Ian Wilson: Evidence that the Sun has always had an important influence upon climate change

Posted: March 1, 2016 by tallbloke in climate, Natural Variation, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

Ian Wilson has just blogged this post, which should be a bit of a showstopper in the climate debate, but I expect it’ll be studiously ignored by mainstream climate scientists and lukewarm climate-sceptic blogs. By doing that, they’ll make themselves and their pet CO2 paradigm increasingly irrelevant to scientific progress. Key thing to note is that our work here at the talkshop and in PRP means we can now predict these quasi-cyclic natural variations. Over to Ian.

Abreu et al. [2012] wrote:

“The parameter that best represents the role of the solar magnetic field in deflecting cosmic
rays [and hence, the overall level of solar activity] is the solar modulation potential , which can be derived from either the 10Be or the 14C production rates.”

and

“….spectral analysis [of the solar modulation potential over the last ~ 9400 years] identifies a number of distinct periodicities (Stuiver & Braziunas 1993), such as 88 yr (Gleissberg), 104 yr, 150 yr, 208 yr (de Vries), 506 yr, 1000 yr (Eddy), and 2200 yr (Hallstatt) [cycles]…”

The top figure in the following diagram shows the Fourier transform of the variation in the solar modulation potential time series over the last 9400 years [Abreu et al. 2012]. This figure shows that potential has distinct spectral peaks at 88 years (Gleissberg Cycle), 104 years, 133 years, 150 years, 210 years (de Vries Cycle), 232 years, 356 years and 504 years.

Below this is a second figure showing amplitude spectrum of variations in the North American temperature time series over the last ~ 7000 years. The temperature time series is obtained from tree ring data obtained from Bristle Cones on the Southern Colorado Plateau [for the details of the source of this data see: Could This Be The Climate Smoking Gun?  and Salzer and Kipfmeuller (2005). The lower figure shows clear spectral peaks at approximately 88, 106, 130, 148, 209, 232, 353 and 500 years.

This seems to be very strong evidence that Sun has always had an important influence upon climate conditions [such as temperature] at a regional level. Why are some many people ignoring this obvious climate connection?

Ring_Comparison

Note: The top figure was recreated from a digitization of figure 5a of Abreu et al. [2012] while the bottom figure was recreated from digitization of part of figure 3a of Ron et al. [2012].

 

References:

1. Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?
J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, A. Ferriz-Mas; K. G. McCracken, and F. Steinhilber.
A&A 548, A88 (2012)

2. Solar Excitation of Bicentennial Earth Rotation Oscillations.
Cyril Ron, Yavor Chapanov and Jan Vondrak
Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol. 9, No. 3 (167), 259–268, 2012

3. Reconstructed temperature and precipitation on a millennial timescale from tree-rings in the Southern Colorado Plateau.
Salzer, M.W. and Kipfmueller, K.F.: 2005,
U.S.A. Climatic Change, 70, No 3, 465–487

Comments
  1. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. Why are people ignoring the solar connection? Simple – those who set up the IPCC cleverly defined its role to exclude any consideration of non-human caused climate change!

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s a series of articles appearing at wuwt “By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.”

    These articles appear specifically designed to prime the audience to be beat yet deeper into submission by vengefully hateful sun-climate thought-police.

    The hatred & vengefulness are palpable. It has gone too far.

    I recommend an immediate mass boycott of the comments section specifically by all sensible parties. I suggest radiating outwards and populating new venues scattered all over and linked rather than concentrated where control by vengefully hateful dark agency is made too easy. It’s looking more and more every day on the surface at least like it’s dominated by and directed by perhaps just a single wealthy donor (that’s speculation based on the persisting excessively ideological surface optics) with an administratively corrupted view of science. The strategy being applied appears to be to attract opposition like mice to cheese in a trap and to there control thought with elevated false gods. An awful lot of people appear awfully naive for playing into these shady hands.

    The one commentator I want to keep track of is Bill Illis. If he moves to a less corrupt venue and someone notices, please let us know. Thanks.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Not sure how comfortable I am with temperature reconstructions from Bristlecone Pines, after the dodgy rep Mann and pals gave them, but the correlation certainly looks tempting.🙂

    Anyway, Ian goes into the methodology on his other linked post:
    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/could-this-bay-be-climate-smoking-gun.html

    So let’s read that too.

  4. oldbrew says:

    IW says:
    ‘Amazingly, the solar activity spectrum shows peaks at:
    89 years, 104 years, 150 years, 208 years, ~ 230 years, ~ 355 years and 506 years.
    and the planetary torque shows all of these peaks, except those at ~230 & ~ 355 years.’

    230y would be 26 lunar apsidal and 204 full moon cycles, so could be lunar-related (204+26=230).

  5. tallbloke says:

    355 might be Earth-Moon system related too.Ocean tidal periods of ~60yr in temperate zones and ~72yrs in high latitudes

    72*60/(72-60) = 360

  6. erl happ says:

    Given that the correlations are sound, the question remains: What is it that the Earth sees from the heliosphere, where is the mechanism impacting, how does it change surface temperature?

    The stand out variability in atmospheric matters that appears to cycle at an interval between 89 and 104 years is surface pressure south of 50° south latitude. Surface pressure is a response to the presence of polar cyclones driven by ozone heating of the atmosphere. Ozone proliferates in winter driving a surface signal in temperature variability that is like the beat of a heart in January and August. The former is driven from the Arctic and the latter Antarctica.

  7. Roger,

    Thanks again for highlighting my post. The two data sets displayed in the graph have been around since 2012. Anyone could have compare the two data sets if they wanted to do so.

    I think it reasonable to assume that on long times scales (> ~ 50 years) the Sun (reinforced by the Moon) moves the Earths’s surface water/ice and atmosphere around the planet in such a way as to produce the observed long term cycles in climate variables such as regional and global temperature.

    In addition, it is more than likely that the cyclic movements of the ice/water/atmosphere :

    a) are asymmetric between the hemispheres
    b) are involved in a mutual interaction with the Earth’s rotation rate, with each one affecting the other.
    c) are linked in some way to the solar system “hum”.

    The real question is not whether this is happening, it is how this is happening. How is the Sun driving the climate system on Earth and probably more importantly what is driving the long term changes in the level of solar activity?

    We all have our own pet theories – but in the end the data will tell us who is right.

  8. Yvan Dutil says:

    If you use long time serie, you will see the solar signal. However, you are blind to the AGW because it become significant only in the last decades. In addition, since 1960 the sun activity as decrease, which exonerate the sun for the recent worming.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Yvan Dutil: If you have a large pan of water which reaches equilibrium on gas mark 2, then turning it up to 5 and then down to 4 won’t stop it from warming. Similarly, the equilibrium value for the oceans under the Sun is ~40SSN/month. The Sun’s activity was above this value from 1934 to 2003, and that’s why the oceans kept on warming despite the reduction in the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles after 1960. The cycles were also short, with brief minima between them. That kept the average Sun Spot Number high. SSN is generally a good proxy for Total Solar Irradiance.

    You have to consider the high heat capacity of the oceans and the consequent thermal inertia.

  10. Yvan Dutil,

    You have obviously bought the myth that warming from the mid 1970’s to the the year 2000 was mostly human induced, simply because atmospheric CO2 concentrations went up at the same time. In order to accept this conjecture [and that is all it is], you need to explain why a similar warming trend between the mid 1900’s and 1940 also occurred despite the fact that there was no substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over this time period.

    Second, the magnitude of the rate of temperature variations over the last century are not necessarily that unusual compared to the rate of temperature variations of the last 7000 years. Many proxy methods for determining atmospheric temperature do not necessarily show the wide swings in temperature because they tend to smooth out short term fluctuations on the ~ 30 years. Hence, you assertion that the variations of the last 30 years are somehow “unusual” is scientifically indefensible.

  11. ren says:

    The higher the initial velocity in the polar vortex, the more visible the impact of waves GCR.

  12. TLMango says:

    The Jupiter/Saturn great inequality is ~883.21 years. This is the average amount of time
    it takes for a Jup/Sat alignment to occur at the same location with respect to the stars.
    This is also the same amount of time it takes for the sun’s outwardly directed acceleration
    to rotate back to the same location. This might indicate that the Gleissberg cycle may be
    ~88.321 years.
    Salzer and Kipfmeuller’s 353 year cycle could be 4 Gleissberg cycles (88.321 x 4).
    In my latest work I’ve been selling a 144 year cycle, that I believe is the average
    amount of time separating the named climate cycles {W, S, M, D, G, O, MWP}.
    This would account for: {144, 504 and 1008 (144 x 7) year signals}.
    Also:
    ……………..{114 & 228} (Ogurtsov, 2002) ………….. {104 & 208) (Abreu, 2012)

  13. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Tallbloke; Bristlecone Pine, Pinus longaeva, is often the dominant species in high-elevation dolomite soils, where few plants can grow. Generally found at the treeline where other species can not compete due to cold dry soils.
    Trees are generally growth limited by their inability to obtain water and not directly by the cold. Frozen soils are effectively dry soils. Tree growth rates are a good proxy for moisture availability rather then air temperature.
    Interesting note, They have bore samples of 7000 years from dead Bristlecone stumps well above present living tree line specimens…pg

  14. Kyoji Kimoto says:

    Dear Dr. I. Wilson:

    Your analysis is very interesting to me since I have found out a 44-year cycle of heavy snowfall in Japan, which is a half cycle of Gleissberg cycle of 88 years. Based on the cycle, I am anticipating global cooling might occur around 2020 in line with your article (2008).It is my great pleasure if you can be a coauthor of my paper with your deep knowledge on astro-climate relationships. Could you please inform me of your email address for our direct communication. My email address is kyoji@mirane.co.jp.

    Best regards,
    Mr. K. Kimoto

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yvan Dutil (March 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm) suggested:
    “In addition, since 1960 the sun activity as decrease, which exonerate the sun for the recent worming.”

    Worming alright. That’s an excellent way to put it.

    Hubristically soaring self-declared-god-like elite imaginations did NOT match observations, so the false gods accelerating on their high wave of shimmering ecstasy at the blisteringly intoxicated heights of unrestrained euphoric power tripping did sweetly surrender to dark narcissistic urge and proclaim “there shalt be delightfully self-inspired rewrite of divine observation”:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/paul-vaughan-noaa-corruption-of-sst-records/

    But powerful Americans are not gods.

    There’s only one true God.

    Correcting the corruption in Washington & Hollywood will be a piece of work. Let’s pray for mercy on our knees before the one true God

    Some artists have a special gift. Lucas DiPasquale seems to fathom the variety of inspiration needed to overcome a cultural challenge of this nature:

    “They’re just tryin’ to catch a 5… my eye goes down when the sun goes up…”

    I read in the news today that GOP leaders feel they have reached a moment demanding “break glass” solutions. But it’s not that complicated.

    The promise of access to corrupt money is being used to coerce and intimidate people with influential voices to remain compliant in the hopes that they will be rewarded for compliance.

    In the long run we’ll know who sold their soul for bad money and who had the character and conviction to weather a series of storms.

    Yvan: It’s good fun responding to religiously inspired claims like yours. Now we’re taking it to a higher level — a fair judge who sees and knows all …and who understands the types of personal sacrifices we’re destined to endure and make on this path of deep respect for the beautiful wide variety of all of God’s creations.

    I’m not “a religious freak”, but I do find the religious dimension of climate belief fascinating.

    Religion will almost certainly decide the outcome — i.e. whether respect for nature is culturally permitted or whether records of nature are religiously defaced.

  16. oldbrew says:

    Or as Delingpole puts it:
    ‘Give It Up, Progressives: You Have Lost the Global Warming Argument’
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/02/give-it-up-progressives-you-have-lost-the-global-warming-argument/

  17. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. Erl Happ asked “What is it that the Earth sees from the heliosphere, where is the mechanism impacting, how does it change surface temperature?”
    Well, I’m no physicist, but (remembering the old school science experiment where an ES charge diverts a stream of water), if solar radiation is ionising, and weather is about clouds which are made of water, and water is a polar molecule, could this be the mechanism?

  18. My modest contribution, still searching ofr a mechanism.

    Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles,

    Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)

    Abstract:
    Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth’s magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas.

  19. duwayne says:

    Isn’t the real conclusion here that solar modulation potential shows a decent correlation with bristle cone pine growth? Whether bristle cone pine tree rings are closely correlated with long temperature swings is a different question.

  20. astroclimateconnection says:

    Duwayne,

    Here is a para-phased version of my reply to similar question over at WUWT.

    “Something related to climate (e.g. soil moisture, air temperature, precipitation, rate of evaporation, frequency of frosts etc.) affects the tree ring widths of Bristle Cone pines. It really doesn’t matter which of these is the dominant factor or even if it is a combination of these parameters.

    The challenge is to tell me how something related to the long-term variations of the climate of the Southern Colorado Plateau knows about the long-term variations of the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field.”

  21. Lowry Dave says:

    No problem to agree that many dozen if not thousand condition makes up climate. But all depends on water. The ratio is 1000:1. The oceans dominate atmospheric condition (1000:1). Oceans are not only driven by cycles, but dozen if not thousands of ‘events’, heat variation, salinity condition, ice cover, hot-spots, tsunami, and so on. The fact that we know much too little about what drive the oceans does not mean that – oceans not govern climate – (Free after Aldous Huxley: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”) see previous post: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/ipcc-ignores-human-impact-on-atmospheric-water-vapor/.
    Again, I have no problem to agree that “These all combine to affect the way oceans absorb, mix and re-emit energy.”, but that determine the oceans, and IPCC stares in the air; see: “Failure of Meteorology – Europe winter 1939/40” http://oceansgovernclimate.com/failure-of-meteorology-europe-winter-193940/.

  22. astroclimateconnection says:

    I repeat:

    The challenge is to tell me how something related to the long-term variations of the climate of the Southern Colorado Plateau knows about the long-term variations of the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field.

    Of course, it must have something to do with processes that control the rate of movement of solar energy through the oceans and atmosphere.

    However, I still contend that the evidence I have presented proves that the growth limiting factors that determine the tree ring widths of Bristle Cone pines i.e. factors related to climate – must somehow be linked to the long term variations of the strength of Sun’s magnetic field.

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    @astroclimateconnection: The Earths’ magnetic field is not a monolithic thing but instead is granular locally much as the granulation of the suns’ apparent surface. The overall field is the sum of all the small local fields. Magnet lines of force have a flow direction that is opposite of the direction of material flow or causes material to flow in the opposite direction to the magnetic lines of force flow.
    It appears to me that some high or low pressure areas are the result of local magnetic fields. REN points us to overall atmospheric flows caused by planetary magnetic field changes…pg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s