Thursday, November 27, 2014

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a "strong and stable correlation" between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period. 

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find
"We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable."
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods. 

a) sunspots, b) temperature, c) CO2, d-i show the amplitudes of the strongest cycle lengths (period in years) shown in the data for sunspots, temperature, and CO2

Wavelet analysis in graph a shows the most prominent solar periods in red and graph b for temperature. The most stable period for both is at ~1024 years, shown by the horizontal region in red/yellow/light blue.
The authors find a lag of 30-40 years between changes in solar activity driving temperature, likely due to the huge thermal capacity and inertia of the oceans. Lead time shown in bottom graph of 40 years shows the temperature response following an increase or decrease of solar activity lags by about 40 years. Top graph shows "the anti-phase relation between [solar activity and temperature] keeps them stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past."

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is
 likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming). 

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).


Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the "pause" and cooling since. 

We have thus shown
  • Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
  • The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature
What more proof do you need that it's the Sun!

But wait, there's more. Please see the two previous posts demonstrating that the alternate 33C greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, not CO2 or water vapor, physical proof & observations that water vapor is a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, and physical proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant global warming. All of the above also strongly suggests the increase in CO2 levels is primarily due to ocean outgassing from warming oceans from the Sun, not from CO2 radiative forcing warming the oceans, and not primarily from man-made CO2 emissions.

SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
Correlations between CO2 and T were neither strong nor stable.


The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.


  1. Earth's climate is compellingly well correlated with the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. From this we can see that slight cooling will continue until 2028, then some warming (about half a degree) for about 30 years until the long-term maximum is reached in 2058, after which there will be nearly 500 years of cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles.

    1. A planetary model I've been working on shows reduced solar cycles up to 2060 so far.. this will be for the most part of this century. I'm working on a graph up to 2100 and beyond.

    2. IIRC, your 934 year cycle is the scalar (not vector) sum of the planetary angular momentum vectors. At first glance any correlation with climate seems weirdly unphysical to me. Got a further explanation to help me out? Thanks.

  2. This is how the sun probably achieves it:

    "My proposition is that instead the latitudinal shifts (of the jets and climate zones) are a result of two separate
    forces acting together (hence the high mobility of the jets latitudinally) when the
    sun is more active with one being a cooling effect at high levels over the poles
    pulling the jets poleward and the other being a warming effect at low levels over
    the equator pushing the jets poleward at the same time. The cooling effect
    appears to be dominant over longer time periods to give the observed cooling of
    the stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun is more active. Nonetheless there
    is still overall system warming with the more active sun because of the extra
    energy going into the oceans due to the jets shifting poleward thereby reducing
    total cloudiness and albedo as shown in the illustration at the head of this

    from here:

    Copyright: Stephen Wilde, 25th October 2010.

    It is the descending column of air in the stratospheric polar vortices at each pole (not the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere) that brings mesospheric air down into the stratosphere above the poles so as to change the tropopause height above the poles and shift the jets and climate zones latitudinally.

  3. This recent paper supports my 2010 hypothesis:

    "we find that EEP causes ozone variations of up to 34% at 70–80 km. With such a magnitude, it is reasonable to suspect that EEP could be an important part of solar influence on the atmosphere and climate system."

    "On solar cycle scales, we find that EEP causes significant ozone variations of up to 34% at 70–80 km. As ozone is important to atmospheric heating and cooling rates, this level of ozone variation could significantly affect the local mesospheric temperature balance6. Our results emphasize the importance of the EEP effect on mesospheric ozone and significantly improve our understanding of the impacts of the energetic particles on the atmosphere."

  4. The sun's activity has more of an impact on earth's temperatures than a trace gas in the atmosphere??? Heck, I'm not a scientist and I could have told you that. How a small group of scientists sold the concept that CO2 is a "driving force" in global temperatures never made any sense to me.

  5. Does anyone know if the sunspot integral is based on the revised sunspot numbers of Lief Svalgaard and his colleagues? or on the old data that has several different counting protocols and technologies?

    1. It is from Lief's latest data I got from an Excel spreadsheet he posted on his site.

  6. I think its overall quite a poor paper. There is very little information about how the statistical significance of the correlations was determined, only stating 'Monte-Carlo' methods against a red-noise background, but no plot of the autocorrelation functions of the time series being correlated......there is also no significance testing applied to that plot of the cross-correlation between the millennial components of SSN and T plotted, so we are left unsure of whether the correlation is even statistically relevant. Considering the data being correlated are smoothed with a band pass filter, and thus will display high levels of autocorrelation, it is entirely possible that the supposed correlations have arisen purely by chance and not from an underlying dynamical link between solar activity and temperature.

  7. The lag time of 30-40 years and the anti-correlation due not hold up as this article implies.

    Nevertheless the solar /temperature correlation is real but the lag times are less and the correlation is such that at prolonged periods of minimum solar activity the global temperatures are shown to decrease while at times of high solar activity the global temperature trend is shown to increase.

    But GIVEN solar activity will not result in the same climatic outcome.

    Due to o Milankovitch Cyces, Initial State of the Climate, Secondary /Primary solar effects, Geo magnetic Field Strength ,Random Terrestrial Events.

    Take Initial State Of The Climate as an example.

    The initial state of the climate consisting of how close the earth is to glacial /inter- glacial thresholds, the ice dynamic and ocean /land arrangements which are going to make a heck of a difference as to how much impact given solar variability is going to have on the climate.

    1. Only if you trust "global temperature" what ever that is..

  8. How does one determine sun spot activity from 5000 years ago? Galileo was the first one to see them.

  9. I am looking at the 206 years cycle. Looking at that cycle tells me more that if Santa Claus was married 5000 years ago. The KISS method.

  10. I wonder if the Egyptian Pharohs and the Roman Caesers charged a Carbon Tax?