        All the best,

        w.

      • The Concentration is the real raw data [what is actually measured]. The Flux is after trying to correct for differences in snowfall, assumed to be reflected in the thickness of the layers.

    • Willis,
      I think something has gone wrong with your running mean plot. In places, eg 1930, 1970, the running mean is below the minimum value of the curve in nearby (±11 years) times.

  46. Leif says
    Nobody assumes that solar variability is zero. That you say things like that casts doubt on your sincerity.
    Henry says
    Must say it took me some time to get through all the comments, but I do remember Willis saying somewhere that the variation in TSI is so small so as to be almost zero [was it to Stefana?], hence solar variability must be close to zero.

    In fact, of all the solar data, I least trust the TSI as I donot think there is any material that can withstand the most harmful rays from the sun and still measure correctly. Hence we are now in TSI version? Anyway, that degradation must be the same problem as the satellites are having [also many new versions]. I suspect there must be calibration problems with the materials and instruments in those satellites.
    When looking at the sun it is best to look at the magnetic field strengths. I find it the best proxy for global max and min T.
    [if only the climate science were prepared to take their eyes off T (means) as it carries too many ‘earthly factors and errors’]

    First of all, note with me that you can draw a parabola and a hyperbole from 1970 to 2014 that would represent the average solar polar field strengths. Note the small circles that ended in 1971 and 2014. Strictly speaking, IMHO, those circles are individual solar cycles, however small they might be. Clearly a ‘circle’ cycle was formed. This is then also the reason for the relatively smaller strength of SC20 and SC24. Hence, what we are seeing in the graph is the gradual and predictable decline of the solar polar magnetic field strengths. We can take this back further with SSN another 50 years,
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/to:2015/offset:5/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2015/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1970/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2015/trend

    note my linear approximation of the SSN hyperbola. Clearly there was a dead end stop around 1970.

    The mechanism:
    less solar polar fieldstrengths => more of the most energetic particles able to escape from the sun.
    more of the most energetic particles released from the sun => more ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides formed TOA [to protect us and protect life – [ OT: bad idea going to Mars without first creating an atmosphere….]
    more ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides => less UV radiation coming through
    less UV radiation coming through => less heat into the oceans.
    less heat into the oceans => it is globally cooling…..

      • Thanks Andy.
        Perhaps just to add: once you have a plausible mechanism, as proposed by me, to explain the climate variations from solar cycles, you can think for yourself of amplifications within the weather system prevalent on earth. I think Stephen is right with his thinking there.
        hence, it continues
        less heat into the oceans => it is globally cooling…..so the differential T between the equator and poles must be increasing.
        the differential T’s between the equator and poles are increasing => basic physics [yes?]: statistically there will be more clouds and rain in around the equator and less clouds at the higher latitudes.
        more clouds in around the equator => less energy into earth [remember the distribution of energy coming into earth]

        so there you go: you don’t need a Svensmark theory to explain things: it is just that the position of the [most] clouds do affect the incoming energy.

        IOW there are simple explanations for the amplification of warming/cooling processes.

      • After 60 years study of weather and climate I like to keep things as simple as possible but no simpler.
        I have noted a wide variety of actual observations and sought to create a scenario that accommodates all those observations.
        Whether that scenario ultimately fits long term cycles such those of Bray et al remains to be seen.
        At base it is all very simple and elegant.
        To change global cloudiness one must first alter the length of the lines of air mass mixing between the existing established climate Zones. By definition those zones contain air of differing characteristics from surrounding zones.
        Meridional jet stream tracks are required to increase global cloudiness and such meridionality is associated with low solar activity.
        Meridionality can only increase if one alters the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
        Tropopause height is greatly influenced by ozone in the lower stratosphere.
        To achieve the observed climate variations it must follow that solar effects on the ozone creation/destruction balance in the lower stratosphere are influencing global cloudiness.
        It is likely that such effects are indeed the cause of the cycles noted by Javier and Andy.

      • To achieve the observed climate variations it must follow that solar effects on the ozone creation/destruction balance in the lower stratosphere are influencing global cloudiness.
        It is likely that such effects are indeed the cause of the cycles noted by Javier and Andy.

        Stephen Wilde: This is one possible mechanism. It cannot be ruled out with any evidence I’ve seen preparing this post. It has also been discussed a lot by Isaac Held and others. Could be. Thanks for bringing it up.

      • Stephen,

        It is likely that such effects are indeed the cause of the cycles noted by Javier and Andy.

        I also think that is the most reasonable explanation so far. The search for a mechanism that can explain climate response to solar variability is progressing along those lines, while the cosmic-ray/cloud mechanism looks like a dead end to me.

      • Thanks, good to have some support.
        I’ve carefully gone through multiple possible solar amplification possibilities and the only scenario that draws together all the real world observations that I am aware of is the top down solar influence on ozone aspect which then alters global cloudiness and albedo.
        I formed that view around 2008 and started getting articles to that effect published from around 2010.

    • I least trust the TSI as I donot think there is any material that can withstand the most harmful rays from the sun and still measure correctly.
      Henry, scientists are not morons. We measure the degradation. How: by having multiple sensors open to the sun’s damaging rays for different lengths of time. Take the simplest case: one sensor [the main one] is open all the time. Another sensor is only open 5 minutes every day, so degrades a lot less. The difference between the two sensors is a measure of the degradation of the main sensor.

      Strictly speaking, IMHO, those circles are individual solar cycles, however small they might be
      No, they are artifacts stemming from the two hemispheres not always being in perfect antiphase.

      • Leif, you honestly want me to believe that climate scientists are not morons?
        ehhhh
        it is all just money and politics
        must I really give you examples of this?

      • @Leif
        You are always such an unpleasant person. You like to be nasty?

        may I remind you again that we are in a PUBLIC classroom and that we are all teachers and students to each other. Refrain from being insulting, please? It reveals your mental aberrations.

        For argument’s sake, for this minute, let me agree with you that TSI is fine and that everything is oki doki.
        Now, the energy coming from the sun has a chi-square distribution. The question is: where does the distribution begin, exactly, and where does it end? If this were pure stats on earth, it must have a beginning and an end. My point it that the distribution is probably dynamic. IOW: it shifts left or right, as directed by the strengths of the solar polar magnetic fields which in turn, as determined by myself, is probably determined by planetary and intergalactic movement… . The area below i.e. the integral, i.e TSI may stay more or less the same but, nonetheless, there is a change in the amount of the most energetic particles being released over time.

        just think about it.

      • Refrain from being insulting, please
        But you have no problem calling Climate Scientists morons, or worse…

        just think about it
        Which I have done for half a century by now.

    • Do not forget the geo magnetic field strength which is now in sync with the solar magnetic field in that they are both weakening has a role..

      I am pretty sure VERY weak magnetic fields will result in cooling because it will move the terrestrial items which influence the climate toward a cooling mode.

      TERRESTRAIL ITEMS

      global snow coverage

      global cloud coverage

      atmospheric circulation changes

      sea surface temperatures

      major volcanic activity

      This time is a good time to test this since both solar and geo magnetic fields are weak and getting weaker.

  47. Many just do not have an understanding of how the climate works. They do not understand that run of the mill solar changes are not going to show up as far as showing a correlation between the two. Especially when the sun is in an 11 year sunspot cycle which in effect cancels any given effects solar activity may have upon the climate.

    Many have no appreciation of the evidence of prolonged minimum solar events and the climate correlation which is shown very clearly in the historical climatic record without exception.

    Many are in complete dismiss of solar secondary effects upon the climate even though there is much scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

    If one looks at the solar activity last century versus solar activity post 2005 or during the Maunder Minimum or Dolton Minimum one will see the sun was much more active last century as opposed to those other periods of time and that the temperatures corresponded.

    The fact that temperatures are quite high in relative terms now , is what I would expect given the solar activity from 1840-2005. Only post 2005 has this begun to change and lag times have to be taken into consideration.

    The geo magnetic field, along with Milankovitch Cycles, land /ocean arrangements sometimes work in concert with solar activity while at other times they oppose solar activity .

    Lastly this fact remains, which is the sun is the main driver of the climate therefore if it changes enough it will translate to a change in the climate. I have stated many times the solar criteria which I think is needed to have an impact upon the climate.

    SOLAR CRITERIA

    SOLAR FLUX SUB 90

    COSMIC RAY COUNT 6500 OR HIGHER

    SOLAR WIND 350 KM SEC OR LOWER

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER

    IMF 4.2 NT OR LOWER

    EUV LIGHT 100 UNITS OR LESS

    SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF BY .15% OR MORE

      • Looks as if the 20th century comes in a close second to the 18th century, with the 19th trailing, and not just because of the Dalton Minimum, but from a lower high as well, and the Maunder Minimum-dominated 17th century a distant last.

        This solar activity mirrors the CET, which shows the recovery from the MM in the early 18th century to have warmed more rapidly and for longer than the late 20th century warming.

      • During the Maunder Minimum there were no sunspot to drag TSI dow, but there was a strong magnetic field anyway. We know that from the strong cosmic ray modulation during the M.M. and from the fact that there was a strong solar wind. We know that from the fact that comets were observed to have long, straight tails [dragged out by the solar wind]. So with magnetic fields still present [which increases TSI], but no spots [which decreases TSI], it is entirely possible that TSI during the M.M. was HIGHER than today. So the solar influence [if real] should have produced higher temperatures back then, contrary to observations…

  48. When the geo magnetic field is weak along with the solar magnetic field weak this will compound given solar effects.

    On the other point I do not think the solar magnetic field strength has anything to do with the geo magnetic strength they are independent of one another.

    It is just coincidence that they are both weakening at the same time presently.

  49. The thing about Leif is he does address everyone and I he believes what he says. I rather have someone disagree with me then agree because you get the whole picture, although I may strongly oppose that view point..
    I will defend my position until proven wrong by the data , not what someone else may or may not say.

    The climate arena is very complex and almost any argument even AGW can be made to look correct.

    I hope data going forward will clarify more the various theories we all have.

  50. Plausibility and the null hypothesis rule here.

    Your proposed driver must be capable of this: To change a climate regime from cool to warm, or warm to cool, would take an energy source quite large and capable of variability all on its own. Weather tells me that. Simply scrubbing out an entrenched atmospheric pressure system parked off the West Coast is no easy feat. Now extend that to a climate regime shift and the energy required to keep it there beyond long term weather changes. If your mechanism depends on an amplifier (and all solar ideas depend on an amplifier, as does the anthropogenic CO2 proposal), because you have chosen a driver so small as to be a needle in the haystack, the plausibility of your premise is so weakened as to send it to the round bin of pure conjecture. The source of the significant on-the-ground energy change required to move weather into a climate regime shift must be, by design, very, very large, and the energy changes very, very large. While the Sun is large, its variation in energy on-the-ground is very, very small.

    Your proposed driver must be capable of ruling against the null hypothesis. Why? Because natural intrinsic variability (the planet is highly variable in its own right) is King and must be ruled out as the intrinsic driver at greater than a 50/50 chance. Specifically, you must rule out the ocean’s capacity, teleconnected to the atmosphere, for heat storage and release over extensively long time scales. After all it is a very, very large source of stored energy, and its variation in on-the-ground energy released/stored, is very, very large.

    Not ONE solar driven climate post has provided plausibility or refuted the null hypothesis so I dismiss the conjecture out of hand without the need for critique of methods or results.

      • Maybe the millennial cyclic uptake and release of ocean-stored energy that plausibly has driven the past 800,000 years of stadial/interstadial periods should be called the Eddy Cycle.

      • The ‘Eddy Minimum’ is already [by the Solar Division of the AAS] reserved for the coming centennial minimum, so having two Eddy-things might be confusing…

      • The ‘Eddy Minimum’ is already [by the Solar Division of the AAS] reserved for the coming centennial minimum

        Too bad it is going to be such an unremarkable solar minimum, so far from a Solar Grand Minimum.

    • Not ONE solar driven climate post has provided plausibility or refuted the null hypothesis so I dismiss the conjecture out of hand without the need for critique of methods or results.

      Speaking only for myself, I agree. The 2400-year Bray climate cycle exists and it is there for all to see (except for Willis, of course) in multiple lines of data. It is also global (again multiple lines of data), thus the idea that the cause is extraterrestrial. But, is it the sun? Or something else? Could it be a natural cycle on the Earth that is global? Is it an orbital variation? You are correct, it has to be powerful, what ever it is. It is hard to imagine it being very subtle with the large, recorded effects. I suspect we will figure out the cause with time, I hope I live to see it. Some say it is a small solar change that occurs over a very long period of time and oceans store the extra heat and the cycle is actually an ocean cycle. Not sure how that works.

  51. leif says
    but in my role as teacher I’ll note that TSI measures ALL there is, from zero wavelength

    henry says
    there is no humility there\\
    neither is there zero wave length//
    but I still take it that you agree with me that the beginning and end of the [chi-square] distribution of energy coming from the sun is defined by nature [God]

  52. Javier November 26, 2016 at 5:39 am Edit

    Willis,

    I say that you don’t know that there is a 2400 year “climate cycle”, we don’t have the data anywhere to back that up.

    Your ignorance about the issues that you discuss is patent. Of course there is a 2400 year climate cycle, and there is enough data to write a book about it if someone bothered.

    And yet you are unwilling to provide a link to the study and the data of even one of them …

    Here is some of the evidence that you claim it doesn’t exist, and there is plenty more information from other climate proxies.

    I have labeled the figure from Dergachev et al., 2007 “Natural climate variability during the Holocene” so you don’t get lost. What each proxy displays is indicated in the figure legend. I have also put a regular wave on top so you see how regular the cycle is. Please observe that the climate cycle and the cosmogenic cycle are not only in phase, but they both show the same deviations (blue mark), indicating that they are locked. this is not only correlation, it is causation.

    More random claims with no links and no dataset, and a graphic with nothing but wiggle-matching. However, I figure this might be the best I’ll get, so I tracked down your paper. It is NOT an analysis, it is a meta-analysis of a variety of claims. So you’re not even quoting the original source of your graph.

    I figured I’d take a look at a sampling of the claims in your linked paper. Here are the results of six investigators, showing the times that they claim are the cold phase of the Bray cycle …

    Each horizontal line shows the claims of a single study, with the principal investigators name. The black lines are the intervals identified by that investigator as being the cold part of their own personal putative “Bray Cycle”.

    The beauty part of their results is that no matter what date you pick, it fits with somebody’s “Bray Cycle” somewhere. Given those claims, everything is a Bray cycle.

    Not only that, but they have not done even the simplest investigation of previous claims. If a paper made it through peer-review, as far as these good folks are concerned, it’s 100% gold …

    Nor have they seemed to notice this kind of thing (quotes from your link, emphasis mine):

    There is clearly a ~2000-yr quasi-periodicity in cold climate change

    and

    The Greenland ice contains sea salt and dust depositions that indicate large-scale changes with a quasi 2500-yr cycle (O’Brien et al. 1995), consistent with worldwide glacial expansions (Figure 9b).

    and

    The first and last cooling events correspond to global Holocene cooling events, the Neoglacial period and the Little Ice Age, respectively. Each persisted for 500–1000 yr, and they occurred at intervals of 1500–2000 yr.

    So they’ve conclusively demonstrated a Bray cycle with a period that can vary from 1500 years to 2500 years … how on earth is this a) useful, or b) science? Something that varies from 1500 years to 2500 years is not a cycle, it’s a variable signal generator.

    Gotta say, Javier, if this is a sample of the junk you are basing your belief on, I can see why whenever I ask for two links to your solidest evidence for the Bray cycle, you get real nervous ..

    This is a simple request that you back up your claims of a Bray temperature cycle by giving us TWO LINKS, one to what you think is the best study that establishes your putative “Bray temperature cycle”, and the other to the data used in the study.
    Or you could just refuse to back up your claims …

    I refuse to comply. I already went that way once and you didn’t play nice.

    Oh, you poor fellow! You refuse to submit your claims to examination because you’re gonna melt under the heat of the questions, or because someone might be less than laudatory about your work, or because I said mean things … really? Do you want a “safe space” to discuss this, like the college kids who couldn’t face the election results, complete with comfort puppies and chocolate? (NB: some US Colleges actually provided this for their students after the election, including the puppies …)

    Javier, science is a blood sport. One man is trying to falsify another man’s ideas, ideas which may form the basis of the other man’s entire scientific life’s work, or may be crucial to his continued employment. The idea that you will find this process pleasant is a dream. There is nothing “nice” about a debate when a man’s life work may hang in the balance.

    If you wan to do your analysis your way, you do your homework.

    I’ve explained before why I do it this way, Javier. It’s because if I just grab some random study about the “Bray Cycle” and I demonstrate that it is junk, you’ll just say oh, that’s not the real study that shows the cycle. So I started asking people directly, “What is at the basis of what you believe?”. That way, when they point to whatever is their strongest evidence for their belief, we can test the strength of their evidence directly.

    I back up my claims the usual way, on peer reviewed published scientific research, that to me has a lot more value that your little data games.

    I’m sorry, but in 2016, anyone who blindly and stubbornly rests his claims on the “peer reviewed published scientific literature” is a fool. Read Ioannides.

    But in any case, Javier, all I’m asking is WHICH PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH is at the basis of your belief. I’m not trying to change how you “back up your claims”. I’m trying to see if the scientific study you depend on the most, the study that you consider the best of the best, is made of sand.

    I am sure plenty of people will see that you talk about your personal opinion on matters of which you display an appalling lack of knowledge.

    Leif Svalgaard was willing to put his claims out into the open by providing a link to what he thought was one of the best studies of 10Be. That’s what scientists do. They answer questions about their beliefs. They don’t whine about how people will treat them if they reveal the studies upon which they rest their claims. They don’t wave their hands and point to fifty documents and say “It’s in there somewhere”.

    They back up their beliefs and claims by identifying the study that supports them. That’s what scientists do, and that’s what you are unwilling to do.

    As to whether plenty of people think I have an “appalling lack of knowledge”, somehow the Editors and the peer reviewers at Nature magazine didn’t think so … you’ll excuse me if I take their word over the word of some anonymous internet poster …

    Look, Javier, it’s not rocket science. I’ve asked you to back up your claims. You refuse to do so. Not only is that not rocket science … its not science at all.

    Sadly,

    w.

    • Look, Javier, it’s not rocket science. I’ve asked you to back up your claims. You refuse to do so. Not only is that not rocket science … its not science at all.

      Willis, we have provided ample “back up” for our claims. Just because you refuse to read the papers in the bibliography (our “back up”) does not mean we didn’t provide it. As to data, in my experience if you email the first author they will send you their data or provide you with a link. Sorry, we will not do your emailing and secretarial work for you. If you want the data, write your own emails. That entire bibliography was made with you in mind. If you don’t like it, I’m very sorry I spent the time on it that I did. But, it is our back up and it is all we will do. You need to do some work yourself and back up your claim that there is no Bray climate cycle. To the best of my knowledge you are the only person to make such a claim and I’ve been through almost 50 years of papers on the subject! One can easily dispute a connection between the sun and the Bray climate cycle – I will not contest that, not enough data to make that link. But, the existence of the Bray climate cycle is not in dispute as far as I know, except by you. I think we’ve answered all of your queries, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but we have provided answers and abundant “back up.”

    • Oh, you poor fellow! You refuse to submit your claims to examination because you’re gonna melt under the heat of the questions, or because someone might be less than laudatory about your work, or because I said mean things … really?

      No Willis. I refuse because this is what you do with the data:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/27/steinhilber-2009/

      There’s 9360 years of data in the original file that I gave you the link. You took only 250 years and plotted them at a scale that makes it impossible to detect solar variability. You call that your analysis. I am not stupid enough to play twice by your rules. You cheat.

      You are heavily biased and it shows. You like to play with the data without doing the hard work of knowing the science, and when challenged you want people to play by your rules that you then manipulate to your advantage. And when someone points how ignorant you are of the things you like to talk, your response is usually ad hominem attacks and insults. Your strategy might be good enough for a place like WUWT where most people know even less than you do, but to science you are absolutely irrelevant. You claim you want to make a lasting contribution to scientific issues and as usual what you are doing is just the opposite. it would be best for everybody if you just limited yourself to write about the things you know best, the sea and yourself.

      • Javier November 26, 2016 at 2:40 pm Edit

        Oh, you poor fellow! You refuse to submit your claims to examination because you’re gonna melt under the heat of the questions, or because someone might be less than laudatory about your work, or because I said mean things … really?

        No Willis. I refuse because this is what you do with the data:

        Ah, I see. You’re falling back on the tried-and-true Phil Jones excuse: “Why should I give you the data when all you’ll do is find fault with it”.

        Didn’t work for Phil. In fact, it has ruined his reputation as a scientist.

        Doesn’t work for you either, and it’s not doing your scientific reputation any good. What I might or might not do with the data is immaterial. I might use it for bumwad, but that doesn’t matter.

        Science is transparent or it is not science at all. Transparency means YOU GIVE YOUR DATA AND INFORMATION FREELY TO YOUR WORST OPPONENTS, regardless of what they might do with it. If they can’t find problems with it, you’re likely home free. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Javier, but a scientist can’t just give his results to his friends so they can tell him how brilliant he is …

        Plus which, you’re hugely misrepresenting what I did. I did NOT just post the one graphic you show above. I also posted a closeup of the same data.

        I provided those two of what I called “first cut graphs”, a closeup view and a view from a distance. I didn’t even comment on the graphs, because I was heading out the door for the South Pacific. Nor did I call it an “analysis”, it was just a couple graphs.

        So I figured I’d put up the two graphs and let people discuss them. That way, I figured I couldn’t be accused of affecting the discussion. I just provided a couple of views of the data, and left for Fiji.

        To claim that me posting two graphs and asking people to discuss them is “heavily biased” and makes me “a cheat” is simply a measure of your desperation. Posting two graphs and asking people to discuss them is not scientific malfeasance of any kind. It’s not cheating, it’s not biased, IT”S SIMPLY A CLOSEUP AND A DISTANCE VIEW OF SOME DATA.

        Sheesh … no pleasing some people.

        And you making that pathetic excuse the reason you’re running away from simply telling me what you think is the one best piece of evidence in your bibliography?

        Sadly … in your case, that’s just typical.

        You do know that you can end this at any time by simply giving me the two links, right? So … why not do it, and get rid of me?

        The world wonders …

        w.

      • Ah, I see. You’re falling back on the tried-and-true Phil Jones excuse: “Why should I give you the data when all you’ll do is find fault with it”.

        What a silly argument. I have exactly the same access to data that you do. I am as much an outsider to solar and climate research as you. Therefore i am not refusing any data to you. The only one here that has privileged access to data here is Dr. Leif Svalgaard, so if you need something that is not available ask him.

  53. Andy May November 26, 2016 at 11:49 am

    I say that you don’t know that there is a 2400 year “climate cycle”, we don’t have the data anywhere to back that up.
    So I’ll ask you the same thing about your claimed Bray temperature cycle as I’ve asked about the Bray solar cycle. This is a simple request that you back up your claims of a Bray temperature cycle by giving us TWO LINKS, one to what you think is the best study that establishes your putative “Bray temperature cycle”, and the other to the data used in the study.
    And don’t try to fob me off with your bogus “Bibliography” at the top of the post. The first paper I looked at there didn’t mention the Bray cycle or any solar cycles. I’m not going digging in that pile.
    Or you could just refuse to back up your claims …

    I totally agree with Javier, we worked hard on the post and the bibliography.

    I thank you for your hard work, but I didn’t ask for a bibliography. I asked for what you consider to be the best study. You see, if I pick one out of your bibliography and point out that it is not meaningful, you’ll just say oh, I didn’t look at the right one.

    As evidence of this, I did look at one. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH BRAY, didn’t mention it once. What did you tell me in reply? Oh, that wasn’t the right one …

    The post is the best summary of the literature we could make so it is the single best source. Second and third would be Javier’s posts referenced at the end of this post. But, to really dig into the subject you need to read all of the papers in the bibliography.

    Andy, I don’t want to “really dig into the subject”. I want to see what you consider to be the single best evidence for the Bray cycle, not the fifty top contenders.

    Remember, it is not just 14C and 10Be, the cosmogenic radionuclides are not even needed to make the case. The overwhelming evidence is in the sedimentological, paleontological, archaeological, historical and glacier data.

    Yeah, I just took a look at that above. The investigators of a mere six of those gave dates for Bray minimums that cover the entire period back ten thousand years … not impressed.

    And, if you are not going to do your homework, why are you making such a fuss?

    Providing evidence for your claims is not my “homework”, Andy … it’s yours.

    And how can you claim that we “refuse to back up our claims” when you haven’t even read the evidence we have presented? You can’t claim “we don’t have the data” when you haven’t looked at the data we are presenting, right?

    You have not given me one damn link to one scrap of data, Andy, so don’t try the moral high ground on me. I asked for TWO SIMPLE LINKS, one to the study you think is best, and one to the data used in the study.

    It’s a bozo-simple request, Andy, for you to back up your claims with whatever study you think is best. If you’ve got it, you could shut me up easily by just posting it … so it is a mystery to me why you are wriggling so hard to get out of doing that simple thing.

    Why not get me out of your hair by simply linking to the best study you know of and its data? What is so damn hard about that?

    In mystery,

    w.

      • I know that, Andy, but thats not what I asked. I asked which one of the 93 studies in the bibliography is the strongest in your opinion? I’m shocked that you are refusing to answer, it’s a very simple question.

        w.

      • Willis,

        I asked which one of the 93 studies in the bibliography is the strongest in your opinion? I’m shocked that you are refusing to answer, it’s a very simple question.

        It is the wrong question and it demonstrates that you don’t understand how science works. It is the accumulated knowledge from many studies what makes such a strong case for both the ~ 2400 year solar and climate cycles. That work is integrated in review articles. But you complain the review articles do not contain data but pretty images.

        This is your problem, not ours, to solve. Your claims that there is no evidence for both the ~ 2400 year solar and climate cycles are based on your ignorance of the evidence. If it is important to you educate yourself. If it is not, admit that you don’t know, or at the very least do not write articles about what you don’t know to confuse people.

      • Willis, Javier is exactly right. This is scientific research in progress. If it could be summed up in one dataset or one paper, we would not be doing this work. It would be in textbooks and done. Our summation post is the best one paper summary you will get at this time. Otherwise you have to read all 90+ papers. The data we used covers many disciplines, history, paleontology, sedimentology, geology, physics, archaeology. The work on climate and solar cycles is still new and fresh. If you have trouble finding pdf’s of any of the papers email me and I will send them to you, I have pdf’s of all of them. I shouldn’t post them on my web site, I’d get into trouble with some of them. But, it is legit to email the pdf’s to one person. That is the best I can do. You are asking for a simple grade school solution that doesn’t exist for this problem. Stop pestering us for one simple paper. The paper does not exist, you need to do more reading and less commenting and complaining.

      • This is scientific research in progress
        A hallmark of scientific research is that you also present opposing views and data [if any] and not just the papers that support your claim. So, have you found any papers that do not agree with your suggestion?

      • Leif, I didn’t find any. Maybe Javier did. Do you know of any that try and disprove the Bray climate cycle? Obviously, the solar cycle is debatable, so is the link between the two.

      • I haven’t looked closely [as cycles are not my cup-of-tea], but it is a bit suspect that you haven’t found any. Perhaps some confirmation bias has crept in? The closest I can come to debunking the cycle is McCracken’s paper I linked to, where in 2007 he thought he saw the 2300-year cycle, but the reconstruction back then was flawed, and in his latest paper, the 2300-yr cycle is gone. Now, I grant that scientists usually don’t dwell on past failures, so perhaps that explains the dearth of opposing papers that you find.

      • “Again Willis, the bibliography and our posts are the back up.”

        This reminds me of the types of answers Phil Jones gave to Willis.

        Luckily Willis could FOIA Jones and fight to get the supporting information.

        Also, this reminds me of Steve McIntyre;s fights to get the Papers the IPCC relied on entered
        into the TSR.. In the end the IPCC had to make all the papers available.

        But this is blog science ( Popper and Feynman would roll over in their graves”

        In Blog science you never have to supply the supporting details.

        Its worst than a high school science fair

        So you had 95 papers?

        Please supply the data you checked when writing about those papers…

        Oh… you didnt check the data or the code of those 95 papers.

        Castles in the sand….

      • Mosher has a point, if Javier wants to claim 95 papers he wrote, but won’t reveal the papers because he wants to protect his anonymity, then perhaps it’s time I do so. Javier can’t have it both ways.

      • Well, I’m open to reading any paper that presents arguments that the cycle doesn’t exist. But, since it seems to be present in all subject areas Javier and I looked at, I will assume it is there. I think we all should.

      • Steve Mosher and Anthony Watts: There is no data that I’m aware of. This post was and always has been a summary of the Bray cycle 48 year history in the literature. Javier and I read many more than 93 papers to prepare the summary post, but did no, repeat no, original research. Javier may have requested data from the authors, but I did not. His other posts present some original figures and data, but not this post. You can contact him about the data in his other posts, which were not posted on WUWT. This post is, and always was, a summary of the literature on the subject.

        Then, I carefully culled the papers to select only the most important and built a bibliography. The bibliography IS the data and it is there for all to see and read. Most, if not all, of the papers are available in the public domain through google scholar. Any paper that either of you or Willis cannot find, I will email you. Obviously, due to copyright laws I cannot post them on my web site, but I think it is legitimate to email them to individuals for research purposes.

        Anthony – Javier has not claimed he wrote 95 papers on this subject. He (and I) claim we read 95 papers and we have summarized them in this post. That is all of our data that I know of. To the best of my knowledge there is no paper out there that provides any evidence that the Bray climate cycle does not exist. If you or anyone else knows of one, I will read it and let you know what I think about it. As far as I know, this whole Kurfuffle is because Willis does not want to read the papers in the bibliography. I repeat, THERE IS NO OTHER DATA! Everything in this post is published in the papers in the bibliography and fully explained in those papers. This has been stated in comments previously by both Javier and myself. No one has presented any evidence otherwise.

      • Leif,

        So, have you found any papers that do not agree with your suggestion?

        As far as I am aware everybody that has published data analysis on the Hallstatt cycle in cosmogenic records claims it is there. I suppose if someone did not find it, they didn’t publish it.
        I have no access to any data that is not within the publications or linked in the publications or in the main data repositories. I have not asked anybody for data on this issue. So whatever data I have access, Willis and Mosher also have it.

        While everybody is aware of the climatic contamination issue that you raise, Willis position that the cycle is not present in 14C data is, again to my knowledge, not defended in the scientific literature. This is a well established fact since Damon’s times.

      • Please supply the data you checked when writing about those papers…

        All the data discussed is in the papers. Your suggestion that to talk about a paper it is necessary to check its data is ludicrous. What a waste of time. Science is auto-correcting and bad data is constantly substituted by better data. When one talks about papers that are 60 years old, as we do, that have been confirmed many times over the years there is little need to waste time checking its data.

      • By the way, the bibliography has 39 papers in it, culled from roughly 95 that we have read. I can supply addition bibliographies that contain the other papers if anyone wants to see them. But, so far we are having trouble getting anyone to read the 39!

  54. Willis is quite correct to show how stable the Sun is. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggest that the curve would be any different several thousand years before the data shown. There is good evidence that even the Maunder Minimum wouldn’t show up on this plot, e.g. that the minimum in 2009 was on par with the Maunder Minimum values [Schrijver et al., 2011].

    • Willis is quite correct to show how stable the Sun is.

      The question is not how stable the Sun is. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here. The question is the influence on the climate of the small changes in solar output that we know happen. You cannot get out of that question by pointing that the Sun is very stable. It is a travesty of analysis. A joke.

      • @javier\
        sorry, I was in the middle of doing our barbecue, so I could not elaborate on my comment,
        but you were hitting at the truth. E#ssentially, this was also my question to Leif. But I [think I] can answer the question myself:
        Obviously, if [on the issue of light/energy coming from the sun] we move away from the wavelength theory to the particle theory, then there is no zero wavelength. Every particle coming from the sun must have some size. We also know that the lowest size particles carry the most energy. So, what I am saying is, that even if TSI were to be completely correct and trustworthy, [which I doubt due to a variety of reasons]
        it is possible and it seems plausible to me that the [chi-square] distribution of energy [as seen coming from the sun TOA by the satellite] may shift a bit to the left or to right, depending on a number of factors;
        it may look like there is no change in the amount of energy measured [i.e. the integral of area below the curve is still more or less the same], yet there has been a change.
        if it shifts left [in a time of cooling] like now, it actually feels like the sun is hotter. That, to me, was the main paradox: sun is hotter but now earth will be getting cooler?
        go figure
        [it is always amazing to me seeing God at work in nature- there must be a plan\]

  55. I think if the sun reaches my criteria global temperatures will go down and if they do the ones that disagree will have to explain and prove why this is not so. At that point of time I will be very confident and really push my thoughts to the public and I will have the proof I said it before it happened. which matters very much.

    You have to say it before it happens.

    • if the sun reaches my criteria global temperatures will go down
      Even if they do, that is not evidence that you are correct. There could well be other reasons for the drop.

      • Apparently “confounding factor” is not a term in Salvatore’s present research variables lexicon.

  56. The Sun moves through the surrounding interstellar cloud at a relative velocity of ∼ 5 AU per year.
    In 12,000 years, the solar system has traveled nearly a light year. wow

    In that period of time we could suppose there were periods of changes with respect to:
    direction of interstellar wind impacting the heliosphere
    varying strengths of Interstellar magnetic fields
    varying strengths of GCR and densities of GCR and accompanying dust
    varying densities of other elements O H He Ne etc.

    Wonder what shape the heliosphere would have if the Interstellar wind was coming from the tail direction? The wind on our backs so to speak. Instead of it being a headwind.
    Sun in free fall with an interstellar wind pushing us along, no resistance, no compression? hmm just a thought that conjures up a weird solar cycle.

    • Wonder what shape the heliosphere would have if the Interstellar wind was coming from the tail direction?
      No need to wonder as it is the interstellar wind that creates the tail. So the tail will ALWAYS be in the direction the interstellar wind blows.

      • lsvalgaard November 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm
        Wonder what shape the heliosphere would have if the Interstellar wind was coming from the tail direction?
        No need to wonder as it is the interstellar wind that creates the tail. So the tail will ALWAYS be in the direction the interstellar wind blows.
        ————————————————————–

        Thanks Dr. S. I considered what you said and agree but, don’t you think there would be 2? An outer tail created by the interstellar wind in one direction and an inner tail created by the solar free fall motion in the opposite direction.
        This condition would exist if the interstellar wind direction and solar motion direction were the same. Instead of opposed.

        Fuel for my bias below…lol

        lsvalgaard November 26, 2016 at 1:25 pm

        ”’It is pretty well generally accepted that there is a climate signal in the 10Be data, check out the discussion in the Varve-paper I linked to, and the Owens paper on heliospheric magnetic field determination, referred to earlier. Or the papers by Webber and higbie that I have referred you to in earlier posts. This last paper has had problems with publication because it exposes an inconvenient truth [the climate signal in the cosmic ray proxies].”

        Those pesky cosmic rays.
        Are cosmic ray spallations occurring in the satellite environment where TSI i measured?
        Cosmic rays as a modulator, just a thought.

      • inner tail created by the solar free fall motion in the opposite direction.
        No, as the solar wind moves with the Sun. The sun [and its wind] is orbiting the center of the Galaxy, just like the Earth is orbiting the Sun. You probably mean something else by ‘free fall’ than is usual in physics: a body is in free fall if only acted upon by gravity. The interstellar medium is also in free fall.

    • Nir Shaviv wondered what happens when the sun moves through a spiral arm of the galaxy where GCRs are very high. And what he found out from the geological record was at those points in time the earth is an ice house.

      • Oh boy another CYCLE! I’m starting to feel like George Carlin when he did is skit on STUFF! Just get more STUFF! Or add another CYCLE!

      • I remember Shaviv saying that it takes about 250 million years for the sun to orbit the galaxy. And if you look at a “representation” of where the sun in the galaxy is, it’s orbit, and where the spiral arms are, it would not cross all four arms exactly at 62 years or so. And then there is a spur (or mini-fifth arm) that the sun crosses as well. So you would not get exact periodicities.

        But the evidence from meteors is very compelling (convinced my PhD biophysics brother) that there is major bombardment from GHCs at certain points of time.

        I couldn’t think of the geologists name who teamed up with Shaviv when I wrote this post but I recall it now. Jan Viser is his name. You might look them up. I am not a scientist. Just a lawyer who lurks and finds the sun fascinating. But to a layman Shaviv made me think Svensmark was on to something with GHCs.

    • One can be correct for the wrong reasons. So, only when someone comes up with a mechanism that explains quantitatively [with numbers] why (s)he is correct will we know. So far, it doesn’t look like anybody is even trying.

      • Leif I have come up with the numbers and a prediction. I have said if solar criteria reaches my low average values the climate will respond by cooling.

        In addition I am saying this is happening now and that the solar effects are being enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

        Now if the low solar average values come about and the climate does cool I am going to have a very strong case that what I have been saying is correct. Especially if the terrestrial items I keep mentioning that would be influenced move in the direction I predicted.

        If this occurs all of those who see it differently will have the burden to say why this is not correct.

        I say the global temperature trend is already in the process of a reversal.

        I think I have been quite clear and definitive and not saying oh someday this will happen because of this or that or try to spin it by manipulating the data or trying to make the data fit into my theory, or changing my criteria.

        I have stayed steadfast on my criteria and the expected result.

        Unlike so many others who never will call a turn but instead put anything that may happen way off to the future which to me is meaningless and leaves so much wiggle room to spin and modify, I am saying now, today.

        I think at least I have stated my case ,made my call and now am prepared to live with the result.

        My only requirement being all the solar parameters I have called for must come about and have a duration of at least six months or greater, following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have now had.

        The sun being much less active post 2005 and I think a Dalton Minimum is possible which would put solar criteria at the values I have called for, for a very long time.

      • Those are not “numbers” in the sense Leif, I think, is referring to. He is asking for energy needed/energy supplied for any climate regime shift hypothesis. You have stated neither.

      • Pamela. Svensmark’s theory does not rely on energy changes from the sun. It is based upon how many GCR’s hit the earth. Nir Shaviv has purportedly shown in the geological record, that when the sun moves through the spiral arms of the galaxy where GCRs are extremely high, the earth freezes up and becomes an icehouse for millions of years at a time. That would require no energy change from the sun. The spiral arms are the extreme cases of GCR bombardment. But if they significantly change climate in extreme cases, then the obvious question is what happens when the case of bombardment is not extreme.

      • I watched years of research go up in flames my dog and everything I own. it seems like everyone wants to put the boot in… I’ll remember “it doesn’t look like anybody is even trying” remark, btw I ran into a burning building 3 times in a futile effort to save my hound…

        Pay attention Lief…

  57. …… indeed, the Sun is STABLE in OUTPUT, one point for Isvalgaard,
    solar variations are peanuts:
    3 – 4 Watts on/off the 1361 Watt/m2 mean value received on a hypothetical
    1 m2 size “surface frame”, hanging perpendically in space, the top of
    the atmosphere. which further has to be divided by 4 to obtain the
    Watts per 1 m2 frame on the Earthen surface, from which 30% albedo
    (reemission back into space) has to be subtracted……what remains left
    are the peanuts of max. 0.7 Watts solar change received on the Earth
    surface…..
    WHEREAS the Earth Orbital Changes produce hugh Watt-differences
    betwwen 1320 and 1407 Watts within the year, thus 90 Watts variations-
    not the peanuts as pointed out above- The Earth Orbital Changes do
    the job of global warming and global cooling…
    see http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html…With the
    Earth orbit a couple of million miles further out in space around the
    sun (3%), as encyclopedic values.explain (only at both ends of
    the minor axis, the major axis is a constant) we will not get
    only to the Little Ice Age but into the Great Ice Age as well, and all
    talk of a Maunder sunspot great minimum (starting 1645) is futile,
    because the real cold started already 1602… with the Agyptian Nile
    and the Bosporus solidly frozen in 1622 BEFORE the sunspot started
    to go down.
    For this reason, the Earth orbit has to be scrutinized: The orbital line
    is a spiral, which winds around the elliptical advance line (known,
    measured by Issak Newton, Leibniz and Carl Gauss. Gauss measured
    4 years in order to derive a spiral Earth advance formula, failed, but
    through his calculations, invented the least squares method)
    ….. This classical knowledge is still being suppressed by “climate
    scientists” in order to “STEAL” global warming/cooling from the spiral
    orbit and “DONATE” it to atmospheric physicists..The worst are the
    guys from Louvain, Belgium (von Yperselen, Cruzifix, Berger and all
    those who deal with Milankovitch… who achieved to suppress the
    spiral Earth movement by means of their papers) ..
    Even Willis fell for this astronomical scam, reckoning that there is an
    atmospheric “godly thermometer based on tropical storms” to produce globalwarming/cooling…..
    …… as the Sun/C-14, Be-10, TSI only produce meagre proof, bad
    luck for Javier,…..Time is right now to scutinize the Earth orbit. JS

    • The change in total w/m2 calculated from orbital changes is not enough to shift climate regimes. See my post further up on that issue.

      • Pamela…..those calculations done by Berger, Cruzifix, Loutre
        and all the others from Louvain DO NOT include the SPIRAL MOVEMENTS..
        .Their calculations are wrong because they OMIT the true spiral 3-D orbital
        advance of Earth around the Sun…..
        Read their papers again…..they deal ONLY with the elliptical flight line
        WITHOUT the spiral component….
        THE EARTH´S ADVANCE IS A SPIRAL ADVANCE, which is omitted on
        purpose by the Louvain guys….. you want me to sing this out?
        Please check out: (1) The Earth´s flight is a SPIRAL, (2) this spiral is NOT
        considered (thus left out) by those Milankovitch-followers, because
        Milankovitch himself left this spiral flight line OUT and they have not
        brought it in in order to remain with Milankovitch pure and not contradicting
        him in respect to the dynamics of ice ages…..
        For this reason, the warming/cooling caused by the spiral advance (so-called
        OSCULATION Movement) ….[Osculation – correct] remains largely hidden today,
        achieving the atttribution of climate change to tropospherical causes..or to
        the man-made CO2..the AGW crowd refuses to look into the Earth orbit,
        because orbital calculations would reveal the 5 true climate drivers, which are of astronomical origin….

    • weltklima November 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm
      ——————————————————–

      have you googled to see what or if the current studies are reporting concerning minor orbital changes.
      If maybe there is a solar component as suggested in some studies related to Earth rotation.
      Rotate faster you might have a tighter more concentric orbit.
      Rotate slower and become more eliptical and wobbly.
      This could produce changes in rotational axis angle.

      Earth does not always spin on an axis running through its poles. Instead, it wobbles irregularly over time, drifting toward North America throughout most of the 20th Century (green arrow). Around the year 2000, our planet’s spin axis took an abrupt turn to the east and is now drifting toward the Britsh Isles at a rate of almost 17 centimetres a year. This is due to changes in water mass on Earth. Illustration credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech.

  58. Andy May November 26, 2016 at 5:16 am

    Next, I’m not clear why you say the 11-year signal is “narrow band”, but the 12-month signal is “wide band” … so far your explanation doesn’t explain, it simply names. We have variations in the sun that peak once per day, once per year, and once per decade or a bit more. Why do you say that they are fundamentally different?

    Willis, I think that 1sky1 is referring to is that the longer cycles (“wide band”) have a larger effect on the climate. This is well established in the bibliography, I provided for you, especially in the articles on history that you don’t seem to like.

    Are you allergic to links? I am NOT going to root around in 93 papers hoping to find the one that shows that longer sunspot cycles affect climate that you are referring to. Nor am I going to believe you without such a link. Nullius in verba, remember? I provide links all the time, cheerfully and without comment, and if I forget, when someone reminds me I don’t whine and protest like you and Javier. I provide the link graciously. Why is it such a pain in the okole to get you and Javier to do the same?

    It’s up to you to support your own arguments, Andy. Saying that the answer is somewhere in the 93 documents over there is obstructive, insulting, anti-scientific, and ultimately damaging to your reputation. You’re a better scientist than that, or at least I think you are, so CITE YOUR CLAIMS, your word is meaningless here.

    Nullius in verba,

    w.

  59. Javier, I took a look for the study you cited. I couldn’t find a copy that wasn’t paywalled. So for second best, I digitized the data. Here’s your graph:

    Here’s the bizarre part. See the orange line up in the first panel (a) that is the 10Be flux? I thought it looked awfully regular compared to the 10Be flux values I’d seen before. So after I digitized the data, I ran a periodogram on it, and to my great surprise, here’s what I got:

    Now, that is truly hilarious. The data that you are depending on to prove the existence of a 2300-year cycle ONLY CONTAINS CYCLES WITH PERIODS FROM 150 TO 500 YEARS! The dang data has been subjected to a bandpass filter that has totally and completely removed any periods longer than 500 years.

    Too funny. Javier—you’ve been using data that’s band-passed to throw away the Bray Cycle, in order to prove that the Bray cycle is real.

    Are you starting to understand why I say you can’t just grab a peer-reviewed paper and think it is gold? Are you starting to understand that when I turn over the rocks in solar studies I find all kinds of snakes crawling out? I find no mention in the text that they’ve band-passed their data so only cycles from 150 to 500 years remain … go figure.

    w.

    • I couldn’t find a copy that wasn’t paywalled.

      You didn’t look well enough. Google Scholar gave me one in 10 seconds:
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anders_Svensson3/publication/267105475_Persistent_link_between_solar_activity_and_Greenland_climate_during_the_Last_Glacial_Maximum/links/5450ac820cf24e8f7374dd2f.pdf

      The dang data has been subjected to a bandpass filter that has totally and completely removed any periods longer than 500 years.

      The Methods part is very clear:
      “Methods
      Normalization of production rates. Following ref. 20 we normalize the 14C production rates and 10Be concentrations and fluxes by dividing each record by its low-pass-filtered copy (PLP500, cutoff 1/500yr-1). Before this, each record is low-pass-filtered (PLP150, cutoff 1/150 yr-1) to reduce noise and increase comparability between the 14C and 10Be records arising from their different and irregular sampling resolution. This normalization is summarized in equation (1):
      Pnormalized = PLP150/PLP500 (1)
      where P is the production rate (that is, 10Be concentrations or fluxes, or 14C production rates).”

      Too funny. Javier—you’ve been using data that’s band-passed to throw away the Bray Cycle, in order to prove that the Bray cycle is real.

      You have not been paying attention. The 205-yr de Vries cycle is not independent of the ~ 2400-yr Bray cycle. The evidence shows that the amplitude of the 205-yr de Vries cycle signal is highest at the lows of the Bray cycle and lowest at the heights. Run an amplitude test on the data that you have digitized and it will show you the ~ 2400 yr periodicity. That is if you are interested in finding the truth rather than confirmation of your bias.

      • The amplitude test has to be run on the 205-yr de Vries band pass obviously. In the article they suggest 180-230 yr band.

    • “past 20 years” – if you pick an obsolete data set that conveniently happens to end in April 2014. Here is HADSST3 which actually runs to present. Trend over 20 years, 1.16°C/Century.

  60. anyway, my actual purpose of making that graph
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2017/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1998/to:2017/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1998/to:2017/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1987/to:2017

    was to figure out [for myself] if the correlation with ozone concentration holds. Note that ozone is one of only many substances formed TOA by the most energetic particles released from the sun.

    indeed, it looks to me that exactly when ozone shows a peak, the amo index shows a sharp drop e.g. 2013, 2010 and when amo rises sharply, ozone shows a drop, e.g. 1999, 1996.

    go figure

    • Why people that discuss science don’t use Google Scholar is still very surprising to me.
      http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.pdf

      This article is an example on how one can get lost due to a mathematical coincidence that is not supported by empirical evidence. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is not solar. We know a lot about it. The numerical relationship with solar cycles is as far as we know spurious. If cycles are not very well grounded in empirical evidence the risk of cyclomania is extreme, because one can find cycles of any length to support any wild hypothesis.

      • heeh..
        I am just a retired old chemist trying to put my spare time to some good use, not up to date with all modern internet stuff.
        in my hay days I helped develop a product [since that time many times copied] to stop having to use Freon solvents to clean PC boards after soldering. This would greatly help to ” preserve our ozone layer’. I still can find the pictures of articles showing you this great advance in science.
        I am now so disappointed to find that it was all a hoax. Imagine all of the clowns that call themselves climate scientists discovering the so-called “ozone hole” and signing a treaty that would only cost all of us a lot of money and benefited only a few. Same as the developing CO2 story. I hope Trump throws the Paris treaty in the dustbin where it belongs.
        – unfortunately- those clowns include lsvalgaard- unless he is now willing to admit [to us] that the ozone hole story was a hoax. I doubt it. His daughter was working on it, creating certain papers, no doubt coached by him.
        The tragedy is that nobody ever measured the peroxide concentration inside the ‘hole’.

      • those clowns include lsvalgaard- unless he is now willing to admit [to us] that the ozone hole story was a hoax. I doubt it. His daughter was working on it, creating certain papers, no doubt coached by him.
        You have no evidence for this [false] accusation.

      • @leif
        true enough. I have no proof about you coaching your daughter.

        actually,you are a ‘God’ [good] person, always willing to help, even me,

        but you just have to make up your mind on the ozone hole theory….

        as with the CO2: obviously there also big holes in the CO2 warming theory as Salvatore will tell you

        so tell us exactly where you stand on these issues?

      • I have no real opinion on the Ozone hole. I listen to my Daughter-in-law, she is the expert. Some years ago she published an article in Nature [and made the front page, too] on the Ozone. She is now the State Geologist of Denmark.
        AGW: clearly CO2 plays a role. Not a big one, though. The Sun too, also not a big one. Ocean circulation is probably important. My view can be found here:
        http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf

      • henryp,

        give this some thought
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/global-temperature-record-is-a-smoking-gun-of-collusion-and-fraud/#comment-587987

        Gail is wrong about everything she says in that comment:

        – The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is not a solar cycle. No solar cycle of ~ 1500 yr has been reliably found. Cosmogenic isotope records prior to the Holocene cannot be reliably trusted to give a proper account of solar variability, but if there was a ~ 1500 yr solar cycle we would know from the past 11,000 years.

        – There maybe a 100,000 yr cycle in the geomagnetic field, I don’t know, but even if there is one, the glacial cycle does not have a 100,000 yr periodicity. It is an artifact from the methodology. See:
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle
        Therefore, that geomagnetic field, if it exists, does not produce a climatic effect.

        – The Greenland ice-core record does not show any recognizable evidence of the 1470-yr Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The cycle labelled in that figure is a 1150-yr periodicity that nobody knows where it is coming from and that is specific of Greenland, as it is not evident in proxies from elsewhere.

      • @Javier
        @Andy
        let us see on what we actually do agree on?
        Schwabe 11 yrs
        Hale-Nicholson 23 years
        Gleissberg 87 years
        The above cycles I can prove from my own results on Tmax and Tmin and rainfall; what I found essentially is that the GB has a sine wave consisting of 43 years of warming followed by 43 years of cooling.
        There are 4 quadrants in a sine wave. Each quadrant equals one full Hale cycle.
        We also know that the exact length of the above three cycles is strongly correlated with the known positions of certain planets.

        Now, according to most reports, including the one I have just read as promised to Andy, there is also the De Vries-Suess (DV) of ca. 207 years and Hallstatt of ca 2300 years.
        I cannot verify myself but I agree that the evidence from all the reports is overwhelming. Anyone who does not agree must be a clown played by someone or money/
        The paper I just read holds that Braun et al (2005) were correct in thinking that a solar forcing driven by GB and DV could be responsible for the transitions called DO events 1470 years and they carry on working on this hypothesis, apparently confirming this. Do you agree with it?

        btw my various analyses show there is no man made global warming caused by an increase in CO2. Hopefully we can also agree on that.

      • henryp,

        give this some thought
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/global-temperature-record-is-a-smoking-gun-of-collusion-and-fraud/#comment-587987

        Gail is wrong about almost everything she says in that comment:

        – The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is not a solar cycle. No solar cycle of ~ 1500 yr has been reliably found. Cosmogenic isotope records prior to the Holocene cannot be reliably trusted to give a proper account of solar variability, but if there was a ~ 1500 yr solar cycle we would know from the past 11,000 years.

        – There maybe a 100,000 yr cycle in the geomagnetic field, I don’t know, but even if there is one, the glacial cycle does not have a 100,000 yr periodicity. It is an artifact from the methodology. See:
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle
        Therefore, that geomagnetic field, if it exists, does not produce a climatic effect.

        – The Greenland ice-core record does not show any recognizable evidence of the 1470-yr Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle for the last 12,000 years. The cycle labelled in that figure is a 1150-yr periodicity that nobody knows where it is coming from and that is specific of Greenland, as it is not evident in proxies from elsewhere.

      • I don’t know why my comment above came twice.

        Henry,

        let us see on what we actually do agree on?

        Schwabe yes.
        Hale, this one appears to be magnetic only.
        Gleissberg. I don’t think this one is reliable. I haven’t studied it much, but its duration and effect on climate appears very variable. It is clearly not one of the solid cycles.
        de Vries absolutely. One of the most clear cycles with a clear effect on climate.
        Bray (hallstatt) also very clear. But my calculations say it is ~ 2460 years from 18,000 years of data (7 cycles in 17200 years), so it cannot be 2300 yr. Frequency analysis tend to have a problem with the irregularity of the cycle and interference from the ~ 1000 yr Eddy cycle.
        Eddy cycle, also very real. About 975 years.

        Braun et al (2005) were correct in thinking that a solar forcing driven by GB and DV could be responsible for the transitions called DO events 1470 years and they carry on working on this hypothesis, apparently confirming this. Do you agree with it?

        Absolutely not. The interstadial phase of a D-O oscillation is triggered by the abrupt mixing of ocean layers of different temperatures in the Nordic Seas, probably below sea ice. The evidence presented by Dokken et al., 2013 is quite clear, and other groups are seeing the same. The cause is not solar, and there is no ~ 1500 yr solar cycle during the Holocene. The 1500 year cycle is oceanic as most authors propose.

        btw my various analyses show there is no man made global warming caused by an increase in CO2. Hopefully we can also agree on that.

        No sorry. It is my opinion that the increase in CO2 has produced some warming. We have gone back several thousand years in glaciers and small permanent ice patches, essentially undoing the entire Neoglacial period in that aspect. That is why Ötzi, that is 5100 years old, was found recently. The sun alone cannot have done that as it goes way beyond previous trend. Glaciers are very sensitive to CO2 because the air above them is very dry and has less competence from H2O, and glaciers have receded about 5000 years of advances.

    • henryp, No I missed that paper in my research, thanks very much for the link. I found the full text on google scholar, here is the link: http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.pdf

      They found a Bray (Hallstatt) cycle of 2276 years using a non-linear technique. I’m familiar with the idea of the Earth’s climate having two stable states (warm and cold) and switching back and forth between them. Perhaps there is something to that.

    • What baffles me as far as AGW theory is the basic premise the theory is based on which is the lower tropospheric hot spot has failed to materialize and yet the theory lives on, not to mention the atmospheric circulation the theory predicted has been dead wrong. The theory stated as time went by the AO would evolve into a more positive mode as a consequence of global man made warming and the reality is the opposite has been occurring.

      Then there is the question of OLR which this theory said would decrease with time which also does not seem to be taken place.

      If the basic premises a theory is based on are wrong do you not think the theory must be wrong. I do.

      • yes. there you got it. AGW theory is that heat is trapped on earth, meaning an increase in minima pushing up means. It is not happening. Minima are decreasing, hence AGW is only what the clowns want you to believe. Nice job if you can make people believe that they should pay the government for air and sunshine.

  61. ” If cycles are not very well grounded in empirical evidence
    the risk of cyclomania is extreme, ”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Javier

    So true, and that is why it is so important that a cyclical event
    such as the 2402 year Charvatova cycle is supported by existing
    physical mechanisms.

    We can physically see the ~2402 year disorder in the sun’s orbit:
    . . Charvatova, I., 2000. The Cycle of 2402 Years in Solar Motion
    . . . and its Response in Proxy Records. Geolines 11, 12-14.

    We can also see the earth’s precession of ~25772 years:
    . . Hilton, J.L., et al., 2006. Report of the International Astronomical
    . . . Union Division I Working Group on Precession and the Ecliptic.
    . . . Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 94, 351-367.

    And thirdly, we can see the rotation of the sun’s outwardly directed
    acceleration that takes place every ~2649.63 years:
    . . ” Fibonacci and Climate” . . at Weathercycles.wordpress

    When we combine all three of these physical events we begin to
    see that it is the acceleration of a massive sun that generates force
    in our solar system.

    Notice how these three physical mechanisms combine to form the beat:
    2649.63 x 2402.616 / ( 2649.63 – 2402.616 ) = 25772 years

      • Whatever cycle that has been found and named, in itself it is utterly useless, I have explained how the planets regulate the sun’s polarity and it is the polarity of the sun that causes all of the interaction of energy highs and lows measured on Earth and any other planet in our solar system…

        Again theoretically, if the suns polarities remained at their geographical poles, how long before an Ice age was produced on Earth?

        Regular Ice ages are caused by the planets slowly changing orbits effecting the sun, it’s where a solar-system wide equilibrium naturally occurs and our star is no longer interacting with the planets to the extent that its polarities remain stationary on its geographical poles, facing away from the plane of the planets…

    • The planets control the suns polarity reversal. The planets have an imbalance in time that is equivalent to our sun’s polarity reversal, scientific astronomical fact, it has been proven… yes by me

      • Also found the correlation between gleissberg and position saturn and uranus. I was also thinking of polarity change as we seem to have dead end stops for solar magnetic field strengths 1971 and 2014. Consequently also one 1927.
        Not sure yet if the correlation is caused or causal.

      • An interesting note about the suns polarity reversal and Uranus which I discovered a few years back, Uranus poles reverse at the same rate as the suns, it takes approximately 22 years for the suns Poles to make a complete geographical rotation, for example, if the southern polarity of the sun is at the southern geographical pole it will take approximately 22 years for it to travel to the geographical north pole and return to the geographical south pole. This in my opinion is no coincidence that Uranus’s north pole facing the sun takes approximately 22 years to rotate away from the sun and back again, it’s like Uranus and the suns polarity reversal is interlocked.

        I’m surprised only one scientific paper (that I know of) has mentioned this discovery since I first published details of it…

        Smells like professional jealousy as I’m “only” an engineer doing detailed lengthy research in my own spare time ;-)

      • Whatever cycle that has been found and named, in itself it is utterly useless, I have explained how the planets regulate the sun’s polarity and it is the polarity of the sun that causes all of the interaction of energy highs and lows measured on Earth and any other planet in our solar system…

        Again theoretically, if the suns polarities remained at their geographical poles, how long before an Ice age was produced on Earth?

        Regular Ice ages are caused by the planets slowly changing orbits effecting the sun, it’s where a solar-system wide equilibrium naturally occurs and our star is no longer interacting with the planets to the extent that its polarities remain stationary on its geographical poles, facing away from the plane of the planets…

      • henryp

        An interesting note about the suns polarity reversal and Uranus which I discovered a few years back, Uranus poles reverse at the same rate as the suns, it takes approximately 22 years for the suns polarity to make a complete geographical rotation, for example, if the southern polarity of the sun is at the southern geographical pole it will take approximately 22 years for it to travel to the geographical north pole and return to the geographical south pole. This in my opinion is no coincidence that Uranus’s north pole facing the sun takes approximately 22 years to rotate away from the sun and back again, it’s like Uranus and the suns polarity reversal is interlocked.

        I’m surprised only one scientific paper (that I know of) has mentioned this discovery since I first published details of it…

        Smells like professional jealousy as I’m “only” an engineer doing detailed lengthy research in my own spare time ;-)

      • Hi Spark
        I only know of one paper that mentions the Uranus wiggle
        and I am wondering now if indeed this wiggle is in fact not the key to the play between the sun and all the planets
        i.e. if the balance of power of the SS is not there – no polarity switch-
        hence a prolonged minimum (LIA) or a prolonged maximum (MEWP)

      • @sparks
        must say that it is very striking that the average Hale Nicholson cycle is 22 years….but it does vary…
        [note the Schwabe solar cycle basically is half the Hale Nicholson cycle -I thought that everyone had understood this but this does not seem to be true….]

      • Sparks, might I suggest that it is the gravitational effects of orbital motions acting on Earth’s very delicately balanced plate tectonic system that actually causes ice ages rather than insolation effects? Activation of plate tectonics of course involves volcanism, which can cause either warming or cooling, depending on which kind is dominant. Explosive volcanism at distal plate edges causes cooling through aerosol production, while non-explosive volcanism at proximal plate edges causes warming through halogen hydride emissions thinning the ozone layer and thus increasing solar UV-B irradiation of Earth’s surface. Note that this mechanism bypasses the problem of unequal seasonal insolation in opposite hemispheres.

  62. Javier, Andy. Willis, lsvalgaard and others: Thanks for the interesting posts and comments. Perhaps some late comments can bridge the some differences.

    There have been only four putative Bray/Hallstadt cycles between the LIA (the latest) and the Younger Dryas, and the Younger Dryas appears far more intense that any of the earlier ones and therefore may not be part of a pattern. Therefore periodicity analysis of the type WIllis insists upon hasn’t provided compelling evidence for a cycle.

    Willis was unconvinced that large volcanos cause cooling. BEST/Mosher provided a superimposition of temperature surrounding about a dozen large volcanos that averaged out the noise and made the cooling more apparent.

    Willis is looking for a statistically significant signal in the data from one paper, J&M are trying to “superimpose” the evidence from many papers and phenomena onto four putative Bray cycles (which partly explains why J&M don’t point to a single paper and why Willis is unhappy). It is possible – though clearly not preferable and sometimes dangerous – to combined multiple independent lines of evidence so that evidence which isn’t statistically significant in isolation becomes statistically significant in combination. So which independent lines of evidence can be combined in a convincing manner?

    1) Solar activity proxies: Sunspot data is too short. C14, Be10, grand solar minimum/maxima and estimated sunspot number before 1600, and cosmic ray modulation/solar magnetic field strength are all aspects of the same phenomena, not independent lines of evidence. Based on earlier discussions, C14 becomes impractical or the cycle vanishes earlier than the Younger Dryas. That leaves only Be10 as a means of getting information about more than 4+ cycles. Aren’t there several ice cores that could provide this information? The absence of a significant earlier cycle isn’t as likely to be published as the existence of such evidence.

    2) Climate proxies:

    a) Civilization: IMO, the evidence of changes in civilization (Greek Dark Age, Urak, LBK) is not clearly linked to colder climate. Civilizations developed at locations with different temperatures, and the amount of temperature change produced by the LIA (less than 1 K?) is less than the difference between locations. Reliable precipitation (which varies far more than temperature) could be a more important climate variable and precipitation changes are mostly regional, not global. Confirmation bias may cause us to pick out some events that agree with hypothetical cycles and ignore others (the Dark Ages + Mayan collapse, for example). It is impossible to quantify information of this type.

    b) O-18 in three ocean cores. With hundreds of cores available from which to chose, finding a 2400-year signal in a few of them isn’t meaningful. Can/has a systematic study of ocean cores uncover a 2400-year cycle?

    c) Bray’s glacial advances and retreats. If comprehensive (not cherry-picked) dates of all glacial advances and retreats were superimposed on other data, this could be convincing. The paper is paywalled.

    d) Ice rafting? According to Wikipedia (which isn’t always right), Bond ice rafting events occur every 1500 years and there have been seven such events since the YD. If correct, they don’t fit the Bray cycle.

    There is a philosophical difference about how “science” is done. “Phenomenologists” collect observations and create hypotheses that explain them. Some can be shown to be statistically significant. Others use such hypotheses to make predictions about what related phenomena should/could be found by new experiments (ocean cores?, Be10 in ice cores). The failure to find new evidence where it might be expected could be because the signal isn’t strong enough, but even that information is meaningful. Bray’s original climate observations for a 2400-year cycle became much more interesting when a possible 2400-year solar cycle appeared, but that link contains a new hypothesis – solar variability in the 2400-year cycle is large enough to cause climate change. IMO, the Bray cycle would benefit from the latter approach.

    • Thanks, Frank for the summary, I agree with most of what you’ve listed, but a few comments are necessary:
      You are correct about five cycles in 12,800 years not being enough for a successful statistical analysis. Trough to trough it is 12,100 years with an average period of 2420 years. The Younger Dryas is an anomaly, but the initial state for that Bray low was the end of the last glacial maximum. The initial state of a Bray low is important in determining the severity, as is the position of other cycles like the Milankovich cycles which are stronger than the Bray cycles.
      Your summary of why we do not want to point to one paper or dataset is correct. It is pointless. There is no simple answer, we have strong evidence for a cycle, but no mechanism. Once the mechanism is known we may be able to satisfy Willis.
      1. Yes, there is ice core 10Be data and sedimentological dO18 data prior to the YD and it shows the same Bray cycle. See Pestiaux, 1988 (in the bibliography) for the dO18 data. Adolphi, et al., 2014 (also in the bibliography) shows the cycle back to 22,000BP.
      2. (a) The LIA and the GDA can be linked to colder dryer climate (Behringer’s book, Clines’s book). The earlier periods not so much. The links for the books are in the post, click on “Greek Dark Ages” and “Little Ice Age.”
      (c) Send me your email and I will send you the paper.
      (d) Bond identified a 1500 year oceanic cycle that is well accepted. His data also has a 2400-year cycle, see Javier’s posts for the details.

      Science is a process to be sure. This post is a literature survey of numerous (not all) papers related to the historical, archaeological, paleontological, sedimentological, iceberg, glacial, geological and cosmogenic radionuclide evidence for a 2400-year Bray cycle. The bibliography lists the 39 papers we consider the minimum necessary to establish the climate cycle. Javier and I find it convincing, Willis and Leif do not. Everyone needs to make up their own mind. I agree it will only be solved when a mechanism (Solar? Orbital? TSI?, UV? Magnetic?, solar wind?) is found. It is even possible that it is a terrestrial mechanism, I find that unlikely, but it is possible.

      Thanks for a very perceptive comment.

      • Andy: Thanks for the reply. If I were arguing with WIllis, I would have focused on the longer 10Be data (for solar activity) and the longer dO18 (for climate response) you mentioned. However, my discussions with Willis haven’t been very successful.

      • Leif, that graph says it’s the “Steinhilber HMF B nT” … is that connected to the 10Be record?

        w.

      • Yes, the Heliospheric Magnetic Field controls the cosmic ray flux and can be derived from it using well-understood physics and is a more direct parameter of solar activity.

      • lsvalgaard November 30, 2016 at 2:45 am

        Yes, the Heliospheric Magnetic Field controls the cosmic ray flux and can be derived from it using well-understood physics and is a more direct parameter of solar activity.

        Thanks, Leif. I understand that, but what is the relation between that and the 10Be record? AFAIK there is no continuous 10Be record covering that entire time.

        w.

    • Frank,

      According to Wikipedia (which isn’t always right), Bond ice rafting events occur every 1500 years and there have been seven such events since the YD. If correct, they don’t fit the Bray cycle.

      This is incorrect.

      Even assuming that peaks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 are single peaks (they are not), there is no way the two peaks in 5 separated by 1000 years are the same event. A minimum count gives 10 events in 12,000 years, so a periodicity of 1,200 years. There is no way it can be 1,500 years.

      This graph from Bond et al., 2001 article, relates ice rafting to 14C production. It is clear that most of the Bond ice rafting peaks correspond to 14C peaks, i.e. reduced solar activity, with a ~ 1000 yr periodicity. This periodicity corresponds to the Eddy cycle, that we have not discussed in the article.

      The Bray cycle is also well represented in the Bond series. For example the 2,800 yr BP peak belongs to a Bray low.

  63. I agree with Andy May that Frank’s comment was a good summary. The debate here was interesting again.\ truth always wins, in the end.
    pity Mr Vukcevic was not present as I am sure he has some good observations on the last issue raised by Andy:
    “It is even possible that it is a terrestrial mechanism, I find that unlikely”
    I think he would have argued that there is a relationship somehow within the earth’s geo magnetic forces which I think relates to earth’s iron core. By my thinking it is possible, [although some outside influence from the sun must be present again]
    but yes, I could imagine that earth’s inner core of hot melted iron, not completely “round” , could have turned in some way more towards the north, causing more warming in the NH than the SH
    {as evident from my own results: there has been virtually no warming here in the SH}
    all the best
    H

  64. Peter L. Ward found that volcanic sulfate was invariably abundantly present at the start of each Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) sudden warming event in the GIPS2 core, suggesting that Icelandic volcanism was somehow involved in these warmings. He postulated the plausible mechanism that HCl and HBr released by these non-aerosol-producing (hence non-cooling) eruptions resulted in stratospheric ozone depletion, which admitted greater UV-B irradiance of Earth’s surface, resulting in sudden global warming.

    Given this scenario, the increased volcanic activity with D-O events, which have an approximate Bray-Hallstatt periodicity, could represent gravity-induced increased plate tectonic spreading on the mid-Atlantic ridge, on which Iceland is located. Increased volcanic activity during lunar orbital cycles has been noted, suggesting sensitivity of the delicately-balanced plate tectonic system to gravitational influences, and the recurrence of orbital patterns of the four great planets every 2318 years noted in the article could perhaps be the cause.

    This gravitational effect of orbital rhythms on Earth’s plate tectonic system could also explain the Milankovitch rhythms’ correlation with glacial cycles simultaneously in both northern and southern hemispheres without needing to accommodate opposite insolation effects in opposite hemispheres, as well as the need for various ancillary climatic or oceanic forcing mechanisms to produce observed effects. It could also explain the presence of Milankovitch effects in non-glacial (and hence non-temperature-dependent) rhythmites in the Phanerozoic record.

  65. The situation concerning the “Bray cycle” is not quite as open to serious doubt as some would make it out to be. While proxy data are always problematic indicators of climatic variations, the persistent appearance of the strongest peak at ~2300yrs in ALL the proxy periodograms of Figure 3 cannot be dismissed totally as statistically insignificant or otherwise useless. After all, the spectral power in each elemental analysis band of bona fide raw periodograms varies as chi-square with 2 degrees of freedom. Although the amateurish plotting of the periodograms versus period greatly distorts the spectral shape, it is clear that such strongly peaked structure conforms neither to white or red noise. Wide-band though they may be, there are definitely oscillations corresponding to the frequency of the theorized Bray cycle.

    What is missing, of course, is a truly cogent demonstration of spectral coherence between those wide-band oscillations and the putative driving factors. That’s where cross-spectrum analysis–which is capable of revealing the transfer function between system excitation and response–becomes indispensable. Sadly, much of the hand-waving phenomenological debate here was conducted in blithe ignorance of the role of excitation bandwidth in complex system response and in the absence of spectral analysis techniques suitable for establishing–or disproving–potential causal links.

  66. Javier says
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/#comment-2356846

    Henry says
    Let me work my way backward to answer some of your points.
    According to various data sources CO2 went up globally from 0.03% to 0.04% (+0.01%) in the past 50 years which compares to a total ca. 0.5% H2O in the atmosphere. Assuming equal GH properties of CO2 and H2O, I started to doubt the AGW theory…. 0.01% difference in the atmosphere cannot possible cause a change of ++ 1K in 50 years???

    Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) was correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa] I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
    I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month of the year….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits.
    Indeed, that CO2 is cooling the atmosphere, can be seen here: fig 6 bottom and 7
    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

    Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:

    The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
    I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:

    Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, on a random sample of weather stations, I figure that there is no AGW, at least not measurable. On the drop in maxima I have a good nat. log equation with Rsquare equal to 0.996.

    Obviously, what is also evident from my results is that you can actually see almost the half cycle of the GB cycle, which is 43 years.It has now turned to become a hyperbole rather than the parabola [2014].

    There are indications in the past where you can get a grand minimum (LIA?) or a grand maximum (MEWP?) and my theory now is that this is somehow connected to the DO events. It seems likely to me that somehow the amount of gravity is not present to make the polarity switch that is required and the sun than gets stuck in a continuous minimum or a maximum. Don’t worry: we made the switch in 2014, but it will still be getting cooler as we must still finish the second Hale cycle in the cooling mode. SC 25 will be more or less equal to SC 17.

    The Hale cycle is real and it is exactly one quadrant of the GB cycle. e.g. you can pick it up in rainfall patterns. Rainfall moves like the pendulum of a clock as per the relevant Hale cycle.
    I checked this here

    and at two other places on earth.

    It seems we are agreed on the DV , Bray and Eddy cycles but I have no idea exactly where we are in those particular cycles, in 2016. Do you?

    • It seems we are agreed on the DV , Bray and Eddy cycles but I have no idea exactly where we are in those particular cycles, in 2016. Do you?

      It is not possible to determine any low of the long cycles with precision, however to the best of my knowledge the last lows have been:
      Bray cycle: around 450 yr BP (1950). Around 1475 AD
      Eddy cycle: around 300 yr BP. Around 1675 AD
      de Vries cycle: around 50 yr BP. Around 1880 AD

      We are half way the de Vries cycle, but this cycle will no longer affect solar activity for over a millenium, until around 3400 AD.
      We are a little bit over 1/3 of the Eddy cycle that should peak around 2160 AD and bottom again around 2650 AD.
      We are a little bit over 1/4 of he Bray cycle that should peak around 2700 AD and bottom again around 3900 AD.

  67. Sparks December 3, 2016 at 6:42 am Edit

    An interesting note about the suns polarity reversal and Uranus which I discovered a few years back, Uranus poles reverse at the same rate as the suns, it takes approximately 22 years for the suns Poles to make a complete geographical rotation, for example, if the southern polarity of the sun is at the southern geographical pole it will take approximately 22 years for it to travel to the geographical north pole and return to the geographical south pole. This in my opinion is no coincidence that Uranus’s north pole facing the sun takes approximately 22 years to rotate away from the sun and back again, it’s like Uranus and the suns polarity reversal is interlocked.

    I’m surprised only one scientific paper (that I know of) has mentioned this discovery since I first published details of it…

    Smells like professional jealousy as I’m “only” an engineer doing detailed lengthy research in my own spare time ;-)

    Let’s see. Uranus rotates around the sun once in roughly 84 years (30,687 days). Now, the magnetic field of Uranus is complicated, four poles. So the poles change roughly every 84/4 years, which is almost exactly 21 years (21.00411).

    Now, let’s look at the sun’s magnetic polarity. It flips at the peak of the sunspot cycle, so we get two sunspot cycles for each polarity cycle. The average time between two peaks for all the data on record is 21.93 years. This means that they will go out of phase by .93 years every cycle. In other words, roughly every 11 cycles (247.6 years) they will be totally out of phase.

    So no, Sparks, this isn’t a relationship, even a long-distance relationship. It’s two random cycles that are kinda close.

    I get so tired of this handwaving about astronomical cycles that are “close”. Close doesn’t mean diddly-squat. This is a perfect example. Yes, it’s true that the period of Uranus divided by four is kinda like the length of the long-term average length between the sun’s magnetic polarity reversal, but SO FREAKIN’ WHAT!!! There are literally thousands of astronomical cycles of every length, you can find one to match anything. And yes, Sparks, some of them are kinda close to other ones … SO WHAT!

    Finally, just what conceivable force from Uranus could be affecting the sun? It’s not the gravity, all the objects are in free-fall. The only possible force I can see is the tidal force, and from memory that’s enough to raise a tide at the sun’s surface with an amplitude on the order of tenths of a millimetre … with a period of 84 years … be still, my beating heart …

    w.

    • Hi Wills, nice to hear from you again, sincerely it is :-)

      I’ve always appreciated your interest in this subject, it’s a fascinating subject can we agree on that? alrighty then let’s move on…

      What gets to me every time when this issue of the sun and the planets are brought up for discussion is the misunderstandings and the so called poisoning of the well of the subject, and come on Willis lets be straight with one another about it, you do more than your fair share.

      I agree with the logic that you have mentioned above, looking at it from your prospective, that’s fine, can you ever say with a straight face that I have ever made such a claim? okay let’s move on…

      Uranus does not have 4 poles, that is a ridiculous thing to say and another misunderstanding, Uranus has a polarity [N] negative and [P] positive, does the sun have 4 poles? ridiculous, I’m throwing that one out.

      On Uranus’s orbit your understanding is a little weak, also I DO NOT make orbital calculations of a planet by taking it’s sidereal/orbital parameters and try to make them fit solar activity because of similar coincidental cyclical timing, I’m throwing that one out as well, that’s actually quite insulting dude…

      Uranus has the most unusual orbit, it’s poles rotate very near it’s axis plane facing the sun, it’s sidereal period is equal to the suns Hale cycle (sorry the Spark cycle) it never goes out of phase like you claim, but of course you decided to use the worse form of astronomical calculations to make a back handed remark, please dude, don’t be putting any satellites up any time soon.

      Uranus is a very fascinating planet, in fact it was dubbed “Dumbo” simply because it didn’t conform to expectations of the scientists at the time, a bit ironic,

      I’m not going to throw you in the deep end or bury you with vast amounts of calculations and I’ll do my best here to give you a reasonable understanding of my view, I’m sure you have a beautiful ex-fiancée looking for your attention.

      The stage that I’m at with understanding planetary orbits and the methods I’ve developed over the years to understand if there is a Solar/planetary interaction, that is my question after all, The results from the observations I have, scream out that there is a Solar/planetary interaction, I can now show you a pattern of Solar Activity from any time spanning 8000 years, 4000 into the future and 4000 into the past, this is due to software limitations, the software I use was bought in 1993-94 I have calibrated it with the real world and it has helped me forecast comets coming into view of the Soho satellites with astounding accuracy, I understand the limitations of the software and I understand how to improve the accuracy…

      I have no problem bundling up all the spreadsheets, software and sending it to you, talking you through the process of collecting orbital data and showing you the method for calculating these orbital patterns that match Solar activity for yourself and reproduce my results, it’s a cheat for you at my expense, but I’m fine with that…

      Now, getting to what my view is on what’s going on, I’ve a lot of thoughts on this but I’ll break it down for clarity’s sake, one quick point: looking at the historical sunspot record, do you notice the dips in sun spot activity during the peak of the two main cycles of activity? there’s a dip in the 70’s (cycle 20) and in the 1800’s (cycles 5 and 6 I’m not convinced about cycle 5 just a note), studying my results and pouring over the data for months on end I realized the cause of this was a polarity break down taken place, what I mean by this is that the suns polarities speed up over time and reverse at such a fast pace that they cancel each other out, to a point where the activity does not manifest itself as sunspots, that is the key to what is going on, the suns polarities interact with each other on the solar plane, the equator of the sun as they reverse, the suns polarities when at rest at the geographical poles produce very little activity, when the polarities begin to wobble and continue to rotate and reverse over time, speeding up and slowing down, when they reverse too fast solar activity drops of as well as when they do not reverse, this is the interaction the sun has with the planets.

      Yes there are relativistic and gravitational effects between the sun and the planets you have said as much yourself, but let me remind you about some very basic physics, a small magnet can move a much larger one, there are enormous polarities interacting within the solar system, continuously nudging and effecting the timing of bodies in their orbits, and I can show you proof of this pattern, I have on occasion, if this was untrue there should be no matching pattern between the planets and the Sun.

      Where the solar dynamo is concerned, I’m going by observational evidence that the dynamo occurs from the inside out and is a result of the rotating and reversing poles and is NOT caused from the outside in because of the difference between the suns equator in relation to it’s poles, in which sunspots cause the magnetic poles to reverse, this is a scandalous interpretation in my view.

  68. willis says
    This is a perfect example. Yes, it’s true that the period of Uranus divided by four is kinda like the length of the long-term average length between the sun’s magnetic polarity reversal, but SO FREAKIN’ WHAT!!!

    henry says
    sparks never said that
    ……
    ????

    • Henry, you’ll have to pardon me, but unless he’s appointed you as his spokesdude, I’ll wait for Sparks to tell us what he means …

      w.

  69. I’ve been told over and over that wherever you look in the proxy record you find the so-called “Bray Cycle”, which is supposed to be somewhere around 2,300 years or so. Here’s an example of the problems I run into with that (emphasis mine). First, about the “Bond Cycle” which is supposed to be 1340 years …

    A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609

    Abstract:
    Ice-rafting evidence for a “1500-year cycle” sparked considerable debate on millennial-scale climate change and the role of solar variability. Here, we reinterpret the last 70,000 years of the subpolar North Atlantic record, focusing on classic DSDP Site 609, in the context of newly available raw data, the latest radiocarbon calibration (Marine09) and ice core chronology (GICC05), and a wider range of statistical methodologies. A ∼1500-year oscillation is primarily limited to the short glacial Stage 4, the age of which is derived solely from an ice flow model (ss09sea), subject to uncertainty, and offset most from the original chronology. Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ∼1000 and ∼2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability. Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.

    Note that the “Bond Cycle” is said by some to be the strongest of the cycles in paleoclimate … but it appears to be just a local short-term cycle if indeed there is a “cycle” at all.

    Then we have this:

    Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction for the mid-to-late Holocene

    The study further reveals two prominent cycles in NH temperature: 1700–2000-year cycle during the mid-to-late Holocene and 1200–1500-year cycle during the past 3500 years.

    Note that this is all too typical. IF IT DOESN’T LAST IT IS NOT A TRUE CYCLE!!!

    Note also that they are claiming to find a 1500-year cycle in 3500 years of data … bad scientists, no cookies.

    Next, note that none of these “cycles” at 1200-1500 years or 1700-2000 years show up in the ∆14C data … who knew?

    In any case, regardless of how fragile their cycle claims may be, they do NOT find any “Bray” cycles.

    This is why I ask people to let me in on their secret, which is to let me know the reason they believe in a Bray cycle. Most of field is garbage, people claiming a cycle of length X in a dataset that is only 2X long, as in the study above.

    To cut through the fog, I simply ask them “What is the one piece of best evidence for the Bray Cycle” ,,, and then watch Javier and Andy trample each other in their rush to the fire doors so they don’t have to answer … the question is just to hot to handle, I guess.

    Yean, I know, I’ll probably go to hell for laughing at their contortions to avoid answering. Its a cruel sport … but then science is the cruel process of asking the hard questions and attempting to destroy the other man’s life work.

    And apparently, cyclomania is the process of running away when the temperature rises and the hot questions start being asked … .

    w.

  70. Wow I actually agree with Willis… Well not entirely, “cyclomania” is a disgraceful slur and science is the question. the answers my friend maybe crewel…

    • sparks
      thx for clearing up your identity crisis
      I am pretty sure you must know of a good proxy for the Hale cycle [ average 22 years ]
      can you help us out here?

      • Who me? haha

        Let’s roll our sleeves up and get stuck in, awesome,,, Willis is correct! he has used various techniques and all of his ability to find these “cycles” in a vast amount of data, (seriously if Willis found something significant do you think even I could shut him up?) does this mean Willis is incompetent? of course not, there are no “cycles” in data such as the 10be. that’s not how the universe works, finding a cycle and making it fit does not float, the geological data records that are being used as interchangeable proxies to document earths past is fine, when one record, let’s say 10be agrees with with another proxy maybe tree rings or mud huts built in Iceland billions of years ago. who cares, the fact remains on a very primordial grounding, our observations are paramount and overrule statistical trickery,

        Warm and cold periods exist in the past, there is no link in any data anywhere that suggests whatsoever that humans dunit, That ship has sailed,,,

        Getting back to your comment Henry, Cycles do exist, very much so in nature, the sun has an “average 22 year” cycle, lets call this a ‘Spark Cycle’ and define it as; one complete revolution of the suns polarity in relation to it’s geographic poles, do you see the difference? the “spark Cycle” is an observation, Observational cycles are more important than statistical fantasy.

        Thanks to this thought provoking Guest essay by Andy May and Javier, I’m currently working on a lengthy time consuming process to find out what the 1430’s solar situation was, was there a similar situation occurring around the time of the Maunder minimum? I’ve published timing graphs between the sun and planets on this site on occasion, let me be very clear about something, if the 1430’s are similar to the “Maunder minimum” in timing and I produce a pattern of solar cycles to match, it will be game over, some very prominent vocal comedians here will need to rethink aspects of their great work,

        All the best :-)

      • sparks says
        the sun has an “average 22 year” cycle, lets call this a ‘Spark Cycle’ and define it as; one complete revolution of the suns polarity in relation to it’s geographic poles, do you see the difference? the “spark Cycle” is an observation, Observational cycles are more important than statistical fantasy

        Henry says
        your cycle was found a long time ago and it is called a Hale or Hale-Nicholson
        one Hale cycle is 1/4 GB cycle
        no spark there
        but do enlighten me if you can prove that 22 year cycle from some actual measurement [ I am sure there must be]
        the thing is that this cycle can vary quite a few years and I believe there are times when our SS gets stuck in a continued maximum or minimum. that could explain ur cold period in the 1430’s.
        That also leads me to believe that the planets’ position in our SS is [some] cause to solar activity rather than being originally caused by the sun’s [initial] solar activity which was my original belief.
        the consequence of this line of thinking is:
        what if something happens to one of our planets?
        we are dead?

Comments are closed.