Do-It-Yourself: The solar variability effect on climate.

By Javier

So, you still don’t believe small changes in solar activity can significantly affect climate? You know a very cold period during the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, but you have heard that the Little Ice Age could have had other causes, like volcanoes. You have been told repeatedly that since 1980 solar activity has been decreasing while global temperature has been increasing, so it can’t be the Sun.

Not so fast. There is a vested interest in climate change not being due to the Sun, as the Sun can’t be taxed or prevented from doing what it does. A further problem is that solar physicists have no clue about how the Sun can show centennial or millennial periodicities. As they prefer to talk about what they know, they reject such periodicities, even though we have evidence in cosmogenic records (14C in tree rings and 10Be in ice cores).

And if I tell you that little changes in the Sun have a disproportionate effect on climate you won’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe anybody. Science is not about believing. Religion is about believing. So, I propose that you prove to yourself what effect little changes in the Sun have on climate.

You start with solar variability over the Holocene. There are lots of reconstructions, but not all are equally good. You choose Steinhilber et al., 2012 (SAB2012 from now on). It might not be the best, but it is quite good and uses both 14C and 10Be. The isotopes have different pathways. 14C makes it to CO2 and it is breathed in by trees and deposited in their rings. 10Be makes it to the ice in ice cores partially through a dry deposition pathway associated with dust, but mainly through a precipitation-dependent pathway. As the isotopes have different climatic dependencies, the effect of climate on the reconstruction is minimized by using both.

You can get the article here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967

And you can get the data here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2012.txt

You can choose solar modulation phi (MV) or Total solar irradiance TSI (W/m^2). It is the same for our purpose. Let’s go with Phi (column 4). A plot of this data is:

Figure 1. Steinhilber et al., 2012 solar activity reconstruction for the past 9400 years from Cosmogenic Isotope data.

The date is in years BP (before 1950). The values after 0 BP show contamination from atomic bomb tests so they are higher than they should be. The last trough below -100 MV is the Maunder Minimum.

Now you should run a frequency analysis on the data, but you don’t need to. SAB2012 already provides a Lomb normalized periodogram as figure S16 in the supplemental data here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2012/04/02/1118965109.DCSupplemental/Appendix.pdf

Figure 2. Steinhilber et al., 2012 Lomb normalized periodogram of total solar irradiance (a) and Asian climate record (δ18O) from Dongge cave, China (b). The horizontal line marks the 95% significance level.

SAB2012 noticed the similarity between solar activity and the Asian monsoon frequency analyses, but you want to keep it even simpler. You are going to select the prominent ~ 980-year periodicity. This periodicity or millennial solar cycle was named the Eddy solar cycle by Abreu et al. in 2010. So you build a 980-year sine function with the formula y = sin 2π/980(x) or its Excel equivalent = SIN((2*PI()/980)*x)

Figure 3. 980-year sine function

You need to find the phase shift, or horizontal distance that the function needs to be displaced, to match the solar activity record. It is easy to see that the solar grand minima (SGM) that are producing the 980-yr periodicity are those labeled with arrows in figure 4, so you don’t need to go into a mathematical fit for your purpose. This match requires a 500-year shift in the function.

Figure 4. Solar activity reconstruction and 980-year periodicity match.

This match is further confirmed by a different solar reconstruction that shows the entire Holocene (11,700 years). The additional 2,300 years have not been included in the periodogram from SAB2012, yet the prolongation of the sine wave (figure 5 black wave) identifies two new SGM perfectly aligned with the Eddy cycle (figure 5 arrows).

Figure 5. Vieira et al., 2011 Holocene solar activity reconstruction and the 980-year periodicity. Arrows indicate the two grand solar minima not included in the frequency analysis that clearly belong to the same cycle.

Now that you have the solar 980-year Eddy cycle correctly identified you move to some climatic data to see if solar activity affects climate. To that end you choose the Bond series of ice-rafted debris that is a proxy for iceberg activity in the North Atlantic. The data is available here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/bond2001/bond2001.txt

You are interested in:

“1. Figure 2, “a,b,e,e,d,g” Columns 9-10: Age model and stack (“ocean stacked” record) of % HSG from MC52, V29191, MC21, and GGC22 cores [Figure 2, 7th panel]”.

This stack averages different proxies from four cores and is what everybody uses. The Bond series reproduces very well-known Holocene climate features, like the 8.2 kyr event, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

You plot it with the 980-year solar cycle. You might want to plot Bond data with the Y axis inverted so high iceberg activity coincides with low solar activity.

Figure 6. Bond et al., 2011 North Atlantic iceberg activity reconstruction and the 980-year periodicity. Both series show an excellent agreement except for an age drift in the Bond series and a period of poor match between ~ 4100-1800 BP.

Given the excellent match, it becomes clear that there is a drift in the data as it gets older. It is small, about ~ 200 years in 11,600 years (~ 1.7 %), and it clearly corresponds to an incorrect age model in the Bond series, since the radiocarbon data is dated to the year through tree rings, because that is how we date very old organic things.

So, the match is excellent except for a period between ~ 4100-1800 BP. What happened then? To clarify the issue, you can look at the power of the Eddy cycle over time. For that you need a 2-dimensional frequency analysis known as a wavelet spectrum. Steinhilber & Beer, 2013 provide one in their figure 1. It can be found here:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50210/full

You select the 980-year periodicity band and ignore the rest.

Figure 7. Steinhilber & Beer 2013 wavelet spectrum of solar activity over the past 9400 years.

The 980-year band shows a fall in power over the period ~ 4100-1800 BP. Now you have a possible explanation for the poor Eddy solar cycle-climate match over that period. The Eddy solar cycle had lower power then and couldn’t affect climate as much.

So, what have you shown so far?

  • There is a 980-year periodicity in solar activity cosmogenic isotope records, known as the Eddy cycle.
  • This periodicity shows an excellent match with North Atlantic iceberg proxy records, known as the Bond series, except for a period ~ 4100-1800 BP.
  • The period of poor solar-climate match corresponds to a period when solar activity does not show a strong Eddy cycle, further reinforcing the solar-climate relationship.

What else can you conclude?

  • Modern global warming corresponds to a period of high Eddy cycle solar activity.
  • The next peak of the 980-year Eddy cycle extrapolates to ~ 2095. So more solar activity should be coming in the 21st century.

By now you might have finally convinced yourself that the evidence supports a very strong effect of solar variability on climate, without having to “believe” in anybody. The final question is more difficult, so it is better left for the experts.

Why has global temperature been increasing since 1980 while solar activity has been decreasing?

The answer is that solar variability has multiple effects on climate with different time lags. Total Solar Irradiation variability has a direct effect on temperature within 0-2 years of ~ 0.2 °C (Tung & Camp, 2008) for the 11-year solar cycle. This is the effect accepted by all. The stratospheric effect of UV solar variability influences the North Atlantic oscillation that is lagged by 2-4 years (Scaife et al., 2013). Kobashi et al. 2015 describe a 10-40-year lag on Greenland temperature from ice cores that they attribute to the slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and correlates with changes in the wind stress curl in the North Atlantic with a lag of 38 years in solar variability. Several studies correlating changes in tree-ring width and solar variability document a 10-20-year lag (Eichler et al., 2009; Breitenmoser et al., 2012; Anchukaitis et al., 2017).

The existence of multiple lags means that for the full effect of solar variability to be felt on climate there is a delay of ~ 20 years. The delay is due to the recruitment of slower changing atmospheric and oceanic climatic responses.

This means two things:

  • Changes over the 11-year cycle are too fast to have much impact on climate.
  • The general decline in solar activity since 1980 has been felt on climate from ~ 2000, and the low solar activity of SC24 should have a maximum effect on climate ~ 2035.

The evidence suggests that solar variability strongly influences climate change. The solar-hypothesis makes very clear predictions that are the opposite of predictions from the CO2-hypothesis. Regardless of changes in CO2 levels and emissions, the world should not experience significant warming for the period 2000-2035, and might even experience some cooling. If the prediction is correct we can assume that the solar contribution to climate is stronger than the CO2 contribution. Then more warming should take place afterwards.

[Ed. Note: And that is how science should be done! Make a clear testable prediction. Andy did some very minor editing for language clarity.]

Bibliography

Abreu, J. A., Beer, J., & Ferriz-Mas, A. (2010, June). Past and future solar activity from cosmogenic radionuclides. In SOHO-23: understanding a peculiar solar minimum (Vol. 428, p. 287).

Anchukaitis, K. J., Wilson, R., Briffa, K. R., Büntgen, U., Cook, E. R., D’Arrigo, R., … & Hegerl, G. (2017). Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews, 163, 1-22.

Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., … & Bonani, G. (2001). Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science, 294(5549), 2130-2136.

Breitenmoser, P., Beer, J., Brönnimann, S., Frank, D., Steinhilber, F., & Wanner, H. (2012). Solar and volcanic fingerprints in tree-ring chronologies over the past 2000 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 313, 127-139.

Eichler, A., Olivier, S., Henderson, K., Laube, A., Beer, J., Papina, T., … & Schwikowski, M. (2009). Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(1).

Kobashi, T., Box, J. E., Vinther, B. M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J. W. C., … & Andresen, C. S. (2015). Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), 5992-5999.

Scaife, A. A., Ineson, S., Knight, J. R., Gray, L., Kodera, K., & Smith, D. M. (2013). A mechanism for lagged North Atlantic climate response to solar variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(2), 434-439.

Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J. A., Beer, J., Brunner, I., Christl, M., Fischer, H., … & Miller, H. (2012). 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(16), 5967-5971.

Steinhilber, F., & Beer, J. (2013). Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118(5), 1861-1867.

Tung, K. K., & Camp, C. D. (2008). Solar cycle warming at the Earth’s surface in NCEP and ERA‐40 data: A linear discriminant analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D5).

Vieira, L. E. A., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., & Usoskin, I. (2011). Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A6.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
336 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Macha
March 13, 2018 4:33 am

Great article Guys…+1.

pykewex
Reply to  Macha
March 13, 2018 2:38 pm

It is, but it should cite the well known climate change crazies, like Mann himself: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149?maxtos=

lloydr56
March 13, 2018 4:35 am

Thanks Javier. It’s great the way you focus on some key issues.
“Power of the Eddy cycle over time.” Meaning?

Javier
Reply to  lloydr56
March 13, 2018 5:18 am

Power is the energy of the spectrum divided by the time in the area. It is equivalent to the amplitude-squared. Think of it as the height of a two-dimensional Fourier peak. If the power is low in a period, a Fourier analysis over that period would not identify it.

Johanus
March 13, 2018 4:42 am

@javier: It is easy to see that the solar grand minima (SGM) that are producing the 980-yr periodicity are those labeled with arrows in figure 4, so you don’t need to go into a mathematical fit for your purpose. This match requires a 500-year shift in the function.”comment image?w=588&zoom=2
Are you “eyeball-fitting” a 980-year-period sinewave to this reconstruction? (I thought that only Vukcevic was allowed to do that 🙂
Can you produce a Fourier periodogram to back up your claim?

Johanus
March 13, 2018 4:44 am

… oops, I see it now before the plot. Never mind.

pochas94
March 13, 2018 4:45 am

Convincing. Now, why does the Sun show these strange periodicities?

Hans-Georg
Reply to  pochas94
March 13, 2018 5:12 am

Because the sun is too big to pass through as a laboratory installation. Only we humans manage to build machines and models that always produce the same thing. But the sun is natural and natural things are subject to fluctuations and, importantly, it is too big for our minds. Perhaps an artificial intelligence with trillions of terabytes of capacity in the near future can predict the behavior of the sun. If not, then the Universal Number comes out.

Edwin
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 13, 2018 11:34 am

Just like the climate we have to understand how the Sun actually operates before we can model it no matter how fast or how much capacity your supercomputer has. That is one of the most significant problems. We have a lot of people, including many scientists who have come to believe that a computer can produce results almost out of thin air. In other words give it even insufficient data and it will explain anything. In the orthodoxy of CAGW religion, supercomputers are like demi-gods.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 13, 2018 4:18 pm

Possibly there are extra solar system effects from time to time effecting climate, one off type effects from plate tectonics, bolide strikes, volcanic effects, etc that effect the record you are measuring. Maybe an event that destroyed part of the ice core record…..as you say Hans-Georg, neither the earth or the sun is in a closed system lab experiment.

BallBounces
Reply to  pochas94
March 13, 2018 8:09 am

It is breathing in and out.

Reply to  BallBounces
March 13, 2018 1:36 pm

Dat’s it. I always knew it.

Javier
Reply to  pochas94
March 13, 2018 10:22 am

If long-period solar oscillations are very controversial, the hypotheses to explain them are hugely controversial. A scientific journal, “Pattern Recognition in Physics,” was shut down by its owners after a special issue on them. They are not even welcomed here at WUWT.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 1:56 pm

PRP was shut down because the publishers wanted to distance themselves from malpractice in the peer review process. This came to their attention when a special issue came out focusing on climate change, with papers by many well-known contrarians. Someone (maybe the CRU “climategate” group?) brought it to their attention, not because the science was controversial but because it was not up to the standards of publication – it was poor science.
……………………………………………………..
This article is also poor science. People complain about data adjustments and poor experimental procedure, then accept this as demonstrative of something? This starts with a dataset and a desire to make it say something. The data are already altered. If this were someone else’s work and the data were from NASA, many would assert that since it’s been altered, it’s no good.
“A further problem is that solar physicists have no clue about how the Sun can show centennial or millennial periodicities.” Never even considered this stuff, eh?
“It is easy to see that the solar grand minima (SGM) that are producing the 980-yr periodicity are those labeled with arrows in figure 4, so you don’t need to go into a mathematical fit for your purpose” You do if you want to make it mean anything. Eye-balling doesn’t cut it. Besides, the periodicity is 1000 yrs according to the paper you got Fig 2 from, but you omitted that part of the caption.
Then hundreds of years of data are dismissed? For some reason they don’t fit they hypothesis, and this isn’t a concern?
Viera et al., 2011: “Our analysis suggests that major sources of uncertainty in the TSI in this model are the heritage of the uncertainty of the TSI since 1610 reconstructed from sunspot data and the uncertainty of the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment.”
They calculate a difference of 1.5 W/m2 between solar maxima and minima. How does this translate to climate change? Does it all work out, when you account for the energy balance? Can it explain the observed changes? Is the timing right? How does temperature change correlate with iceberg activity? Would we even expect the peaks of solar and iceberg activity to line up?
How does it account for modern rapid temp rise?
I’m not astrophysicist, but this seems fishy to me. No one denies that the sun is an important factor in climate. Scientists really aren’t quite as brainless as people think. It’s just that variations in the sun’s strength cannot account for the current change (though I don’t think scientists would be surprised if there’s slowing of warming starting around 2035 or so, with the grand minimum – some worry that it will be an excuse for skeptics to suggest the models are invalid). Focusing on one solar cycle in isolation doesn’t seem justified, either.
Playing with data in order to cast doubt on true science is one interesting outcome of this climate feud Nothing wrong with that, except when it gets published as if it were meaningful. Not everyone is able to discern the difference, and disinformation is perpetuated..

Javier
Reply to  Kristi Silber
March 13, 2018 2:23 pm

The data are already altered.

The data is peer-review published and in official repositories.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 3:02 pm

You can’t have mal practice in peer review. Pal review is not illegal nor avoidable in many cases. Peer review was never meant to certify a paper as correct. It was meant for keeping readership up.
Very little data is scientific fact ie. you did measurements yourself. Most is what you assume is trustworthy. You’re being childish to say that you either accept data or you don’t. Everybody accepts data from elsewhere with the understanding that better data might come to light, a mistake could have been made, a systematic error might be present due to political beliefs or, as has happened often, it is complete fiction by someone who is desperate to succeed.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 4:53 pm

So Kristi Silber, you don’t recognize a scientist that is a sceptic? Would that your high standards for data quality and analysis were also focussed on the highly uncertain work that you are a fan of. I studied paleoclimate as a geology student as all geologists do (or used to? I can’t vet todays education on this score – I once hired a geology graduate student who hadn’t taken the mineralogy “option”!!). Most geologists are sceptics because they know the large variation in climate that this old ball has lived through. It’s one of the the reasons that post moderns have diluted the venerable science of geology into ‘geosciences,’ a diminutive sciencey discipline like social ‘sciences’ that allows all climate scientists to call themselves geoscientists and the sceptical real ones can be marginalized.
Kristi, ask yourself why you are welcomed here to do your darndest and most of the scientists here are blocked from human warming proponent sites. I judge you to be relatively young and unaware that many major contributions have been made to mainstream climate science by sceptics, particularly ones here. Did you know that natural variability was thought to be a small thing, dwarfed by anthropogenic effects, that basically averaged itself out – the PDO (which was discovered by fisherman I like to add), NAO, the effects of ENSO, the 60-70yr cycle of alternating warming and cooling generating cycles of the same length in major droughts, hurricanes, etc. Hurricane Harvey, Maria, etc shook you? Look back to the 50s. The Pause was identified by sceptics (you have to be looking for these things). It was the consequence of a natural cooling part of the cycle that overwhelmed the 1980s – 1990s warming which had risen out of a 30yr cooling period and itself got an assist from the rising segment of the cycle. The warmists are in disarray from the pause, from having to explain cold snowy winters that were to be a thing of the past. You were impressed, I’m sure that sharks were fast frozen off the coast of Boston last winter and that Gulf turtles had to be rescued from the sea as their body temperatures fell and they slipped into hybernation and certain death without help. You must get a twinge when you read that horrific cold was caused by global warming. Com’ on.

WXcycles
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 1:23 am

Frankly Javier, the fit did not look anywhere as good to me, as it does to you. I looked for outliers and saw a lot of them. It is not close to tight with your wave function.

Javier
Reply to  WXcycles
March 14, 2018 3:41 am

Frankly Javier, the fit did not look anywhere as good to me, as it does to you.

That depends on your expectations. We are discussing very old data (problematic) that integrates many forcings and feedbacks besides solar variability. The fit is remarkable for me. It means solar variability is one of the strongest forcings on a multi-centennial scale.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 12:12 pm

Javier March 14, 2018 at 3:41 am

Frankly Javier, the fit did not look anywhere as good to me, as it does to you.

That depends on your expectations. We are discussing very old data (problematic) that integrates many forcings and feedbacks besides solar variability. The fit is remarkable for me. It means solar variability is one of the strongest forcings on a multi-centennial scale.

My expectations are the same as ever—that scientists don’t come up with ad hoc explanations every time the data stubbornly refuses to agree with theory …
Not seeing a lot of that here. So far you’ve blamed “old data”, CO2, “internal variability”, hidden lags, and volcanoes for the many places where the data doesn’t agree with you … any more excuses you’d like to point out before we go forwards?
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 14, 2018 1:11 pm

You are so much fun, Willis. I am not blaming anything. The data stands as it is. This is a frequency spectrum from Bond data. It shows the 980-year Eddy cycle, and the 2400-year Bray cycle I have written so much about.comment image
The conclusions stand. As the present solar minimum continues and global warming goes MIA, more and more people are going to realize the solar effect on climate.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 1:45 pm

global warming goes MIA
And if it doesn’t, people like you will just come up with further excuses and special pleadings.
So far, there is no sign of the so wishfully awaited cooling.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:25 pm

I haven’t predicted any cooling.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:28 pm

Javier March 14, 2018 at 1:11 pm Edit

You are so much fun, Willis. I am not blaming anything.

Hogwash. Every time it’s pointed out to you that the data doesn’t agree with your hypothesis, you blame the difference on something. So far you’ve blamed the multiple discrepancies on “old data”, CO2, “internal variability”, hidden lags, volcanoes, and my favorite, “several things”, among others.

The data stands as it is. This is a frequency spectrum from Bond data. It shows the 980-year Eddy cycle, and the 2400-year Bray cycle I have written so much about.

The referenced paper doesn’t even mention the Bray cycle or the Eddy cycle. Instead, it discusses a 1,500-year cycle … but they do say:

… the application of a 1000-year filter to the composite series of IRD does not provide very conclusive correlation during 0–5000 years, …

So it’s a pseudocycle that appears and then disappears in different periods.
Now, here’s the difference between you and me, Javier. I actually do the hard yards. So I went and got the Bond data. It’s available here.
Now, what your paper analyzed was the “stacked record”. What does that mean? Well, they combined a record of hematite grains with two records of Icelandic glass and one record of detrital carbonate …
So I analyzed the stacked record. I found what they found. The putative 960-year cycle only exists in the first 6,000 years of data, and it disappears in the most recent 5,000 years. As I’ve said many times, this kind of appearance and subsequent disappearance of “cycles” is quite common in natural datasets.
More to the point, upon learning that it was a “stacked” record, my further thought was “Wait a minute, whenever you add different records you can get all kinds of artifacts from constructive and destructive interference”. So I did a CEEMD analysis of the four underlying datasets, and guess what?
In ALL of the four underlying datasets, there is a strong cycle between 2,300 to 2,500 years in length … but in NONE of the four underlying datasets is there any kind of strong 960-year cycle. None of them. It is an artifact of the “stacking” process. Which is perhaps why the authors ignored the putative 960-year cycle in their paper …
And that’s why I run the numbers … and it’s why you should do so as well. Otherwise, as in this case, you end up pontificating on something you don’t really understand, just because you grabbed some random graphic and some part of it agrees with your preconceptions.

The conclusions stand. As the present solar minimum continues and global warming goes MIA, more and more people are going to realize the solar effect on climate.

Yeah, right … in fact, as the present solar minimum continues we have this:comment image
Break out your next excuse … and remember, whatever you claim is the cause of temperatures rising and solar falling, it means that the solar effect on climate either doesn’t exist or is trivially small.
Also, whatever excuse you pull out of your fundamental orifice has to have had zero effect from 1850 to 1980, and then come into full force immediately in 1980, in order to create the total decoupling of solar and temperature in only a couple of years …
Your move.
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 15, 2018 3:03 am

Every time it’s pointed out to you that the data doesn’t agree with your hypothesis

The data does agree with my hypothesis. I disagree with your opinion. It is the assumptions of others on how solar variability should affect climate what is in fault.

So it’s a pseudocycle that appears and then disappears in different periods.

It is stated in the article and visible in the figures. It doesn’t affect the relationship between solar activity and climate.

Now, here’s the difference between you and me, Javier. I actually do the hard yards. So I went and got the Bond data.

That’s not the difference because the link to the Bond data is in the article. The difference perhaps is that you don’t read properly what you criticize.

whenever you add different records you can get all kinds of artifacts from constructive and destructive interference

You also get additional information. The different petrological tracers come from different parts of the Arctic. Glass is from Iceland, carbonate from Greenland, and hematites from Russian and Scandinavian basins. The stack allows to measure all icebergs regardless of origin and it is a better measurement of iceberg activity.

It is an artifact of the “stacking” process. Which is perhaps why the authors ignored the putative 960-year cycle in their paper

That’s your interpretation. The stack contains more information that the cores separately. The figures of the paper contain very clearly the 980-year cycle.comment image

in fact, as the present solar minimum continues we have this:

What we have is that since 2003 the only warming that has taken place was the 2014-16 El Niño, that is since disappearing with the cooling that has taken place from February 2016 till now. A blip that when completed is likely to leave us at the same temperature as 2003 but 20 years later. So much for warming while the Sun is in low activity mode.

it means that the solar effect on climate either doesn’t exist or is trivially small.

That’s just your opinion.

has to have had zero effect from 1850 to 1980, and then come into full force immediately in 1980, in order to create the total decoupling of solar and temperature in only a couple of years

The coupling only exists in your imagination. Temperature is the result of many processes acting in different directions at different times. The data shows solar activity is one of the strongers acting on a multidecadal scale.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 6:41 pm

Javier,
I was sorry after posting that I had been so undiplomatic, brusque to the point of rudeness. I’m reacting not just to your post, but also to general themes on the site, and it wasn’t fair to do so.
There’s nothing wrong with using data that has been altered. My main point was that in the past alteration has been an excuse by some skeptics to dismiss data or even assert that scientists are corrupt – but that doesn’t mean you have done so, and I should have made that clear.
That said, it is prudent to be aware of how the data have been altered, especially when effects have been removed, as in this case. The data you use were extracted from the rest to get rid of the system effects, using the first signal from a PCA, which is assumed to be the solar component. This could influence interpretation, and should be mentioned in your article.
Because the cosmic ray induced production changes are almost identical for 10Be and 14C, the differences observed in radionuclide records stored in geological archives are the result of so-called system effects. The term “system effects” is used here for all processes influencing the radionuclide signal (e.g., climate-induced transport and deposition changes, changes in the carbon cycle) other than cosmic ray-induced production (heliomagnetic and geomagnetic modulation).

“From this discussion it is obvious that individual radionuclide records may contain a significant system component which, if not eliminated, would be incorrectly attributed to variations of the cosmic radiation. ”
Javier:
T”here is a vested interest in climate change not being due to the Sun, as the Sun can’t be taxed or prevented from doing what it does”
This says something about the motives of skeptics and the fears about what would happen if AGW were finally accepted by the nation as a whole. Perhaps it’s exaggerated fears that motivates denial of mainstream science.
I think it’s great that so many are taking an interest in science as part of the debate. But there is a reason people go to school for years before they are considered eligible to be considered scientists. Much of this has to do with how to conduct science so that it is meaningful. That means following procedures aimed at things like designing experiments, limiting uncertainty, minimizing bias, recognizing assumptions, using statistics properly, establishing the context of one’s research, discussing its weaknesses….a whole education that goes beyond learning about what has already been learned in a field. Because Javier has not followed these procedures his results are weak, and not just from a scientific standpoint; many of the “rules” of science are not only applicable to science, but to knowledge in general (all products of philosophy).
It wouldn’t be an issue to me except that others may be influenced, adding it to their trove of “evidence” even if it’s not. This is a legitimate quarrel I have with the skeptic community: many of its members have been exposed to poorly executed “science” purported to provide evidence that AGW is wrong. This is to me yet another reason to suspect that skeptics are being (unintentionally) misled, even if it’s from within the community. Most of the evidence I have accrued over the years to disbelieve the contrarian stance comes from my own observations, not from authorities, the media, my education, and certainly not from friends. …I’m rambling, I think. Anyway, I don’t mean to offend with what I say. – that’s not my intent.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Kristi Silber
March 14, 2018 6:58 pm

Ms Silber, the issue is that some databases have been “corrected” in a way that fits the known belief system of the database administrators. There are reasons for using “blind” testing in many fields, and expectations can and do affect the results. While Tony Heller documents that a good many temperature databases have been “corrected” in such a way as to reinforce the notion of AGW, it is not neccessarily conscious fraud, but it could be the results of a non-blind procedure, and inadequate controls over the procedure.
Similarly, some real person wrote any computer program, and the biases of the programmer are reflected in that program’s output.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 7:33 pm

Robert B (CAPS ARE MY COMMENTS EMBEDDED IN YOURS)
“You can’t have mal practice in peer review. MALPRACTICE WAS THE PUBLISHER’S WORD, NOT MINE*. Pal review is not illegal nor avoidable in many cases. YOU ASSUME THAT’S ALL IT WAS Peer review was never meant to certify a paper as correct. It was meant for keeping readership up. PEER REVIEW IS NOT TO KEEP READERSHIP UP – HOW WOULD IT DO THAT? PEER REVIEW IS NOT TO DETERMINE THAT THE ANSWER IS CORRECT, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THE SCIENCE IS WELL-CONDUCTED AND REPORTED BEFORE IT’S PUBLISHED. IT IS A FORM OF QUALITY CONTROL THAT IT VERY IMPORTANT FOR SCIENCE AS A WHOLE IT CAN SOMETIMES DETECT FRAUD. IDEALLY REVIEW IS DONE BY THOSE WHO AREN’T CLOSE TO THE AUTHOR(S) BUT IT’S SOMETIMES NECESSARY WHEN THEY ARE THE BEST ONES TO EVALUATE THE RESEARCH.
Very little data is scientific fact ie. you did measurements yourself. DEPENDS ON THE FIELD. CLIMATE DATA IS SOMETIMES GATHERED BY THOSE WHO REPORT ON IT. HOWEVER, THAT HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER IT IS “SCIENTIFIC FACT.”. Most is what you assume is trustworthy. You’re being childish to say that you either accept data or you don’t CHILDISH? HOW ODD. Everybody accepts data from elsewhere with the understanding that better data might come to light, a mistake could have been made, a systematic error might be present due to political beliefs NO, NO HALF-DECENT SCIENTISTS WILL EVER ACCEPT A DATASET SUSPECTED OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR REGARDLESS OF ITS ORIGIN (UNLESS THE NATURE OF THE ERROR IS KNOWN AND CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR) or, as has happened often, it is complete fiction by someone who is desperate to succeed. YOU ONLY UNDERSCORE MY POINT ABOUT THE DATA, WHICH I EVIDENTLY DIDN’T MAKE CLEAR. YOU THINK DATA HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY ALTERED. WHY? JUST BECAUSE IT’S BEEN ALTERED, OR ALTERED IN A CERTAIN WAY? HOW DO YOU KNOW THE ALTERATIONS WEREN’T LEGITIMATE? IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF SOMEONE IN A POSITION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ACCUSATION AND SHOULD BE TREATED SERIOUSLY OR NOT MADE AT ALL. INSTEAD IT’S THROWN AROUND AS IF IT WERE PROVEN, AND THAT’S BS.
*”Copernicus also cited concerns over how the troublesome special issue‘s authors reached their conclusion regarding the role of solar variability. Author names recur frequently on different papers, and Copernicus’ ‘public peer review’ reveals the same names again as editors and reviewers. ‘The editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing,’ Copernicus asserted.”

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 9:36 pm

Gary Pearse:
“So Kristi Silber, you don’t recognize a scientist that is a sceptic? ”
That’s not true and I never said such a thing. All scientists are skeptics. It’s good to have scientists that are skeptical of the mainstream/consensus. Debate is healthy, as long as it’s based on the science. What’s not good is when a few dozen have a disproportionate effect on public opinion, especially when they consciously and unjustly damage the reputation of scientists and the profession of science not through evidence, but through innuendo, baseless assertion and distortion of research results. And it’s really not good when so many have ties to institutions that have gotten money from Big Oil, or have been funded by oil interests themselves. Then there’s the Pattern Recognition in Physics special issue in which many of the same names appear – and oil tied to that, too? Oil documents detailing climate science propaganda campaigns.
It doesn’t take any ideology to notice a pattern here.
“Most geologists are sceptics because they know the large variation in climate that this old ball has lived through.”
Interesting that you bring this up – this is something I’ve suspected.
Of course there has been variation in the past. No one dismisses that. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that we only have a vague idea of what happened on the human scale as rapid changes in geologic scale unfolded. And am I wrong in thinking there has been no comparable rapid warming event ever in the history of the planet? There have been dramatic decreases in temp presumably, the kinds that played a role in the great extinctions.
Rate of change is extremely important in complex systems that are at dynamic equilibria. Parameters respond to change at different rates and you get systems out of step with each other, leading to chaos and disruption. This is potentially true for parts of the biotic world on which we depend as well as for climate. The unusual cold this winter is an example of system instability: the polar vortex weakened and the cold moved south. Scientists have discussed for years the potential for the AMO to be weakened by climate change. A stall in the AMO could affect the normal Arctic heat exchange. But then there’s ENSO to consider. …I don’t claim to know much about climate. I know about ecology and evolution, and they are intimately tied to climate.
Changing phenology, the fact that plants and animals have changed their seasonal patterns of activity, is a very good indicator that climate is having a measurable effect on a wide range of organisms and that the seasons are changing. A lengthened growing season is not necessarily good – it could be the result of lower winter precipitation, for example. But here I am, off on a tangent again!

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 11:07 pm

“Ms Silber, the issue is that some databases have been “corrected” in a way that fits the known belief system of the database administrators. There are reasons for using “blind” testing in many fields, and expectations can and do affect the results. While Tony Heller documents that a good many temperature databases have been “corrected” in such a way as to reinforce the notion of AGW, it is not neccessarily conscious fraud, but it could be the results of a non-blind procedure, and inadequate controls over the procedure.
Or it could be not only legitimate but necessary and appropriate for scientific reasons. Are those treated separately? Are they identified? Does Tony ask the researcher why the adjustment was made if he can’t find out himself? (I just found this. I’ve seen it before. It changes too quickly, and the graphs can’t be compared. Think maybe there’s reason for that? For one thing, the temp is updated on one graph only, and the last few years made a difference. It’s distorting the whole picture, and it’s a scummy move itself. Why should I listen to him? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ )
Does Tony Heller also document the cases in which data has been adjust away from AGW “notions” whatever those are? Let him do a scientific comparison of a sample of data adjustments to see what they support (scored according to a system worked out ahead of time) and show that there is a statistical difference in the outcome. Then I will believe it. I’ve seen far too many adjustments away from “notions” of AGW to take Tony Heller, who has his own biases, as my authority about data handling.
It is not good enough to show that something has been adjusted either way. It’s irresponsible to make assumptions about why it was adjusted. It seems like no one bothers to try to find out before deciding it’s corrupt. Willful ignorance allows assertions to be mistakes and not lies.
Is the proper use of statistics “blind” enough for you? That’s usually what it comes down to. Checks and cross-checks to see if it’s right. It’s no good having a bad dataset. These things get replicated in various ways, you know, and weird adjustments could come to light. Everything is documented.
“Similarly, some real person wrote any computer program, and the biases of the programmer are reflected in that program’s output.”
I have a very different idea of climate model building from yours, I think.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 11:17 pm

Javier:
“We are discussing very old data (problematic) that integrates many forcings and feedbacks besides solar variability.”
No, not if you are using the dataset to which you posted a link. That has has been extracted, and is assumed to be representative of solar variability. only.

Javier
Reply to  Kristi Silber
March 15, 2018 3:39 am

I was referring to the Bond series in particular, and to climate datasets in general.

March 13, 2018 4:57 am

“Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels”, Calgary Herald, September 1, 2002, by Allan MacRae.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/MacRae%20Herald%202002-09-01.pdf
{excerpt}
“IF SOLAR ACTIVITY IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF SURFACE TEMPERATURE RATHER THAN CO2, WE SHOULD BEGIN THE NEXT COOLING PERIOD BY 2020 TO 2030.”

ResourceGuy
March 13, 2018 5:06 am

If the oceans are storage systems of small solar effects over long periods, then I need to know a lot about those periodicities in the separate ocean basins. So I’m sitting between the unknowns of solar physics and the unknowns in the AMO, PDO, and ENSO. In the mean time I’ll accumulate more clues about the AMO record and interacting cycles in the Pacific. The wait is proving expensive for the economy and public policy. It’s also enriching those who don’t care to wait or watch for clues. We need to invest in geoengineering the AMO for faster decline to make a point.

pochas94
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 13, 2018 5:40 am

No. No geoengineering.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  pochas94
March 13, 2018 7:13 am

Just kidding, geez

Tom Halla
March 13, 2018 5:13 am

The problem seems to be in explaining the periods when climate and solar activity did not vary in the same direction. Eyeballing the charts, it looks like a correlation, but not a strong one.

rbabcock
March 13, 2018 5:17 am

Great macro explanation but for short periods of time (10-20 years) you also have to throw in the AMO, PDO, NAO, QBO and all the other O’s which run over mere years and decades. And if we have a substantial volcano go off, even more variability.
It definitely makes sense to me if you put more or less energy into a system there will be an effect..ultimately. Thanks for the simple, easy-to-read article.

March 13, 2018 5:18 am

There is an additional factor that seems overlooked; that is the recently discovered ’30 year cycle’ in the Ap index we use to measure solar /geo impacts outlined here …
https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/ap-index-historical-analysis/
How much relative influence would show up long term is impossible to say.
In the ‘post 1980’ era we also saw a steady shift in the means of measurement, from purely manual readings in whole degrees (often under very adverse conditions) to remote digital readings with a couple of decimal places. It may seem light hearted but such things can sway hard argued viewpoints!

March 13, 2018 5:32 am

Good analysis. Now we need to know why and how the sun achieves such an effect.
The only current hypothesis that fits all the known observations is this one:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

Earl & Pearl Tourist
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 13, 2018 6:27 am

Haha… been waiting for this to circle back around. Got the popcorn ready for the big show!

erikthered
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 13, 2018 8:12 am

The correlation is apparent. That doesn’t, however, mean causation. The sun may not be causing this. Perhaps whatever causes the cycles in the sun ALSO causes the temperature cycles on earth.

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 9:55 am

erikthered
Well, yes.
Whatever causes the solar variations in ozone affecting particles and wavelengths will affect global cloudiness by altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles as per my hypothesis.
No other suggestion comes close.

Javier
Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 10:12 am

Theoretically correct, Erik, but we don’t know of anything that could affect at the same time solar activity and Earth’s climate. Any suggestions?

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 10:17 am

We do know that the clima contaminates the cosmic ray record by influencing the deposition rate of the radionuclides.

Javier
Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 10:28 am

We do know that the clima contaminates the cosmic ray record by influencing the deposition rate of the radionuclides.

Yes, but we also know that is not the answer, because the period from the LIA to the present represents one of the biggest temperature changes of the Holocene in a period of 300 years, and yet over that period sunspots and cosmogenic isotope records agree well. So unless climate can also affect sunspots or the eyes of the astronomers counting them, we know the effect is small.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 10:37 am

300 years, and yet over that period sunspots and cosmogenic isotope records agree well.
Actually they don’t. Webber and Higbie pointed that out some years ago. E.g.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“The cross correlation coefficients between the yearly 10Be production and the ice core 10Be measurements
for this time period are less than 0.4 in all comparisons between ice core data and 10Be production, including 10Be concentrations, 10Be fluxes and in comparing the two separate ice core measurements. In fact, the cross correlation between the two ice core measurements, which should be measuring the same source, is the lowest of all, only ~0.2. These values for the correlation coefficient are all indicative of a “poor” correlation. This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 11:07 am

300 years, and yet over that period sunspots and cosmogenic isotope records agree well.
The raw data disagrees as I pointed out. Now, it is more complicated than that in http://www.leif.org/research/Owens-JGR-2015.pdf McCracken shows that the GCR record is also contaminated by Ground-Level-Enhanced by solar cosmic rays [SEP Solar Energetic Particles]. If one corrects for that the corrected GCR record [expressed in terms of the magnetic field strength B] looks like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-10Be-McCracken.png
After correction the SSN and the GCR proxy [yellow B] do agree [as they should] but not with the temperature record. The black curve shows the old version that you’ll find all over the internet. It is clearly discordant.

Javier
Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 1:23 pm

Actually they don’t.

Not so fast, Leif.
Stuivercomment image
Goslarcomment image
McCrackencomment image
Muschelercomment image
And Leif Svalgaardcomment image
You are so hypocritical as to have used the argument of the closeness of sunspots and ¹⁴C to support your revision of the sunspot number.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 1:49 pm

closeness of sunspots and ¹⁴C to support your revision of the sunspot number
Not me, but Muscheler made that comparison.
The other various graphs you show are outdated.
Here is McCracken’s latest:comment image?zoom=2
The point is that the corrected series do not vary as the climate has.
As McCracken states:
“The original estimates of B[GCR] were based on paleocosmic ray data from a single experimental ice core. Using annual measurements from a second core, and after allowance for experimental uncertainties andlong-term changes of atmospheric and geomagnetic origin,McCracken and Beer[2015] revised the earlierresults upwards to obtain B[GCR-MB1]. Section 2.3 examines the role of very large solar energetic particleevents, such as that of 23 February 1956, in introducing significant reductions (~1.5 nT) into the estimatesof B[GCR]. The availability of data from two ice cores provides the ability to identify such solar energeticparticle events in the past, except during the ascending phase of a solar cycle.McCracken and Beer[2015] excised eleven presumed solar energetic particle events from the PCR record, 1800–1980, leadingto B[GCR-MB2]. In the 11 year running mean data, there are still two ~1.5 nT excursions below B[GEO], in~1860–1865 and ~1948, that we speculate are due to the production of solar cosmic rays during thesecond and third year of the solar cycle and consequently obscured by the rapidly decreasing cosmic rayintensities at those times. An independent estimate of annual B[GCR] based on the work ofKovaltsovand Usoskin[2010] andUsoskin et al.[2015], termed B[GCR-U], agrees reasonably well with B[GEO],B[SSN], B[GCR-MB1], and B[GCR-MB2] for the twentieth century but falls below those series prior to~1900. This difference may be due to factors such as climate change or the procedure used to convertopen solarflux to near-EarthB”
and
“Ultimately, studies of the Grand Minima and millennia scale changes in the HMF will be based on the cosmogenic-based estimates, B[GCR]. Their improvement and extension, as discussed in section 2.5, will be crucial for our understanding of such topics as the variability of the solar dynamo and terrestrial climate change”.
What we can already say now is that our best estimates of the GCR record for the past 300 years do not support any major influence of solar activity and terrestrial climate.

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 1:56 pm

comment image

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 3:49 pm

There is always gravitational changes to the ocean currents. There is a paper somewhere about a correlation with tremors in the south pacific and El Nino.
We are talking about a degree (or 2 using proxies) changes being measured and using fit for purpose data only in the past 40 years. And that is the atmosphere, not the oceans. It doesn’t take much.

Javier
Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 3:51 pm

The other various graphs you show are outdated.

Meaning that there are minor changes to the sunspot record that do not affect the overall picture.

“Ultimately, studies of the Grand Minima and millennia scale changes in the HMF will be based on the cosmogenic-based estimates”

Exactly, and the 980-year periodicity is based on Grand Minima and millennia scale changes. Those are very unlikely to change due to the small effect of climate on cosmogenic isotopes.

What we can already say now is that our best estimates of the GCR record for the past 300 years do not support any major influence of solar activity and terrestrial climate.

Except that overall solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years and this agrees with the position of the 980-year solar cycle that is associated to major climatic changes.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 4:07 pm

overall solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years
Wrong again.
http://www.leif.org/research/Open-Flux-since-1600.png
and climate:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Last-2000-yrs.png

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 3:55 pm

Leif Svalgaard, do you have a link to the actual B[GCR-MB1] data? Unlike most everyone else here, I like to actually look at the real data rather than wave my hands and make proclamations …
Many thanks,
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 4:11 pm

This is the paper. I’ll look around and even ask Owens or McCracken for the data.
http://www.leif.org/research/Owens-JGR-2015.pdf
I may even have them somewhere. Lemme look.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 5:02 pm

Most miss out the part about correlation and causation that says, “however, you do need correlation to recognize causation”. If the sun comes up and it stays dark with a clear sky, okay daylight needs another explanation when it happens.

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 7:51 pm

Willis:
Matt Owens responded “I am on strike…”. There seems to be problem “with negotiations on the subject of the USS pension scheme. If you are interested in learning more, please see https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/9093/Overhaul-of-university-pensions-could-leave-staff-200000-worse-off-in-retirement. ”
Anyway, I did find my copy of the data. They are in a spredsheet here:
http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-B.xls
here is a plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-from-McCracken.png

Reply to  erikthered
March 13, 2018 9:12 pm

Thanks for the spreadsheet, Leif, you da man!
Regarding the strike, the figures are amazing. Someone who works for 30 years will pay £80,000 into the pension scheme … and after the 30 years, they can retire at 55 and get £503,000 for their pension … six times what they paid into it.
Now, most places I’ve ever been, retiring at 55 and having your employer doing a 5-to-1 match on your pension, well, I don’t know anyone who has gotten that sweet a deal. Even our government-employed pluted bloatocrats don’t have it that good … and their pensions are bankrupting the state, county, and city where I live.
So although I can see why they might scream about the proposed change, even the reduced deal is fat city from my vantage point.
But hey, I’m down at the bottom of the financial staircase, what do I know?
w.

Curious George
Reply to  erikthered
March 14, 2018 7:19 am

Willis, clearly you have not worked for the government. I remember your essay on public employees trade unions. Here you see some details.

michael hart
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 13, 2018 12:11 pm

Stephen, has anyone looked in detail at climate/weather correlations with specific wavelengths in the UV part of the spectrum? The obvious starting points would probably be the UV-max absorption wavelengths for oxygen and ozone.

Macha
Reply to  michael hart
March 13, 2018 2:44 pm

check out Erl Happ work on Ozone pressure driven effects… https://reality348.wordpress.com

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 14, 2018 6:20 am

Same fatal flaw as Svensmark, cloud cover has reduced since the mid 1990’s.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/uk/wilde/inactive-sun-stephen-wilde-lrg.jpg

Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 1:08 pm

Say what? The CERES data shows that cloud cover has only changed by a quarter of one percent since the year 2000, and the change is NOT statistically significant. Please provide a link to your data showing a significant drop in cloud cover since the mid 1990s.
w.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 2:30 pm
Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 2:31 pm

Did I say since 2000?

Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 2:52 pm

Yogi Bear March 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Try since the 1990’s.

You’re moving the goalposts. Before you were making claims about global cloud cover … now you’ve restricted it to a thin band from 15N-15S … bad scientist, no cookies for you. You may be right, but that doesn’t show what you claimed.
w.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 5:30 pm

No you moved the goalposts by saying from 2000, and I didn’t specify global, but global has also declined, so no flies on me.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 5:31 pm

OK you imagined that I said global cloud cover. Take more sleep.

Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 5:39 pm

Yogi Bear March 14, 2018 at 5:31 pm

OK you imagined that I said global cloud cover. Take more sleep.

When someone says “cloud cover” with no qualifiers, the obvious assumption is that it does NOT mean “cloud cover from 15N to 15S” as you fatuously tried to slip past me.
Regards,
w.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 14, 2018 7:05 pm

fatuous:
silly and pointless.
“a fatuous comment”
synonyms: silly, foolish, stupid, inane, nonsensical, childish, puerile, infantile, idiotic, brainless, mindless, vacuous, imbecilic, asinine, witless, empty-headed, hare-brained; pointless, senseless;
ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, laughable, risible;
daft, moronic, cretinous, dumb, gormless

oppti
March 13, 2018 6:24 am

Multiple reasons to look at the sun.
Global dimming has been replaced by brightening since 1980s
The reason for that is less clouds due to less sulphur.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

Reply to  oppti
March 13, 2018 3:43 pm

Unclear statement oppti. What are you actually saying?
“Less Sulphur” due to reduced volcanic activity or less sulphur due to reduced industrial air pollution?
Please be precise, and do not say “both”.

Reply to  oppti
March 14, 2018 1:11 pm

oppti March 13, 2018 at 6:24 am

Multiple reasons to look at the sun.
Global dimming has been replaced by brightening since 1980s
The reason for that is less clouds due to less sulphur.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

Sorry, but that link doesn’t provide a scrap of data showing less clouds …
w.

March 13, 2018 6:43 am

The last trough below -100 MV is the Maunder Minimum
A problem with the reconstruction of the solar modulation as presented here is that a negative modulation energy is non-physical. As we suggested back in 1976 the ’tilt angle’ [misnamed, but so be it] of the heliospheric current sheet [HCS] is the dominant parameter controling the cosmic ray modulation (in combination with the field strength of the interplanetary magnetic field) [http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf, see also https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4421.pdf%5D. A more graphic description can be found here:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/586603/contributions/2511360/attachments/1450324/2236077/Potgieter24April2017.pdf

bsl
March 13, 2018 7:00 am

Interesting Javier. Have you considered looking at a linear combination of the two significant peaks (980 and 1150), fitting a time shift and a coefficient for each period?

Editor
March 13, 2018 7:13 am

That ~1,000-yr quasi-periodic fluctuation (cycle) just won’t go away.comment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment image

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 13, 2018 7:17 am

Very interesting. However, one thing would worry me. Both the Bond cycle and the Eddy cycle determinations are based on Carbon radio isotopic data. For the Eddy cycle there is also Beryllium info, but I would think that the Carbon data sets could possibly not be independent. If they are not, the good correspondence might be not as good as you think it is. Perhaps even spurious?

Javier
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 13, 2018 10:36 am

Bond data is based on petrology from benthic cores, not ¹⁴C. It only uses it for the age model. The correspondence cannot be due to that.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 11:34 am
Salvatore Del Prete
March 13, 2018 7:19 am

In addition to solar what the geo magnetic field is doing has to be taken into account. When the geo magnetic field is in phase with solar like it is today it will enhance given solar effects.
Currently both the solar/geo magnetic fields are weakening and this is going to lead to an overall cooling of the climate . I think this year is the turn point because I feel enough sub-solar activity years have occurred now in conjunction with very low solar parameters and the weakening geo magnetic field which should impact the climate.
It will impact the climate by causing greater volcanic activity and greater cloud coverage due to a significant increase in galactic cosmic rays. This has been on a rapid increase and I think their are threshold values for this that will impact the climate.
Then we have UV light and near UV light (visible blue/purple ) which are on the decline which will cause overall sea surface temperatures to fall.
So we have weakening magnetic fields which I think will result in overall lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo, which will impact the climate.
I think 10+ years of sub solar activity is enough if very low average solar parameters follow with some staying power in conjunction with a weakening geo magnetic field.

DWR54
March 13, 2018 8:14 am

Still don’t see how these cycles explain the observed warming of the surface, atmosphere and oceans since the second half of the 20th century. Where on earth (literally) is this solar energy, which apparently peaked mid-century, being stored and released from?
If the energy is stored in, say, the oceans and is slowly being released to warm the surface and atmosphere, then how is it that the heat energy of the oceans has been observed to increase over the same multi-decade period that the surface and atmosphere have been observed to warm?
If TSI reaching earth has reduced since the mid-20th century, then without a viable reservoir for the storage and release of previously received solar energy, I can’t see how solar energy explains the observed accumulation in heat energy throughout the climate system since the 1950s.

Reply to  DWR54
March 13, 2018 11:17 am

The heat stored in the upper ocean layers accumulated from 1980 onwards. The amount of IR radiation from increasing CO2 during that period was of the order of 1 watt/square metre. In comparison the amount of solar short-wave radiation (which can penetrate to 100m) increased by 2 to 4 watts (depending on which analysis you take of two main papers). Cloud data (ISCCP) shows a 4% decline in low-level reflective cloud from 1983-2000. Hence the source of the energy going into the oceans is clear – not an increased solar output (TSI) but a decrease in cloud cover. In 2001, cloud cover recovered by 2% and remained stable until 2015…and surface temperatures plateaued. The 2015/2016 ENSO event released much of the accumulated heat to the atmosphere, and the clouds also thinned – surface insolation increased, and lo….the ‘record’ high of 2016. That heat has gone now to space, and sea surface temperatures are back close to their 30-yr average. It is quite amazing how little attention is paid to clouds and surface insolation patterns. Cloud patterns are strongly influenced by jetstream tracks, themselves influenced by solar activity. If CO2 has an effect, as it should, then it is minor….about 25% maximum.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
March 13, 2018 12:13 pm

That is an interesting take on how much effect clouds have, thanks.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
March 13, 2018 2:08 pm

Yes but clouds were becoming way to interesting as non carbon dioxide related moderators of temperature and have been banished to the poles to hide their fluffy heads in shame.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/cloud-patterns-are-shifting-skyward-and-poleward-adding-global-warming

Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 8:43 am

Good article.
The oceans have over 1,000 times the amount of heat in them as the atmosphere and because of the thermal inertia, it can take decades to reverse a trend from more heat going in to coming out or vice versa after the atmosphere or sun has changed.
When Trenberth stated that the global warming “pause” with the extra accumulating heat was the result of all that heat being stored in the deep oceans………..he had the right idea.
However, it goes both ways. Heat does not just get stored in the oceans…………it comes out. El Nino’s are the quintessential example of “more” heat coming out than in non El Nino years. The entire planet is heated just from a region in the Tropical Pacific burping out heat.
And this is just from a shorter term oceanic cycle. The PDO/AMO and other longer term cycles also effect global temperatures based on how much heat is coming out of the ocean(or being stored).
The other thing. Since the deep oceans have this vast capacity to store heat, much of the heat from greenhouse gas warming is going to get stored in the deep oceans which will greatly buffer the increase in global atmospheric temperatures.
If heat going into the deep oceans caused the pause……………then we don’t have much to worry about with regards to CATASTROPHIC warming. Modest, beneficial and very slow warming that most creatures can easily adapt to, yes.
A 1.3 deg. C/century increase maybe?
The deep oceans have such a vast capacity to store atmospheric heat(if thats where uch of it goes) that it would take an incredible amount of greenhouse gas warming just to increase the temperature of the deep oceans by 1 degree.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 2:07 pm

Heat is absorbed by the top layer of water, the pelagic zone, which mixes very slowly with the zones below – 0.1% a year, IIRC. Once in the lower cold zones, it takes 100s or 1000s of years to surface again .

whiten
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 6:14 pm

Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 at 8:43 am
—————————
Hello Mike.
The point made in your comment above, in principle seems reasonable enough, but I think you running ahead with your conclusions.
That how in nature, before man’s assumed effect, could the RF effect be considered.
But as Earth and it’s atmosphere are not limitless, the question here is how much heat content can be allowed to be stored in the oceans due to RF variation, what is actually the limit of such heat content, which according to the balanced ocean-atmosphere coupling means that should be equal to the heat content accumulated in the atmosphere during the RF variation, in synchronicity, with not even much inertia there.
That is the question, which I think has to be taken in account before jumping to conclusions…
As far as I can tell there is no much of any actual quantifying of it , especially when considering the actual estimate of temp swing in climate, as it the heat content stored in oceans due to RF, as per the nature will be to high, whatever way played, and therefor creating a big problem for AGW.
Besides, when considering the modern period, there could not be much of any heat content possibly further stored in oceans when considering the CO2 concentration trend going up, unless considering that all of that trend is human caused. (quite circular)
cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
March 13, 2018 6:23 pm

For the best of me, I actually fail to get a grip on this “affection”, “affecting” or the “affect” thingy about and in relation to the climate or physicality of nature….still remains beyond me.
I think my English still poor.
cheers

Editor
March 13, 2018 8:57 am

Javier, you say:

So, you still don’t believe small changes in solar activity can significantly affect climate? You know a very cold period during the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, …

No, I don’t know that at all.comment image
See also my post “Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima” as well. The idea that the dates of solar minima and temperature line up very neatly is not at all supported by the data.
w.

Data Soong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 9:43 am

Thank you for the reminder of your look into this subject, Willis!

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 10:32 am

Thanks, Andy. Please note that according to the Hubert Lamb data on winter severity, the weather in England WARMED during the Maunder Minimum. It also warmed for half of the Sporer Minimum and for all of the Dalton Minimum.
How do you explain that? Why would temperatures not COOL until the end the minima, since (presumably) solar input is below average for the entire period of the minima?
Nor does the CET support your claim:comment image
Note that just like with the Lamb data, the CET shows that England WARMED during the Dalton Minimum. Also, the CET shows that England started warming in the middle of the Maunder Minimum … which goes totally against your claim about the correlation between solar minima and temperature. I await your explanation of these gaping holes in your claims … you could start by answering this question:
Why do both the CET and the Lamb data show that England WARMED during the Dalton minima?
w.

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 10:52 am

Andy May March 13, 2018 at 10:05 am

Some of the best evidence is in figure 13 here:

Andy, I fear that that does NOT support your argument. Let me repost the graphic here.comment image
Look for example at the rate of glacial retreat. According to you, Alps glaciers went from retreating to
not retreating during the Wolf Minimum, retreated during the Sporer minimum, but didn’t retreat during the Maunder Minimum … say what? Not only that but Venezuelan glaciers started retreating halfway through the Maunder Miminum … why would that be?
Also, according to your graphic, the Alps glaciers never actually advanced during the entire period of record, and the Venezuelan glaciers never actually retreated during the entire period of record. How does that work?
Next, you say:

Precipitation in Central Europe (in green) measured from German oak rings (Büntgen et al., 2010) showing a period of very low precipitation during the Spører minimum (light orange box).

That is special pleading. The orange box starts before the Sporer minimum and extends well into the Maunder Minimum … so why didn’t precipitation rebound between the minima?
Finally, are we truly supposed to believe that we know the global SST in the fourteenth century to the nearest tenth of a degree? Because I certainly don’t …
w.

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 12:31 pm

The CET is a measurement of what is happening in the North Atlantic. The JG/U 2K study closely follows the CET, and that is due to both of them being strongly influenced by the North Atlantic, imo. The JG/U 2k study barely registers the Maunder or the Dalton minima. Yet other gsm can be clearly seen on their graph when looking further back in time. That suggests that the waters of the North Atlantic were in their warm phase.

stinkerp
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 12:47 pm

Willis, whether or not the 980-year Eddy cycle does in fact correspond to global temperature fluctuations, the graphic does support Andy’s point. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the data represented in the graphic, but if you look at the temperature graphs, they do correlate with the minimums. The fact that glaciers retreated or advanced is immaterial unless it happened over a widespread area. We see plenty of glaciers advancing despite warming over the last several decades.
From the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) about the Little Ice Age:
“Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation.”

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 1:06 pm

stinkerp March 13, 2018 at 12:47 pm

Willis, whether or not the 980-year Eddy cycle does in fact correspond to global temperature fluctuations, the graphic does support Andy’s point. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the data represented in the graphic, but if you look at the temperature graphs, they do correlate with the minimums.

Since you have not explained even one of the numerous discrepancies between the solar and the climate variables in his graphic, I fear that saying “they do correlate with the minimums” is meaningless.
w.

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 1:10 pm

Andy May March 13, 2018 at 11:17 am

Willis,
That is why I included the “microscopic investigation of a tree” comment. To me, as a geologist, it makes no difference whether the temperature in England warms or cools during the minimum, only that the temperature during the minimum is the lowest temperature, which it is.

Ah, I see. Your mantra seems to be “don’t look too closely, you might find discrepancies”. It reminds me of the old song …

You’ll soon get used to her looks,” said he
“And a very nice girl you will find her
She may very well pass for forty-three
In the dusk, with a light behind her”

So yes, Andy, in the dusk with the light behind it, that graph could very well pass for correlation. However, when you look closely, you find a heap of discrepancies, some of which I listed, and none of which you’ve explained.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 1:14 pm

Since the cosmic ray record is contaminated by a climate signal it is not a surprise that some correlation at times can be found between the two records. What is clear is that solar activity is but a small player in this game.

MarkW
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 1:58 pm

If the data is so contaminated that we can’t rule it in, then how can we at the same time rule it out?

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 2:16 pm

Since the cosmic ray record is contaminated by a climate signal it is not a surprise that some correlation at times can be found between the two records. What is clear is that solar activity is but a small player in this game.

That is so funny Leif. This is you almost two years ago:
“Such cherry-picking is rather meaningless. The cosmic ray record shows that the 20th century was less active than the 18th:”comment image
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/03/trend-in-the-revised-sunspot-number-dataset/#comment-2207239
So it seems the cosmic ray record can be trusted when it supports your arguments but it can’t when it doesn’t.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 2:22 pm

So it seems the cosmic ray record can be trusted
It can be trusted when properly corrected for climate effects and solar cosmic ray contamination.
And it already shows that the 18th century was more active than the 20th.
What cannot be trusted are the cherry-picked, obsolete, and faulty ones you seem to prefer.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 13, 2018 2:30 pm

Yeah right. The experts doing the reconstructions are doing such a lousy job that not even the solar grand minima on which the periodicity is based can be trusted to be at the right position.
The problem for you is that the position of the solar grand minima is correct, as it appears in IntCal13, so the 980-year periodicity stands and is due to solar activity, not climate.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 3:50 pm

is due to solar activity, not climate.
As far as the last 300 years are concerned, the evidence is that solar activity has not driven climate.
Before that we have very uncertain data [both for solar activity and climate]. For example there is general acceptance of the observations that cosmic ray modulation [as observed at Earth] during the Maunder Minimum was strong [perhaps even stronger than today]. From your Figure 1 [which is wrong in details, e.g the negative modulation parameters] the only ‘cycle’ that is clear is the 7500 year variation (probably due to a change in the Earth’s magnetic field). All of this you have been told repeatedly, and yet you persist in misleading the readership. Luckily, the cosmic ray community is beginning to get their ship in order, so in a decade or two, things might improve.
As McCracken notes:
“Increasing the number of annual 10Be records to a total of about five, with two of the new ones coming from the Antarctic is particularly important since both10Be series used here are from Greenland and may be potentially influenced by the regional climate variability [Usoskin et al., 2009;Beer et al., 2012]. The overall goal would be a greater reduction in statistical and systematic noise, and minimization of long-term systematic changes that introduce errors into long-term comparisons. Five independent sets of data would yield a standard deviation of ~5.5% for the annual paleocosmic ray data, 0.3 nT for the annual estimates of the heliospheric magneticfield near Earth, and would allow smaller solar energetic particle events to be detected and eliminated from B[GCR-MB2]. It would also permit the time profile of the 11 year cycle in the PCR to be determined for individual cycles (“sharp rising” or“flat topped”) thereby identifying the polarity of the solar dipole into the past [Potgieter, 2013;Owens et al., 2015].”

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 4:00 pm

As far as the last 300 years are concerned, the evidence is that solar activity has not driven climate.

That’s your interpretation of the evidence. What the evidence says is that
– Overall solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years
– Cold periods tend to agree well with periods of lower solar activity
– Now we are having lower solar activity and it is coinciding with the pause.
My interpretation is that solar activity may have an important contribution to climate, and it remains to be seen if its contribution is actually bigger than other factors.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 4:18 pm

What the evidence says is that
– Overall solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years

No, the evidence showw no such thing. I’ll try again:comment image

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 4:06 pm

Javier March 13, 2018 at 4:00 pm

As far as the last 300 years are concerned, the evidence is that solar activity has not driven climate.
That’s your interpretation of the evidence. What the evidence says is that
– Overall solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years
– Cold periods tend to agree well with periods of lower solar activity
– Now we are having lower solar activity and it is coinciding with the pause.

Nonsense. Here’s the actual data, not for 300 years but 150 years, and no, lower solar activity is NOT “coinciding with the pause”.comment image
And please don’t start in about “lag”. If you lag the temperature data the correlation gets worse, not better.
w.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 5:17 pm

Willis, what I see is the warming looks like a “rebound” out of the minima. There was a big upspike after the Maunder Minimum and an a smaller one after the Dalton. Its almost as if a spring was let go. They settled back after the upspike.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 5:19 pm

No, the evidence showw no such thing.

Yes it does. The sunspot number has an increasing trendline, and the last centennial cycle C3 has a higher average sunspot number than the previous two, C1 and C2 (horizontal bars in figure).comment image

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 6:06 pm

That ‘trend’ is not statistically significant [although that never bothered you], and may be eliminated when cycle 25 [almost as low as SC24] rolls around

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 13, 2018 6:23 pm

OK, so you go from saying that there has not been an increase in solar activity to saying that the increase is not statistically significant. Well, that’s some progress.
But actually the increase from C1 to C3 is from 75.8 to 93.4 sunspots/year, a 23% more. That is quite significant.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 7:36 pm

First of all, your C1, C2, and C4 are carefully picked. I would for instance pick C3 to go from 1900 to 2030, etc. Second the Sunspot Number [even v2] is inferior to the Group number as a measure of activity. That there even is a difference just shows that both numbers have uncertainties. Any difference [even computed to a tenth of unit] over time is in the noise. The proper thing to do is first to scale the SN to the GN, then average the results [green curve) and compute the total trend from 1700 to 2018:
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-SN-since-1700x.png
The trend has an r^2 of 0.0057, i.e. not significant.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:40 am

C1, C2, and C3 follow a criteria. They go from lowest point to lowest point and have the same duration. I know you would have carefully picked otherwise. You usually pick calendar centuries for your comparisons, as if the Sun was aware of our calendar. And even you should realize that an r^2 between a straight line and a 11-year oscillating curve is meaningless.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 4:23 am

an r^2 between a straight line and a 11-year oscillating curve is meaningless.
Nonsense. The trend is a straight line regardless of oscillating wiggles.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 4:52 am

Yes and a straight line will never show a high r^2 to an oscillating line regardless of they following the same long term trend.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 5:16 am

an r^2 between a straight line and a 11-year oscillating curve is meaningless.
Not at all:
http://www.leif.org/research/Trends-and-Oscillations.png
The pink curve is the blue curve with a 0.005 trend, which is rendered nicely with an R^2 of 0.94

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 5:32 am

Nice. But sunspots are range-bound so you cannot force a trend on the 11-year cycle to match any straight line, which is what we are talking about.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 5:40 am

you cannot force a trend on the 11-year cycle to match any straight line
If there is an underlying trend it will show regardless of your whoolly notion of ‘range bound’ [my oscillations were also range bound between -1 and +1]. The trend is not ‘forced’ on the data, but is extracted from them. If R^2 is close to zero, it means that there is no trend to speak of.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 6:43 am

I don’t understand where are you going. For an increase in sunspots from the 1700-1800 period to give a significant value in an r^2 test would require an unphysical increase of sunspot numbers. Therefore the r^2 test is irrelevant to judge the significance of the observed increase.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 6:53 am

significance of the observed increase.
There is no increase
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-SN-since-1700x.png
If there were, r^2 would reflect that e.g. like in this plot
http://www.leif.org/research/Trends-and-Oscillations-2.png

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 6:57 am

Oh yes there is an increase. A 23% increase from C1 to C3.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 7:06 am

No, only the result of cherry-picking intervals to achieve your wished for result.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 7:20 am

Here is yet another example of cherry-picking [using the superior Group Number]:
C1′ 1700-1810 4.53
C2′ 1811-1901 4.04
C3′ 1902-2018 4.50 a 1% decrease from C1′
C3” 1902-2030 4.38 a 3% decrease from C1′ [assuming that cycle 25 will be 10% higher than SC24, which it looks like right now]

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 9:03 am

The intervals are defined by the lowest activity in 100 years.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 9:11 am

The intervals are defined by the lowest activity in 100 years.
That presumes that there is a precise 100-yr cycle, which there is not. The length of the quasi-cycle is variable. No, the intervals are carefully picked to support your contention.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 9:46 am

That presumes nothing. The years of lowest activity are not picked. The length is an emerging property, and being equal helps for fair comparisons.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 9:56 am

The only fair comparison is the trend [or lack thereof] for the whole interval 1700-2018 and there isn’t any.
There is a downward trend the last half-century, yet temperatures have soared.
This alone is falsification of your claims. The problem is that people are polarized: it is either all sun or all CO2. Reality is that its a little bit of all plus several other things: ocean circulation, stochastic chaos, vocanoes, etc, etc. What I oppose is the notion that there is only one overriding cause [with the sole exception perhaps of orbital changes over tens of thousands of yeare].

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 10:19 am

I also defend that there are more than one factor. There is a contribution by CO₂, and I defend that. But a large part of the warming since the LIA is on account of the increased solar activity that you deny. There is a trend and it is upward. Ask Mr. Excel.
And the downward trend since ~ 1980 only falsifies a claim that requires direct no-lag effect. When science demonstrates indirect, non-linear, lagged effects, then that is what you should expect, and then there is no contradiction. There would be contradiction if we were seeing warming now, but except for El Niño warming that is vanishing, “we ain’t seen nothing.”

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 1:36 pm

There is a trend and it is upward. Ask Mr. Excel.
Unfortunately, Mr. Excel [and i] says no.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:22 pm

Mr. Excel says y = 0.0895x + 64.926
One extra sunspot per solar cycle on average.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:50 pm

No, Mr. Excel as I have shown you repeatedly says +0.028 groups per cycle [and not significant, R^2 = 0,0057]

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 15, 2018 4:53 am

Yes.
I must insist. SILSO data from here:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
Trend: y = 0.0895x + 64.926
It has a positive slope.
Sunspots have been increasing with time, not staying the same and not decreasing.

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 5:29 pm

Nonsense. Here’s the actual data, not for 300 years but 150 years, and no, lower solar activity is NOT “coinciding with the pause”.

Oh yes. The agreement is quite good considering that the Sun is only one of the forcings and we still have volcanoes and GHGs, plus internal variability.comment image
And yes, the pause (2000-) has lower solar activity than any similar period since 1940.

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 5:48 pm

Gary Pearse March 13, 2018 at 5:17 pm Edit

Willis, what I see is the warming looks like a “rebound” out of the minima. There was a big upspike after the Maunder Minimum and an a smaller one after the Dalton. Its almost as if a spring was let go. They settled back after the upspike.

Nope. Look at the data again. In both the CET and the Lamb data, the temperature rose throughout the Dalton mimimum, and it rose for half of the Maunder minimum.
w.

Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 5:54 pm

Javier March 13, 2018 at 5:29 pm Edit

Nonsense. Here’s the actual data, not for 300 years but 150 years, and no, lower solar activity is NOT “coinciding with the pause”.

Oh yes. The agreement is quite good considering that the Sun is only one of the forcings and we still have volcanoes and GHGs, plus internal variability.

I love it. When the sun agrees with the temperature, well, that’s clear evidence of the solar-climate connection … and when starting in 1980 it diverges radically, with temperature going up and the sun going down, suddenly its “volcanoes and GHGs”, plus that perennial refuge of scoundrels, “internal variability” … hilarious.
I can see that no matter what the data actually says, you’ll just wave your hands and say magic words and claim that it is all explained …
Hey, YOU claimed that solar activity is “coinciding with the pause”. But the data clearly shows that IT IS NOT COINCIDING, and invoking “internal variability” is meaningless. You claimed it WAS coinciding, it’s NOT coinciding … you’re just grasping at straws now.
w.

whiten
Reply to  Andy May
March 13, 2018 7:06 pm

lsvalgaard
March 13, 2018 at 2:22 pm
So it seems the cosmic ray record can be trusted
It can be trusted when properly corrected for climate effects and solar cosmic ray contamination.
—————————————
Most probably I should not be asking this question, but got to as I can’t resist it.
How much correction for the climate effect of AGW there, if any at all?
Probably a stupid question, but for best of me, I could not resist it.
cheers

Reply to  whiten
March 13, 2018 7:39 pm

Some people might contend [and perhaps not without reason as far as the direct empirical evidence goes] that the past 50 years rising temperatures [in spite of decreasing solar activity] is due to CO2.

mikewaite
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 11:42 am

Willis , I looked at your previous post ( 2014) , as mentioned above, , which attracted a very large number of comments and noticed the following in the comments :
From WxMatt:
-“The 2009-2010 period was the quietest solar period of our lifetimes and it coincided with record high latitude blocking patterns (cold air distribution) in both hemispheres. What fascinated me was the very active series of stratospheric warmings that occurred during this solar minimum. These are things we couldn’t really measure during the prior minima, so I suspect we’ll learn a whole lot in the years ahead!”-
And this from JeffL:
-“And of course the blocking can lead to extreme cold over Europe & eastern NA.
From the Eddy paper:
“The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). ”
Drought in the SW is also consistent with persistent blocking – just like we saw this winter.
But is there any correlation between this high latitude blocking & solar activity? We know there is a correlation / causation from polar stratospheric warming events but do those have any relationship to solar activity? Hard to say from the data presented here – temp records would all depend on where blocking sets up (and if the data are from the cold side or warm side of the block).”-
Given the recent events (“Beast from the East”) in Europe and the connection by the UK Met Office with “sudden stratosphere warming” , these comments and your post that generated them seem rather prescient. So in the intervening 4 years have we, or more importantly , our masters learnt anything that is helpful for future mitigation of harsh weather events?

Reply to  mikewaite
March 13, 2018 2:06 pm

mikewaite
My hypothesis proposes that solar variations change the amount of ozone above the poles so that it increases when the sun is quiet and decreases when the sun is active, the opposite of the consensus view.
There is data that shows an increase in ozone above 45km when the sun is quiet. The significance of ozone is that it absorbs incoming solar energy directly for a warming effect.
The result of more ozone above 45km and towards the poles is an increase in stratospheric warmth above the poles which pushes tropopause height down just as seen in the recent events.
Pushing the tropopause height down over the poles pushes tropospheric air outwards towards the equator and causes wavier jets that increase global cloudiness to reduce solar energy into the oceans with eventually a cooling world.
Stratospheric warming events push tropopause height down which is why the jets become more meridional.
No other hypothesis fits the observations.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 1:00 pm

Willis, the problem is that the data that you use is not very good. Lots of data support the tenet that the Maunder period was a cold period within the LIA. For example:
– NH temperature reconstruction by Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012
– Mediterranean Sea Surface Temperature by Versteegh et al., 2007
– Venezuela glacier advances by Polissar et al., 2006
– Alps glacier advances by Holzhausser et al., 2005
– North American temperature reconstruction by Trouet et al., 2013
– Iceland sea ice reconstruction by Massé et al., 2008
Four colder periods can thus be identified within the LIA and they agree quite well with solar activity. There were however important differences in precipitation between them, creating differences in glacier advances, sea ice and iceberg activity. Andy has already posted the graphic information. Even in your article, CET shows its lowest values during Maunder.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 1:12 pm

Thanks, Javier. I used Lamb’s reconstruction and the CET. Sorry, but you don’t get to throw valid data out just because they don’t agree with your theory.
I also commented on the Alps and Venezuela glaciers here … big problems.
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 1:58 pm

Willis, Lamb’s reconstruction and the CET are both England. So at the very least we agree that you are only looking at a small part of the planet. And you don’t get to throw a valid hypothesis just because it doesn’t agree with your data from only a small part of a region.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 3:48 pm

Javier March 13, 2018 at 1:58 pm Edit

Willis, Lamb’s reconstruction and the CET are both England. So at the very least we agree that you are only looking at a small part of the planet. And you don’t get to throw a valid hypothesis just because it doesn’t agree with your data from only a small part of a region.

Thanks, Javier. First, you have NOT shown that you have a “valid hypothesis”. That’s what you are trying to establish.
Second, what temperature dataset would you prefer that I use for the period of say 1600-1800? We’ve established that the Alps glaciers don’t show what you claim, nor do the Venezuela glaciers … so what do you think I should use? A LINK to your preferred dataset, please.
Third, it appears that your new claim is “the sun affects the global climate … except in England”. You’ll have to explain how that works.
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 4:33 pm

The hypothesis is valid for those that agree with it, starting with Gerard Bond, and won’t be valid ever for those that disagree with it, like yourself.
For 1600-1800 you will have to go with proxy reconstructions. You should use several of them, preferably from different proxies and different parts of the world.
We have not established that glaciers don’t show what I claim. Glacier reconstructions show advances that agree well with periods of low solar activity. I have provided bibliography to several of the reconstructions I have used for the LIA. That is all I will provide.

“the sun affects the global climate … except in England”. You’ll have to explain how that works.

The smaller the area you sample, the higher the effect of variability. Anyway I already said that your conclusion was not valid. CET shows its coldest temperatures during the Maunder period. So even your own data disagrees with you.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 4:54 pm

Javier March 13, 2018 at 4:33 pm

The hypothesis is valid for those that agree with it, starting with Gerard Bond, and won’t be valid ever for those … blah blah blah …

That’s crazy. Either a hypothesis is valid or it is not. But let’s set that aside as an irrelevancy.
I asked you for a link.
In return, you’ve given me a steaming pile of handwaving.
So I’ll ask again:

Second, what temperature dataset would you prefer that I use for the period of say 1600-1800? We’ve established that the Alps glaciers don’t show what you claim, nor do the Venezuela glaciers … so what do you think I should use? A LINK to your preferred dataset, please.

Time to put up or shut up, Javier. I’m tired of you pointing to squiggly lines on a page and going See! See! I’m right! I’m right!
Provide links, or you lose all credibility.
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 5:52 pm

You are not the one that confers credibility to others. I played that game with you once and said no more. Go look yourself for your links or return to rediscover deep convection. I don’t care.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 5:44 pm

It appears that the three coldest periods in CET were all during solar minima.comment image

Tom Halla
Reply to  Yogi Bear
March 13, 2018 5:56 pm

I just don’t see the correlation you do. Yes, there was a drop in both solar minima, but also a rise. There was also another dip in the temperature, as low as the Dalton, that was not in a solar minima.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 6:07 pm

I said to Javier:

I asked you for a link.
In return, you’ve given me a steaming pile of handwaving.
So I’ll ask again:

Second, what temperature dataset would you prefer that I use for the period of say 1600-1800? We’ve established that the Alps glaciers don’t show what you claim, nor do the Venezuela glaciers … so what do you think I should use? A LINK to your preferred dataset, please.

Time to put up or shut up, Javier. I’m tired of you pointing to squiggly lines on a page and going See! See! I’m right! I’m right!
Provide links, or you lose all credibility.

Javier replied:
March 13, 2018 at 5:52 pm

You are not the one that confers credibility to others.

I didn’t say I was. But a man who is unwilling to provide links to the data that his theory depends on has no scientific credibility, duh. Science depends on transparency.

I played that game with you once and said no more. Go look yourself for your links or return to rediscover deep convection. I don’t care.

Yeah, I figured when I asked you for the actual data underpinning your claims that you’d run for the door as fast as your footies would fly … no surprise there.
As my mad mate Mosher used to say, “No data, no code, no science” … guess what? You’ve just proven that you’re as bad as Phil Jones, and that is very bad. Like you, he refused to provide me with data to back up his big mouth, and it cost him his job.
But heck, don’t let me distract you from your handwaving and your claims that you’re unwilling to support, it’s all quite amusing.
w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 6:15 pm

a man who is unwilling to provide links to the data that his theory depends on has no scientific credibility

It is all published by scientists in scientific journals, Willis. I have never claimed to have done original research on climate so I have nothing to show, or to hide. It is not my fault that you can’t find your way in the scientific literature. I do provide citations for everything I say and do, as the article shows.
Mosher is equally wrong. You guys confuse me with a climatologists withholding the data. That’s bullshit. Everything is published or done by others. You are barking at the wrong tree.

Frank
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:01 am

Javier and Willis: May I respectfully suggest that some of your disagreement may arise from misuse of scientific terminology. There is no such thing as a “valid hypothesis”. There are “plausible hypotheses” that can be constructed to explain some subset of all known data. Such hypotheses are a dime a dozen, because they always explain the data they were constructed to explain. When you abstract a frequency from a periodogram, it will always explain some of the variation in the data used to construct the periodogram. Willis is therefore bringing up other data that the hypothesis was not initially constructed to explain. Such evidence may be superficially “consistent” or “inconsistent” with the hypothesis, but inconsistency doesn’t immediately mean the hypothesis is invalid or useless. Willis is citing glacial data that “appears to be inconsistent with the hypothesis”, but glacial advances and retreats are driven by both changes in temperature AND precipitation. Then we need to consider the magnitude of the inconsistency, in terms of statistical significant and possible systematic error. The orbit of Mercury is inconsistent with Newton’s theory of gravity, but that doesn’t mean that his theory is useless.
If you two could agree upon the existence of possible inconsistency, we might learn about the key issue – how big is the temperature change that might be driven by solar activity: a couple of degC or a couple of tenths of a degC. Glaciers everywhere should respond to the former change, but not necessarily the latter. And we should be able to agree that a few tenths of a degC is irrelevant to current climate change.
Just my two cents.

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 14, 2018 4:01 am

Thank you Frank,
Temperature change relevance depends on the temporal scale discussed. 0.2°C is a very small change for a day, but it is a significant change for a year, an important change for a decade, and a huge change for a millennium. The Neoglacial trend for the past 5000 years has been of –0.2 °C per millennium, and that change has driven glacier expansions and climate change all over the world. The planet lost ~ 1.5 °C from the Holocene climatic optimum to the Little Ice Age, while the past El Niño was +0.78 °C from 2014/02 to 2016/02 according to HadCRUT4 monthly data. The first is huge, the second is irrelevant as it has already lost –0.56 °C by 2017/11.
The solar changes that we are discussing appear to affect on the multi-centennial scale and are thus very big even if we are just talking about a few tenths of a degree. My impression is that they affect the millennial temperature trend set by Milankovitch forcing by ~ ±0.3 °C for a total change of ~ 0.6 °C. It could be responsible for over half of the observed temperature change since the LIA.

Frank
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 8:44 am

Javier wrote: “Temperature change relevance depends on the temporal scale discussed. 0.2°C is a very small change for a day, but it is a significant change for a year, an important change for a decade, and a huge change for a millennium. The Neoglacial trend for the past 5000 years has been of –0.2 °C per millennium, and that change has driven glacier expansions and climate change all over the world. The planet lost ~ 1.5 °C from the Holocene climatic optimum to the Little Ice Age, while the past El Niño was +0.78 °C from 2014/02 to 2016/02 according to HadCRUT4 monthly data. The first is huge, the second is irrelevant as it has already lost –0.56 °C by 2017/11.
The solar changes that we are discussing appear to affect on the multi-centennial scale and are thus very big even if we are just talking about a few tenths of a degree. My impression is that they affect the millennial temperature trend set by Milankovitch forcing by ~ ±0.3 °C for a total change of ~ 0.6 °C. It could be responsible for over half of the observed temperature change since the LIA.
When you are talking about a cyclical phenomena (Eddy), it is simplest to refer to its amplitude (measured in peak to trough temperature), a topic you keep avoiding. A Milankovitch interglacial change of -1.5 K over 5 millennia is too slow to have any impact on the potential GHG-mediated crisis over the next one to two centuries.
We appear to need examples of cooling significantly greater than 1 K globally (or 2 K near the poles) to have any chance of avoiding a rise in temperature due to 600+ ppm of CO2 and ECS of 3 or greater. At least, that is what I’m seeking.

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 14, 2018 9:42 am

Except that we don’t know what the ECS is and we don’t know what part of the warming is due to CO₂. The predicted warming and the predicted CO₂ levels are based on assumptions that may not hold true.

Reply to  Javier
March 15, 2018 2:31 am

“You are not the one that confers credibility to others. I played that game with you once and said no more. Go look yourself for your links or return to rediscover deep convection. I don’t care.”
Javier, This is actually WORSE than what Jones did to Willis and Mcintyre.
If you want to make a claim the gold standard is to PROVIDE the data AS USED.
the sliver standard is to provide some code to go fetch the data
the bronze standard is to provide an VALID Link
The shit standard is to tell people they have to go look for the data

Javier
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 15, 2018 3:42 am

Everything is published, Steven. I have not generated any data, so I am not the repository of any data. And I couldn’t care less about your opinion.

whiten
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 6:36 pm

Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 at 8:57 am
See also my post “Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima” as well. The idea that the dates of solar minima and temperature line up very neatly is not at all supported by the data.
—————————————————
Sorry Willis, but got to say, actually to me it seems a neat enough line up of solar minima and the temps, so much so that to me it seems clear what could have caused or “affected” the kick start of the end of the LIA, or probably being even the main affect of LIA termination!!…
(not sure about this sarc tag thingy if it would apply here correctly)
cheers

Reply to  whiten
March 14, 2018 3:47 pm

Andy May March 14, 2018 at 3:37 pm

Javier is doing no primary research here. He is synthesizing the work of others in a literature review.

You’re right, Andy. Because of his passionate advocacy for his favorite hypothesis, I had mistaken Javier for an actual scientist rather than a science journalist. Won’t make that mistake again.
And as a result, as you point out, I shouldn’t have been so hard on him. My bad, I apologize to him completely for my harsh words.
Note, however, that I didn’t ask him to do any actual science. This was my request:

What temperature dataset would you prefer that I use for the period of say 1600-1800? We’ve established that the Alps glaciers don’t show what you claim, nor do the Venezuela glaciers … so what do you think I should use? A LINK to your preferred dataset, please.

A science journalist claiming that he is sure that there is a solar-temperature connection should be able to provide that simple link … but nooo, he ran for the door instead.
w.

Reply to  whiten
March 14, 2018 3:54 pm

whiten March 13, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 at 8:57 am

See also my post “Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima” as well. The idea that the dates of solar minima and temperature line up very neatly is not at all supported by the data.

—————————————————
Sorry Willis, but got to say, actually to me it seems a neat enough line up of solar minima and the temps

I’ve pointed out a couple of big problems with the so-called “lineup”. In the Maunder Minimum the temperature started rising 25 years before the solar increase. And in the Dalton Minimum, the temperature was significantly higher at the end of the Minimum than at the start. Plus not long after the Dalton Minimum, and after the sun was back in full force, the temperature was colder than it was during the Dalton Minimum.
None of these are congruous with the idea that solar was the cause. If my frying pan starts to warm up before I turn on the gas, it’s obviously not from the flame …
In response you say that to you “it seems a neat enough line up” … so what?
Seriously, so what? Why should anyone care how it “seems” to you? This is a scientific website and we’re talking evidence here. Either you can explain the discrepancies or you can’t … and so far you are firmly in the “you can’t” camp.
w.

Reply to  whiten
March 15, 2018 2:35 am

“Javier is doing no primary research here. He is synthesizing the work of others in a literature review.”
Yes Javier is a JOURNALIST. But even a journalist should CHECK HIS SOURCES.
One check of one of the charts ( as Willis has done ) Illustrates the Danger of confusing Journalism
with Science.
This is not a first for Javier. Over on Judith Curry’s he has been busted many times for misrepresenting the actual science he “summarizes”.
That makes him a hack journalist

Javier
Reply to  whiten
March 15, 2018 4:44 am

Over on Judith Curry’s he has been busted many times for misrepresenting the actual science he “summarizes”.

That is a lie. I always present the evidence and provide the bibliography. What you call “busting” is just a different interpretation of the evidence. People are entitled to their opinions, and the authors of the articles to theirs, but that they differ from mine does not constitute evidence, so no “busting” is possible. Climate is such a contentious issue that personal attacks destined to erode the credibility of those presenting alternative interpretations are common, but the evidence speaks for itself. My best articles always generate more attacks, it is the sign that I am being successful in defending my interpretation.

March 13, 2018 9:04 am

This analysis is very similar to my 2017 paper in Energy and environment.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of the obvious millennial cycle . The current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
For the current situation and longer range forecasts see Figs 4 and Fig 12 in the links above.comment image
4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
“Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003 The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019 .”comment image
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.
For a neat example of the millennial peak and trend change see. Fig 11comment image

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
March 13, 2018 9:26 am

conveniently stops in 2008…

Salvatore Del Prete
March 13, 2018 9:31 am

Now in addition to the geo magnetic field strength and it’s influence on given solar activity these other factors have to be taken into consideration to appreciate what kind of effect a change in solar activity y is going to have on the climate.
Again the same amount of solar change is NOT going to have the same climatic result due to the following:
1. Geo magnetic strength
2. Trend in geo magnetic field
3. Land/ocean arrangements and mean elevation
4. Initial state of the climate when the solar changes occur, meaning how far or close is the climate to the glacial /inter glacial boundary at the time solar is changing. The closer the climate is to this boundary the easier it can be changed. Not as much forcing needed.
5. Milkankovich Cycles – where is the earth in relation to them For example 8000 years ago or so Milankovich Cycles were very unfavorable for cooling.
6. Strength of galactic cosmic rays in space surrounding the earth. Example a super nova if near by would increase galactic cosmic ray concentration in the surrounding space area near the earth allowing a greater increase if solar/geo magnetic fields weakened.
Nevertheless every single prolonged solar minimum without exception has resulted in lower global temperatures for a period of time. Every single time and this time is not going to be different. I say this time
we have a double effect going on which is not only weakening solar magnetic fields but also geo magnetic g

joelobryan
March 13, 2018 9:35 am

So here we are:comment image
“Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their partial experience and their descriptions are in complete disagreement on what an elephant is. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to project their partial experiences as the whole truth, ignore other people’s partial experiences, and one should consider that one may be partially right and may have partial information.

DWR54
March 13, 2018 9:42 am

Dr Norman Page

Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003

Only if, as you have done, you stop the RSS data series in mid 2015; thus capturing the largely negative ENSO period between 2003 and early 2015 but excluding the subsequent positive ENSO period that started mid 2015. If you continue the trend from 2003.6 to the present it’s very similar to the period 1980-2003; fractionally warmer in fact.comment image
If you take the trend over the whole RSS series, you see that the periods 1981-2003 and 2003 to the present are completely consistent with the long term warming trend in RSS.comment image
There is no evidence in the RSS data set that the warming trend “peaked” in 2003.

Reply to  DWR54
March 13, 2018 11:39 am

See Javier’s Fig 2 from Steinhilber above for the millennial cycle.You need to look at the system as a whole and see what temperature data interpretation fits best with the solar driver data as seen in the neutron count.comment image
Fig. 10 Oulu Neutron Monitor data (27)
The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, GCRs, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved. Having said that, however, it seems likely that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth), the changing EUV radiation producing top down effects via the Ozone layer, and the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales. The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time convolved with the phases of the millennial, centennial and decadal solar activity cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different climate metrics. There is a 13+/- year delay between the solar activity “Golden Spike” 1991 peak and the millennial cyclic “Golden Spike” temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003 in Fig. 4. It has been independently estimated that there is about a 12-year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data – Fig. 3 in Usoskin (28).

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
March 13, 2018 11:50 am

You need to look at the system as a whole
Which is why just showing the anomalous record from Oulu is no good.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
March 13, 2018 11:53 am

The ‘golden spike’ is not due to GCRs but to a contaminating flux of solar energetic particles.

bitchilly
Reply to  DWR54
March 13, 2018 3:05 pm

how many revisions did the rss “data” go through in that time period ? same goes for uah.

March 13, 2018 9:58 am

RSS is suspect due to the number of adjustments to the raw data.

Scottish Sceptic
March 13, 2018 10:25 am

This is just 1/f noise which has been misinterpreted as occurs so often, notably with temperature:
“Natural habitats of 1/f noise errors”.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/12/09/natural-habitats-of-1f-noise-errors/

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 13, 2018 10:36 am

Thanks, Sceptic. People truly don’t understand that 1/f noise looks just like many natural climate datasets. Your post contains excellent examples of that.
w.

john eyon
March 13, 2018 10:53 am

whether or not it proves the author correct – this article’s format should be be widely emulated – just brilliant

Editor
March 13, 2018 10:58 am

lsvalgaard March 13, 2018 at 10:37 am Edit

300 years, and yet over that period sunspots and cosmogenic isotope records agree well.

Actually they don’t. Webber and Higbie pointed that out some years ago. E.g.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf

“The cross correlation coefficients between the yearly 10Be production and the ice core 10Be measurements
for this time period are less than 0.4 in all comparisons between ice core data and 10Be production, including 10Be concentrations, 10Be fluxes and in comparing the two separate ice core measurements. In fact, the cross correlation between the two ice core measurements, which should be measuring the same source, is the lowest of all, only ~0.2. These values for the correlation coefficient are all indicative of a “poor” correlation. This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”

Thanks, Leif. This agrees totally with my own study of the 10Be proxy entitled “Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium”. It’s a lousy proxy all around, and despite that it’s used over and over to give bogus “support” to various solar-climate claims.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 11:15 am

But note that after correcting for climate and ground-level events, the 10Be can be brought into agreement with solar activity measured by the SSN. The point is that the whole thing is not as simple as people used to think [and still cling to]. Just using cherry-picked ‘internet’-versions won’t do. Javier started out by pushing Steinhilber’s version with it negative modulation potential ‘phi’. Phi cannot be negative. A negative phi would mean that we see MORE cosmic rays than there are outside of the solar system.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 12:00 pm

And here’s a look at how the small variations in the sun do NOT rule the temperature …comment image
I’m sure you can see the problems. First, the temperature starts dropping BEFORE the sunspot changes in about 1945.
And after 1975, bad news … sunspot numbers are dropping toward the current low levels, but the temperatures keep increasing …
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 22, 2018 12:21 pm

Which neatly shows just how fictitious are HadCRU’s fake “data”. Books cooked to a crisp.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 22, 2018 12:45 pm

Chimp March 22, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Which neatly shows just how fictitious are HadCRU’s fake “data”. Books cooked to a crisp.

Chimp, I fear you’ve misread the data … since 1980 HadCRUT agrees extremely well with the UAH MSU satellite data.comment image
And that means that the post-1980 divergence of solar activity and temperatures is quite real, and not “fictitious” in any manner. For the last 35+ years temperatures have gone UP and solar activity has gone DOWN.
And what is your explanation for that? Nobody else here has one, they treat that inconvenient fact like dogsh*t by carefully stepping around it … are you going to address it?
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 22, 2018 1:10 pm

Willis,
You don’t show 1979-1989, nor note the divergence between HadCRUT and UAH during the pause:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-divergence-between-latest-uah-and-hadcrut4-revisions-now-includes-april-data/
Besides the bogus “data”, the obvious reason for the apparent divergence between SSN and temperature is time lag, as so many have noted and quantified. Just whom do you imagine steps around this easily explained, largely fake divergence?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 22, 2018 2:24 pm

Chimp March 22, 2018 at 1:10 pm Edit

Willis,
You don’t show 1979-1989, nor note the divergence between HadCRUT and UAH during the pause:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-divergence-between-latest-uah-and-hadcrut4-revisions-now-includes-april-data/

Thanks, Chimp. I made that graph for the previous thread, in response to a claim of something happening since the end of the eighties … hang on …comment image
There you go … it changes absolutely nothing. It shows everything you asked and makes no difference to the divergence post-1980 between solar and temperature.

Besides the bogus “data”, the obvious reason for the apparent divergence between SSN and temperature is time lag, as so many have noted and quantified.

Lag? You’ll have to explain to me how lagging the sunspot data below fixes this divergence …comment image
I don’t care how far to the right you lag the sunspot data, it does NOT remove the divergence.

Just whom do you imagine steps around this easily explained, largely fake divergence?

Well, that would be you and everyone else who is promoting the handwaving and incorrect “lag” explanation that explains exactly nothing.
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 22, 2018 5:00 pm

Willis,
Easily explained.
Given the watery nature of Earth’s climate system, lags are an unavoidable part of the system. The Maunder Minimum persisted even as sunspots began to recover. Thermal inertia is huge.
Dunno why this is even an issue with you. Every cold and hot cycle shows the lag. The so-called Pause has occurred during the transition from the previous sun-based warming to the coming sun-based cooling, just as has happened so many times before.

ChrisB
March 13, 2018 11:14 am

Seems like there is a quite solid duplication at or near 200 years between the insolation and asian climate record (Figure). If this signal is true (a simple coherence estimation will yield the answer), perhaps reproducing the analysis with this periodicity will provide a distinct hypothesis.

March 13, 2018 11:17 am

Let me show that figure again:comment image?zoom=2

Salvatore Del Prete
March 13, 2018 11:27 am

https://www.bing.com/search?q=was%20solar%20the%20trigger%20for%20the%20younger%20dryas&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=was%20solar%20the%20trigger%20for%20the%20younger%20dryas&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=5468AAEF11F143819008DCEE218ED697
A very good paper showing how low solar could have been the trigger for the YD. Lends support to this article which I agree with in large part.
Gothenberg magnetic excursion also occurred during this time.

JimG1
March 13, 2018 11:56 am

Always wondered Why do we look at the r value, correlation coefficient, instead of r2, coefficient of determination, when this latter measure is a measure of the percent of variation in y explained by the relationship with x? Seems a more explanatory measure, but of course is a lower value for all r less than 1, which normally are less than 1, which would be a perfect one to one correlation. R does, of course, make our correlations look better, but still does not make them into causation.

Reply to  JimG1
March 13, 2018 12:02 pm

Huh? They measure very different things. R, the correlation coefficient, shows where the two datasets are positively and negatively correlated. Sometimes that’s what you want to know.
w.

JimG1
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 12:14 pm

Has no real meaning other than the square root of r2. Percent of variation in one variable explained in terms of the other has meaning. What is the meaning of r, mathematically?
[pi r round, usually. .mod]

JimG1
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 12:45 pm

Mod,
Know that fellow from GA who took his kid out of that school up north for telling him “pie are square”.

Salvatore Del Prete
March 13, 2018 12:19 pm

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
And it is the sunspot integral that matters which means lag times are involved. Look at the correlation ,very strong.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 13, 2018 4:13 pm

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
“Excellent correlation (R²=.96!) with temperature is obtained by adding to the sunspot integral the most significant ocean oscillations (the PDO-Pacific Decadal Oscillation + AMO- Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation*3)”.
________________
I like “the INTEGRAL of solar activity” – it makes sense. That is how the system works (imo), together with oceanic cycles.
Is there a spreadsheet published? What does this formula PREDICT for the next few decades? That is the acid test.

Stephen Richards
March 13, 2018 12:31 pm

When matching data for analytical purposes you should always seek to explain where the data do not match. That’s how science works. Like the orbit of mercury.

March 13, 2018 12:42 pm

Cyclomania is a powerful intoxicant.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
March 13, 2018 12:45 pm

Most certainly, I have to say that I have enjoyed following the patterns over the years. Especially as there have been good results from that, from my perspective.

Ted Midd
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
March 13, 2018 1:10 pm

So is cyclophobia.

Javier
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
March 13, 2018 2:52 pm

Insulting those that have a different point of view on a matter that is not settled by comparing their ideas with a mental illness. A clear mark of an open mind.
Let us not forget that we are surrounded by cycles, from days, seasons, years, tides, biological cycles, hormones, ice ages, heart beats… Apparently thinking that cycles are a reality is a mental illness if you propose them in forbidden areas, like the Sun. Wait the Sun already has cycles.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 3:20 pm

Yes we are surrounded by cycles, as you say. We live and breath cycles on almost all timescales. That is exactly why cyclomania is so seductive. It takes extraordinary statistical discipline to keep from getting fooled by the spurious appearance of cycles in time series data. Even good scientists get lured onto the rocks by the Sirens of cyclomania.

Javier
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
March 14, 2018 3:11 am

I don’t have time for cheap psychology intruding in science.

March 13, 2018 1:44 pm

Here is something directly correlated to solar changes. A comment made at the end of February caught my attention “…See any pattern in TCs hitting Onslow the TC capital of Australia CO2 fans?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/onslow.shtml…”.
The comment implies to me that the author of the comment never expected anyone to arrive at an answer to the question. So I took a look at the graph from the above link. My first reaction was that the person making the comment had a valid point, but then a second later I saw the correlation. I left a series of comments about the correlation. …https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/27/study-extremely-stormy-weather-in-california-happened-over-150-years-ago/comment-page-1/#comment-2753898
Some days later it came to me that I should quantify the plain numbers of how the 43 years of Onslow tropical cyclones out of a 107 year time span correlate with the sunspot number. There are 43 years where TCs strike off of the coast from Onslow, Australia. Of those 43 years 31 of those years/TCs occur when the sunpsot number has dropped below 100. Then there are 12 years of cyclone activity which occur during periods of higher sunspot numbers, but all of the 12 appear to have occurred after a large and rapid drop in sunspots. A striking example of that would be TC 202 of 4/15/1958, in the middle of the largest SC maximum. Sunspots peak towards the end of 1957, then fall rapidly almost halfway from that peak by the time the TC forms in mid April of 1958.
Then there are 18 TCs which are rated as having the greatest impact on Australia. Of that number 6 strike when ssn is close to zero. Eight strike when the ssn is 100 or less, and 4 strike after rapid drops from higher sunspots to a lower count. … http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/onslow.shtml

Reply to  goldminor
March 13, 2018 2:12 pm

Also it is interesting to note that the Onslow TC generator is working on a fairly new rotation at the moment. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=108.29,-11.36,1823/loc=105.630,-14.459
That makes sense as the current low sunpot count should mean that this is the most probable period for TCs to form in this location.

Reply to  goldminor
March 13, 2018 2:50 pm

goldminor March 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm

Here is something directly correlated to solar changes. A comment made at the end of February caught my attention “…See any pattern in TCs hitting Onslow the TC capital of Australia CO2 fans?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/onslow.shtml…”.

goldminor, we invented statistics so that we could tell when we’re fooling ourselves … which we’re very good at doing, because we see patterns in everything. For example, we see constellations in random distributions of stars, and solar effects in random distributions of cyclones.
In your case, I’ve done what you neglected to do, which is to look at the distribution of annual sunspot counts for the years in your dataset (1910 – 2017), and compared that to the distribution of annual sunspot counts for just the years when Onslow was hit by cyclones.
For those interested in looking at the data themselves, from the link above, Onslow recorded a cyclone in the following years:
1911 1915 1916 1917 1918 1921 1923 1927 1929 1934 1939 1940 1942 1943 1945 1948 1951 1952 1953 1956 1958 1960 1961 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1970 1975 1977 1990 1992 1995 1996 1999 2004 2006 2008 2009 2011 2012 2015
Here’s the comparison, two boxplots. Usual stuff, the boxes show the interquartile ranges …comment image
As you can see, there is almost no difference in sunspots between looking at all of the years 1910 – 2017 (the expected distribution of any random subset) and the years when there have been cyclones. So no, cyclones hitting Onslow show no evidence of being “directly correlated to solar changes”.
And another solar myth goes hard aground on a reef of ugly facts …
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 3:56 pm

If my assumptions are correct, then the next 4 years should be a very active period of time for TC development at this location. There should be at least one TC in every year. I will wait and see how that works out.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 4:02 pm

Say what? Goldminor, I just showed that your assumptions are NOT correct, and four more years of data won’t change that at all. But heck, repeat my boxplot above in four years if you wish …
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 17, 2018 5:26 pm

It looks like the next Onslow TC is now on its way. One point for me. Let me add to my prediction. The most likely years for a larger TC are the next two seasons after this one, 2019 and 2020. Also one of those years will likely spawn 2 TCs over the season. Lastly,I would rate the chance for TCs in 2021, and 2022 to be high. That is based on the TC grouping around the solar minimum of 1965/66 as an analog. …http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/history/wa/tc_onslow.jpg

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 17, 2018 5:32 pm

goldminor March 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm

It looks like the next Onslow TC is now on its way. One point for me.

I see. You are allergic to statistics.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 17, 2018 5:40 pm

And the TC in question which is slated to end its run just past the historic original spot of the town. This system started up around 8 days ago. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=108.03,-17.09,1823/loc=115.808,-16.215

Graeme#4
Reply to  goldminor
March 14, 2018 1:46 am

The government moved the town of Onslow to try and avoid it being constantly destroyed by cyclones.

Reply to  Graeme#4
March 14, 2018 12:53 pm

Thanks, I didn’t know that.

Reply to  Graeme#4
March 14, 2018 3:16 pm

Yeah, they moved it in 1923, but they only moved it 11 miles up the coast …
w.

Frank
March 13, 2018 2:13 pm

Javier: The periodogram solar activity (Figure 2) provides you with a frequency, but not necessarily an amplitude. The amplitude in Figure 5 (TSI) is about 1.5 W/m2 and it looks too big. Was it chosen by eye or mathematically?
Other sources typically say the maximum change in TSI at the Maunder minimum is -1 W/m2 AND lower. That would be a solar forcing of -0.25 W/m2 AND about 1/10 the magnitude of the current forcing change from rising GHGs. If solar effects are mediated through TSI alone, I conclude they are negligible compared with rising GHG’s. Any comments?
Do we have any way to convert the amplitude in solar modulation and drift ice into an amplitude in temperature change?
Javier wrote: “By now you might have finally convinced yourself that the evidence supports a very strong effect of solar variability on climate, without having to “believe” in anybody.
I disagree. There appears to be no way to know whether the effect will be “very strong” or trivially weak. It all depends on amplitude, which isn’t fully discussed in this post. The amplitude of the LIA reputedly is less than 1 K. If so, rising GHGs combined with high climate sensitivity will dominate. (If climate sensitivity is low, there is little to worry about.
Javier wrote: The final question is more difficult, so it is better left for the experts. “Why has global temperature been increasing since 1980 while solar activity has been decreasing?”
You can’t ignore the radiative forcing from rising GHGs.

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 13, 2018 2:42 pm

Frank, the problem of reducing solar effects to energy changes in TSI is that it assumes that the only effect of solar variability on climate is through energy changes in TSI, so it becomes circular reasoning. We know that solar variability has many aspects like spectral variability, magnetic variability, solar wind variability. And warming and cooling of the planet are not due solely to changes in the arrival of energy. Milankovitch forcing is extremely powerful yet the orbital changes do not alter the amount of energy that arrives to Earth over a year, they only alter their spatial and temporal distribution. The temperature of the planet is fundamentally controlled by the poleward transport of heat from the tropics, and if solar variability is capable of affecting that transport, as it has been suggested, the final effect could be many times bigger than the actual energy change in solar variability.
I don’t ignore the radiative forcing from rising GHGs. I just think the feedbacks are not properly accounted for and therefore its final contribution is not known, and probably a lot lower than currently assumed.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 3:00 pm

“he temperature of the planet is fundamentally controlled by the poleward transport of heat from the tropics, and if solar variability is capable of affecting that transport…”
But isn’t that more a function of insolation than solar output variability?

Javier
Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 4:21 pm

But isn’t that more a function of insolation than solar output variability?

It appears to be affected also by solar output.
“Similar spatiotemporal temperature changes (e.g., multidecadal lags) in the North Atlantic Basin have been identified in coupled climate model simulations with TSI variations (first mechanism) [Cubasch et al., 1997; Swingedouw et al., 2011; Waple et al., 2002]. In these models, increasing solar activity induces a buoyancy forcing due to warming and increased freshwater inputs into the subpolar North Atlantic, which reduces deepwater formation (or AMOC strength) and lead to a reduction in heat transport from low to high latitudes [Menary and Scaife, 2014; Swingedouw et al., 2011; Waple et al., 2002]. This results in a cooling in the subpolar North Atlantic (i.e., Greenland) and induces a positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)-like atmospheric circulation [Gastineau and Frankignoul, 2012; Swingedouw et al., 2011].”
Kobashi, T., Box, J. E., Vinther, B. M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J. W. C., … & Andresen, C. S. (2015). Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), 5992-5999.
Link in the bibliography of the article.

Frank
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 1:11 am

Javier: I don’t know whether all solar effects (on temperature) can be reduced to effects on TSI or not. (I believe non-TSI effects of the solar cycle have been demonstrated in changed stratospheric winds that then have an effect on surface wind – but not temperature). I’m just saying that the TSI effect ALONE (a FORCING of less than 0.25 W/m2) is trivial compared with GHGs. Can we agree upon that?
Other solar effects are plausible, but their magnitude (cycle amplitude when converted into temperature change) isn’t well defined. Can we agree that this post provides no useful information about the magnitude of temperature change, just on the magnitude of changes in some climate proxies? If not, please explain why I’m wrong.
Javier wrote: “Milankovitch forcing is extremely powerful yet the orbital changes do not alter the amount of energy that arrives to Earth over a year, they only alter their spatial and temporal distribution. The temperature of the planet is fundamentally controlled by the poleward transport of heat from the tropics, and if solar variability is capable of affecting that transport, as it has been suggested, the final effect could be many times bigger than the actual energy change in solar variability”
I’ll agree with the importance of Milankovitch, but I won’t call it a FORCING, something I personally feel is measured in W/m2. “Externally-driven” would be a better description. When the planet is warmer, the temperature difference between the equator and polar regions is smaller (because surface albedo is lower in polar regions when it is warmer). The existence of a CORRELATION between average temperature and the meridional temperature gradient is far from proving that meridional transport “fundamentally controls” the temperature of the planet. What controls temperature on the Milankovitch time scale is imperfectly understood and may not be relevant to the Eddy time scale. The “fundamental control” is radiative balance across the TOA. I don’t think that can be reduced to only meridional transport, especially meridional transport somehow driven by non-TSI changes in solar activity. I’m willing to keep an open-mind about the subject, but keep looking for useful information at the magnitude/amplitude of the temperature change that is driven by this mechanism.
Respectfully, Frank

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 14, 2018 3:38 am

I’m just saying that the TSI effect ALONE (a FORCING of less than 0.25 W/m2) is trivial compared with GHGs. Can we agree upon that?

Yes, but that is irrelevant, as the feedbacks are unknown and potentially very large.

Can we agree that this post provides no useful information about the magnitude of temperature change, just on the magnitude of changes in some climate proxies?

No, I don’t agree on that because the Bond series represents the biggest climate changes on a centennial basis during the Holocene. There is comparative information that says associated temperature changes cannot be small, as otherwise the effect would not be noticeable. You might consider that not useful, but I do.

I’ll agree with the importance of Milankovitch, but I won’t call it a FORCING

Other people do. A search for “Milankovitch forcing” returns 15,100 results, and it can be expanded to “orbital forcing” for 95,300 more. It even has its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

The “fundamental control” is radiative balance across the TOA.

You bet for TOA balance, I bet for Meridional transport. Meridional transport has been implicated in the glacial cycle.
“The gradient (or difference) in summer half-year insolation between 25° and 70°N (Figure 3) is almost completely dominated by obliquity (spectra shown in Figure 4). It is this temperature gradient that drives the poleward heat, moisture, and momentum fluxes in the atmosphere; the correlation between d18O and the insolation gradient (Figure 5) suggests that increased gradients promote ice sheet growth”
Raymo, M. E., & Nisancioglu, K. H. (2003). The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery. Paleoceanography, 18(1).
As I have said elsewhere in the comments, meridional transport changes have been correlated to solar activity by Kobashi et al., 2015. The small change in TSI or spectral insolation might be recruiting a much more powerful force than TOA balance.

Frank
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 10:07 am

Javier wrote: “Yes, but [TSI] is irrelevant, as the feedbacks are unknown and potentially very large.”
This is why I prefer to separate forcing (measurable in W/m2 at the TOA) and feedbacks (measured in W/m2/K, W/m2 change at the TOA per K rise at the surface) from other phenomena that can’t be easily expressed in these terms. So I don’t talk about Milankovitch “forcing”. And “feedbacks” are therefore independent of the cause of temperature change. We have forcing and feedback and everything else. I’m not implying that I’m “right”, or traditional; just organized and internally consistent.
Javier wrote: “No, I don’t agree on that [this post provides no useful information about the magnitude of temperature change, just on the magnitude of changes in some climate proxies] because the Bond series represents the biggest climate changes on a centennial basis during the Holocene.”
My problem is that I find no fluctuations in the Holocene temperature record (ice or ocean cores) big enough to compete with future GHG-mediated warming. I don’t care how strong/clear the signal in the drift ice index is until we have some way to convert its amplitude into degC. Also, that signal originates in Greenland. We have ice and sediment cores from two polar regions, scattered glaciers and many locations in the ocean.

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 14, 2018 11:51 am

I find no fluctuations in the Holocene temperature record (ice or ocean cores) big enough to compete with future GHG-mediated warming.

No real temperature change can compete with predicted imaginary warming to happen in the future.
Temperature is a highly constrained parameter in the Earth and the changes are opposed by changes in the three states of H2O and changes in transport. I’ll write about conservative climate projections in my next article at Climate.Etc that are more likely to take place than IPCC unconservative projections.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 1:41 pm

No real temperature change can compete with predicted imaginary warming to happen in the future.
No real temperature change can compete with predicted imaginary cooling to happen in the future.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:24 pm

Exactly. The future is unknowable, but scientific hypotheses live and die by their predictions.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:54 pm

but scientific hypotheses live and die by their predictions.
Go back half a century and see how many of the then proposed predictions have died. Just about every one.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 15, 2018 3:06 am

Same with hypotheses. Time is a stiff test. But they contribute to the increase in knowledge.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:05 pm

@ Frank…regarding this “…changed stratospheric winds that then have an effect on surface wind – but not temperature). …”. Imo, temperatures almost always change depending on the surface wind. Surface winds typically either warm or cool from what I can see. So a change in stratospheric winds, which then leads to changes in surface wind patterns, will also lead to temperature changes in affected areas/regions of the surface.
These surface winds for example, they are blocking warmer air flows from moving north to warm the UK and Europe. Although, I see the first signs of change in the wind flow after 17 days of blocking warmed air from moving north. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-23.85,46.59,672/loc=-23.731,44.627

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 2:17 pm

@ isvalgaard …Not true, imo, “…No real temperature change can compete with predicted imaginary cooling to happen in the future. …”. None of us will live to see whether or not the warming scare is justified, whereas the cooling being discussed is going to take place in the near future. Whether or not the premise is right, we get to find out at the least.

Reply to  goldminor
March 14, 2018 2:44 pm

whereas the cooling being discussed is going to take place in the near future
Wishful thinking. No indications of that.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:53 pm

Then we at least get to find that out, and learn from the mistake made.

Reply to  goldminor
March 14, 2018 4:19 pm

learn from the mistake made
People who live by wishful thinking never learn…

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 10:58 pm

Not more snow now in USA?

Reply to  Henryp
March 14, 2018 11:09 pm

Javier
My work shows we arrived at the cooling side of the gb cycle but we are at the warming side of the Eddy cycle. Agreed?

Frank
Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 9:07 pm

Javier wrote: “No real temperature change can compete with predicted imaginary warming to happen in the future. Temperature is a highly constrained parameter in the Earth and the changes are opposed by changes in the three states of H2O and changes in transport. I’ll write about conservative climate projections in my next article at Climate.Etc that are more likely to take place than IPCC unconservative projections.”
There was a very hot period during the Eocene. IIRC, the period allegedly was comparable or warmer than predicted future warming under some scenarios. If I am correct, that is “real” not imaginary.
Of course, nothing predicted about the future is “real”. However, if we know the correct climate feedback parameter – the increase in emitted OLR and reflected SWR per degC of surface warming – calculating the amount of warming needed to compensate for a particular forcing is trivial. (This is true even if the climate feedback parameter isn’t constant and varies with warming.) The climate feedback parameter is inversely proportional to ECS. There are many estimates for ECS and therefore the climate feedback parameter (a more fundamental property of our climate system), most of which are too high for this lukewarmer. However, the only sensible thing to do with the potential influence of the sun on past and future climate (IMO) is to compare it with the potential influence of rising GHGs on climate.
From my perspective, the climate feedback parameter is a very real quantity. A highly linear climate feedback parameter can be observed in LWR during warming associated with the annual seasonal cycle and a less linear response in SWR. Since seasonal warming is composted of an average of about 3 K of cooling in the SH and 10 K of warming in the NH (due to lower heat capacity), the climate feedback parameter for global and seasonal warming can differ (especially in the SWR channel). Nevertheless, there is a large (5-10 W/m2) seasonal change in reflected SWR and emitted TOA LWR driven by surface warming that is monitored from space every year. This makes the idea of an equilibrium response to a forcing is a very real concept – for me.

Javier
Reply to  Frank
March 15, 2018 3:29 am

There was a very hot period during the Eocene. IIRC, the period allegedly was comparable or warmer than predicted future warming under some scenarios. If I am correct, that is “real” not imaginary.

Since we don’t understand well what is happening today let’s go to a distant event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, of which we know very little to see how much light we get. The PETM is not understood at all. We don’t know what happened and what caused it. For all we know something could have hit the Earth at the time. Comparable is a very loose term.

There are many estimates for ECS and therefore the climate feedback parameter

The problem is everything you think you know rests on unproven assumptions. ECS assumes all of the warming since 1950 comes from GHGs. If half of the warming is of solar origin, ECS plunges to about half.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Otto-vs-anthro-fraction-ECS-550×458.jpg
The only real knowledge comes from the evidence. And it shows that the assumptions that went into the models are incorrect.

March 13, 2018 2:23 pm

I’ve just been countering crazy solar misinformation from a climate scientist (and her sycophants) on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/coralsncaves/status/972102857464958976?s=21
All I had to do was find the relevant page in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) and underline it in red. From WG1 Chapter 10, regarding contributions to the 0.6°C temp rise since 1951:
“natural forcings [previously stated on the same page as being only solar] likely to be between -0.1°C and +0.1°“
This is 17% of the quoted 0.6°C global SAT rise since 1951.
I replied to the climate scientist at a time when she’d had 220 retweets. She didn’t reply, left the tweet up, doubled her retweets, and then started retweeting the indignant replies from these newly misled tweeps.

jmorpuss
March 13, 2018 2:24 pm

The climate changes 4 times a year here on Earth depending on your location , each change has a name,summer, autumn, winter and spring and it has nothing to do with the sun , Its all about inclination or axial tilt. “For planets and other rotating celestial bodies, the angle of the equatorial plane relative to the orbital plane — such as the tilt of the Earth’s poles toward or away from the Sun — is sometimes also called inclination, but less ambiguous terms are axial tilt or obliquity.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination. What I see, is the sun also has seasonal changes every 11 earth years as it travels at some 500,000 MPH around the galaxy and the galaxy probably goes through changes as it goes around the universe . The temperature of a planets surface is governed by it’s spin generated by the dynamo effect and the resistance given of by it’s internal electrical process which in turn generates Earth’s magnetic field lines .these magnetic field lines are electrically strengthened by the solar winds ion’s + and electrons – (plasma). Heat is a product of resistance between the solar wind and Earth’s internal processes known as the global electric circuit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PvoIi_4JiU

Mat
March 13, 2018 3:20 pm

This is P-hacking:
* No hypothesis to underlying physical causality
* Selective datasets
* Selective variables (why the 980 periodicity and not the 200 or 400 which are ‘significant’)
* Adjusting data:
“Given the excellent match, it becomes clear that there is a drift in the data as it gets older. It is small, about ~ 200 years in 11,600 years (~ 1.7 %), and it clearly corresponds to an incorrect age model in the Bond series,”
Why is there a need to adjust the data if the match is excellent?
Do records support his hypothesis of cooling (or not “significantly warming”) since 2000?
Why would this mechanism which in the past caused cooling now just no cause warming?
Would anybody let a climate scientist get away with this stuff?

Javier
Reply to  Mat
March 13, 2018 4:12 pm

No hypothesis is needed for an observation that the main periodicity in cosmogenic isotope records matches the main periodicity in one of the most important climate records of the Holocene. It just happens.
And if you knew the literature you would know that this same observation was made by climate scientists in one of most highly cited articles in climate science, and it was published in one of the highest ranked journals after peer review.
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., … & Bonani, G. (2001). Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science, 294(5549), 2130-2136.
Over 2500 citations. The amount of scientists that disagree with you is staggering.
I am just letting people repeat the same observation by themselves in a simple manner accessible to anybody with a computer.
Clearly your criticism is out of place (everything is already published) and motivated by your disagreement. Well, I’m not sorry to prove you wrong.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 8:52 pm

Javier: “Over 2500 citations.”
As usual, you exagerate. According to ADS, there are only 1229 citations which still is a lot].
The amount of scientists that disagree with you is staggering
Perhaps 97%…

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:30 am

Once again, I can demonstrate what I say:comment image

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 4:18 am

SAO/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
· Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below) Toggle Highlighting
· Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML)
· Full Refereed Journal Article (PDF/Postscript)
· References in the article
· Citations to the Article (1229) (Citation History)
· Refereed Citations to the Article
· Also-Read Articles (Reads History)
·
Title:
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
Authors:
Bond, Gerard; Kromer, Bernd; Beer, Juerg; Muscheler, Raimund; Evans, Michael N.; Showers, William; Hoffmann, Sharon; Lotti-Bond, Rusty; Hajdas, Irka; Bonani, Georges

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 4:50 am

So what. I was correct in what I said according to Google Scholar and you were incorrect in saying I exaggerated. Looking for a lower count citation service does not change that.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 10:24 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
“For reasons that are unclear, the only Holocene Bond event that has a clear temperature signal in the Greenland ice cores is the 8.2 kiloyear event”.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 2:46 am

Reasons that are unclear to you. Kobashi has demonstrated in a series of articles that Greenland has an opposite response to solar forcing. GISP2 is a Central Greenland climate record, not a global record. It doesn’t have to agree with Bond series. You are very fond of false postulates and dichotomies.
Kobashi, T., Box, J. E., Vinther, B. M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J. W. C., … & Andresen, C. S. (2015). Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), 5992-5999.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018211005141
We have discussed this several times. It just doesn’t sink. Watch those old neurons.

Reply to  Javier
March 14, 2018 4:27 am

“solar-climate associations remain weak” Kobashi et al.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 14, 2018 4:57 am

“Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling” Kobashi et al. And that is the title.
As Greenland shows an opposite response to solar forcing than the rest of the NH, it follows that “Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century NH warming.” But that is too much to say in the current scientific climate if one wants to have a career.

Reply to  Javier
March 13, 2018 10:32 pm

lsvalgaard March 13, 2018 at 10:24 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
“For reasons that are unclear, the only Holocene Bond event that has a clear temperature signal in the Greenland ice cores is the 8.2 kiloyear event”.

Here, let me fix that for you:

“By chance, one of the so-called “Bond Events” coincides with a temperature signal in the Greenland ice cores”.

I also note the following (emphasis mine):

Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University was the lead author of the 1997 paper that postulated the theory of 1470-year climate cycles in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[1][3] However, more recent work has shown that these tracers provide little support for 1,500-year intervals of climate change, and the reported c. 1,500 ± 500-year period was a statistical artifact.[2] Furthermore, following publication of the Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (GICC05)[4] for the North GRIP ice core, it became clear that Dansgaard–Oeschger events also show no such a pattern.

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 10:48 pm

reported c. 1,500 ± 500-year period was a statistical artifact
Yes, to recover from this they postulated that there were two periods: a 1000-year and a 2000-year one, that were out of sync, so gave the illusion of a 1500-year period. I discussed this with Gerard many years ago:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf page 4

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 14, 2018 3:05 am

Sorry to break the news, but the 1500-year cycle is alive and kicking. Stephen Obrochta has acknowledged that the GICC05 chronology on GISP2 removes the sharp peak at 1470 and redistributes its power over other peaks, including a 1500-year one.
And that doesn’t eliminate the cycle, because NGRIP doesn’t have the same dating problems as GISP2 and still shows it, and the most recent best-dated events show the 1500-year periodicity,comment image
The cycle is also well described in the Holocene in storminess.comment image
You can read about the 1500-year cycle in my article at Climate.Etc, but it is not relevant to this discussion as it is not of solar origin.

March 13, 2018 3:44 pm

Code and data please.
Nobody at WUWT remember the GREAT and POWERFUL WILLIS
Nobody, except me and willis.
Willis did a bold thing he asked Phil Jones for data.
Jones pointed him at the web.
Willis asked again for the data, because merely Pointing someone at the data is not enough
Later Willis would FOIA Jones.. it was the begining of climategate.
The fundamental problem I have with all the solar analysis ( except the stuff willis does) is that sun NUTS
NEVER NEVER NEVER provide the actual data they use and the actual code
This goes from Scafetta to Javier.
so. Javier Please provide the ACTUAL DATA for every graph. Not a link to the paper, not a link to the ftp, but an ACTUAL FILE of the ACTUAL DATA, actually used in every graph.
I want to check.
And then
Provide the ACTUAL CODE for all the work.
Javier wont. The only guys who actually provide code and data are guy like willis and Leif.
In the end 99% of you wont excercise any skepticism about the cut paste “science” of Javier.
You like the story. you swallow it whole. All of you will miss the gross error in his first sentence.

Editor
March 13, 2018 4:00 pm

Robert B March 13, 2018 at 3:49 pm

There is always gravitational changes to the ocean currents. There is a paper somewhere about a correlation with tremors in the south pacific and El Nino.

Man, Mrs. Henniger, my high school science teacher would have beaten me severely about the head and shoulders with her red pencil if my citation for something were “there is a paper somewhere” …
Sheesh.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 14, 2018 2:50 pm

Lazy, Willy, but not exactly hard to google if you’re interested. Did actually link to it in a comment before.
Its a suggestion for how there could be correlation between Earth’s climate and the Sun’s activity without a direct effect. Not an hypothesis.
I do think that you are in this for egotistical reasons sometimes.

Reply to  Robert B
March 14, 2018 3:03 pm

Robert B March 14, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Lazy, Willy, but not exactly hard to google if you’re interested.

Thanks, Robert. I used to do that. I’d go off on a snipe hunt looking for a paper describing “tremors in the south pacific and El Nino”. After much searching, if I was able to find it, I’d come back and start discussing it … and the charming fellow who had sent me on a snipe hunt would say “No, Willis, you idiot, that’s not the paper I meant” …
And in fact, with a vague description like that, there is NO way for me to tell just which paper you are referring to.
After being subjected to that indignity a couple of times, I gave it up. I don’t go on a snipe hunt for any man including you. You can either cite it properly, or I’m not interested.
Someone is being lazy here, but it’s not me. You STILL haven’t provided a link to the paper.
Sheesh … this is simple high-school level stuff. Citing your claims is YOUR job, not mine.
w.

Editor
March 13, 2018 5:59 pm

Yogi Bear March 13, 2018 at 5:44 pm

It appears that the three coldest periods in CET were all during solar minima.comment image

Since there are only two solar minima, and there were dozens of cold years around 1690, I have no idea what you mean.
More to the point, the temperature started warming in the middle of the Maunder Minimum, when the sunspots had bottomed out … so why did it start warming?
And the Dalton minimum warmed from beginning to end … so why did it warm when the sun was low?
w.

joelobryan
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 13, 2018 7:18 pm

Answer: climate feedback and lags in the system response.

Yogi Bear