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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
533 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kurt in Switzerland
November 24, 2016 1:13 pm

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.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
November 24, 2016 1:21 pm

(of course I’m talking about the sunspot cycles, not Bray, a.k.a. Hallstatt cycles).

Jeff L
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
November 24, 2016 1:52 pm

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

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Jeff L
November 24, 2016 1:57 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Jeff L
November 24, 2016 2:18 pm

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.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Jeff L
November 24, 2016 7:29 pm

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…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jeff L
November 24, 2016 7:36 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Jeff L
November 25, 2016 2:05 am

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.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Jeff L
November 25, 2016 2:35 am

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…

Javier
Reply to  Jeff L
November 25, 2016 5:51 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Jeff L
November 29, 2016 3:53 pm

Javier
November 25, 2016 at 2:05 am

Chimp
Reply to  Jeff L
December 3, 2016 12:29 pm

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:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
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.

Stephen Richards
November 24, 2016 1:16 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 24, 2016 6:44 pm

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.

November 24, 2016 1:20 pm

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).

Editor
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 25, 2016 5:18 am

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!

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 11:53 am

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 12:12 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-Sunspot-Cycles.png
from http://www.leif.org/EOS/Varves-10Be-Berggren.pdf

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 3:34 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 3:36 pm

I put it down to timing uncertainty.

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 7:05 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 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.

Duster
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 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. 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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 8:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 8:58 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-Berggren-Filtered.png
Note the strong modulation during the Maunder Minimum [panel ‘d’].
From http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 8:44 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 8:52 pm

All I have is the link to the paper
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Varves-10Be-Berggren.pdf
Anne Berggren is a good friend of mine and I could ask her for the data [if needed].

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 10:09 pm

Willis, the Varve-paper has a data table.

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 10:25 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 11:24 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF-B-GCR.png
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

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 11:26 am

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 5:44 pm

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.

November 24, 2016 1:24 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 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 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).

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 8:53 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 5:39 am

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.
http://i.imgur.com/WWbdn6f.png
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.

Editor
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 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. 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!

stephana
November 24, 2016 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.

MRW
Reply to  stephana
November 24, 2016 4:58 pm

✔✔✔ ✔✔✔

Severian
Reply to  stephana
November 25, 2016 9:37 am

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!

Reply to  stephana
November 25, 2016 12:36 pm

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.

Sparks
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 2:39 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 26, 2016 12:38 pm

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.

Reply to  rishrac
November 26, 2016 4:26 pm

TSI was never 1370 W/m2. This higher value was due to construction flaws in early sensor that allowed scattered light to enter the sensor chamber.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 26, 2016 6:49 pm

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.

Reply to  rishrac
November 26, 2016 7:35 pm

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”.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 12:04 pm

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.

Reply to  rishrac
November 28, 2016 12:10 pm

Only one source is enough. The correct one.
Our best measurements say around 1361+/-2 W/m2.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 8:30 pm

My point isn’t what it is now, it is what it was. I am pretty sure I agreed with you on 1361 .

Reply to  rishrac
November 28, 2016 9:21 pm

It never was 1370. Those high values were due to extra scattered light entering the sensor.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 29, 2016 3:20 pm

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.

Reply to  rishrac
November 29, 2016 3:36 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 1, 2016 11:39 am

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.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 26, 2016 3:55 pm

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…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
November 26, 2016 4:01 pm

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.

bobl
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 27, 2016 2:13 am

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.

Reply to  bobl
November 27, 2016 6:45 am

In space, by satellites.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 27, 2016 7:11 am

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.

Mark Lee
November 24, 2016 1:37 pm

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.

fthoma
Reply to  Mark Lee
November 24, 2016 8:17 pm

“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.

TobiasN
Reply to  fthoma
November 25, 2016 7:19 pm

the latest from them is Scafetta et al (2016). I also don’t feel qualified to judge it.
btw if the nut of this is: planetary mass->solar magnetism->high energy particles reaching Earth->something->temperatures, I would like to point out as recently as 2011 it wasn’t clear where the ‘cosmic rays’/high energy particles were coming from. if they are ‘lensed’ that might be input that might not be static at millennial scales?

November 24, 2016 1:47 pm

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!

MRW
Reply to  asybot
November 24, 2016 4:58 pm

I agree.

November 24, 2016 1:54 pm

“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.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 24, 2016 2:05 pm

Well LIA min. was about 300y ago but yes, 300/2600 is a small phase change.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 2:12 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 2:28 pm

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.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 4:37 pm

oh dear oh dear.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 7:54 pm

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?

afonzarelli
Reply to  Greg
November 25, 2016 2:40 am

(nixon now more than ever… ☺)

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 24, 2016 2:25 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 2:37 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 2:48 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:37 pm

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.

Richard M
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:46 pm

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.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 5:37 pm

comment image

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 5:40 pm

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%.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Figure_1.9.png
So it appears the number of idiot journos is really high.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 5:47 pm

“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…

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 5:57 pm

comment image

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 6:01 pm

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

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 6:51 pm

“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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 7:06 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 8:06 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 9:16 pm

“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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 12:43 am

Nick, you are funny…you know, stupid funny. Jesus!

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:42 am

(“unrelentingly pigheaded”… ☺)

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 3:13 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:14 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:29 am

@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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 11:44 am

“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.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 1:33 pm

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.

Frank
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:20 pm

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.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Figure_1.9.png

Reply to  Frank
November 25, 2016 5:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 11:04 pm

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.comment image

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 5:57 am

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.

Curious George
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 24, 2016 3:18 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Curious George
November 24, 2016 5:46 pm

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.

Curious George
Reply to  Curious George
November 24, 2016 6:29 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Curious George
November 24, 2016 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. 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:
http://i.imgur.com/niNSwIr.png
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.
http://i.imgur.com/6BkbKnz.png

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 24, 2016 5:59 pm

Hi Nick are you the author of the moyhu blog?

Reply to  chaamjamal
November 24, 2016 6:45 pm

Yes

commieBob
November 24, 2016 1:55 pm

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?

Javier
Reply to  commieBob
November 24, 2016 2:35 pm

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.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:05 pm

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”.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:11 pm

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.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:44 pm

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
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 3:13 pm

What is a “quiet sun level”?

Javier
Reply to  commieBob
November 26, 2016 6:00 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 29, 2016 3:43 pm

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

Pamela Gray
November 24, 2016 2:02 pm

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.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 24, 2016 5:05 pm

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.

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 24, 2016 5:15 pm

A much larger variation of cosmic rays is due to the changing magnetic field of the Earth.
http://www.leif.research/CosmicRaysGeoDipole.jpg
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.

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 24, 2016 5:17 pm
Pamela Gray
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 25, 2016 10:30 am

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.

jorgekafkazar
November 24, 2016 2:09 pm

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

Greg
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 25, 2016 3:17 am

“persistent irregular cycles” even more oxymoronic. 😉

Editor
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 25, 2016 5:49 am

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.”

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 1:59 pm

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.

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 12:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 12:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 6:10 pm

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.

November 24, 2016 2:29 pm

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.

November 24, 2016 2:32 pm

A [severe] problem with the purported association is that the climate and solar activity the last 300 years have not followed each other.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 2:42 pm

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.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-7.png

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 3:15 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 3:33 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 3:59 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:05 pm

Greg.
Internal ocean cycles different in each ocean basin and interacting between themselves over time, sometimes offsetting and sometimes supplementing each other:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
(May 21st 2008)

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:11 pm

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?

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:13 pm

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
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 4:20 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 5:29 pm

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.
http://i.imgur.com/q25484i.png

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 8:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 8:40 pm

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.

John
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 10:45 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:17 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:27 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 6:22 am

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.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:49 am

Javier, dr. sv. is full of surprises…

Greg
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 25, 2016 3:22 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Greg
November 25, 2016 4:36 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Greg
December 1, 2016 11:32 am

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.

whiten
November 24, 2016 2:43 pm

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

Javier
Reply to  whiten
November 24, 2016 2:53 pm

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.

whiten
November 24, 2016 3:10 pm

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

Curious George
Reply to  whiten
November 24, 2016 3:34 pm

I love your equations.

whiten
Reply to  Curious George
November 24, 2016 4:21 pm

I love your equations too..:)
cheers

Javier
Reply to  whiten
November 24, 2016 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.

whiten
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 12:20 pm

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

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 4:49 am

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?

Editor
Reply to  whiten
November 25, 2016 11:17 am

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 11:20 am

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”.

whiten
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 11:58 am

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….

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 12:52 pm

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 12:55 pm

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?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 26, 2016 1:48 pm

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).

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 5:06 am

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).

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 11:19 am

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 11:37 am

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 27, 2016 11:55 am

you and I know there is no AGW
all GW is natural
as is the GC: already happening
watch the snow and ice at your front door…

Reply to  Henry
November 27, 2016 12:04 pm

Nonsense. Weather is not climate. 2016 was the hottest year ‘ever’.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 27, 2016 12:40 pm

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.
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
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

Reply to  Henry
November 27, 2016 12:50 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 27, 2016 12:50 pm

must add that here where I live we never had any warming, no A and no N[atural]comment image

Reply to  Henry
November 27, 2016 1:04 pm

To make sense, the plot should show the actual temperatures [or their deviation from the long-term mean].

November 24, 2016 3:30 pm

The usual suspects will never accept such findings.

November 24, 2016 3:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
November 27, 2016 12:20 pm

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.

Greg
November 24, 2016 3:53 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 6:04 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 3:28 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:44 am

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.

November 24, 2016 3:59 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
November 24, 2016 4:07 pm

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

Greg
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 4:15 pm

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”.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 4:15 pm

Like ironing flat the record of solar variability?
Usually, in science, one tries to magnify variations in order to tease out cause and effect.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 4:31 pm

No, one goes where the data lead. And the data show no secular increase in solar activity the last 300 years.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 5:43 pm

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?

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 6:35 pm

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.

Germinio
Reply to  ristvan
November 24, 2016 5:52 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Germinio
November 25, 2016 4:50 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  ristvan
November 24, 2016 6:27 pm

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.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 6:59 pm

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…

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 7:37 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 7:39 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 3:35 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:56 am

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.

Editor
Reply to  ristvan
November 25, 2016 9:16 am

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.

Greg
November 24, 2016 4:29 pm

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.

Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 5:03 pm

Enhanced solar seems like a good argument in favour of AGW to me.
The warmists at NASA and NOAA think so too. They prefer a solar record that has a steady increase the last 300 years to explain the climate before the 1975+ start of CAGW:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
a shorter version:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf

Pamela Gray
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 25, 2016 10:17 am

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.”

Javier
Reply to  Greg
November 24, 2016 7:49 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 3:37 am

I’m in general agreement with you there, but remain unimpressed by the content of this article.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 4:00 am

@ 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 )

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 10:17 am

@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”.)

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 11:19 am

@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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 6:12 am

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.

wildeco2014
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 9:52 am

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

Editor
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 6:46 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 12:38 pm

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.
http://i.imgur.com/iR6QgPv.png
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.

Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 12:48 pm

Neither of these show any Bray ‘cycle’.

Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 6:32 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 5:35 am

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.comment image?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.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 5:36 am

Figure:comment image

Germinio
November 24, 2016 4:47 pm

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).

Javier
Reply to  Germinio
November 24, 2016 7:51 pm

Thanks, Germinio. I’ll check that in more detail.

Editor
Reply to  Germinio
November 25, 2016 9:37 am

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?

Paul Westhaver
November 24, 2016 5:08 pm

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.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 24, 2016 6:02 pm

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.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  ristvan
November 24, 2016 6:31 pm

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.

MRW
November 24, 2016 5:47 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  MRW
November 24, 2016 6:55 pm

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.

MRW
Reply to  Javier
November 24, 2016 7:56 pm

Thanks, Javier,
By any chance, do you have any links to the cranial stuff?

Javier
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:45 am

MRW,
If you want the science it is better to go with John Hawks:
http://johnhawks.net/research/hawks-2011-brain-size-selection-holocene/
If you rather have a general level explanation, you can try Discover Magazine:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  MRW
November 24, 2016 7:54 pm

“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

JimB
November 24, 2016 6:19 pm

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.

November 24, 2016 7:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 25, 2016 8:05 am

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.

November 24, 2016 9:21 pm

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.

William Astley
November 24, 2016 10:22 pm

…. 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?

Reply to  William Astley
November 24, 2016 10:32 pm

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.

GregK
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 24, 2016 11:45 pm

Changes in the Earth’s geomagnetic field are demonstrated by “magnetic striping” at mid-ocean ridges..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge
Why does the polarity flip ?
A good field for research as no one knows [but there are lots of guesses] however it’s unlikely to be anything to do with the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

William Astley
November 24, 2016 10:33 pm

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.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.11.24.2016.gif

Reply to  William Astley
November 24, 2016 10:35 pm

the solar cycle has been interrupted
Not at all. The solar cycle progresses normally.

Christopher Hanley
November 24, 2016 10:43 pm

“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.

Old Ranga from Oz
November 24, 2016 10:52 pm

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

Editor
November 24, 2016 11:10 pm

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.

GregK
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 24, 2016 11:47 pm

Might be useful for creatures with a life span of 20,000 years or so

afonzarelli
Reply to  GregK
November 25, 2016 3:03 am

(yeah, in the end we’re all dead… ☺)

Tom in Florida
Reply to  GregK
November 25, 2016 8:21 am

Yup, nobody gets out alive.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 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.
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).
http://i.imgur.com/niNSwIr.png
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.

Jim G1
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 7:49 am

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.

Jim G1
Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 7:53 am

Insert “probably” rgarding the extraterrestrial strike.

Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 25, 2016 10:10 am

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.

Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 10:21 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 11:18 am

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.
http://i.imgur.com/aXMnuOu.png
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.
http://i.imgur.com/ubjPFYH.png

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 11:24 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 11:45 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 11:56 am

You do believe that solar grand maxima exist and have a strong effect on cosmogenic isotopes production rate, don’t you?
There have been no Grand Maxima the last 400 years.
http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect-Levi.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 1:40 pm

“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.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 1:58 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 25, 2016 2:43 pm

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.”

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:54 pm

A strong effect? Probably half of the total, which leaves the other half for a climate signal, causing what you see in your comparisons.

Reply to  Javier
November 25, 2016 2:56 pm

almost every paleoclimatologist accepts
Like what almost every Climate Scientist accepts about AGW….

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 8:13 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 8:29 am

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 12:52 pm

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?

Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 1:25 pm

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].

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 1:06 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 26, 2016 2:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 26, 2016 3:06 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 4:26 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 6:48 am

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’.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 9:02 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 9:09 am

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…

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 10:25 am

Leif,

Show the difference…

You know the data much better than I do. You should stop playing this game.
http://i.imgur.com/xCko7V2.png
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.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 10:48 am

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
http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1500-1948.png

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 2:22 pm

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?

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 2:51 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber-HMF-B-Spikes.png
You might want to overplot what you consider to be the best temperature record for this interval.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 4:20 pm

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”:
http://i.imgur.com/5E0XVC1.png
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.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 4:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 4:51 pm

Javier, cool it.

Reply to  Javier
November 27, 2016 5:03 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/No-Halstatt-Cycle-Here.png

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
November 27, 2016 5:31 pm

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