Guest essay by Jeffery S. Patterson
My last post on WUWT demonstrated a detection technique that allows us to de-noise the climate data and extract the various natural modes which dominate the decadal scale variation in temperature. In a follow-up post on my blog, I extend the analysis back to 1850 and show why, to first-order, the detection method used is insensitive to amplitude variations in the primary mode. The result is reproduced here as figure 1.
Figure 1a – First-difference of primary mode Fig 1b – De-trended first-difference of primary mode
We see from Figure 1b that once de-trended, the slope of the primary mode has remained bounded within a range of ± 1.2 °C/century over the entire 163 year record.
The linear trend in slope evident in Figure 1a implies a parabolic temperature trend. The IPCC makes oblique reference to this in the recently releases AR-5 Summary for Policymakers:
“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).”
True enough, but that has been true since at least the mid-1800s. The implication of the IPCC’s ominous statement is that anthropogenic effects on the climate have been present since that early time. Let’s examine that hypothesis.
Up to this point I have been using de-trended data in the singular spectrum analysis (SSA) because de-trending helps to isolate the oscillatory modes of the climate system from the low-frequency trend. We are now interested in the characteristics of the trend itself. Figure 2 shows the SSA trend extracted from the raw Hadcrut4 northern hemisphere data.
Figure 2 – SSA[L=82,k = 1,2] on Hadcrut4
We see the data oscillates about the extracted trend with approximately equal peak –to-peak amplitude until about the year 2000. More about this departure later. The really interesting characteristic of the trend is revealed when we look at the first-difference (time derivative of the red curve of figure 2), shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 – First difference of extracted trend
Any engineer will instantly recognize this shape as the step-response of a slightly under-damped 2nd order system as described by equation 1.
where a is the step-size, b the offset, w the natural frequency, z the damping factor and t the offset in time at which the input step occurs.
is the unit step function which is zero when its argument is negative and unity elsewhere.
A parametric fit of (1) to the data of figure 3 is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4 – Parametric fit of (1) versus data ![]()
I know what you are thinking. That fit is too perfect to be true. It must be an internal response of the SSA filter. We can test that hypothesis by integrating equation (1) and comparing it to the unfiltered data.
Figure 5 – Indefinite integral of (1) versus data
We see the resulting integral fits the unfiltered data, with the residual exhibiting the same oscillatory behaviors as before. The integral of (1) yields eqn. 2 below:
I know what you’re thinking. We’ve said all along that the AGW signature would show up as a step in in the slope of the de-noised temperature data, precisely what we see in figure 4. Is this the AGW smoking gun? If we plot figure 3 and the raw data on the same graph we see the real smoking gun.
Figure 6 – First-difference of extracted trend versus data
Around the year 1878, a dramatic shift in the climate occurred coincident with and perhaps triggered by an impulsive spike in temperature. As a result, the climate moved from a cooling phase of about -.7 °C/century to a warming phase of about +.5°C/century, which has remained constant to the present. We see that this period of time was coincident with a large spike in solar activity as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7 – Solanki et al, Nature 2004 Figure 2. Comparison between directly measured sunspot number (SN) and SN reconstructed from different cosmogenic isotopes. Plotted are SN reconstructed from D14C (blue), the 10-year averaged group sunspot number1 (GSN, red)
Virtually all of the climate of the last century and a half is explained by equation (2) and the primary 60+ year mode extracted earlier as shown in figure 8b.
Figure 8 – Primary mode SSA[L=82,k=3,5] vs. residual from eqn.(2) (left) Fig. 8b – eqn. (2) + primary mode vs. hadcrut4
As others have observed, this 60+ year mode plotted in figure 8a is highly correlated to solar irradiance.
Figure 9 – This image was created by Robert A. Rohde from the data sources listed below
1. Irradiance: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
2. International sunspot number: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsunspotnumber.html
3. Flare index: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/astronomy/readme.html
4. 10.7cm radio flux: http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol_home.shtml
Note that the reconstruction due to Solanki et al shown in figure 7 disagrees with figure 9 in terms of present day solar activity. The temperature record clearly tracts Solanki, but I’ll leave that controversy to others.
The residual from Figure 8b, shown in Figure 10, shows no trend or other signs of anthropogenic effects.
Figure 10a – Residual from
primary mode Figure 10b – Smoothed histogram of residual
A similar analysis was done on the sea-surface temperature record. The results as shown in Figure 11:
Figure 11 – SST (red) vs. Hadcrut4 (blue)
We see the land temperatures follow the ocean surface temperature with a 4-5 year lag.
Conclusion
The climate record of the past 163 years is well explained as the integral second-order response to a triggering event that occurred in the mid-to-late 1870s, plus an oscillatory mode regulated by solar irradiance. There is no evidence in the temperature records analyzed here supporting the hypothesis that mankind has had a measurable effect on the global climate.
Related articles
- Detecting the AGW Needle in the SST Haystack (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Figure 7 showing the Solanki reconstruction does not represent what we today think about the variation of solar activity, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
When you look at the types of analyses done by the IPCCers, do you see anything like this (or similar statistical analyses)? Surely there must have been a bunch of statistical analyses done on the temperature data (or even, shockingly, the tree-ring data)?
A friend said that the saddest thing about getting old was that everything was so obvious, all the lies, evasions, sleights-of-hand. He was right: the most obvious thing was that those with reason to not think deeply tend not to do so.
Jeffery,
Very interesting, and thanks.
Coincidentally, late 1800’s are about when the oceans started to rise, so that makes tentative sense.
But do you feel comfortable talking about an impulsive spike in temperature that’s caused a constant warming to the present? What does that really mean? What’s the mechanism, how why what? Might be I’m just a simpleton, but I think this idea needs a little work.
Instead of using the HadCRUT, why not try the same method on longer term records such as Central England (CEL), Debuilt & Uppsalla data sets.
Over all very interesting & thought provoking,
Mark Bofill says:
October 4, 2013 at 7:46 am
Look at figure 6. The dotted line is exactly coincident with an impulsive spike in temperature. The climate has memory (lots of it) an so integrative behavior is to be expected (if we intergrate an impulse we get a step). However, I think the most likely physical explanation is that the triggering caused a shift to a new chaotic regime. See for example Tonis et al, A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
I have [] been waiting for someone to apply process control analysis and methodology to the trend. I [will] have to digest further but I agree it looks like a step change. Raw data looks like first order and the cleaning may give the impression of a second order. I have also been waiting for someone to apply this analysis to the claims regarding warmest decade etc. All of which while true, represent a strawman [] argument. Yes the world is warmer the question is why.
Jeff, thanks, I see what you’re saying now.
I for one am impressed and congratulate you for skill and insights. I did recognise the damping. I am remembering the damped response curve provided by Willis a few months ago. What is take to be happening is that there is a very large and long spike-dampening cycle with a much shorter one that is based on the sunspot cycle (was it). I mean solar variation of course. All this rather puts an underscore below the words, ‘it’s the sun!’
Conclusion
The climate record of the past 163 years is well explained as the integral second-order response to a triggering event that occurred in the mid-to-late 1870s, plus an oscillatory mode regulated by solar irradiance.
There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives TSI]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schriver.png from http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
So what happened in 1878?
End of the LIA?
But what caused that?
“When you look at the types of analyses done by the IPCCers, do you see anything like this (or similar statistical analyses)? Surely there must have been a bunch of statistical analyses done on the temperature data (or even, shockingly, the tree-ring data)?”
What you see when you look at the “analyses” is a pile of darts, several dartboards, and a room full of chimpanzees. And of course the sea level dartboard is labeled “Sea Level: +2 feet, +4 feet, and +6 ft” and the global temperature dartboard is labeled “+2 degrees, +4 degrees, and +6 degrees”.
Sadly, they recently had to remove the “catastrophe” dartboard, since the Gorepanzee had learned that he got a treat every time he grabbed a dart, ran up, and stuck it into the “SHARKNADO” section of the that board. It just was getting too embarrassing.
So if there is a step change around 1880 in the solar data that has to be corrected as Leif is arguing and there is a step change too in the temperatures like Mr Patterson is saying in his guest essay wouldn’t it be more logical to skip the correction and have temperature and solar data in harmony?
Leif, what is your best guess for a curve? Looks like 90-100 year cycle, or no cycle at all?
lsvalgaard says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:03 am
There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives TSI]:
Have a look at this http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OC20.png
Gerard says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:14 am
So if there is a step change around 1880 in the solar data that has to be corrected as Leif is arguing
There is no 60-cycle in the corrected data and no step up change. If anything solar activity fell off a cliff to the very low cycles 1878-1934.
Jimmy, From Fig 7 it seems to indicate that the sun really grew legs and got going. Good post. I’m impressed but I would like to see some thoughts from Anthony and Willis. They will always make you think twice about correlation. (And Isvalgaard has a different point point of view).
It was in the late 1800’s that coal use started picking up worldwide. It could be that soot from coal burning started having an affect on the melting of ice and snow around then.
Very inresting.
I have a slight reservation about SSA, which follows on from my comments on your last post.
Quite recently, there waas a post here that claimed that maximum likelihood regression resulted in a sinuois and a cubic trend. What worries me is whether either of these are unique representations of the data. Again, it stems from the idea of orthogonal decomposition and the space that one represents the signal in. For example the residual trend is not orthogonal to the oscillatory first order signal in the sense of its inner product and this suggests that decomposition is not unique.
I’m not trying to be pernickety, but there are several ways the temperature signal can be represented as the sum of different functions, all of which have very little, and roughly normally distributed residual error.
Your analysis, which is very interesting, suggests a step function which may, or may not, be related to changes in solar irradiance. However, this is only one representation of the signal and if there are other ways of representing it with comparable accuracy, which is best, or right and why?
I quote Jack Eddy:
“Were God to give us, at last, the cable, or patch-cord that links the Sun to the Climate System it would have on the solar end a banana plug, and on the other, where it hooks into the Earth—in ways we don’t yet know—a Hydra-like tangle of multiple 24-pin parallel computer connectors. It is surely at this end of the problem where the greatest challenges lie.”
As much as I respect Dr Svalgaard, I reckon Jack Eddy had it right…
DayHay says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:18 am
what is your best guess for a curve? Looks like 90-100 year cycle, or no cycle at all?
100 year pseudo cycle.
Jeff Patterson says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:19 am
“There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives TSI]”
Have a look at this http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OC20.png
So? Look at TSI before 1900. Repeat: there is no 60-yr cycle in TSI.
@leif
“There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives”
If you calculate the solar minima back from 2008 to 1878 it appear to be around 65 years so three Hale cycles per half climate cycle. Don’t ask me about the logic behind that three cycles i just look at the data.
Jimmy Haigh. says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:26 am
“—in ways we don’t yet know—”
As much as I respect Dr Svalgaard, I reckon Jack Eddy had it right…
Absolutely, he said we don’t know [even if we wish it were so].
A bit more on the solar-climate possible connection
/sarc on
Muller says it is all due to CO2. There was apparently an impulsive spike in atmospheric CO2 around 1878. This clearly shows up in the dead certain ice core records as a small wiggle in the anthropogenic emissions of about 1 Billion tons/yr of CO2 at that time (we think). This catastrophe has become inexorably worse, with the current 30 Billion tons/yr of CO2 emissions causing temperatures to, well, it’s hiding in the abyss.
/sarc off