Abstract
Jean‐Louis Le MouëlFernand LopesVincent Courtillot
We first apply singular spectrum analysis (SSA) to the international sunspot number (ISSN; 1849‐2015) and the count of polar faculae (PF; 1906‐2006). The SSA method finds 22, 11 and 5.5‐year components as the first eigenvectors of these solar activity proxies. We next apply SSA to the ten Madden‐Julian oscillation (MJO; 1978‐2016) indices.
The first, most intense component SSA finds in all MJO indices has either a period of 5.5 or 11 years. The longer‐term modulation of amplitude is on the order of one third of the total variation. The 5.5‐year SSA component 1 of most MJO indices moreover follows the decreasing amplitude of solar cycles. We then apply SSA to climate indices PDO, ENSO, WPO, AAO, AMO, TSA, WHWP, and Brazil and Sahel rainfalls. We find that the first SSA eigenvectors are all combinations of rather pure 11, 5.5 and 3.6‐year pseudo‐cycles.
The 5.5‐year component is frequently observed and is particularly important and sharp in the series in which it appears. All these periods have long been attributed to solar activity, and this by itself argues for the existence of a strong link between solar activity and climate. The mechanisms of coupling must be complex and probably non‐linear but they remain to be fully understood (UV radiation, solar wind and galactic cosmic rays being the most promising candidates).
We propose as a first step a Kuramoto model of non‐linear coupling that generates phase variations compatible with the observed ones.
The paper is, unfortunately, paywalled.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018JD028939
Ok, I think I get it but would will wait to see what others say.
Mac
It is ALL based on the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis “data”, which is not data at all but is the output of a climate model that is constantly “nudged” back to the right path by inputting actual observations. And if it is such a dang good model … why does it need to be constantly nudged back to reality?
An additional problem is that in many places there are very few observations. In this case the computer model outputs laughingly called “reanalysis data” are for 200 and 500 hPa levels, which are five and twelve kilometres up in the atmosphere. I’m not buying that we have much data for mid-Pacific winds 5 km up in the sky …
And what’s up with the use of “five day means”? Why not use daily model output?
Sorry, not impressed in the slightest. Come back when there are real observations to base things on rather than crappy climate models. All that they have shown is that MODEL solar energy from a MODEL sun affects MODELED winds … BZZZT! Next contestant, please!
w.
Someone needs to test their SSA methods against a random rime series to see what spectral components their method generates.
Willis hit it so square and hard, I realize this is a “mental self gratification” piece, paid for by the taxpayers, I imagine. DANG, why can’t I be corrupt and learn to do this game?
I don’t understand SSA at any deep level. However … People have been looking for a correlation between climate and sunspots since Herschel and the results have been disappointing. Just because you use a different analysis technique, that doesn’t mean a correlation should suddenly appear. I remain skeptical.
That can’t be. Everybody knows that the sun has no influence on the climate.
My most sincere apologies for being off thread but I don’t know where else to ask. Is this real?
“Navy files for patent on room-temperature superconductor”
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html
Thanks,
Craig Graham
Marathons, FL
I suggest all forcings be quantified, then move into harmonics/perturbations and finally realize that the variables preclude a prediction not bounded by our limited experiences.
I got here when there were no comments, and was going to say I was just waiting to hear Willis’s comments on this before I commented. I was not disappointed…
Thanks Willis for you comment. I expect a few more,,,,,lol
I think Willis is right on, judging from his past articles and comments about the relationship between sunspots and climate/weather/global warming….these guys are just armatures compared to Willis’s analysis(s).
So solar cycles can be broken down into ‘thirds’.
The 1st is a ramp up blend of the prev. and current cycle, the 2nd is the central (including maximum) and is the only part that really matters where the 3rd is a blend of current and next? Is that what they’re saying?
Does that imply that a long weak minimum has no impact on climate?
But then again, I have read here many times that our sun has absolutely no impact on our climate at all…while I find that dubious, those that say it are very highly regarded here.
>7) Figure 3 indicates a relationship that holds during the latter 20th>century, presumably somewhat specific to the mix of internal and forced
>variability that dominates over that period. This may not be
>representative of the situation in earlier centuries, where the primary
>pattern of forced variability is by volcanic and solar forcing which
>impart distinct regional and seasonal signatures in the temperature field
>(see Shindell et al, 2001;2003) that are likely to be quite different from
>those associated with anthropogenic forcing (GHG and aerosol) which
>dominate during the interval examined by the authors. Related to this,
>have the series been detrended before calculating the correlations shown
>in Figure 3? This has a bearing on the interpretation.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0078.txt
Energy is a slippery thing. It is almost the modern aether. It slips between mass and the speed of light, with massless photons having energies according to the imponderable Planck, and the more sluggish and massive solar and galactic “winds” having energies of their masses times the speed of light squared.
There is a pittance of photons from the microwave background radiation.
While photons are electromagnetic radiation, the components of electricity and magnetism seem to behave differently when we are not looking. The satellite that ventured beyond the solar system has not seen the expected drop off in the sun’s magnetic field. The earth’s own fields likely force us to account for separate electrical and magnetic energies.
Regarding tides, we have Mr. Einsteins’s classical field equations that work, but we don’t really know what gravitational energy is.
Radioactive decay is not to be underestimated. With a bit of help from earth’s spin (gravity by equivalence), and tides (gravity), and electricity (?); this energy seems sufficient to move continents with roots far below the supposed “plastic” layer proposed to make this easier.
Our units we would use to evaluate all this are a mucking fess. Provincial by discipline and not intended for cross reference.
Just in case you were wondering why figuring this stuff out is hard…
” mucking fess”?
Wash your mouth/keyboard out with soap, you pheasant plucker.
no relation to “climate change” in
“Study: A Solar Signature in Many Climate Indices”.
– Climate Indices –
what’s the fuss!
Willis, https://www.google.com/search?q=stop+hyperventilating&oq=stop+hyp&aqs=chrome.
For those who wonder why I don’t believe everything I read, compare the following:
And here’s the periodogram of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), 1856 – 2018:
Several things of note. There is a 3.6-year cycle. However, there is no 5.5-year cycle, just a 5.3-year cycle, and it is far from “sharp” as they claim. Next, there’s NO 11-year cycle. The nearest thing is a 10-year cycle.
In addition, the largest cycle is at 9 years … and it is only 2.5% of the peak-peak swings. In other words, all of the cycles are lost in the noise.
So no, I don’t believe their claims about how everything lines up neatly with a 3.6, 5.5, and 11-year cycle. Not happening. I’ve looked at all of these indices, MEI, PDO, SOI, ENSO, NINO34. They do NOT line up all neatly as this paper claims. Tell you what. Here’s another one:
It has a 3.3-year cycle, a 5.75-year cycle, and no 11-year cycle.
You can see why I’m not buying their story about a whole bunch of very neat 3.6, 5.5, and 11-year cycles …
Which is why I say, and I can’t say this strongly enough or often enough—DO YOUR OWN ANALYSES!!! You can NOT trust scientific papers, whether or not they are peer-reviewed.
w.
Here is a rather general presentation in which Vincent Courtillot discusses most of this article (not yet published at the time) :
https://www.climato-realistes.fr/intervention-courtillot-conference-19-octobre-2018/
For background, Le Mouel and Courtillot are famous names with regard to seafloor spreading, propagating rifts in continental rifting, timing of extinction events in earth history, volcanism. Not saying that makes them right. Just saying these are people with a long history in geophysics.
A large coronal hole on the solar equator in two days can cause a strong geomagnetic storm.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20190223_hres.png
Reanalyses and Observations: What’s the Difference?
Wendy S. Parker
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00226.1
No need to introduce myself, as most of you might be aware I happen to think (based on more than 15 years of casual on-off research with bit of knowledge acquired in the process) that the solar activity influence on the planet’s climate in the medium and long term is undeniable.
I’m sure there are many who think or even strongly believe otherwise.
– There is no point at looking at misleading 11 year (visually observed) cycles or the minuscule variability in the TSI. Neither of two represents the true totality physical reality of the solar activity but it is frequently used as the argument that “it’s not the sun … “, but it is a misleading argument.
– Meaningful analysis needs to be concentrated on the instrumentally observed and measured true physical magnetic process of solar events which have fundamental periodicities of about 22 and just over 100 years, both instrumentally identified (magnetometer was invented in 1830s )
– Since our planet defies solar electric and magnetic intrusions with its own magnetic field, no true account of any solar climate effects can be obtained by ignoring geomagnetic variable status ( the best available correlation but still lacking a solid hypothesis)
– Finally, the Earth is permanently wrapped up with electro and magnetic time variable structures of the inner heliosphere, which is dominated by sun and the two major magnetic gas giants, in which our planet is only a very minor player.
“Willis Eschenbach February 23, 2019 at 9:02 pm
Johann, if that’s supposed to be humor … don’t quit your day job …
w.”
W.E. giving advice. — listen <
No doubt it is the Sun that drive the climate. Fascinating as astronomy progress, we have evidences of other stars comparable to our Sun exhibiting not so friendly behavior like megaflares.
What if our Sun was no as stable as we think?
The Elliot wave is complex non-linear coupling that generates all combinations of 11, 5.5, 3.6-year, etc., etc. pseudo-cycles. It’s fractals that repeat patterns endlessly at all time scales. Stockbrokers have been studying fractals long before Mandelbrot discovered fractals. Climatologists should get a tutorial from stockbrokers. Solar cycles, climate change, stock market. They can fit them all in the Elliot wave :-0
Well, others apparently got more out of reading this article than I did… I am still stuck on “pure 11, 5.5 and 3.6‐year pseudo‐cycles”. So I started looking up definitions to make sense of it: Pseudo – Sham, so pseudo-cycle is a sham-cycle? So a pure pseudo-cycle is a pure sham-cycle? ??
And how do you “apply singular spectrum analysis (SSA) to the international sunspot number and the count of polar faculae” There is a spectrum to be analyzed in the sunspot number? (Head is now twitching)
OK…So trying to piece this together…They built a representative signal using data points (from sunspot numbers and count of faculae) by using a series of of sin waves (what I would call a Fourier Transformation) that have an 11, 5,5, and 3.6 year periodicity.
They then applied this…signal…to a series of weather data and found correlations between the peaks and troughs , but they kept morphing the signal around (distorting it using its Eigenvector components, so its a pseudo-cycle?) to better match the signal to the weather data?
And this suggests to them that sunspot data and weather are indeed linked but its hard to see without this SSA analysis?
Is that what this says?
OK, if I am even near on track, how the heck does this help us make a prediction? You would have to know how to morph the signal in advance to make an accurate prediction – so it would seem to only show something after the fact, not before, and therefore not very useful – other than saying “The great big ball of fire in the sky affects weather on Earth”.
If there is more to this, I love someone to explain it.