NEW An update to this has been made here:
NOTE: This essay represents a collaboration over a period of a week via email between myself and Basil Copeland. Basil did the statistical heavy lifting and the majority of writing, while I provided suggestions, reviews, some ideas, editing, and of course this forum. Basil deserves all our thanks for his labor. This is part one of a two part series. -Anthony
Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature TrendsBy Basil Copeland and Anthony Watts
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm.
So begins the IPCC AR4 WG1 response to Frequently Asked Question 9.2 (Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?). Chapter 3 of the WG1 report begins:
Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906-2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).
Was the warming of the late 20th century really that unusual? In recent posts Anthony has noted the substantial anecdotal evidence for a period of unusual warming in the earlier half of the 20th century. The representation by the IPCC of global trends over the past 100 years seems almost designed to hide the fact that during the early decades of the 20th century, well before the recent acceleration in anthropogenic CO2 emissions beginning in the middle of the 20th century, global temperature increased at rates comparable to the rate of increase at the end of the 20th century.
I recently began looking at the longer term globally averaged temperature series to see what they show with respect to how late 20th century warming compared to warming earlier in the 20th century. In what follows, I’m presenting just part of the current research I’m currently undertaking. At times, I may overlook details or a context, or skip some things, for the sake of brevity. For example, I’m looking at two long-term series of globally averaged annual temperature trends, HadCRUTv3 and GHCN-ERSSTv2. Most of what I present here will be based on HadCRUTv3, though the principal findings will hold true for GHCN-ERSSTv2.
I began by smoothing the data with a Hodrick-Prescott (HP) filter with lambda=100. (More on the value of lambda later.) The results are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – click for a larger image
The figure shows the actual data time series, a cyclical pattern in the data that is removed by the HP filter, and a smoothed long term low frequency trend that results from filtering out the short term higher frequency cyclical component. Hodrick-Prescott is designed to distinguish short term cyclical activity from longer term processes.
For those with an electrical engineering background, you could think of it much like a bandpass filter which also has uses in meteorology:
Outside of electronics and signal processing, one example of the use of band-pass filters is in the atmospheric sciences. It is common to band-pass filter recent meteorological data with a period range of, for example, 3 to 10 days, so that only cyclones remain as fluctuations in the data fields.
(Note: For those that wish to try out the HP filter, a freeware Excel plugin exists for it which you can download here)
When applied to globally averaged temperature, it works to extract the longer term trend from variations in temperature that are of short term duration. It is somewhat like a filter that filters out “noise,” but in this case the short term cyclical variations in the data are not noise, but are themselves oscillations of a shorter term that may have a basis in physical processes.
For example, in Figure 1, in the cyclical component shown at the bottom of the figure, we can clearly see evidence of the 1998 Super El Niño. While not the current focus, I believe that analysis of the cyclical component may show significant correlations with known shorter term oscillations in globally averaged temperature, and that this may be a fruitful area for further research on the usefulness of Hodrick-Prescott filtering for the study of global or regional variations in temperature.
My original interest was in comparing rates of change between the smoothed series during the 1920’s and 1930’s with the rates of change during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Without getting into details (ask questions in comments if you have them), using HadCRUTv3 the rate of change during the early part of the 20th century was almost identical to the rate of change at the end of the century. Could there be some sense in which the warming at the end of the 20th century was a repeat of the pattern seen in the earlier part of the century? Since the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions was much lower in the earlier part of the century, what could possibly explain why temperatures increased for so long during that period at a rate comparable to that experienced during the recent warming?
As I examined the data in more detail, I was surprised by what I found. When working with a smoothed but non-linear “trend” like that shown in Figure 1, we compute the first differences of the series to calculate the average rate of change over any given period of time. A priori, there was no reason to anticipate a particular pattern in time (or “secular pattern”) to the differenced series. But I found one, and it was immediately obvious that I was looking at a secular pattern that had peaks closely matching the 22 year Hale solar cycle. The resulting pattern in the first differences is presented in Figure 2, with annotations showing how the peaks in the pattern correspond to peaks in the 22 year Hale cycle.
Besides the obvious correspondence in the peaks of the first differences in the smoothed series to peaks of the 22 year Hale solar cycle, there is a kind of “sinus rhythm” in the pattern that appears to correspond, roughly, to three Hale cycles, or 66 years. Beginning in 1876/1870, the rate of change begins a long decline from a peak of about +0.011 (since these are annual rates of change, a decadal equivalent would be 10 times this, or +0.11C/decade) into negative territory where it bottoms out about -0.013, before reversing and climbing back to the next peak in 1896/1893. A similar sinusoidal pattern, descending down into negative annual rates of change before climbing back to the next peak, is evident from 1896/1893 to 1914/1917. Then the pattern breaks, and in the third Hale cycle of the triplet, the trough between the 1914/1917 peak and the 1936/1937 peak is very shallow, with annual rates of change never falling below +0.012, let alone into the negative territory seen after the previous two peaks. This same basic pattern is repeated for the next three cycles: two sinusoidal cycles that descend into negative territory, followed by a third cycle with a shallow trough and rates of change that never descend below +0.012. The shallow troughs of the cycles from 1914/1917 to 1936/1937, and 1979/1979 to 1997/2000, correspond to the rapid warming of the 1920’s and 1930’s, and then again to the rapid warming of the 1980’s and 1990’s.
While not as well known as the 22 year Hale cycle, or the 11 year Schwabe cycle, there is support in the climate science literature for something on the order of a 66 year climate cycle. Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1994) found evidence of a 65-70 year climate cycle in a number of temperature records, which they attributed to a 50-88 year cycle in the NAO. Interestingly, they sought to infer from this that these oscillations were obscuring the effect of AGW. But that probably misconstrues the significance of the mid 20th century cooling phase. In any case, the evidence for a climate cycle on the order of 65-70 years extends well into the past. Kerr (2000) links the AMO to paleoclimate proxies indicating a periodicity on the order of 70 years. What I think they may be missing is that this longer term cycle shows evidence of being modulated by bidecadal rhythms. When the AMO is filtered using HP filtering, it shows major peaks in 1926 and 1997, a period of 71 years. But there are smaller peaks at 1951 and 1979, indicating that shorter periods of 25, 28, and 18 years, or roughly bidecadal oscillations. There is a growing body of literature pointing to bidecadal periodicity in climate records that point to a solar origin. See, for instance, Rasporov, et al, (2004). A 65-70 year climate cycle may simply be a terrestrial driven harmonic of bidecadal rhythms that are solar in origin.
In terms of the underlying rates of change, the warming of the late 20th century appears to be no more “unusual” than the warming during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Both appear to have their origin in a solar cycle phenomenon in which the sinusoidal pattern in the underlying smoothed trend is modulated so that annual rates of change remain strongly positive for the duration of the third cycle, with the source of this third cycle modulation perhaps related to long term trends in oceanic oscillations. It is purely speculative, of course, but if this 66 year pattern (3 Hale cycles) repeats itself, we should see a long descent into negative territory where the underlying smoothed trend has a negative rate of change, i.e. a period of cooling like that experienced in the late 1800’s and then again midway through the 20th century.
Figure 2 – click for a larger image
Figure 2 uses a default value of lambda (the parameter that determines how much smoothing results from Hodrick-Prescott filtering) that is 100 times the square of the data frequency, which for annual data would be 100. This is conventional, and is consistent with the lambda used for quarterly data in the seminal research on this technique by Hodrick and Prescott. I’m aware, though, of arguments for using a much lower lambda, which would result in much less smoothing.
In Part 2, we will look at the effect of filtering with a lower value of lambda. The results are interesting, and surprising.
Part 2 is now online here
NEW An update to this has been made here:
This truly has been a collaborative effort. Anthony should have changed all the first person singular references to a first person plural. His role in this becomes even more critical in Part II, when it comes to explaining some of the science we are seeing in all this. If he wants, he can put that part in the first person singular for himself. That way, if “we’re” wrong, he gets the blame, not me! 🙂
Maybe, when we’re done, we’ll put the two parts together into a single integrated PDF that can be hosted somewhere for easy download. http://www.icecap.us, maybe?
I suspect there will be lots of questions about the use of HP filtering. I mainly plan to let the results speak for themselves, and that includes the results in Part II. So I’m not going to expend a lot of effort defending the use of HP filtering. It is just a tool, like spectral or wavelet analysis to help us extract signals from complex data. It just happens to be one that is particularly useful for a certain kind of time series analysis (time series that are not stationary when differenced, but rather show non random first differences — like we see in Figure 2). Again, the results will speak for themselves, and I would encourage commenters not to get too distracted by the mere novelty of HP filtering until we see what it produces in Part II.
Basil
Thanks Basil,
I’m really beginning to see earth’s atmospheric processes more like that of an analog circuit with a variety of electrical components. There’s voltage, current, capacitance, reluctance and inductance in the irradiance-air-ocean systems.
I think an analog computer might very well model the earth’s atmosphere more accurately than a digital one. Digital signals do not exist in nature, but analog signals are abundant.
Wow.
A question I have is why didn’t the cooling of the 1940s-1960s cool us back to where we were in the early 20th century? Or is that what the whole surface record/UHI effect is about? We did, but we don’t see it because of an urban effect GISS/CRU refuse to admit exists?
you guys should publish this in a journal. E&E may take it if no one else will.
One question though–why did you use the particular filter that you used? I am merely curious, and I think your detractors will pick up on that and ignore the rest, merely saying that “you need to learn some climate science,” when clearly I think you know what you’re talking about here.
REPLY: When you are looking for a signal of a particular frequency, a bandpass filter excludes other frequencies outside of the range you specify. That is essentially what the HP filter does. As referenced in the text, it has other uses in meteorology, so it’s use here is not without precedence. -Anthony
Anthony: Are we allowed to get ahead of you and post links to graphs of, say, the PDO, which also illustrate (near to) 22 and 44 year cycles? Or would you prefer us to wait?
Here’s a graph, though, that won’t get the cart before the horse. It’s of the number of posts at Real Climate since it opened. The opening month with its 41 posts is excluded, since it was anomalous. Note the drastic decline in the trend over the last year that seems to coincide with the drop in global temperature.
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=eupwg8&s=3&capwidth=false
REPLY: Lets wait, it is never good to spoil the end of the movie or book for others.
I too have used filters: to increase the slope of frequency bands surrounding the one I wanted in fast onset tone pips used in auditory brainstem research. (Side note: There are so many better uses for filters than in cigs.) But back to my thought about your use. I have been cogitating on the pattern of cycle change and sunspot overlap during normal periods and its definition, versus cycle change in “minimal” periods. Would this filter work on actual sunspot data between normal cycles versus historic “minimals” to discern a predictive pattern? Maybe even a mathematical pattern? By the way, all these pictures of waves have sent me back to my days of research in audiology with a great deal of sentiment. Unfortunately, I found the Ivory tower environment to be less than pure, as in “We only fund research that supports our belief”, kind of like the current crop of global warmers.
I thank you both, if you were politicians the world would be a much better place.
German News this morning is full of ” The Extreme Weather Conference” in Hamburg which started today, with apparently, more than 700 participants, it will be interesting to see if they produce any ‘extreme’ results.
A question I have is why didn’t the cooling of the 1940s-1960s cool us back to where we were in the early 20th century
Maybe it did. Just a thought.
(Or would you rely on the adjusted surface station metadata?)
Anthony, your comment about analog circuitry reminds me of a course I took in ecosystem modeling many years ago before desktop computer existed. The professor first trotted out a simple circuit board with a couple of voltmeters and potentiometers and demonstrated how fiddling with the input parameters (resistance settings) affected the output (voltage readings on the meters). Although it only modeled a simple prey-predator relationship, it sure made the point in an easily grasped way.
Thanks for your reply Anthony, I appreciate the work you and Basil did on this piece.
I thank you both, if you were politicians the world would be a much better place.
Consider that the Rev wound up making all these wonderful discoveries as a result of being hounded out during a local election.
MattN:
“A question I have is why didn’t the cooling of the 1940s-1960s cool us back to where we were in the early 20th century?”
I think the answer lies in the increased solar output during the 20th Century.
Here you can see the solar irradiance increase over a period of 50 years at the start of the 20th Cent and achieved a plateau for the latter half. Cyclical variations discussed in this post might have very well have set the mark back to pre-20th Cent, but for the increased energy pumped into the system.
UHIE is becomes more of a problem in the latter 20th Cent as urban growth accelerates, IMHO.
If we are going to use analog circuits as an analogy, would a hurricane be a short circuit in our weather machine? 🙂
Anthony,
Yes, I think you could model the weather system as a complex electical circuit
– with inductance, capacitance, resistance etc
– the weather system will have it’s own set of reasonances – like the El Nino/La nina cycle
– and (we postulate) it is being ‘pumped’ or stimulated somehow by the sun’s period oscillations
– which will produce reasonances with strong amplitudes when the cycles coincide & less strong, small reasonances when the cycles are anti-phase.
But I disagree that an analogue computer is better at modelling this than an digital one
– digital systems are perfectly capable of simulation these systems
– in fact their more reliable than analogue computers, and more accurate
– provided they’re properly programmed, and given good input data
– Garbage In – Garbage Out – is true if you’re talking about any sort of computer – analogue or digital!
Alan,
Tell me about about it! Every time I turned the radio on in the car, that’s what I heard. Not to disappoint you, they’ve produced lots of “extreme” results, while snow falls outside! On NDR radio I heard a report that they’ve been running every hour all day long with the following contents:
1. Global warming is continuing and accelerating.
2. A big 450 sq. km piece of ice broke off Antarctica this morning – another sign of global warming.
3. One scientist, I don’t recall his name, says Greenland will melt in the next 700 years. Causing sea levels to rise 1 meter per century, which he states will be catastrophic.
4. Global warming is going to be very expensive for Germany, costing up to 800 billion euros in the next 50 years.
5. Global warming will cause more severe droughts, more floods and more weather extremes.
6. Water shortages in Germany will lead to power outages,
7. and agricultural losses, etc. etc. etc.
And on it went for the entire day, and most likely the rest of the week.
The German weather service, DWD, is filled with Hansens and Schmidts.
The Germans have certainly taken a few pages out of Goebbel’s playbook. Apparently they’ve learned nothing from their previous follies.
Excellent work Gentlemen !
Thank you.
It is amusing to me that after all the noise that the AGW lobby have made while attempting to dismiss the solar effect over a period of years that they suddenly appear to have found merit in it as a partial explanation for why their predictions are so far out of whack with observed data.
They now have the nerve to postulate that natural variation has temporarily overridden CO2 forcing.
Hello this is Gaia calling NASA/GISS, come in NASA/GISS do you read me ?
Sorry to burst your bubble NASA/GISS but the changes we’ve seen have all been naturally driven, CO2 was merely along for the ride.
You need to find a free lunch counter somewhere else !
Over and out.
Gaia
Anthony — from the first time I heard the hypothesis that variations in the sun’s activity could alter cloud cover it struck me that it made the sun-earth system like a transistor. Small changes in cloud cover correlated with variations in the sun’s activity are like small signals applied to the transistor gate. They modulate the much larger flow of sunlight getting to the earth’s surface. The fact that the sun’s radiation output (especially UV but also TSI) is also varying in sync adds to the effect — but looking only at those small fluctuations missing the much larger “transistor amplification” mechanism. In that context, the ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO, NAO etc) help to “tune” the climate response to the amplified solar signal. The natural frequency of response of the ocean systems would, however, likely differ by ocean basin depending on the shape and size of each basin, the relative exposure to solar radiation, relative depths etc.
REPLY: Excellent analogy. Cloud cover is indeed like the gate of a PNP transistor. Given that the temperature chnage has been about .7 rather than .3, I’ll wager it is a silicon rather than a germanium transistor. 😉 I think there’s another blog post in this. “Earth as Electric Circuit” perhaps.
Lets just hope no silicon controlled rectifiers (SCR) exists in the system.
DNorris says:
“I think the answer lies in the increased solar output during the 20th Century. ”
The graph you linked to is old data. Most solar scientists feel the sun’s radiative output has been stable for a long time.
I really appreciate this site and the level of discussion – I have just completed a review of climate science and the role of the IPCC (in house – my group advises a lot of conservation organisations who are frankly badly advised by computer modelling climatologists) – on the issue of why the 1940s dip did not take us back – the answer may lie in a combination of ocean dynamics and solar effects on cloud coverage (both overall percentage and spatial distrubution) – these are more easily followed in the recent warming/cooling period because of more extensive monitoring – of ocean heat content changes and sea surface changes, as well as ISCCP data – the period 1980-2001 shows quite clearly a 4% drop in cloudiness, and NASA GISS pick up the flux of SW radiation to the surface – my sense is that the oceans stored the previous heat wave, as with this last one – but not for long – they lose heat more rapidly than currently modelled following some kind of phase change – I can see such a change at the solar max of 2001/2002. We need to think cross-disciplinary, and I have to say, though IPCC try to, they don’t really get it – nor does Hadley – and until they do, all will refer to blips in general trends, rather than cycles and phase changes.
Thanks again,
Peter
Basil,
The science that says CO2 should cause some warming is well understood and not really questioned. Can your analysis be used to estimate how much CO2 related warming has occurred?
“A question I have is why didn’t the cooling of the 1940s-1960s cool us back to where we were in the early 20th century
Maybe it did. Just a thought.
(Or would you rely on the adjusted surface station metadata?)”
Good point, the US surface network, despite the the obvious problems documented at Surfacestations.org, is still the best in the world. It shows our current temperatures almost match those of the 1930’s (GISS USHCN). Perhaps this is a local phenomena isolated to the US, but it I suspect it is a closer match to the true global trend that the HadCRUT plot.
Regarding the TSI plot referenced by DNorris above, use caution as the author (Lean 2001) has since backtracked. This has been a point of discussion in the latest Svalgaard thread over at Climate Audit.
Basil and Anthony – thanks for the great write-up, very understandable and compelling. I suspect many of the readers/commenters are engineers like myself, not scientists. The comparisons to analog electrical circuits are very helpful to quickly grasp the concepts (as opposed to getting lost in the math).
Raven & Jeff C.
Can I get sources? If I am wrong, I need to change my opinion.
Thanks
OK. Let’s see. The climate system can be seen as an circuit system, complete with inputs and outputs. The Sun’s input is split unto 2 components: 1) Low freq rectified for baseline power, and 2) Higher frequency components filtered for input into a signal processing network. So far, the AGW folks have been concentrating on the power supply part of the input, and have smoothed out the signals that may be modulating the system output in major ways.
But, I speculate.
Great posts. Thanks.
DNorris,
Here is a link from the Climate Audit Svalgaard thread regarding TSI:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-227038
This is also discussed elsewhere in the thread. Note the Judith Lean trace (brown) is significantly out of family with the others. I don’t recall where I read she had retracted the data. I’ll see if I can find it and post a link.
Raven, see Pete’s latest graph, comment #207 in the Svalgaard #4 thread at climateaudit.org
============================
DNorris,
Try:
http://www.leif.org/research/
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf
The difference between the past and the presence can be attributed to CO2 – but this only amounts to 0.4 degC. This represents of CO2 sensitivity < 1 degC/doubling which is much smaller than the IPCC estimates.
Peter Hartley: Isn’t the hypothesis your describe is what Lindzen formulated and what he and Spencer have been discussing recently?
Was the warming of the late 20th century really that unusual?
I think we need to ask ourselves how much of the warming of the late 20th century was really that . . . real?
“Chapter 3 of the WG1 report begins:
Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906-2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).”
Umm, that sounds like a convoluted way to say there was no warming in the first half of the century. 5 x 0.13 = 0.65, 10 x 0.07 = 0.70, so 0.05 for the first 50 years. Error ranges are left as an exercise for the reader. That clearly disagrees with the hadCRUT data below.
Anthony:
“I’m really beginning to see earth’s atmospheric processes more like that of an analog circuit with a variety of electrical components. There’s voltage, current, capacitance, reluctance and inductance in the irradiance-air-ocean systems.
I think an analog computer might very well model the earth’s atmosphere more accurately than a digital one. Digital signals do not exist in nature, but analog signals are abundant.”
Back in my EE systems class the instructor generally drew analogies to mechanical systems, e.g. springs, masses, dashpots. Digital computers replaced analog computers for very good reasons, but if you do make an analog analog, make it mechanical – far more photogenic and TV news media would be thrilled to air it. 🙂
Right after that semester the Club of Rome report came out with its two page system model. Then I read a SF book (Greybeard, by Brian Aldiss) that looked at England after an economic collapse. I was depressed for the rest of the month, but eventually figured out the Club’s predictive powers on resources and adaptations reflected at static world.
“Given that the temperature change has been about .7 rather than .3, I’ll wager it is a silicon rather than a germanium transistor.”
I got it, I got it! Boy, are you old. I might have a Germanium transistor or two in the basement….
I apologize for wandering OT, but following up on DNorris’ question:
In Dr. Svalgaard’s comments linked above, he states:
“Note, that Lean herself [with Wang, 2005] has published later reconstructions where the change since the MM was only 1 W/sqm and since 1900 only 0.5 W/sqm, effectively halving the increase you calculate.”
See the trace labeled as “Wang” in the plot. Although Dr. Svalgaard does not specifically state that this is the 2005 reconstruction, I’m pretty certain this is the implication. It much more closely matches those of the other solar scientists.
The AGW true believers will sieze on any error to discredit the arguments of skeptics so it is important we keep each other up to date. I appreciate your open mind in requesting futher information.
MattN,
On your question about why the cooling of the 1940’s to 1960’s didn’t take us back to where we were at the beginning of the 20th Century, wait for Part II. If you want to imagine what’s coming, ask yourself about what’s happened with solar activity during the 20th century. Figure 2 only shows part of the puzzle. None of what we are doing discounts the role of UHI, or crummy siting of surface stations, in possibly biasing the raw data we are working with so that the absolute values are higher than they would otherwise be at the end of the 20th century. But were focusing on something more fundamental.
I do hope people realize that what’s being plotted in Figure 2 are “rates of change” in temperature, not absolute values. Basically, Figure 2 plots the time derivatives, dx/dt, of the smoothed series from Figure 1. So Figure 2 is telling us that from one peak of a 22 year cycle to the next, dx/dt’s initially drop off, reach a nadir, and then begin to climb back up to the next peak. As to the “why” of that, again, wait for Part II.
Terry,
I’ve suggested the same thing — trying to get this published eventually in a peer reviewed journal. I’ve published in peer reviewed journals in the past, and have served as a referree — in economics, though, not climate science. Since we’re not in academia, there’s a certain bias that exists in the peer review process that we have to overcome. Given how politicized this issue has become, if it stands up to the kind of scrutiny we’re going to get from those who have stakes to protect, what we learn from that kind of scrutiny will help us to prepare something that is more likely to get published. We’ll just have to wait and see.
As to why we chose the particular filter we chose — that’s going to be part of the prejudice or bias we have to overcome, because it has its origins in economics. But time series are time series, and economics has learned a great deal about how to explore the properties of time series. When I started all of this, like some other economists, my first thought was to use some kind of ARMA (Box-Jenkins) analysis. But that would be treating temperature time series like a stock market trend where differencing is used to achieve stationarity and the data follows a random walk. That will not do here, because I think it is fundamentally wrong to believe that the processes we are investigating follow a random walk. It boils down to whether we expect dx/dt to be random or not. We don’t, not where “x” relates to physical processes like the influence of, say, the solar cycle on climate. The solar cycle shows a very well known pattern of variation in time. If it is influencing temperature, then it is going to show that influence through the dx/dt of temperature. HP filtering is an excellent tool for this. As to the role of lambda in HP filtering, we treat that in Part II.
Bob Tisdale,
I’m not sure of what you’ve done, but if you wait, then maybe you can put what you’ve done into a larger context. We’re just getting started. 🙂 I will tell you, though, that I don’t envisage anything in our Part II that might steal your thunder, whatever it is. We’ve already alluded to the role of terrestrial dynamics, where large scale, long lived oceanic oscillations seem to sit on top of Hale cycle periodicities, as it were, and modulate the influence of the solar cycle. I think the longer 65-70 year climate cycle is just that — the influence of terrestrial dynamics interacting with solar influences, to produce a complex system. Again, you’ll see more of where we are going with this in Part II, and then I’d be delighted to see what you’ve done with the PDO (and see how it compares to what we’ve done, but will not be specifically including in Part II).
Pamela Grey,
Why don’t you ask your question again, after we post Part II? You’ll should see something about how we would propose using HP smoothing to look for a relationship between temperature and sunspots.
Note to Anthony:
I’m talking about the chart I sent you this morning. While you work on finishing up the “science” part of Part II, I’m going to work on how to integrate that chart, and something else I’m thinking about, into Part II.
pablo an ex pat,
LOL!
Raven,
If I understand the science we’ll be presenting in Part II, it will not depend on the Sun’s radiative output, but how it gets modulated by something else. 🙂
As to your question about CO2, I don’t really question the science that says it should cause warming. As you intimate, the question is how much? I don’t think we are going to be able to show anything with an annual time series like we’re looking at here. To repeat what I said above, we’re basically exploring relationships in “dx/dt’s” There is a well known pattern to the dx/dt of CO2 emissions. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised that when we “drill down” and look at it this way, we will find the “dx/dt” of CO2 levels follows temperature, it doesn’t lead it. I’m pretty sure that’s already been explored. Look for studies dealing with “interannual” variations in CO2.
Basil
Jeff C. – Thanks… I will digest that tonight.
Raven – C02 Effect… Thanks. I am familiar with the work Lindzen and others on the decreasing effect of CO2 with increasing concentrations, but was actually looking for your Solar Output sources.
Onwards:
This post triggered a vague recall of a paper I read by Landscheidt. I finally found it at Still Waiting for Greenhouse.
SOLAR ACTIVITY:
A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS
RIP John and Theodor 🙁
Raven,
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png
I don’t think anyone can say exactly how little CO2 drove the temp. in the 20th century. Personally I don’t believe anyone who claims to.
Landscheidt made climate predictions based on solar activity, and some were right on the money (though he never told us about the ones that were wrong).
I have qualms about the direction this is all going. Like the CO2 kooks, we are trying to find one single, easy factor that drives the climate. I think it’s far more complex than that.
I will say, however, that the sun is at least 10 times a greater factor than CO2. Research dollars spent on solar research would certainly be a much wiser investment.
Using a cascading algorithm such as the one you used, it goes without saying that the results of the second step (Fig. 2) are very sensitive to the accuracy of the filter applied in the first step — i.e., how good it actually was at distinguishing the short-term “noise” from the actual trend. While that partially depends on the accuracy of the tau and lambda terms employed, it also depends upon two more assumptions which I think are far more critical: (a) there is only one trend, and (b) the “noise” (i.e., short term variations) is/are symmetric in their shape. To the extent that any of those things are in error, then the results of the second step will represent an accumulation of that error. And just an eye-ball examination of the first figure in your “The Solar to Global Warming Connection – A short essay” post suggests the assumption of symmetry is violated: the solar cycle variations are positively skewed (for laymen: the rising edge of each “hump” is steeper than the falling edge). Since you are attempting to imply something about solar cycles from temperature records, at the very least it seems to me encumbent upon you to demonstrate that the temerature records don’t violate those assumptions as well. If they do, then the HP filter is not the most appropriate one to use. A non-symmetric algorithm (e.g., a wavelet) is more appropriate.
Succeding in that, then there’s the even more critical assumption of a single trend. For that to be viable you’d have to assume solar irradiance is coupled with temperature through a single mechanism. In other words, you’d have to assume that land masses, oceans, and the atmosphere all react the same way, symmetrically, and on the same time scale — or at least that one of the three dominates to the extent that it obviates the others. IMO, that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Thus, I would argue that using an HP filter, combined with a cascading algorithm is not the way to go.
By the way, have you guys read Scafetta and West, 2007? It seems to me their approach is similar to yours (they take a heuristic approach), but vastly superior in a variety of ways.
REPLY: Rather than speculating on results you haven’t seen yet, may I suggest waiting for part 2 before claiming the methodology inferior? -Anthony
Paddy: Actually, I was talking about the Svensmark hypothesis — ie. that the sun’s magnetic field modulates the high energy cosmic ray flux reaching the lower atmosphere and hence the condensation nuclei for low level clouds over the oceans in particular. The Lindzen iris hypothesis as I understand it is a much shorter-term negative feedback mechanism. Essentially, storms in the tropics reduce the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere allowing more IR energy to escape and thus cooling the earth. The transistor analogy relates more to the Svensmark hypothesis as a mechanism for amplifying solar effects — the turning on and off of the cloud cover by fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field strength modulates the flow of light from the sun like a small signal on a transistor gate modulates the much stronger current flow through the transistor.
“Research dollars spent on solar research would certainly be a much wiser investment.”
That’ll never do. We can’t sell solar offsets….
MattN: Here’s an illustration that may help. Solar is a pain unless you smooth it. While solar irradiance (TSI) leveled off and dropped a little mid-century, it didn’t fall back to the levels it was at in the early 1900s-late 1800s.
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=5oa929&s=3&capwidth=false
Fascinating. Do you have a mechanism where by the solar cycles should drive the rate of change of global temperature? As far as I, maybe mistakenly, understand the cosmic ray theory is that the clouds they generate will modulate the equilibrium point of the earth’s energy balance, directly effecting the temperature, not its rate of change. But you show a good correlation with the rate of change.
Have you been able to isolate the components that are directly attributable to the small variations in TSI and the increase of CO2?
The results are interesting. I followed the procedure and made a spectral analysis of the differences time series (figure 2). There are two cycles, a low intensity one with a 14 year cycle and one with a 21 year cycle:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=s2cxva&s=3
Two suggestions:
1. For the next post try to make a spectral analysis of the signal
2. Try to apply the same procedure for the temperature of the southern hemisphere
Rico,
Ditto what Anthony said. Yes, I’ve certainly read Scafetti and West. And it is an elegant piece of work. But it doesn’t show what we’re showing. For all their effort, the most they can say about the 20th century is:
“During the 20th century one continues to observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature patterns: both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from1970 to 2000.”
We’ve shown something entirely different, and potentially more significant: that the rate of change in a smoothed global temperature series follows a pattern that tracks with almost pinpoint accuracy the 22 year Hale cycle. They claim a broad correspondence to three periods in the 20th century. Figure 2 shows close correspondence to six Hale cycles over the past 130 years.
And if you think that is something — I certainly do — wait until Part II.
Basil
I think CO2 levels are a cyclic function of ocean absorption. The ocean is the biggest sponge of CO2. But it only acts as a sponge under certain conditions that appear to be tied to cycles. The CO2 that is absorbed than gets deposited in deep ocean bottom material. It does not cough it back up. Then, in the non-absorbing part of the cycle, it stops soaking up CO2, leaving it to rise into the upper stratum of the atmosphere to get measured by alarmists. When the time comes for the ocean to once again be receptive to CO2, the process begins all over again. We should be entering an ocean absorbing phase right about now, if it hasn’t already begun. This long cycle is just a theory since we haven’t been measuring CO2 long enough to discover a pattern. CO2 probably does serve to warm us up a bit but we should be considering the possibility that it is also cyclic in nature.
Anthony: Rather than speculating on results you haven’t seen yet, may I suggest waiting for part 2 before claiming the methodology inferior?
I didn’t speculate on much of anything. I commented on what you wrote, and on the logic contained in it. The assumptions I questioned were your own, and by extention those contained in your method. That’s not speculation or opinion, it’s logic.
I did, indicate that your assumption that solar irradiance is coupled with temperature through a single mechanism (which is what the assumption of a single trend requires) strains credulity. And I suppose that could be considered opinion. Nonetheless, the assumption itself does logically require that land masses, oceans, and the atmosphere all react the same way to irradiative forcings. And that would be an extraordinary claim. As such it requires extraordinary evidence. And you didn’t present any.
REPLY: “And you didn’t present any.” Well then, again I suggest kindly stay tuned for part 2.
RE: An historic and stable value for TSI and Svalgaard.
I have high regard for Dr. Svalgaard’s encyclopaedic grasp of all details solar, but I cannot condone regarding his opinions and theories as mainstream. Try his old collaborators, Schatten and Hoyt if orthodox belief is your central concern.
JM,
Interesting. What do you see spectral analysis telling us that we’re not seeing with the use of HP smoothing and first order differencing?
I have nothing against other tools and techniques. We often come at the same thing by different means. It doesn’t mean necessarily that one is better than the other. But unless you can tell me what spectral analysis will show me that I’m not already seeing, I already have a full plate of things to do.
The suggestion to look at the Southern continent is a good one. But don’t look for it in Part II. We are just breaking some ground here, and don’t expect these initial posts to be the final word. More like a quick introduction to a new way of looking at things.
But I do appreciate the feedback. I think the technique is one that has broad application in climate science, where we have historical time series data. It sounds like Bob Tisdale may be using it to look at the PDO.
Looking at the global temperature trend is just a start, and for very little effort, is producing some interesting results. Applying it to the SH is something to do, at some point.
Basil
REPLY: I agree that the southern hemispshere might be interesting to look at separately. I think what JM is getting at is that a spectral analysis would show which cycle or multiple thereof is the dominate peak. I certainly have nothing against the idea. Perhaps when we get a variety of feedbacks from this two part presentation, we can look further. – Anthony
Now that the global warming community has bullied Judith Lean into reconstructing her solar reconstructions at least three times now and the latest numbers show hardly any solar variation whatsoever, it is clear that the global warming community is going to re-write every historical record there is until only CO2 matters.
Effectively, solar irradiance is useless now for any kind of analysis since it hardly varies at all. All that can be used is “sunspot number” which obviously does not account for all the variation in solar output across the entire EM spectrum.
Its a good thing we have Roy Spencer and John Christy to keep the land-based temperature records honest going forward (not the historical ones however) but they could be silenced at any time as well.
Rico,
If I may, let me back up a bit ask something for clarification. You say:
“Succeding in that, then there’s the even more critical assumption of a single trend. For that to be viable you’d have to assume solar irradiance is coupled with temperature through a single mechanism.”
I do not follow you on this. Any single trend can be the result of multiple independent variables or influences. Personally, based on what we will present in Part II, I’m not sure that we should have brought solar irradiance into the discussion at all. Actually, I don’t think we have to show at all what the physical mechanism is that is involved in the connection between the Sun and globally averaged temperature to justify the title of this series. To the extent that we can shed any light on the physical mechanism involved, that’s serendipity. And that’s what has been saved for Part II.
For now, how has what we’ve done any different, say, than paleoclimate studies of tree rings that show through MTM or spectral analysis evidence of a 22 year periodicity in the data? When such studies are reported, don’t they just usually claim that this is indication of a solar influence? Would a referee reviewing such a paper reject it because it doesn’t contain a theory about the solar physics involved?
Basil
Anthony: “And you didn’t present any.” Well then, again I suggest kindly stay tuned for part 2.
Okay, I’ll wait for part 2. Until then I will simply speculate (lol!) that you will (a) better explain the values you used for tau and lambda, (b) provide a response profile of how the resulting filter applies to real life time scales (or at least provide the numbers that would allow someone else to do it), and (c) attempt to quantify the apparent forcing relationship between the Hale cycle and the temperature response (including the necessary logic to justify yourselves). It seems to me that if you don’t do that, then merely showing some sort of a qualitative relationship between the Hale cycle and temperature — even if “tight” — wouldn’t be exactly surprising.
Further, if you’re seriously contemplating submitting your findings to a real, honest to goodness peer reviewed journal, then it seems to me you are at the very least compelled to discuss them in light of Scafetta and West, along with others who have noted an apparent secular relationship between one or another (or more) frequency of TSI oscillation and surface temperature (e.g., Eddy, 1976; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995; Lean et al., 1995; Crowley and Kim, 1996; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; White et al., 1997, 2003). But I assume you already know that — assuming your intent is to seriously submit your study for peer review. If not, then I guess anything goes.
REPLY: See Basils response.
««Interesting. What do you see spectral analysis telling us that we’re not seeing with the use of HP smoothing and first order differencing?»»
Basil,
Spectral analysis is a more objective method to find cycles in the time series. It allows the detection of cycles with frequencies that may be obscured by other cycles.
You state:
and
yet the graph in figure 2 does not show a peaks at 1926 and 1951, but 1936/1937 and 1958/1957
Could you clear this up, please?
Thanks
anomdebus,
That statement is in reference to the AMO, not temperature. We didn’t present a chart showing those numbers. In the section you are reading from, we are comparing what we’ve found with what others have found indicating a long ~66 year climate cycle.
Does that clear it up?
Basil
Basil,
Yes that does, thank you. I think I was letting my primate pattern making skills override my reading skills. 🙂
Thanks again.
Thanks for your very fine work. You have been putting a lot of work into finding the truth, and the lies, and all of us appreciate it.
On catholicfundamentalism.com there are frequent references to Global Warming, not because it’s real, but because those who tell lies for money, position, and power are condemning their souls to perdition.
There is a spiritual component to this, and we can’t forget to pray for those who lack the strength or morals to seek the truth.
Hi,
Basil what TSI source are you using? Hopefully not Hoyt. I think there are many current TSI sources available but Hoyt seems not to fit the current trend. Very nice piece of work though. I have also found that there might be a link to magnetism meaning that the earths magnetic field concentrates the PDE which breaks up the cloud forming nuclei when the TSI peaks. See the RSS map and magnetic field map. Very interesting and still very much work in progress.
http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/articles/geology/a_geomag.html#one
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt
Basil, Anthony:
This is a great piece of work. I had just started playing around with taking the first derivative of smoothed time series, but had not explored filtered series as of yet. This will send me into whole other directions. But I want to see part II first!
Rico:
“indicate that your assumption that solar irradiance is coupled with temperature through a single mechanism (which is what the assumption of a single trend requires)…
i.e., how good it actually was at distinguishing the short-term “noise” from the actual trend.”
I don’t believe this analysis is at all cogent. If the purpose were to look at the incoming TSI and the PDO/AMO (or other/additional oscillations), as a TSI history, in a component analysis with the end being to create a polynomial fit, it would, but that is not here entertained. Indeed, a differential equation seems a better goal altogether than the one you envision.
Pattern recognition appears to be the sole objective here.
REPLY: “Pattern recognition appears to be the sole objective here”
That’s the best description one could make for what this is about. Find the pattern present first, detailed analysis comes later. – Anthony
Fascinating! You are skilled at what you do, guys! I’m currently revisting older work on solar right now. This new finding supports what I have generally found based on that work. Can’t wait for the conclusion!
Maybe I can shed some light on finding cycles within what appears to be steady state noise. In my research, synaptic brain response to auditory signals as measured by electrode pickup on the scalp can only be found by filtering out the background static noise of the brain. Our brains fire all the time in a fairly random and steady state when we are just chillin, as in not thinking or listening to anything (that’s how we know we are not brain-dead). This noise can be mathematically reduced (filtered out) to a narrow band of “zero” and even smoothed out to near zero (in simple terms adding negatives and subtracting positives so that random becomes zero), leaving space above and below for patterned or cyclic responses, if they occur. Now we add a series of clicks or pips to the ears, and presto: out comes a series of waves (measured electrical synaptic jolts) that can be measured for slope, peak amplitude, and time, as well as corresponded to the major synaptic junctions of the auditory neural pathway. We can even determine the frequency of the tone pip that was sent down the pathway. Higher frequencies result in earlier wave peaks, lower frequencies result in later wave peaks. Until filtering was used, the very small but PATTERNED auditory neural pathway responses hid behind a veil of random static noise. You just never know what you will find when you filter out random stuff. Gold miners used basically the same principal by filtering and washing out dirt to get to the nuggets.
Bill Illis (13:33:12) : says:
“Now that the global warming community has bullied Judith Lean into reconstructing her solar reconstructions at least three times now and the latest numbers show hardly any solar variation whatsoever, it is clear that the global warming community is going to re-write every historical record there is until only CO2 matters.”
There are good scientific reasons for the change that have nothing to do with climate science. In fact, the new solar data actually problems for the warmers because now they cannot argue that the LIA and MWP were caused by changes in the sun that are not occurring today. IOW – warmers cannot argue that CO2 is the only plausible explaination for the warming today if they don’t know why warming occurred in the past.
“IOW – warmers cannot argue that CO2 is the only plausible explaination for the warming today if they don’t know why warming occurred in the past.”
They used the history-erasing hockeystick to essentially eliminate all vaguely recent historical warming.
Basil .. Anthony …
I’ve seen this before!!!
When you mentioned a cycle of 65-70 years, Landscheidts Big Fingers immediately came to mind! I went back to John Daly’s site and re-read his article, and sure enough .. there it is.
“Cycles of big fingers have a mean length of 35.8 years (178.8 years [big hand] / 5 = 35.76 years [big fingers]). They are closely connected with solar activity. They coincide with maxima and minima in the Gleissberg cycle and open up the possibility of predicting these crucial phases many years ahead [62, 63]. As will be shown below, they also define the length of the 22.1-year magnetic cycle of sunspot activity (Hale cycle). ”
What was really interesting is the link between the 60-70 year cycle and an influence on the Hale Cycle. …. hmmmmmmm
I know some people think Landscheidt was a kook because he played with Astrology .. but I can’t help but wonder, why is it that I keep seeing other research unknowingly confirm what he did.
I am inclined to suspect that the recent stabilization in global temperatures may well merely reflect the launch of the Aqua satellite, launched 2002.
What happens is that whenever the data looks unfavorable to anthropogenic global warming, people cast about until they find a possible source of error. If you look hard enough, you can always find a *possible* source of error. Then they pull an error term out of their asses, and “correct” the data till it is politically correct. Eventually someone gets around to making a measurement that is proof against this potential source of error. (Aqua’s orbit does not drift) “Corrections” of older data sources then rapidly converge to agree this new more error resistant source of data – but the old “corrections” continue to be applied to historical data.
Satellites directly measure global temperatures against an absolute standard. The last remaining source of wiggle room was orbit drift, and Aqua does not drift, so since 2002, and *only* since 2002, we have unchanging thermometer in the sky measuring the whole globe, except for the poles.
Actually, more sunshine has been reaching the earth since the early 1990’s.
“Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth’s surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems. ”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847
Anthony / Basil
Just FYI, the authors of this paper did something similar with the Chinese temperature records and also found cycles of similar lengths. So there is some support out there…
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/Zhen-Shan–Xiuan-MeteorAtmosPhys-2007-d1227bc1-3183-456f-a935-69c263af1904.pdf
It did not pass unnoticed as WC had a brief look at it on Stoat, and by the looks of it, Lubos also had something on it:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/multiscale_analysis_of_global.php
cheers
Arnost
By the way, there is a difference between TSI and solar radiation reaching the earth.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article696586.ece
Consider the UK in 2006:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2006/sunshine.html
As much as 70% above normal in 2006.
Or, long term:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/UK_climate_trends.pdf
“Table 12 shows the percentage change in sunshine, based on a linear trend starting from 1929. It shows that the greatest and most significant changes occurred in the winter season, when there has been an increase in sunshine of about 20% for central and northern England.
Sunshine has also increased in these areas by about 10% in autumn, and by 8% over the year as a whole for eastern and NE England. These increases could be a result of the Clean Air Acts of 1956 onwards, which has led to a decrease in air pollution.”
Cleaning up of air pollution …
Jim Arndt,
This discussion took a wrong turn somewhere. We’re not looking at irradiance. There’s casual mention of it by Anthony in a general remark at the beginning of the discussion, but if that’s the source, it reads something into what Anthony said that I don’t think he meant. Some other commenters have gone off on their own tangent about irradiance and what the data is for it, and so forth, but we’re not going to infer anything about irradiance that I know of. In fact, in an early reply in the discussion I put a little 🙂 after a remark about infering a rather different physical basis for what we think our findings may be showing.
Rico,
We’ll explain more about lambda in Part II. But why do you ask about tau? What is your understanding of the role it plays in HP filtering?
I understand well what is required to pass peer review, and we’re only just getting started on this. I can see where this work needs to interact with some of the references you cite, but not others. And I have a long bibliography I’m compiling of numerous others. Which brings me back to “c” in your list of expectations for Part II. What sources might I have overlooked that show relationships between Hale cycles and temperature trends? Even if there are others, are you saying that corroborating work that may only advance the state of knowledge or understanding incrementally is a waste of time? Actually, based on what we’ll present in Part II, I think what we are doing goes beyond that, but I don’t really understand the basis for your skepticism.
Basil
REPLY: I never meant to imply irradiance was used in this essay. I used the term in talking about how I think the climate system can look much like an electrical circuit, with irradiance being part of that, voltage for example…and that all came from thinking about bandpass filters. I’m an amatuer radio operator so I tend to think along tose lines. – Anthony
Hi,
Basil and Anthony, Thank you for making that clear. Many people use the Hoyt and it not in line with the current thinking in TSI reconstructions. Just wanted to make sure. Keep it up and I am waiting in earnest for part II.
Anthony,
Our friends at NCDC shut off the managing parties field again. They have also taken down the obstruction and exposure information.
REPLY: I’ll look into it.
Related to the latest ice breakage horor story. A puzzle for number phobic environuts. According to
wikipedia
the Ross Ice Shelf moves 1.5 to 3 *meters* a day. Given that rate calculate amount of time it would take to reach New Zealand *if* there is no iceberg breakages.
Pamela Gray: “Then, in the non-absorbing part of the cycle, it stops soaking up CO2, leaving it to rise into the upper stratum of the atmosphere to get measured by alarmists.”
Beautiful line! m’am.
You mean the LIA and MWP they say didn’t happen?
Basil, the spectral analysis also shows the exact amplitude of each frequency component which you won;t get from a time domain analysis.
BTW I recently favor GaAs transistors
Basil (14:13:53): I do not follow you on this. Any single trend can be the result of multiple independent variables or influences.
It can, but it’s not a necessity. If nothing is known about the nature of the data it could just as easily be the opposite: multiple independent variables or influences could result in different trends. But by using an HP filter you are imposing the single trend assumption when in fact it might not be valid. In math speak, the HP algorithm assumes the signal upon which it is applied is composed of two distinct frequencies whose periodicities are “sufficiently distinguishable” from each other. The filter is highly dependent upon that assumption. That might be appropriate for economic data, but I doubt it’s appropriate for climate data. But if you think it is, then it seems like you should argue your case in some detail. Moreover, it appears to me the results could be highly dependent upon the value of lambda, which essentially serves as the cut-off frequency. In both those regards, I think you should read this paper if you haven’t already.
And perhaps the essential question is: how dependent are the conclusions you make after the second step in your analysis on the lambda value you use in the first step? If they aren’t, then it seems to me you will have to defend your use of a particular value on a technical level. And if you can’t, then I think it could be rightly argued that you are attempting to interpret artifact. But I’ll wait for what you say in Part 2.
As for your later question about the tau (19:42:02), I withdraw my statement. Upon first glimpse of the formula for the HP filter I misinterpreted its meaning. I think I have a better handle on it now. Regarding the question of corroboration, my point was just that you have to fit your results in with those of others that have attempted to analyze the same or similar phenomena. But it sounds like you have a good handle on that.
Go see what Pete has in the latest Svalgaard thread.
===============================
the LIA and MWP they say didn’t happen?
Thet were in posession of it as recently as 1995 but then they lost it.
But it was found recently, cleverly concealed under 390 tons of bristlecone pines.
I read this data from the peaks in figure 2:
1870 1937 1998
0.012 0.023 0.027
Assuming that the increase will be max 0.011 and min 0.004, thus repeating this sparse historical data, then the 2064 temp anomoly could be between 0.031 and 0.038 C. Likewise, the 2130 could be between 0.035 and 0.049 C. So if history repeats itself and these last two 66 year cycles are typical then the amount of warming over the next 122 years would be less than half of a tenth of a degree.
Raven, seeing as how the amount of warming, comparing the peaks like I am doing, has decreased, this may be more evidence that the warming ability of CO2 is overestimated. Warming of 0.011 when our emissions were low, as compared to warming of 0.004 after our emissions had been skyrocketing for 50 years, indicates that we have not had much of an impact.
John M Reynolds
Rico,
That was a very helpful exposition of your concern about the use of the HP filter. But I see no real difference between the kind of economic time series data we would use HP filtering for, and climate time series data. (If I haven’t said so before, though I think I have, there are lots of economic time series where we wouldn’t use HP filtering, because the underlying process is viewed as a random walk. So don’t misunderstand anything I’ve said to imply that HP filtering is used in economics will no regard to the nature of the time series data.) In submitting anything for peer review, I’m sure the case for using HP filtering on climate data will have to be argued more strenuously. For now, we prefer to let the results speak for themselves.
However, this point — “Moreover, it appears to me the results could be highly dependent upon the value of lambda, which essentially serves as the cut-off frequency.” — is very well taken. I am aware of the authors in the link you provided. You might likewise want to read this:
http://homepage.mac.com/eduley/_Media/hp224.pdf
which is basically making the same point. And this is the direction in which we are headed in Part II, which was clearly indicated at the end of Part I:
“I’m aware, though, of arguments for using a much lower lambda, which would result in much less smoothing.
“In Part 2, we will look at the effect of filtering with a lower value of lambda. The results are interesting, and surprising.”
So if I may say so, without sounding too impertinent, do give us a little credit here. And do not think that lambda will be an easy way to discredit the results. While one can quarrel about whether the value should be 7 or 100, around a particular value the results are rather robust. It isn’t a razor’s edged parameter where the results change dramatically with a small change in the parameter. As you say, it is something of a cutoff filter, where if you pick something too high, it will cut off and not reveal patterns that contain useful information. But the opposite side of the coin is that evidence of periodicities which persist when the lambda is set at a higher rate simply signify a stronger underlying signal, and that is too useful knowledge.
Let’s see how Figure 2 changes when we use a lower lamda, and what the inferences are that we might draw from the difference. That’s where we are going with Part II.
Basil
jmrSudbury,
I fear you may be doing what previously expressed concerns about, and are misreading Figure 2. That is not a pattern of absolute temperatures, it is a pattern of the rate of change in temperature over time, e.g. a time derivative, dx/dt. Or am I misunderstanding how you used the data? I just want you to be sure you understand what it is, in your use of it.
Basil
CA has an post awhile back that seems to show an 11 yr cycle in sea-level rate-of-change.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1125
IT”S OFFICAL !
Scientists at “The Extream weather Conference” today in Hamburg told reporters (MSM) that Germany will have to spend 800 billion euros ( $!.2 trillion) in the next 50 years to combat global warming if it is too survive,
The antarctic ice will disappear in the next 2 decades as will the northern ice, polar bears are now dying as never before, and we must change to bio fuel in the next 5 years globally if we are to save the planet.
I am sure I have left out something but I was so dumbfounded listening to this “Scientific Press Release” it put me in shock !
Perhaps AGWscoffer can fill in the gaps, But when this’ kids stuff ‘ gets the ‘top story’ on the national news, what chances have the good guys got? The anchorman on the news channel is not going to say ” well all you dumb people listen here, the weather is going to do what it has done for the last 100 million years, no changes,”
That don’t give grandma a heart attack !
Thank you for correcting me. I thought it was another temperature anomoly graph. My mistake. Sorry for any confusion.
John M Reynolds
Basil (07:43:11): And this is the direction in which we are headed in Part II, which was clearly indicated at the end of Part I:
As soon as I submitted my last post I wished I had it back. My bad. Sorry about that. I think I’ll wait for Part II before commenting anymore.
Interesting, figure 2 has a similarity to the global ice coverage: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg but on a much longer scale. You did mention sinus rhythm. Maybe this is a good analog where the solar cycle is to temp, as seasonal cycle is to ice coverage?
polar bears are now dying as never before
Well, is that not true? Since the polar bear population has roughly tripled since 1950, does it not stand to reason that the number of polar bear deaths per year has also roughly tripled?
The antarctic ice will disappear in the next 2 decades
I must assume they meant sea ice? Well, 5/6 of it will disappear. (After all, it does that every year.)
What’s really interesting here is that while one would intuitively think the global ice coverage would be more of a sine wave, by combining the NH and SH ice coverages, the deep trough is the result of the SH going into summer, the upswing of the trough is the SH going into Fall (the NH has begun it’s melt phase) swinging up to a double peak. The SH ice cover is vastly more variable than the NH ice cover and so you get the deep trough in the summer and the notch cut out at the peak (NH ice cover decrease) in the SH winter. This analog may explain your figure 2 since just as both the SH and NH ice coverage are a sinus rhythm and 180 degree out of phase, the combining of two unequal size sine waves gives a new unique sine type wave. In fact this reminds me of Clilverd’s work on Solar Cycle prediction where he determined there are several harmonic waves within the series.
A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. March 6, 2008.
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Program Manager “CCV, F 104G” (see Internet).
Program Manager “Lampyridae, MRMF” (see Internet)
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
I. Climatological facts
As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.
1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behaviour. In two-thirds of these 10 000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20 years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!
2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950’s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950’s onwards.
3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere. As is shown in Section II, this phenomenon is generated by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun.
4. The extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, leaves little room for a human influence on climate. This close correlation results from the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see Section II). Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years.
5. From the steady decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth that set in in Dec. 2003, it can reliably be concluded that the mean Earth temperature will decrease again in 2010 for the duration of three decades as it did from 1872 to 1913 and from 1942 to 1972.
6. The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2 emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.
II. Physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity and changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth
Despite its great successes, the gravitational theory of the great physicist Albert Einstein, General Relativity, (which is of a purely geometric nature and is totally incompatible with the highly successful quantum theory) must be discarded because this theory is completely irreconcilable with the extremely large energy density of the vacuum that has been accurately measured in the Casimir experiment.
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured.
Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity of the Earth. (see the figure referred to in Section I.4). Einsteinian theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.
While the rotational velocity of the Earth and the thermonuclear energy conversion process on the Sun react simultaneously to the passage of a vacuum density wave, a time span of 6 years is needed for the energy to be transported from the core of the Sun to the Earth’s atmosphere and for the latter’s reaction time.
As can be seen, super-Einsteinian gravitation reveals the true cause of climate change.
“galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun” err, what do you say to that?
I can’t get it out of my head that if Figure 2 is the temperature trend, then shouldn’t the tail end be negative already since the globe has been cooling recently? You can see that cooling in Figure 1. It has been publicized that 2006 was cooler than 2005 and that 2007 was only the 8th warmest, so it was cooler than even 2006. Or does the trend line not incorporate the most recent data similar to how 5 year average graphs miss the first two and last two years? The fact that Figure 2 has been on a sharp decline since 1998 indicates to me a leveling off of the temperature record (or is it the other way around). So if this cooling persists as the missing solar cycle 24 suggests, then the trend line will continue to fall.
What is the year of the last data points on Figure 2?
John M Reynolds
“I think you should read this paper if you haven’t already.”
“I think I’ll wait for Part II before commenting anymore.”
What’s the rush?
Grüß Gott Herr Dr Loeebert,
wirklich sehr interessant. Vor 3 Tagen haben wir in diesem Forum über Bienen diskutiert.
This theory you’ve presented I must say is completely new to me, and a very interesting one. Large rotational bodies in our galaxy causing vacuum density waves, as you call them, which effect solar activity and thus climate on earth is certainly highly plausible. I could imagine the galaxy wobbles too. Has this theory been published in scientific journals, or presented to cosmo-climatologists such as Dr Svensmark?
What magnitude of temperature decline do you expect to see in the next few decades? Will the earth’s rotational velocity decrease more than usual, or will it decrease an extent that has been normal in the past?
You absolutely should present this to MIT physicist Lubos Motl:
http://motls.blogspot.com/
I’d be very interested to hear his comments on this.
Finally it is also very surprising to find a German scientist who has a a “different” view on climate change. We need to get you alone in a room with Dr. Ramstorf!
PS Could you kindly provide additional links to this theory?
Anyone see this?
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=130951
John M Reynolds,
The data is annual, and the last year is 2007. What you are seeing in FIgure 2 is not the temperature trend, but the rate of change in the temperature trend. And it is the rate of change in the smoothed series, not the rate of change in the actual series. Here is the raw data, from 1990, being plotted in Figure 2:
1990 0.01422
1991 0.01434
1992 0.01556
1993 0.01829
1994 0.02145
1995 0.02414
1996 0.02586
1997 0.02690
1998 0.02597
1999 0.02361
2000 0.02187
2001 0.02034
2002 0.01812
2003 0.01543
2004 0.01277
2005 0.01060
2006 0.009040
2007 0.008408
What it shows is a “core trend” (the smoothed series) that is accelerating until it peaks in 1997, and then it begins to decelerate. We’re talking time derivatives here, dx/dt, not the trend itself.
Basil
Addendum, to John Reynolds
Look carefully at Figure 1. After 1997, do you see the smoothed series begin to slowly curve downward? When it reaches an inflexion point, and turns downward, the lines plotted in Figure 2 will cross the x-axis (zero).
Basil
Your cyclicities in the fig 2 graph are not solar, they are lunar. Measure the peak/trough/peak periods and 18.6 years (multiples and fractions), as peak to peak, trough to trough comes up several times.
This is the the lunar nodal period. The moon’s orbit is inclined to that of the earth around the sun by a tilt of 5.1 degrees. when the moon is at the extremes of the tilt in it’s orbit, it can be 10.2 degrees north or south of its extreme position every fortnight. A good description can be found at http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html
The lunar apsidal period of 8.847 years also leads to cycles of ~58.8 years, ~29years and 4.43 years as the rather elliptical lunar orbit aligns with the sun at the annual perihelion and aphelion points of the earth-moon orbit around the sun.
The cycles are cumulative and have major effects on the ocean’s ability to store, retain and move heat around the planet.
Fish seem to be able to detect the changes, as do fishermen:
http://sharpgary.org/FisheryTimeline.html
especially:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e01.htm#TopOfPage
These gravitational minutiae coincide closely with new and full moons, and generate extreme tides, and affect ocean gyres, meridional atmospheric circulation and the length of day on earth due to tidal braking. The affects also influence the timing of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the plate tectonics of the earth.
The sun, in contrast, is amazingly constant.
Chris Knight,
Make a note to yourself to revisit this lunacy after Part II. 🙂 (No personal slight intended. That’s an interesting argument you make. But in light of what we’ll post in Part II, it doesn’t hold. Or at least would have to be seriously modified.)
Basil
[…] came across this very brainy study named “Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends” recently which raises some interesting evidence concerning climate change. I’m no scientist, […]
Thanks Basil. You may be under the impression that we are in disagreement when we are not. Thank you for confirming that Figure 2 is based on the smoothed line from Figure 1. By the way, a trend is the rate of change over time of absolute or averaged temperatures, so we actually agree on that. I don’t know why you are using the phrase “core trend” to denote the averages of absolute data as though it was a style, but now that I know how you use the word trend, I will be less confused in the future.
Thanks again for all your hard work. You are doing a great job.
John M Reynolds
Dr. Gerhard Loebert appears to be a plant, bait and switch. It is up to him to prove he isn’t. I am not saying 100% wrong but can’t find anything but blog posts everywhere. Don’t take it too seriously. LOD thing is interesting found stuff at NASA and other research sites. I think that may need some looking into. Anybody let us know if you find something on Dr. Gerhard Loebert.
Hi Basil, Looking forward to your part 2. I note that referenced the same Fisheries Advisory paper as Dr Gerhard Loebert – totally independently, I might add. It is well worth a read, and bears little relationship to the above Dr’s theory.
Here are the relevant parts of the abstract:
Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.
“It was found that the dynamics of global air surface temperature anomaly (dT), although in correlation with the long-term dynamics of marine fish production, is of poor predictive significance because of high inter-annual variability and a long-term trend. The Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI), characterizing the dominant direction of air mass transport, is less variable and in closer correlation with the long-term fluctuations of the main commercial stocks (r = 0.70-0.90).
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis of the reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years suggested the similar (55-60 year) periodicity. Analysis of 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy biomass in Californian upwelling also revealed a regular 50-70 years fluctuation. Spectral analysis of the catch statistics of main commercial species for the last 50-100 years also showed cyclical fluctuations of about 55-years.”
The features of interest are the detrended time series, not only of dT, but of various climate indices and proxy data relating to the catch history of several commercial fish species.
The web version contains some transcription omissions. The PDF versions are complete at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
Anthony, I am dissapointed you snipped my post. I think you are doing a great job and appreciate all the time you put into this site.
REPLY: Bob I’m not aware that I snipped any post from you. What was it about? I just looked at the SPAM comment que but didn’t see anything, but I also emptied it this AM. I get dozens to hundreds of spams overnght, so it is possible that it went there.
Anthony, it was post #98 I think. I had linked to Tanmino and asked if you or Basil had a look at that.
REPLY: OK well I checked, it’s gone now. Probably deleted with other SPAM. Sometimes links combined with certain keywords get nailed by the SPAM filter. Comments with links get automatic scrutiny.
I’ll point it out to Basil, and I’ve pointed it out to Jim Goodridge. I’ve already responded over there. It wouldn’t matter what anyone says to Tamino about the short essay from Jim Goodridge. He’s decided it is wrong, end of story. Tamino never comes out of his comfort zone, and won’t participate in dialog elsewhere. He sends others to do that. He also won’t defend criticisms of his work elsewhere, such as on Climate Audit, where McIntyre takes him to task several times. So instead of defending that, he picks the low hanging fruit by beating up on Jim Goodridge’s “accumulated sunspot departure” graph. Now he’s even setting up pass/fail grades on comments and says he won’t respond to “idiots” that make comments about it anymore.
The sound of crickets in Taminoland regarding McIntyre’s smackdown of Tamino’s defense of MBH98 is deafening.
On the subject of graphs; one person’s pattern recognition is another’s mathematical heresy. What you get from them depends on what you are trying to demonstrate. Interpretation is subjective, which is why so many people get into nasty fights over graphs.
Funny you should mention the polarity changes. I have been thinking about how we measure cycles and change from one to another. I thought about this polarity switch thing and wondered if a true cycle is first to last sunspot (which I have mentioned in one of my posts) and from same polarity to same polarity (kind of like comparing apples to apples).
My thought about measuring from first to last and the length of overlap is that it would have much better predictive value than the current definition of new cycle spots being more in number than old cycle spots.
@jim Arndt
Dr Gerhard Loebert is indeed a quack.
This has already been uncovered at German website http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=538
and other sites (and lack of sites thereof).
Like that bloddy bee story, his story had me going for awhile.
PG, you can go to solarcycle24.com to see the whole discussion on sunspots. Generally, there is no such thing as a clear first sunspot to last as cycles overlap each other. Nor is the minimum established in the abscence of sunspots. The minimum and thus the start of the new cycle is usually determined by new cycle spots out numbering the old cycle. As you may know there is a polarity difference between the old and new spots, however in addition, new cycle spots appear around the 30 (+ or -) degree latitude area (shown by the Maunder butterfly diagram), whereas the fading cycle spots appear within 10 (+ or -) degrees of the equator. Currently, even though we have had one bonified SC24 spot in January, since then only lots of SC23 spots have been appearing.
Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy brainstorming and cogitating on generally accepted definitions and beliefs/theories. I know about the current definition and the polarities as well as the latitudes and butterfly pattern. I was just trying on something new. A new definition. A new place along the data stream to look at for possible useful information. Just thinking outside the box. I am considering that cycle 24 is already two years old if new definitions are used.
I think Pamela has a point, actually. Maybe it is difficult to dtermine when the new cycle “starts” and the old one “ends”, but it is undeniable that there is an overlap.
Sure, the outnumbering measure is a useful and perfectly legit, but why limit ourselves? I agree with Pamela that the”first-to-last” spot measurement is also, in the current circumstances, quite relevant.
Anthony, Have you considered that the Hadcrut is actually a series of harmonic waves? That each year is merely an addition and subtraction of numerous sine waves of varying frequencies and strengths? Is there a way to dissemble a complex series of harmonic waves?
Folks,
I don’t know if this is useful, but I’m a much better programmer than statistician or climate scientist, so I thought I’d try to help out in that way… I’ve written a little C++ utility which will read the raw HADCRUT3 data and generate data suitable for gnuplot. It will also do some basic running means of different lengths (at least, as far as I understand it, which isn’t very far). The interesting thing is that an 11-year (132 month) running mean generates something very like the graph in the main article above.
Some example output graphs and a tarball of the code are at:
http://www.box.net/shared/c58tdkccgs
I’ve included the latest HADCRUT3V global mean data but you should be able to substitute any of their averaged files.
The basic code should run on any GNU-based system (e.g. Linux): Just type ‘make’. If you want the plots you need the gnuplot package, and if you want to display them easily (using ‘make display’), you need imagemagick.
Let me know if there’s anything else I could usefully make it do.
Enjoy!
Paul
REPLY: Thank you Paul, your effort is appreciated.
Update on my C++ tools: I’ve refactored it so you can run multiple algorithms in sequence, and also added differentials and year selection and a few other things. It can now pretty much replicate Basil’s differential graph above – although still using 11-year running means, not a complex filter:
http://www.box.net/shared/8xn81l7y8s
The command to do this graph is:
$ ./climate hadcrut3 mean 132 derivative mean 132 hadcrut3.mean132-d.out
In other words: Read HADCRUT3 format data, do 132 month running mean, then take first derivative, then do 132 month running mean again. What this means in detail I’m not competent to judge, but it does generate a nice graph!
The new package is at: http://www.box.net/shared/jan0st3wgc along with all the graphs I’ve done so far.
There are now switchable input formats, so if anyone wants another format added and can point me at the spec and an example data file, let me know here. I’ll find a more sensible place to store and maintain this soon!
Paul
Oops, wordpress mangles the input and output redirection of the Unix command, but you get the idea.
Why do you post part of the work like this? You’re prone to showing sloppy analysis because you haven’t finished your thoughts. And you reply to people who criticize it that they shouldn’t and need to wait for the other post instead. And we’re only talking a few days to wait to finish your work. This is just bizarre, rinky dink crap. Like kids on a playground or something.
REPLY: The part 2 is done. But I’m circulating it for some peer review to several specialists to check it’s accuracy and catch any mistakes. If that’s “bizarre, rinky dink crap” to you then so be it.
Good Vibrations: I appreciate refreshing perspective that Basil brings to the subject. You mean to tell me there is a climate cycle? Or perhaps cycles within cycles within cycles. I like the analogies as earth as an electric circuit and the one about the stock market in an earlier post. Some individual stocks are cyclical in nature and if you can show how it behaves you would know when to buy low and sell high. From eyeballing the long-term temperature numbers I am thinking it is time to sell. I am looking forward to part II.
Yes: It is bizarre and rinky dink that you posted part 1, before you even knew that post 2 made sense. Especially when you are cutting off criticism with a wait for part 2 and trying to build interest in part 2 (“mystery”) when you don’t know if it’s any good. It’s VERY rinky dink.
Getting to the post:
1. Smoothing should be done for display purposes. Smoothed data should not be used for hypothesis testing, instead the raw data should be. This is something that we would correct the AGWers for doing, so it’s fascinating that we are making the same mistake.
2. The claimed correspondances in sun cycle with temp are not shown graphically nor is any math done to verify some correspondance of turning points in temp with the cycles. Also the turning points seem to vary in direction (flat, up, down, etc.) in the temp. Does this theory account for that?
3. Based on the previous Basil posts and his failure to address criticism, I doubt that we will learn much or have good discussion. Basil can snow you fine, AW, but you’re….light.
4. The whole thing with the qualtitative statements, the grasping for various cycles (not listing all possible, etc.) just comes accross as entrail looking at. It’s really a real mess. If an AGWer did work like this, we would rip it to shreds.
REPLY: “before you even knew that post 2 made sense…” Hey newsflash TCO, Part 1 and 2 were done at the same time, the difference is that part2 has been sent out for review.
Stocks are NOT cyclical in nature. “technical analysis” (chartsmanship with head and shoulders and resistance barriers and such) is complete crap for both theoretical reasons (lack of foundation AND market efficiency) as well as never holding up in out of sample tests and having all kinds of empirical papers disproving it. Talk to Ross Mc. Seriously, it is really trashy junk. Academic Economists will tell you so.
newsflash: wait with both of them, then while you have part 2 reviewed. Sheesh.
REPLY: TCO. Griping about it won’t change things. The plan was to release both; one after the other. After part 1 was posted and we received comments I argued for a review by some others to be sure the part 2 work was readable, understandable for the layman, and well vetted with others that can spot errors. It’s taken a little time. Put simply, as a career complainer, you’d complain about if from your phantom harping position of anonymous no-risk comfort no matter what or how it was brought about. So I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by waiting a bit for the last reviewer to finish. And that is exactly what I will do.
I think the “accumulated departure” charts should be resurrected but there should be a time-limit on the accumulation factor versus the average.
Effectively, solar irradiance only accumulates for a period of between 30 days to about 80 days.
The peak of the seasons always lags the equinox/solstice by about 30 to 40 days.
– The peak of the summer on land is about July 25th versus the solstice on June 20th.
– The peak of polar ice extents lag the solstice by about 80 to 85 days.
– The peak of ocean temperatures in each hemisphere is about 80 to 85 days after the solstice.
Therefore, the planet only “accumulates” solar irradiance over a 35 day to 80 day period.
Part2 is now online
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
TCO is a troll feigning skepticism; cynicism is neither a sufficient nor a necessary bona fides for the latter but is both for the former.
To all of you posting on this blog, a million thanks for what you do. I am a truck driver from Southern California with only a highschool education but lots of curiosity. As I watch all the lemmings run off into the nonexistant Global warming sea, I am astonished at their religious like zeal in ignoring the plain truth in front of them. My only wish is for a layman’s paper explaining all this so that I can better communicate the truth to all who will take five minutes and listen to reason. Again thank you so very much for all your effort.Sincerely,
Bob Kendall
REPLY: Thanks Bob, here is one I can recommend for you done by a friend, Warren Meyer.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/my-best-skeptic.html
[…] of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Part 1 -Part […]
[…] colder spell does seem to be closely related to the drop in solar output however. Not that a star one million times bigger than the Earth and which puts out enough energy […]