Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics
Yannis Markonis • Demetris Koutsoyiannis Received: 9 November 2011 / Accepted: 15 October 2012 DOI 10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9
Abstract
We overview studies of the natural variability of past climate, as seen from available proxy information, and its attribution to deterministic or stochastic controls. Furthermore, we characterize this variability over the widest possible range of scales that the available information allows, and we try to connect the deterministic Milankovitch cycles with the Hurst–Kolmogorov (HK) stochastic dynamics.
To this aim, we analyse two instrumental series of global temperature and eight proxy series with varying lengths from 2 thousand to 500 million years. In our analysis, we use a simple tool, the climacogram, which is the logarithmic plot of standard deviation versus time scale, and its slope can be used to identify the presence of HK dynamics. By superimposing the climacograms of the different series, we obtain an impressive overview of the variability for time scales spanning almost nine orders of magnitude—from 1 month to 50 million years. An overall climacogram slope of -0.08 supports the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92. The orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) is also evident in the combined climacogram at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales suggests a big picture of irregular change and uncertainty of Earth’s climate.
Introduction
If you thought before science was certain—well, that is just an error on your part. -Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (1994 p. 71).
In the first half of nineteenth century, geologic evidence indicated that at least one glacial period existed in Earth’s geological history (Agassiz 1840; from Imbrie 1982). Some decades later, it became clear that during the Pleistocene (2,588,000–12,000 years before present time—BP), there were many glacial periods, known also as ice ages, followed by shorter interglacials, such as the one we experience since the onset of human civilization. Ice age lengths ranged from 35–45 thousand years in early Pleistocene to 90–120 thousand years in the last million years. During glacial periods, continental glaciers enlarged in length and volume, reaching the 40th parallel in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere, while similar phenomena have been identified in the Southern Hemisphere, too. Milankovitch (1941) provided an explanation for the ice ages based on Earth’s orbit variations, which was confirmed after some years by the first temperature reconstructions.
It is now well known that a succession of glaciation and deglaciation periods has not occurred all the time, but only in large periods defining an ‘icehouse climate’, such as the current (Pliocene-Quaternary) icehouse period that started about 2.5 million years ago, as well as the Ordovician and the Carboniferous icehouse periods, each of which lasted 50–100 million years (Crowell and Frakes 1970). In contrast, the ‘hothouse climates’ are characterized by warmer temperatures, abundance of carbon dioxide (concentrations up to 20–25 times higher than current) and complete disappearance of polar icecaps and continental glaciers. Recently, cosmic ray flux was proposed as the controlling factor of the transition between these states (Shaviv and Veizer 2003). As underlined by Kirkby (2007), this theory was both disputed (Rahmstorf et al. 2004; Royer et al. 2004) and supported (Wallmann 2004; Gies and Helsel 2005).
Additional findings showed that the climate of the Holocene (the last 12,000 years), earlier regarded static, was characterized by many climatic events, such as ‘Little Ice Age’, ‘Medieval Warm Period’, ‘Holocene Optimum’, ‘8,200 Holocene Event’ and ‘Bond Events’, deviating from ‘normal’ conditions for hundreds or thousands of years (Bond et al. 2001). For example, during the ‘Little Ice Age’ (1,450–1,850), the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 0.6 oC below 1961–1990 average (Moberg et al. 2005; Pollack and Smerdon 2004), while the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (950–1,250) was a period of warm climate in Europe and North America and has been related to other climatic events at various regions around the world (Grove and Switsur 1994), including China (Long et al. 2011), New Zealand (Cook et al. 2002) or even Antarctica (Hass et al. 2008).
The preceding ‘Younger Dryas’ episode is an even more impressive case of abrupt climate change that has occurred in the relatively recent climatic history. At the end of Pleistocene, when the last ice age ended and the retreat of the glaciers had begun, a rapid fall of temperature led the climatic system back to glacial conditions. The ‘Younger Dryas’ episode lasted for approximately 1,300 years (starting at *12,800 BP), covered spatially both Hemispheres and ended even more suddenly than it emerged when temperatures increased regionally up to 15 oC in few decades (Alley et al. 1993). Although the cause for this short return to an ice age period is still under debate, it has become clear that it is not associated with a single catastrophic event (such as the release of freshwater from the lake Agassiz in Gulf of Mexico or the impact of a comet) but is rather regarded as an integral part of natural variability (Broecker et al. 2010; Mangerud et al. 2010).
All these relatively recent events cannot be attributed to the Milankovitch cycles, whose periods are much longer (see below). Thus, it is very difficult to attribute the climate variability at multiple time scales (from decades to many millions of years) to specific quantifiable causal mechanisms that would be applicable ubiquitously. A more modest goal, which is the purpose of this study, would be to characterize this variability over the widest possible range of scales that the available evidence allows. Such characterization unavoidably uses stochastic descriptions and tools, but without neglecting the influence of identifiable deterministic forcings, such as the variations in Earth’s orbit.
Such stochastic descriptions are related to the natural behaviour discovered by the hydrologist H. E. Hurst at the same period of Milankovitch’s discovery. Hurst (1951), motivated by the design of High Aswan Dam in Nile and after studying numerous geo- physical records, observed that ‘although in random events groups of high or low values do occur, their tendency to occur in natural events is greater. This is the main difference between natural and random events’. In other words, in a natural process (e.g., river flow) events of similar type are more likely to occur in groups (e.g., a series of consecutive low flow years) compared to a purely random process (white noise) where grouping of similar states is less frequent.
Unknowingly to Hurst, A. Kolmogorov had already proposed a stochastic process that described this behaviour a decade earlier (Kolmogorov 1940), although both the process and the natural behaviour became widely known after the works of Mandelbrot and Wallis (1968), Klemes (1974) and Leland et al. (1994, 1995). Over the years, this mathematical process (or variants thereof) has been given many names, such as fractional Gaussian noise (FGN), brown noise, fractional ARIMA process (FARIMA) or self-similar process, while the natural behaviour has been called the Hurst phenomenon, long-range dependence (or memory), long-term persistence or scaling behaviour (Koutsoyiannis and Cohn 2008). Here, when referring to the relevant natural behaviour, the stochastic process (definition of which will be given in Sect. 5.1) or the related stochastic dynamics, we prefix them with the term Hurst–Kolmogorov (HK) in order to acknowledge the contribution of the two pioneering researchers.
The HK behaviour, detected in numerous time series, as detailed in Sect. 3 below, indicates fluctuations at different time scales, which may reflect the long-term variability of several factors such as solar irradiance, volcanic activity and so forth (Koutsoyiannis and Montanari 2007). The multi-scale fluctuations cannot be described adequately by classical statistics, as the latter assumes independence (or weak dependence) and underestimates the system’s uncertainty on long time scales, sometimes by two, or even more, orders of magnitude (Koutsoyiannis and Montanari 2007). This underestimation, which some regard counterintuitive, will be further demonstrated below in Sect. 6. Moreover, traditional stochastic autoregressive (AR) models cannot describe these fluctuations in an adequate way, because the autocorrelation functions of these models decay faster than those of the processes they try to model (Beran 1994).
The study of natural variability of past climate can now be based on a lot of available proxy records, some of which are discussed in Sect. 4 and analysed in subsequent sections of this study. These proxies are free of anthropogenic influences that could allegedly contribute to the observed changes. It is our aim to demonstrate some evidence of the presence of HK dynamics at different time scales (spanning nine orders of magnitude). We also examine the coexistence of deterministic controls (due to orbital forcing) and stochastic dynamics and try to identify possible connections between this stochastic dynamics and the modern, obliquity-dominated, orbital theory.
Fig. 9 Combined climacogram of the ten temperature observation series and proxies. The dotted line with slope -0.5 represents the climacogram of a purely random process. The horizontal dashed-dotted line represents the climatic variability at 100 million years, while the vertical dashed-dotted line at 28 months represents the corresponding scale to the 100-million-year variability if climate was random (classical statistics approach). For explanation about the groups of points departing from the solid straight line (with slope -0.08), see Fig. 10 and its description in the text
Fig. 10 Theoretical climacograms of an HK process with H = 0.92 and two periodic processes with periods 100 and 41 thousand years, all having unit standard deviation at monthly scale, along with the climacogram of the synthesis (weighted sum) of these three components with weights 0.95, 0.30 and 0.15, respectively; the empirical climacogram of a time series simulated from the synthesis process with time step and length equal to those of the EPICA series is also plotted
Fig. 11 Climacogram of sunspot number from original data (shown in the embedded graph) from the Royal Greenwich Observatory & USAF/NOAA (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt)
Conclusions
The available instrumental data of the last 160 years allow us to see that there occurred climatic fluctuations with a prevailing warming trend in the most recent past. However, when this period is examined in the light of the evidence provided by palaeoclimate reconstructions, it appears to be a part of more systematic fluctuations; specifically, it is a warming period after the 200-year ‘Little Ice Age’ cold period, during a 12,000-year interglacial, which is located in the third major icehouse period of the Phanerozoic Eon. The variability implied by these multi-scale fluctuations, typical for Earth’s climate, can be investigated by combining the empirical climacograms of different palaeoclimatic reconstructions of temperature. By superimposing the different climacograms, we obtain an impressive overview of the variability for time scales spanning almost nine orders of magnitude—from 1 month to 50 million years.
Two prominent features of this overview are (a) an overall climacogram slope of -0.08, supporting the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92 and (b) strong evidence of the presence of orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales clearly suggests a big picture of enhanced change and enhanced unpredictability of Earth’s climate, which could be also the cause of our difficulties to formulate a purely deterministic, solid orbital theory (either obliquity or precession dominated). Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading as those to describe it using classical statistics. Connecting deterministic controls, such as the Milankovitch cycles, with the Hurst–Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics seems to provide a promising path for understanding and modelling climate.
The paper and SI are available here: http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1297/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very grateful to Anotony and everyone who helps keep this fantastic website going.
I think it would be very useful to a lot of people if there was a page set aside on WUWT where these research papers could be referenced so that people can get an idea of the latest developements.
Is this possible/a good idea??
thanks
“The paper and SI are available here: http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1297/”
Apparently not.
“Full text is only available to the NTUA network due to copyright restrictions”
A refreshing step back to look at the big picture, but all it really says is that paleoclimate was not random, which few of us believed anyway. The obligatory H/T to Milankovitch at the absurd scale window from ten years to a hundred thousand years even though the shortest Milankovitch cycle is about 20,000 years and the most stable is 400,000 years….
The paper REALLY isn’t “available” unless I want to bankrupt myself chasing after the PUBLICALLY FUNDED papers (on the “dole”) so to speak. Alas, the Internet does point out the folly of “hiding” information. For example: I WANT MY TEMPERATURE RECORDS DAY BY DAY from the US NOAA, for all STATIONS. FOR FREE, because I HAVE paid for them! I DON’T want to pay $50 for one 3 MB data set (as I did for one in MN a couple years ago..)
FREEDOM! We need this sort of info. Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for the summary. But the conversation DOESN’T JUST INVOLVE HOITY TOIT SCIENTISTS, as it is being used to MANIPULATE US ALL.
PHOOEY ON COPY WRITES!
Max
Glad to see this has finally been published, after a teaser some time ago in a presentation by the authors. I imagine many hurdles would have been put in the way of publication.
The story of this article: climate change, at whatever scale you view it, will be dominated by the lowest frequencies of variation, all the way down to trends in data sets. These variations are instrinsically unpredictable. This does not preclude deterministic behaviour, which can still be detected (such as the influence of orbital cycles).
The tendency of any climate data set to be dominated by low frequency components (with respect to the data set) will cause many people to “see” relationships that have simply occurred by chance alone – and perhaps even demonstrate significance against inappropriate autoregressive models. Belief in such relationships without applying the more rigorous test against HK-dynamics is a well-trodden path to self-delusion.
With thanks to Yannis and Demetris for their perserverance.
Translated, I think this is trying to tell us that themany tens of billions of dollars we spend each year on ‘researching’ and trying to combat ‘climate change’ is a complete waste of money. Well, we knew that already – the problem is making the goofier greenies and gullible politicians understand as well.
Anything that man can do in regards to climate is almost insignificant in comparison to regular natural cycles and the irregular, often inexplicable, major events such as the Younger Dryas.
This paper is not the sort of thing which helps keep the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train on its tracks, so it will be ignored and/or derided by the Climate Establishment.
“specifically, it is a warming period after the 200-year ‘Little Ice Age’ cold period, during a 12,000-year interglacial, which is located in the third major icehouse period of the Phanerozoic Eon”.
Oh, superbly done! The warming is natural. Well, whatdya expect after a particularly cold spell?
Couldn’t have put it better.
The fractal analysis is particularly interesting. I always wondered how Milankovitch cycles are explained by what the authors call ‘orbital forcing’, but this is dismissed for climate changes on a smaller scale. Good job folks. Well spotted, Anthony.
The glib determinism of ‘more CO2 means rising global temperatures’ might well be included under this remark from the above paper “Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading”. That is enough to motivate me into studying this paper to find out if that is so Thank you for publicising it.
Very interesting paper.
As always, a brilliant paper. I have to confess that I don’t understand why the climate community is as resistant to non-Markovian integrodifferential dynamics of the sort that gives rise to the multiple-timescale phenomena explored above. This is the kind of meta-analysis that should have preceded any attempt to numerically model local climate changes on the order of decades, as it gives one an empirical basis for the short, medium and long term variability as well as helps one identify things that are more or less likely to be non-natural signals.
The paper misses some of the features of the Ordovician-Silurian transition, though. This ice age began with an atmospheric concentration of 7 parts per thousand, just about 17 times as much as we have today. At the peak of glaciation, the CO_2 was still 4000 ppm, 10 times the present. While the solidly warmer periods often did have higher CO_2, high CO_2 has not proven capable of preventing ice ages as one would certainly expect if it were the proximate cause the warm eras.
This has two implications for the present. One is that the assertions that the current CO_2 levels have rendered the recurrence of glaciation very unlikely are not well-founded. While one cannot either rule out this assertion, we simply do not know enough about the full, complex, chaotic dynamics and feedbacks that cause ice ages to explain the Ordovician-Silurian transition, and until we do we cannot possibly be certain that the present is not similar, being driven towards or away from glaciation by phenomena far more powerful that CO_2. The second is that models that assume as short “memory effect” for global climate, such that global climate is primarily determined by the current microstate with little impact from prior state ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand years ago are simply incorrect; there is discernible and profound impact from both external (e.g. orbital) phenomena and long period feedbacks. I personally still think that we are missing one or two key pieces of the physics (surprising given that the physics in question is almost certainly known, but not recognized as being relevant), but until more high quality work like that described above is done, it will be very difficult to even know where to look.
rgb
This is merely empirical thumbsucking of the worst kind.
Start with the basics,a planet with zero inclination will experience an equatorial climate – this climate is defined by only residual latitudinal variations in daylight/darkness throughout an orbital period (this is what happens close to the Earth’s own equator) .This way of looking at planetary climate displaces the old ‘no tilt/no seasons’ with a more productive and practical approach while giving genuine climate scientists a new template to work with.
A planet with an 90 degree axial inclination has a polar climate hence large swings in daylight/darkness asymmetries throughout an annual cycle and subsequently large swings between hemispheres.
Inclination determines the type of planetary climate with the Earth having a largely equatorial insofar as large latitudinal areas experience smaller swings in daylight/darkness which emerge into climate as received solar radiation of lack of it .The 23 1/2 degree inclination includes a polar component where smaller latitudinal areas experience large fluctuations in daylight/darkness with temperature fluctuations from this input tending to follow this planetary feature.
The issue is an astronomical one,forget Milankovitch as the technical issue is modifying axial precession from a long term orbital trait to an annual one and it takes no more than an imitation analogy and the sequential images of Uranus to justify this major modification –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The old perspective of axial precession is screwing everything up and making it impossible to research planetary climate as it should be done.
Admirably clear.
Amazing based on a quick read. The reference to H.E. Hurst’s work on reservoirs prompted me to dust off my copy of “Stochastic Processes in Hydrology” by Vujica Yevjevich (Water Resources Publications, 1972). Yevjevich also investigates combined deterministic and stochastic processes in hydrology without bringing in orbital variations. A Hurst coefficient of 0.72 is noted. Yevjevich also references two later papers by Hurst:
Methods of Using Long-Term Storage in Reservoirs, Institution of Civil Engrs. Proc., London, pt. 1, vol. 5, 1956, p. 519.
The Problem of Long-Term Storage in Reservoirs, Intern. Union Geophysics and Geodesy Information Bulletin, London, no. 15, p. 463, 1956.
The bigger question from this paper will be whether there is predictive power.
[Bolds mine]
“Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92 and (b) strong evidence of the presence of orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales clearly suggests a big picture of enhanced change and enhanced unpredictability of Earth’s climate, which could be also the cause of our difficulties to formulate a purely deterministic, solid orbital theory (either obliquity or precession dominated).”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but wouldn’t a Hurst exponent of 0.92 mean more predictable over short time frames (geologically short), i.e. a warming trend would likely to continue and a cooling trend would likely continue?
Apologies for the poor proofreading but the framework for a new approach to planetary climate is basically contained in the previous comment.
I challenge any reader to do this –
Place an object in the center representing the Sun and get a broom handle to represent the axial orientation of the Earth and its constant alignment to a particular external point as you walk/orbit the central object/Sun.
The line of your body represents the ecliptic axis around which the polar coordinates turn to the central object/Sun so you conclude that aside from daily rotation to the Sun,all locations will turn once to the Sun as a component of its orbital motion – in the absence of daily rotation this is what they experience at the North/South poles.
The problem was with Ra/Dec which tries to bundle the Earth’s two axes off a single axis and with the old explanation for axial precession. A teenager will enjoy the imitation analogy as ,in order to keep the broom handle pointing continuously at the same external point (representing Polaris),they sometimes have to walk sideways and backwards before facing forward again. Show them the images of Uranus to demonstrate that axial precession to the central Sun is really an annual orbital trait or that the polar coordinates act like a beacon for the orbital motion of the Earth.
This is climate,this is what the people of the planet should be developing as an insight instead of listening to people who missed their chance.
Well above my pay grade. I had a hard time understanding any word longer than four letters.
If you know what a climacogram is, you are way ahead of me. I know what a telegram is.
Presumably, the authors believe that if you need any definitions of any of the terms; then you have no business reading their paper.
Given that I can’t find a formal definition of “Climate Sensitivity” in ANY Physics Text book, I tend to treat the subject about the same as I do astrology. Americans spend more money each year on the trappings of astrology, than the annual budgets of every Astronomical Observatory in the country; and something similar seems to surround the climatism phenomenon.
Hopefully Prof Brown or someone else in Academia can clue us all in to “Climacograms.”
Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading as those to describe it using classical statistics.
Thank you!
Um. I would welcome an simple guide to this study, which introduces a lot of concepts with which I am not familiar. Is it saying that climate is a thorough mix of long term and short term systematic effects with a good splash of random effects thrown in? And what are the things they are plotting? Help please!
In the conclusions section: “which could be also the cause of our diffi- culties to formulate a purely deterministic,”
Should be “difficulties”. Looks like a hyphenated line didn’t come over correctly because of a “space” before the “c”.
(Yea, I know. Pot – Kettle etc.)
H = 0.92 is a spanner in the works. It tells us that the statistics of climate science is wrong.
Unfortunately modern Climate Science largely ignores the work of Hurst in developing a mathematical theory to explain climate. Climate Science still assumes that climate works like a roulette wheel, and then acts surprised when climate doesn’t follow their naive predictions.
What H = 0.92 argues is that climate is no more predictable than weather. Rather, that climate only appears to be more predictable as a result of faulty mathematics.
(The Holocene) “…is a warming period after the 200-year ‘Little Ice Age’ cold period, during a 12,000-year interglacial, which is located in the third major icehouse period of the Phanerozoic Eon.”
Exactly. Signal to Noise ratios at many scales and frequencies. I remain to be convinced that there is anything yet unusual in this probable end extreme interglacial. In fact it is usually much more chaotic than this.
Interesting how the paper was bumped down from Nature to GRL to its final resting place. I like that the authors reveal the reviews and rejection letters [I do it myself]. This should be standard practice.
“investigated by combining the empirical climacograms of different palaeoclimatic recon- structions of temperature.”
Same typo, same section.
Interesting to read the “prehistory”, rejection letter / reviewer comments (and author responces) of this work from Geophysical Research Letters …
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1297/3/documents/Milankovitch-Hurst-KolmogorovPrehistory.zip
above link from:
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1297/
PP is here:
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1297/2/documents/2012SurvGeophysMilankovitch-Hurst-KolmogorovPP.pdf