Willis Eschenbach in a guest post at Watts Up With That has some insight in an article on the Tools to Spots the Spots
The general thought process is that the lack of sunspots results in lower temperatures on the planet. Long-term loss of sunspots is labeled grand minimums, of which we have identified as Spore, Maunder, and Dalton to name the more well known. The Maunder Minimum is linked to the Little Ice Age. What is the real link between fewer spots and lower temperatures?
Willis’ excellent analysis is an interesting read with supporting graphics. He concludes:
• 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.
If there is no clear solar signal in the lower troposphere, which is where most of our weather takes place, therefore we should be noticing the grand minimum climate change. Are sunspots the link to that change?There is more to this link between lack of spots and lower temperatures that need to be explored.
Your thoughts. What is the real link between lack of spots and lower temperatures?