Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
People have asked about the tools that I use to look for any signature of sunspot-related solar variations in climate datasets. They’ve wondered whether these tools are up to the task. What I use are periodograms and Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (CEEMD). Periodograms show how much strength there is at various cycle lengths (periods) in a given signal. CEEMD decomposes a signal into underlying simpler signals.
Now, a lot of folks seem to think that they can determine whether a climate dataset is related to the sunspot cycle simply by looking at a graph. So, here’s a test of that ability. Below is recent sunspot data, along with four datasets A, B, C, and D. The question is, which of the four datasets (if any) is affected by sunspots?

Figure 1. Monthly sunspot numbers, and comparison data.
If you asked me which of those look like they are related to the sunspot data at the top, I’d have to say “None”. Not one of them shows any obvious sunspot-related signature.
In fact, one of those datasets is strongly affected by sunspots, one is weakly affected, and two show no signs of being affected by sunspots. Here they are under their real names.

Figure 2. Monthly sunspots and UAH MSU atmospheric temperature anomalies.
From the bottom up, first we have the lower troposphere in violet. This is the part of the atmosphere nearest to the surface. Moving up we have the middle troposphere in blue.
Above that is the tropopause, which is the relatively thin layer that separates the troposphere from the overlying stratosphere. And finally, we have the lower stratosphere, the atmospheric layer just above the tropopause.
So let me start seeing just what periodograms and CEEMD analysis can show about these signals. I’ll start by looking at the periodogram of the sunspot cycles.

Figure 3. Periodogram, sunspot data.
As you can see, the ~ 11-year signal in the sunspot is quite large. It covers 60% as much as the total range of the sunspot data.
Having seen that, let’s see what the periodograms of the four levels of the atmosphere look like. Figure 4 shows all of them together.

Figure 4. Periodograms, sunspot data and UAH MSU atmospheric temperature anomaly data
Now, this is most interesting. In the lower stratosphere (red) there is a clear solar signal at the ~ 11-year mark. The signal even has the same shape as the solar periodogram, with a “shoulder” at around nine years. It is relatively strong, about a quarter of the size of the variations in the underlying lower stratosphere data.
This is not a surprise to me because I am a ham radio operator, H44WE. So I know that sunspots change the upper atmosphere, particularly the ionosphere, enough to mess with radio reception during parts of the sunspot cycle. And this lower stratosphere data confirms that the known solar effect from extends the upper reaches of the atmosphere down to the lower stratosphere.
Moving lower in the atmosphere, at the tropopause (orange), the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere, we can still see a weak solar signal. However, it is not as strong as the solar signal in the stratosphere. It is only about a tenth of the size of the underlying troposphere data.
Moving lower yet, there is a tiny hint of a hump in the middle troposphere periodogram (blue), at about 12 years. But by the time we get down to the lower troposphere, the sunspot signal has disappeared entirely. Instead, these signals are dominated by a cycle at about 3.8 years, which may or may not be related to El Nino changes.
Now, before I go on to look at the CEEMD analyses of these five datasets, I want to highlight a curiosity. People say that because we know that the sunspot cycle affects the upper atmosphere, that it is therefore likely that the sunspot-related solar variations also affect things at the surface like the ocean, or the river flow, or the like.
However, as this analysis shows, the effects of the solar variations are unable to even propagate from the lower stratosphere down to the lower troposphere, much less down to the surface. Go figure.
Next, I’ll turn to the CEEMD analysis. Here are the underlying empirical modes of the sunspots.

Figure 5. CEEMD empirical modes, sunspots 1987 – 2018
As you can see, the major empirical mode is mode C6, which contains the ~ 11-year main cycle. There is very little power in any of the other cycle lengths.
We can understand the actual empirical modes better by looking at the periodograms of each of the empirical modes. Figure 6 shows those periodograms.

Figure 6. Periodograms of empirical modes of the sunspot data.
As we saw above in the periodogram of the whole sunspot data, the sunspots have one major frequency, which peaks at around 11 years.
Now, let’s look at the CEEMD analysis of the lower stratosphere data. Here are the empirical modes, and their periodograms.

Figure 7. Empirical modes of the lower stratosphere UAH MSU temperature anomaly data.

Figure 8. Periodograms of the empirical modes, lower stratosphere UAH MSU temperature anomaly data
Here again, we have the clear sign of a solar signature, with a strong signal at the ~ 11-year period. However, there is some strength in shorter cycles.
For the next three datasets, I’ll just show the periodograms to show the decay of the sunspot-related signal as we move downwards towards the surface.



Figures 9. Periodograms of the empirical modes of the tropopause, middle troposphere, and lower troposphere UAH MSU temperature anomaly data
You can see how as we get closer and closer to the surface, the sunspot signal gets weaker and then disappears entirely.
Finally, there is one more very valuable thing that we can do with CEEMD that we cannot do with an ordinary periodogram or Fourier analysis. This is to look at the actual empirical modes, the signals themselves. For example, Figure 10 shows a comparison of the ~11-year empirical modes of the sunspot data and the lower stratosphere.

Figure 10. Approximately eleven-year empirical modes of the sunspot data and the UAH MSU lower stratosphere temperature anomaly data.
As you can see, this provides a lot of support for the idea that we are looking at a common signal. In lockstep with the sunspot signal getting smaller and smaller over time, the response in the stratosphere is also getting smaller and smaller.
In addition, you can see that the two signals have the same phase structure, with the sunspots leading the stratospheric response by a generally stable amount of about a year and four months.
All of this taken together means that it is extremely likely that the changes in the stratosphere are a result of the changes in some parameter related to the sunspot cycles (e.g., TSI, solar wind, cosmic rays, far UV, heliomagnetic field, etc.).
CONCLUSIONS:
• Both the periodogram and the CEEMD analysis are quite capable of identifying a sunspot-related signal in a climate dataset.
• Both the periodogram and the CEEMD analysis are quite capable of distinguishing between a dataset which is even weakly affected by solar variations and a dataset which is not significantly affected by solar variations.
• The CEEMD analysis allows us to verify whether or not two signals which both contain an ~11-year signal are actually related. We can compare the actual signals in the two datasets to see if they agree in phase and in changes in amplitude.
• Although there is a clear solar signal in both the ionosphere and the lower stratosphere, for unknown reasons it does not propagate downwards to the lower troposphere.
Th-th-th-that’s all, folks. Sunshine to you all, unless you need rain, in which case make the obvious substitution. You are welcome to join me at my blog, or on Twitter @WEschenbach, for discussions on … well … lots of strange and interesting things.
w.
The Usual: I politely request that you quote the exact words you are discussing. I’m tired of people claiming I took a position I’ve never taken. Quote the words so we can all decide who is right. I ask politely, but I get crabby if people don’t follow my polite request. You are now forewarned, forewarned is forearmed, and forearmed is half an octopus, so please, quote the words you are referring to.
The Data: Sunspots, Lower Stratosphere, Tropopause, Mid Troposphere, Lower Troposphere
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Umm, why all this wonderment when some of the basic research is still being done….
https://www.nap.edu/read/13060/chapter/12
Abstract
This study investigates the role of the eleven-year solar cycle on the Arctic climate during 1979–2016. It reveals that during those years, when the winter solar sunspot number (SSN) falls below 1.35 standard deviations (or mean value), the Arctic warming extends from the lower troposphere to high up in the upper stratosphere and vice versa when SSN is above. The warming in the atmospheric column reflects an easterly zonal wind anomaly consistent with warm air and positive geopotential height anomalies for years with minimum SSN and vice versa for the maximum. Despite the inherent limitations of statistical techniques, three different methods – Compositing, Multiple Linear Regression and Correlation – all point to a similar modulating influence of the sun on winter Arctic climate via the pathway of Arctic Oscillation. Presenting schematics, it discusses the mechanisms of how solar cycle variability influences the Arctic climate involving the stratospheric route. Compositing also detects an opposite solar signature on Eurasian snow-cover, which is a cooling during Minimum years, while warming in maximum. It is hypothesized that the reduction of ice in the Arctic and a growth in Eurasia, in recent winters, may in part, be a result of the current weaker solar cycle.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22854-0
ren April 1, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Sorry, ren, but that study uses reanalysis “data”. These are not data in any form. They are the output of a climate model. Perhaps you believe the models.
I don’t … particularly since the model output is generally a linear transform of the inputs. And since there is solar in the inputs, you’ll very likely find solar in the output. Garbage in, garbage out … solar in, solar out.
Pass …
w.
Or as Pat Frank put it:
Pat Frank March 28, 2018 at 6:38 pm
This is especially true for areas where we have very little data … such as the Arctic stratosphere in your study.
w.
Sounds like what I’ve been saying for the past 10 years.
Stephen Wilde
Willis, here’s all the data sources I used and then some. I hope I didn’t miss any. These many links with their data populate most of my two databases, solar and climate. Feel free to get a copy everyone.
Bob, thanks most kindly for the links to the indices. If you’ll let me know which one of these ~ 250 indices, in your opinion, shows the strongest correlation with sunspots, I’m more than happy to take a look at it.
As before, I request surface datasets (we know the sunspots affect the upper atmosphere), and no reanalysis “data”, because it is climate model output and not data of any kind.
Regards,
w.
Up above, Yogi made a curious suggestion:
Yogi Bear March 31, 2018 at 6:56 pm
I replied:
Willis Eschenbach March 31, 2018 at 9:05 pm
Unresolved questions like that kind of bounce around in my cranial vault, and when I woke up this morning I realized that I could at least take a shot at it. I got the stratospheric aerosol (“StratAer”) forcing used by the GISS Model E climate model. This is an estimate of the forcing due to volcanoes. Here’s that forcing along with the stratosphere temperature data, and in the bottom panel, the stratospheric temperature data with the volcanic signal removed:

As you can see, using the volcanic stratospheric aerosols has done a pretty good job of removing the eruptions of El Chichón and Pinatubo from the stratospheric record.
So … what does this do to the 11-year cycle I’d found before?
Not much …
I’m still finding a strong solar response, plenty of power in the ~11-year range even without the volcanic peaks …
My thanks to Yogi for the interesting suggestion, best Easter wishes to all,
w.
Thanks. Could we see the empirical modes decomposition of that as in fig 7 please?
Willis, following the earlier comments on that Sun Arctic paper ‘I think all reanalysis is unreliable….’ .
That paper also used SLP data from Hadley center and Arctic sea ice extent observed data. Results are consistent with NCEP surface data.
Suma April 1, 2018 at 8:36 pm
The whole thrust of the paper is the atmosphere, viz:
We have very, very little information on the Arctic atmosphere. The satellite datasets don’t make it up that far north, ground stations are few and far between, so what we have is the occasional weather balloons from a few stations.
Finally, you say that “results are consistent with NCEP surface data” … this is why I object so strongly to their choice of words. What you are looking at is not data. You are comparing to NCEP climate model results. They are not data of any sort. They represent the ideas, beliefs and errors of the programmers … and yes, their results are “consistent with” climate model output. Color me totally unimpressed.
You are welcome to believe that the a) climate models can accurately infill all of that missing arctic data, and that b) solar effects are accurately represented in both the inputs and the outputs of those models.
Me … not so much …
Regards,
w.
Thanks, Willis. How will you interpret the observation relating to Sea Level Pressure in that paper? Moreover, it is also matching with known established solar mechanisms.
If the data in the Arctic is so unreliable then why so many research papers focus on the Arctic using those data?
known established solar mechanisms.
What might they be?
Regards, Suma. The climate models function in general as lagged linear transforms of the inputs. Since solar is an input, it’s not hard to find a solar signal in the climate model output.
As to why believers in the sunspot cycle’s putative effects on climate would rather look at e.g. the Arctic where they “have to use” a climate model which is likely to contain solar in the output … think about it …
The situation with the Arctic is like the old story about a drunk wandering round and round a lamppost looking at the ground. His friend asked what he was doing.
“I’m looking for my keys”, the drunk said.
His friend asked, “Did you drop them by the lamppost?”
“No,” came the answer, “I dropped them down that dark alley there … but the light is so much better here!”
All the best,
w.
Hi lsvalgaard, solar UV related known mechanisms are discussed in Fig 7 of that paper (references are also mentioned there).
solar UV related known mechanism
They relate to the upper atmosphere which is not of interest here. What are the known mechanisms for driving the surface climate?
What are the known mechanisms for driving the surface climate?
No surface material nor atmospheric gas on our planet can be considered a “blackbody”. Therefore every surface material and atmospheric gas on this planet has different discrete wavelengths it is good at absorbing and emitting at. Therefore any variance in solar spectrum regardless of constant TSI will affect surface temperatures.
The majority of surface materials on this planet including vegetation, water, snow and ice are heated well below their LWIR radiating surface by UV, SW and SWIR (It’s like a greenhouse effect!). Solar spectral shift toward the UV means increased heat content in all of these LWIR opaque materials due to increased depth of solar penetration.
The mechanisms via which a solar spectral shift can affect heat content in the surface materials of this planet are well known to many engineers.
Perhaps solar scientists can stamp the UV record flat? Surely that would eliminate any pesky questions about solar spectral variance and everyone could ignore data from SOURCE, SDO and TSIS-1?
Over to you Dr. S[tamp].
Suma
The conclusions and methods of ANY Arctic papers are more difficult to prove incorrect because of that lack of data, and, more important, any papers about the “Arctic” are more “sexy” and attract the editors’
reviewapproval easier. And faster.Regards, Willis. Please check the figure 6 that used Sea Level Pressure data, which is not a reanalysis product.
Following your comments it suggests in the Arctic, analyses using only CO2 can give correct results.
Suma April 1, 2018 at 9:27 pm Edit
Suma, you need to crank up the dial on your skepticometer. Start with this from the paper:
Then consider this from the Hadley folks:
Note that once again, this paper refers to the “monthly NCEP/NCAR data”, which is nothing but computer model output and not data at all.
Finally, take a look at the original paper. Note how few stations there are in the Arctic. Note that they don’t even have any error estimates for the Arctic …
So no … the sea level pressure that they use is not “data”. Read the paper. They’ve built it via comparisons with the ERA reanalysis computer output …
w.
It looks like they’ve used real data but used modelling techniques to extend it.
Whatever, on this occasion the result matches much more extensive real world observations that I’ve been drawing attention to for ten years now.
Contrary to what Leif says the temperatures in the lower stratosphere are critical for climate because they affect tropopause height and so can affect the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles thereby affecting global cloudiness as per my hypothesis.
Willis Eschenbach, Suma
I’m at work right now:: My copy of the Russian Drifting Ice Stations (NP01 – NP23) datasheets that I have with me does not have barometric pressures for their 50 years of surveys. The summary book of their history does have some atmospheric pressure (as they vary with regions and over day-of-year plus some average pressures by month – I’ll bring it in tomorrow if that’s OK. Also, I’ve got the hourly pressure data for Latitude 83 from a Greenland station for all days from 2010 – 2014. Will that spreadsheet help?
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/daily-arctic-ocean-rawinsonde-data-from-soviet-drifting-ice-stations-0ffd6
The above link may be useful for Russian drifting ice station data on pressure, temperature, radio-balloon datasets.
Hi lsvalgaard, it is clearly mentioned in that Figure 7. It follows the work of Baldwin and co-workers and also Haigh’s work. Those are detailed in that figure.
clearly mentioned in that Figure 7
Humor me and tell me here what it so clearly says and why that is ‘established’.
The paper says this:
“when the winter solar sunspot number (SSN) falls below 1.35 standard deviations (or mean value), the Arctic warming extends from the lower troposphere to high up in the upper stratosphere and vice versa when SSN is above”
which is substantiated by actual measurements that showed increasing ozone above 45 km when the sun became less active which is the opposite of the usual assumption. That increasing ozone higher up then moves downwards at the poles in the stratospheric polar vortex (not the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere), enhances stratospheric warming events over the poles, makes the jets more wavy, allows more warm air to flow towards the poles and thus warms the polar troposphere too whilst middle latitudes get colder.
Over time the consequent increase in global cloudiness cools the entire planet due to the increase in total albedo.
All explained in detail here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Stephen, the paper claims that the amount of sea ice is affected by the solar changes … so why screw around with all of the reanalysis so-called “data” about the upper atmosphere? We have reasonable ice area data since 1950 … why have they not checked to see if the ice area actually has a solar signature before getting all lost in their theory?
Let me repair that omission.
Here is the ice area anomaly …
Data Source
Data Description:
And here’s the periodogram of the ice area since 1950 …
Sorry, no solar signature to be seen. If their theory were correct, the ice area should vary with the sunspot cycle. It doesn’t.
w.
Willis
It takes multiple solar cycles for any effect to show up in Arctic ice because the melt rate for volume is controlled by the inflow of warmer water from lower latitudes beneath the ice.
The chart you show just indicates the current low level from a long sequence of active solar cycles during the 20th century.
Arctic ice was very much greater in amount during and after the Maunder Minimum which led to the Little Ice Age.
Your point is, therefore, invalid.
Stephen Wilde April 2, 2018 at 2:14 am
You’ll have to take that up with the authors of the the article, who claim the exact opposite.
w.
Just because they have that wrong doesn’t mean they are wrong about the rest so your attempted objection to my prior post by referring to their Arctic ice comment remains invalid.
Just because they have that wrong doesn’t mean they are wrong about the rest
Uri Geller has been shown to cheat in 50% of his spoon-bending tricks. Firm believers maintain that the other 50% are genuine magic.
Abstract
The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatiotemporal relationship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations: (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs; (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the extra-tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor greenhouse effect.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1069351315050067
Sorry, paywalled, can’t read it.
w.
Abstract
Being poorly known, the ion chemistry of the lower stratosphere is generally ignored, or treated as similar to that of the middle atmosphere, by the current chemistry-climate modes. Some recent achievements in atmospheric chemistry have motivated us to re-asses the ionization efficiency of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ion-molecular reaction initiated by them. We reveal that near to the maximum of the GCR absorption, the energetically allowed ionmolecular reactions form an autocatalytic cycle for continuous O3 production in the lower stratosphere. The amount of the produced ozone is comparable to the values of the standard winter time O3 profile. This is an indication that GCR are responsible for a greater part of the lower stratospheric ozone variability then is assumed currently.
Discover the world’s research
An Autocatalytic Cycle for Ozone… (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235944643_An_Autocatalytic_Cycle_for_Ozone_Production_in_the_Lower_Stratosphere_Initiated_by_Galactic_Cosmic_Rays [accessed Apr 02 2018].
4. Conclusions. Unlike the upper and middle stratosphere, the factors controlling
O3 variability in the lower stratosphere is highly uncertain. The ozone
depletion during 1980s and 1990s, and its current recovery, is thought to be driven
by: (i) the increased concentration of halogen substances in the stratosphere and
(ii) the long-term changes in the lower stratospheric circulation ([2
] and references
therein). The causes for changing circulation, including trends in AO/NAO (Arctic
Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation) indices, remain, however, unclear (as
pointed in the same report). This means that at least 50% of the ozone variability
in the lower stratosphere is still not explained. Moreover, recent modelling
show that the O3 distribution in the extra-tropics is formed mainly from the local
production, while the impact of the tropical ozone, transported by stratospheric
dynamics, is substantially smaller [3
]. During winter conditions, when the amount
of solar UV radiation at middle and high latitudes is strongly reduced, the only
alternative source of O3 at these latitudes are highly energetic galactic cosmic
rays (GCR) capable of penetrating into the lower stratosphere and troposphere.
However, the influence of GCR on the lower stratosphere has been ignored for a
long time, though to be negligible at these levels [24].
Through reassessment of the efficiency of main atmospheric constituents’ ionization
by GCR and the ion-molecular reactions between the most abundant ions
and neutrals, we have shown an existence of an autocatalytic cycle for continuous
O3 production in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere (near the level of
maximal absorption of GCR, known as Pfotzer maximum). The quantity of O3,
produced by the positive ion chemistry, has the same order of magnitude as the
mid-latitude steady-state ozone profile. This is an indication that the lowermost
ozone profile could be substantially distorted by the highly energetic particles.
ren
I agree that there is a debate to be had as to whether the ozone variations are caused by cosmic rays as per Svensmark or by the changes in particles and wavelengths from the sun as per myself.
The relevant issue is that Svensmark requires his cosmic ray effect low in the stratosphere and high in the troposphere so that more ozone is created in those regions when the sun is less active but observations show less ozone below 45km when the sun is less active which is the opposite of what he needs.
Recent observations have show that a quiet sun produces more ozone above 45km which is where my hypothesis comes in.
I have the only logical explanation that includes that reverse sign solar effect on ozone above 45km. Standard climatology assumes more ozone when the sun is active and less ozone when the sun is inactive at all heights.
What is the state of ozone in the lower stratosphere now over North America and where will the Arctic air reach?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f12.png
Current temperature in North America.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/ma6fydupdh3j.png
Thanks, Ren. Perhaps I missed it, but I can’t find any data being used in this study, it appears to be models all the way down.
w.
” Summary and conclusions. In this paper we propose an explanation
of the statistically obtained 22-year cycle in the stratospheric ozone variability.
Statistical methods attribute these variations to the galactic CR, which are modulated
by the 22-year cycle in the heliomagnetic field. The higher intensity of CR
in years with positive heliomagnetic polarity (i.e. the 1970s and 1990s) is due to
the increased concentration of positively charged protons, α-particles and heavier
nuclei coming directly from the polar regions of the Sun. Having a greater mass,
they penetrate deeper into the atmosphere and reduce the stratospheric O3 in
situ through well established HOx and NOx ozone destructive cycles. When the
heliomagnetic field has a negative polarity (as in 1960s, 1980s and the 2000s) the
total flux of the charged particles reaching the Earth is reduced (compared to
decades with a positive heliomagnetic field polarity) and the amount of electrons
enhanced. The electrons are adsorbed in the upper atmosphere forcing there certain
ozone depletion, through activation of the O3 destructive cycles. Reduction
of the ozone content above the stratosphere, however, activates another process –
the ozone self-healing. The thinner optical depth of O3 shifts the balance between
production and loss terms in the lower stratosphere toward the Ox production.
This process operates mainly at latitudes equatorward of the polar vortex and is
less probable within the polar cap, because of the strong downward transport of
the NOx molecules and their long lifetime under the protection of the polar night.
This scheme describes very well the O3 and T variability in the five consecutive
decades since 1960.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282770105_MECHANISMS_AND_MODELLING_OF_A_22-YEAR_CYCLE_IN_THE_STRATOSPHERIC_WINTER_TIME_OZONE_VARIABILITY?enrichId=rgreq-20eb4952239e0c96388ecd93ed7f590c-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4Mjc3MDEwNTtBUzoyODM3Njc2NjQwNzA2NTdAMTQ0NDY2Njg5MTg2Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
The distribution of ozone over the polar circle in periods of low solar activity (in winter) depends on the strength of the geomagnetic field.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/4flxuw56c1nq.png
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
In the winter, over the polar circle, the stratosphere is not separated from the troposphere. Therefore, the temperature can drop so much.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/lz51kqc9se5t.gif
This is in response to comments of Willis.
Relating to use of HadSLP2r_lowvar data: It is a version of HadSLP2r data consistent with HadSLP2. It is adjusted so that its average for period 1961–1990 matches with HadSLP2. The deficiency relating to a difference in variance between HadSLP2 and HadSLP2r is adjusted in the new version of HadSLP2r_lowvar data.
It considered HadSLP upto 2005. In MLR technique, using HadSLP upto 2005, also gives same results of Fig 6. Moreover, Fig 6 is also consistent with results using NCEP data. Fig 6 also considered AO data and AO is a feature of the upper atmosphere as well as the lower atmosphere. As the signal in atmospheric column is so strong I am sure if you use similar period of analyses and use different data sources you will get similar results.
‘so why screw around with all of the reanalysis so-called “data” about the upper atmosphere’ – because Sea ice is also affected from the upper atmosphere by the sun through annular mode. To understand clear solar influence we need to address that and it is coming via Arctic oscillation.
From the bottom, AMO is the main contributing factor. The combination of these ocean and atmospheric influences govern sea ice extent in the Arctic. We need to know both the influences- from the Atmosphere as well as from the Ocean.
Surprisingly, almost all papers find human induced CO2 is the main factor for all influences in the Arctic Sea ice. As the data in the Arctic is so unreliable as mentioned by you why those numerous papers are allowed to publish? The other queries as raised by others will be addressed later today.
Suma April 2, 2018 at 7:43 am Edit
If you think I’m impressed that something “is consistent with results using NCEP data”, you’re not paying attention. NCEP IS NOT DATA!!! It is computer model results.
Why are alarmist papers about the Arctic published? Seriously? You have to ask that?
In any case, Suma, it’s the Willie Sutton effect. Willie was a US bank robber back in the 1930s or so. When they asked him “Willie, why do you rob banks?” he famously replied …
w.
Thanks, Willis. What are your comments about using only HadSLP data? You can also verify with other observed data records over the similar period. I am sure you will find similar results. If there are indeed strong influences from the sun, why will we not use it to improve prediction skill?
Suma April 2, 2018 at 9:37 am
Thanks, Suma. It’s not clear what you are referring to. “Using only HadSLP data” for what? Verify what “with other observed data records”?
If you have a study that you think is strong that shows some solar influence on weather/climate at the surface, I’m happy to take a look at it. Send me two links, one to the study and one to the data, I’ll see if there is any there there.
But no reanalysis “data”, please.
w.
PS—You say:
First, let’s see if the tiny sunspot related changes in solar output do affect anything at the surface before we get into “improving prediction” …
Here we go again with near-solar minimum conditions and a cool NH summer. Gee, I wonder if there will be any learned lessons from 2009.
Hi Willis, I referred to Fig.6 of that paper that only used Hadley centre SLP data. The result is similar if the period is restricted to 2005, that only used HadSLP2 data. For SLP around the Arctic, it is the most reliable observational data as I know of.
The sun is the principal source of energy of the climate of the earth. Numerous published studies indicated that influence, though most cases it is regional and seasonally dependent. There are also direct and indirect influences from the sun. If you do not believe it is entirely upto you. Because of less funding and lesser promotion, that important area of climate science research is neglected for so long and it is a real shame. There are influences through GCR (which is strongly anticorrelated with SSN and can also be served as a proxy of SSN), solar wind and other solar related variables. All those indicate strong influences on the climate which are not at all contradictory to each other but points towards a similar direction.
Following comments of Stephen and Isvalgaard: the paper shows the Arctic sea ice is modulated by AO (solar influence) from the atmosphere and a strong influence also comes from the oceanic circulation. How the AMO plays a very important role was discussed too.
It should be noted that solar influence may not be dominant in all individual year as is also mentioned in that paper. In some years there are strong influences from the QBO, or the ENSO or other local factors. Hence picking only two solar min years we can not say why it is not matching. It studied an overall influence in general.
A very popular paper (Kodera and Kuroda, 2002) discussed solar UV related mechanism. I see it does not agree with your theory Stephen, but I prefer to follow a theory that is published and highly cited. That work was mentioned in the paper, Fig.7. Other observational results (Gray et al, 2010) also showed more ozone and more warming in the upper stratosphere during solar max years. Willis might be interested in Gray et al (2010) where they discussed various observational results confirming solar influence on climate.
Kodera, K. and Kuroda, Y. (2002): Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 107, D24, 4749, doi:10.1029/2002JD002224.
Gray, L.J., et al. Solar influences on climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282, (2010).
afonzarelli April 2, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Man, I’m not touching that sexist “joke” one bit, nor do I find it funny. That’s all you.
Nor do I believe that is an actual Nasrudin story, because they are Sufi stories with deep meanings, and that is cheap sexist cr*p. The only place I can find that ugly jest is in a book by “Osho”, also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the despicable and justly despised leader of a sex cult that ended up falling apart accompanied by hatred, murder and poisonings … not funny, amigo. I’d give that one a rest.
w.