Spotting the Solar Regime Shifts Driving Earth's Climate

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.

The ultimate power shifter - artwork by Anthony - click to enlarge

A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).

But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:

Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.

But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.

Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony

=================================

Climate Regime Shifts

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

Climate Regime Shifts

[last update: 2010/07/04]

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

For very busy people like me, a ‘Conclusion’ paragraph would have been great.

Agree with Jim.

el gordo

A positive Indian Ocean Dipole and a cool PDO means big floods in the land of Oz.

Adolf Balik

The same wrote in his essays Theodor Landscheid in 1990th and early in the current dacade:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.

rbateman

SC20 should have been regime change down, as was SC14. The reason it did not is because the temp data has been monkeyed with. Remember, SC20 is the 70’s Cooling Period. It was also a long cycle, as was SC14.
RGO is a high-quality database until SC20. Afterwards, one should use Debrecen / 1.1

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Interesting. So it’s the sun. The sun also influences El Nino and La Nina, doesn’t it? Seems it does.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Chris de Freitas with a little about 1976 Great Pacific Climate Shift

What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.

Steven mosher

Alexander.
WRT the algorithm in question. you might take a look at it. I downloaded it a couple years ago and turned some people onto it over at CA. after playing around with it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious. By diddling
the noise parameter and the p value you can make all sorts of pretty pictures.
Further, the series being correlated is as everybody knows.. highly massaged and infected with UHI. Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, al beit slightly more interesting than other attempts.

That would be fine if it is only possible solution.
Here I have superimposed the Geomagnetic Z flux of the dominant Hudson Bay – Greenland area, where the Arctic currents enter Labrador Sea.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC12.htm
Original graph can be found here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
‘The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the Arctic cold currents create Labrador Sea currents; this tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.’

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down? The earth is in the sun’s atmosphere. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth. It doesn’t make sense that it would have no effect.

vukcevic says: July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
……..
May I add that the same type analysis produces high correlation with the Arctic temperature Anomaly and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
and is in good agreement with CETs all the way back to Maunder Minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm

Steven,
I hear you. Yes, it is often possible to massage the data and to play with parameters to fit assumptions. Any UN statistical analysis and modeling, not only by the IPCC, and not only climatology-connected, is manipulated by definition. It may very well be that this is the case here.
My point is, climate DOES change depending on Solar cycles. I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Mechanism? Uncertain. Correlation? Obvious. What does it mean? We must explain the mechanism, instead of telling people who notice the obvious that they are fools and are not qualified to argue with bottle washers and button sorters.

phlogiston

To quote the Stranglers, “there’s always the sun”
Why no mention of Tsonis, he did some important work on oceanic phase shifts involving nonlinear mathematical analysis? i.e. at certain phase relationships of PDO and AMO for instance, a climate shift is caused:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/

Mailman

If the sun doesn’t affect climate what would happen if the sun stopped shining?
Oh, that would affect the weather only? 🙂

Alan the Brit

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! For years scientists have been saying the Sun has all sorts of effects on our planet, electro-magnetic & otherwise. How can one simply deny its effects on our climate when in the atmosphere it can produce things of beauty such as the Northern & Southern Lights? I know the Met Office have solar scientists looking in to how the Sun “might” affect the climate, but if you’re coming in at it from a slanted angle you a distorted picture. If these chaps & chapesses are AGW believers from the outset, it seems rather pointless them studying solar activity other than from curiosity, or to produce evidence that it doesn’t affect the Earth.

Stephen Wilde

Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.

It is noticeable that many of the upwards step changes coincide with El Nino. Bob Tisdale has already elucidated that. I have already made an attempt at explaining the el nino – solar link too:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Has it occurred to Steven Mosher it might just be that the parameters fit the data because Alan Cheetham has zoomed in on the correct parameter values?
For sure we need to do a lot more work on this stuff, but to dismiss a study like Alan’s as ‘numerology’ (not the first time Mosh has offered this cheap insult to solar investigators, see the last Scafetta thread ), seems a bit facile to me.

Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344

Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:55 am
Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.

I think there is a lot of merit in your hypothesis Stephen, having personally witnessed the difference the jet stream positions have made to the UK weather over the last few years.
I would add that the small changes in TSI which Leif Svalgaard never tires of telling us are too small to account for climate change are obviously amplified by the cloud albedo changing the actual insolation at the surface. Both TSI and surface insolation correlate well with these changes, so it’s time to smoke the red herrings.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 am
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.

The upward shifts in the even cycles in 1925 and 1986/7 both come a decade or so after the weak odd cycles preceding them. Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.
The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.

Chris Wright

On the face of it, the demonstrated correlation is astonishing. It could well be true, as there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that our local star has a fundamental effect on the climate.
However, it’s right to be – shall we say – sceptical. If the algorithm can be tuned to get a desired result, then that’s cause for concern. Climate science has been badly corrupted by that kind of behaviour (no names, but you know who I mean!)
I hope the writer can follow up on this potential problem. If he can demonstrate that the technique is ‘robust’ and does not depend on tuning of the algorithm, then I would say that this is a very important finding. But this question of tuning the algorithm does need to be addressed….
Chris

KevinUK

tallbloke,
I’m afraid Mosh is a lost cause and has been for some time now and especially since he’s been hanging out with the likes of Nick Stokes and Ron Broberg over at Lucia’s Blackboard.
Alan Cheetham in contrast still has an open mind as to whether or not the late 20th century warming trend was caused by man’s emissions of CO2 or not and like myself and many other skeptics of CAGW think that it’s not a good idea to attempt to de-carbonise your economy when the science is far from settled. Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.

vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:27 am (Edit)
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344

Vuk, isn’t geomagnetism affected by the heliomagnetism anyway? I think all these things tie in together. Your graph also shows temperature dipping below your Bz curve postwar after all. It looks like oceanic oscillations and cloud albedo have ‘overshoot’, just like your decaying Geomagnetic reaction from the 1600’s.
Coupled oscillators, with some system inertia thrown in.

KevinUK says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:46 am (Edit)
Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.

He is?! Got a link??

phlogiston

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, albeit slightly more interesting than other attempts.
This is Aristotle’s “argumentum ad ignorantium”. “We wont believe it because we dont know the mechanism”. This is one of the biggest epistemological diseases of the late 20th – 21st centuries. Science has become so conceited about its technical (“bottle washer and button counter” – nice quote Alexander) achievements that it has allowed the epistemological underpinning of science to atrophy. Subordination to political pressure has helped this process along. The other disease is inductivism (as opposed to deductivism) a.k.a. Karl Popper.
The opposite pathology has also emerged – fixation on a mechanism and belief in an outcome from this mechanism in complete disgregard of impirical evidence to the contrary, this could be called “argument ignarus res” or “argument despite the facts”.
Examples:
CO2 and Arhennius theory – IR absorption by CO2 means it must be warming the (cooling) planet.
Genetic modification: modified genes must be damaging the environment since they are introducing alien genes, despite accumulating evidence of no harmful effect
Ionising radiation must cause cancer down to zero dose since DNA strand can be broken by a single ionising event, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the reality of a threshold dose below which ionising radiation is either harmless or exerts a slightly positive health effect.
There is even a new abusive term for it: “phenomenological”. It refers to someone who places more weight on observed facts than on predictions from models or mechanistic hypotheses. Its a sure way to lose research grant funding.

Slightly O/T – [snip]
[Reply] Completely O/T. Take it to tips and notes please. RT-Mod

BBk

” The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed””
I find that a fairly plausible explaination as to the “how.” Shifting and earth rotation align with the sun’s own cycle periodically to have periods with more solar bombardment and periods with less solar bombardment, causing the oceanic oscillations, etc.
This notion that the sun only emits visible light, IR, and UV is wrong and oversimplifies the energy input from the sun…. you know, that hallmark of AGW theory that states that the sun’s energy input is constant.
The fact that the guy could get the regime change steps to align at all is pretty impressive in my book, even if he was picking numbers out of his hat until he found a set of parameters that worked.

tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?

thethinkingman

“So you run and you run to catch up with the sun,
but it’s sinking.
Racing around to come up behind you again,
The sun is the same in a relative way but you’re older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. ”
The sun effects everything on Earth, absolutely everything. As it pulses so we pulse and those pulses are occurring over short , long and very long time scales, just talk to the geologists. Four and a half billion years and we witter on about the last 150 years, give me a break.
In my 62 year puff I have seen hotter and colder, wetter and dryer, lighter and darker here in Harare, Zimbabwe. What I haven’t seen here is a trend of any sort just climate change manifested in my experience of the weather which has been impossible to predict but fairly easy to adapt to.
It’s good to be alive people and able to add to what I know each day. What I have learned is that the sun is rather important to our happy existence here on the third rock and the trace gas CO2 that we add to by burning stuff doesn’t seem to do much at all.

Dave F

If the sun causes an effect, it is not at all clear from reading this what the effect is, other than a change. I did not notice any sort of pattern to the solar cycle change/regime change in climate. What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?

Stephan

OT [snip]
[reply] correct, it is OT. Please take it to tips and notes. RT-Mod

BBk

Dave F:
“What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?”
The implication is that temperature is an indirect effect. He correlated with PDO, implying that the sun drives PDO (changes in upper atmosphere causing shifting weather patterns, etc) which in turn changes temperature.
But beyond that, the sun issues a constant stream of energetic, ionized, particles. Each has energy, and when it enters a system the energy ultimately has to be transferred to the system. The atmosphere will be absorbing this additional energy (caused by the magnetic window opening further) and changes happen as a result. As the windows closes the system has a chance to dissipate or shift the additional energy again and reset to the previous state (although potentially with slightly higher temperatures, depending on whether the energy can be re-radiated out of the system or not.)

Chris L

Re: Steve Mosher’s comment,
I think once the vertical lines are lined up across the Solar and temp graphs (provided that the graphs are genuine and they are lined up correctly), one can ignore the horizontal lines of the “numerology” shift detector and simply look and see if we can detect shifts. If we do see them (and we do), and if they are consistent, then that looks significant.
The temp graphs are surely massaged, but that tends to be done on an incremental basis, so should not overly affect these shifts.
Things like UHI and population density are very unlikely to show up so abruptly on a global basis so as to nullify the ability to detect the shifts.
I guess the next step would be to compare the solar with the sat temp graphs, and various other versions of the other temp graphs, and see if the pattern holds.
But I guess adjustments could matter if they started purposefully dinkin’ with ’em to try and make the pattern go away. So everybody screen cap all the temp graphs you can, ’cause I’m sure they’ll start trying to make any correlation disappear.

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:36 am
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?

Because volcanic aerosols have an immediate effect on surface insolation from the atmosphere, whereas the decadal scale interaction between the absorption of solar energy ino the ocean, and the ocean-atmosphere coupled interaction plays out on longer timescales.
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?

Here’s where we left it at: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Bob Tisdale says:
February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am
tallbloke: You wrote, “Looking at the rate the North Altlantic OHC is dropping, whereas it was rising in ‘98, this is one of the important differences.”
The variability of the North Atlantic SST anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.

I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature)
There seems to be a common issue with your replies to me on this thread and that thread on my blog. You are concentrating on short term atmospheric effects whereas I am trying to delve under the surface and understand the longer term changes.
Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those. El nino releases a bunch of solar derived heat-energy from the ocean which is hidden from the surface record in the deeper ocean heat content. In general, that heat-energy from the sun gets mixed down when the solar cycle is waxing and comes back out again when it it waning and just after minimum. Hence the correlation of the step changes with the solar cycles as noted by Alan Cheethams article.

BarryW

Mosh
I agree with you up to a point, but when you can hit parameters that match ten times in a row as opposed to the CO2 modeling with has to jump though hoops to even get close I find it a compelling argument.
Your UHI comment is also off base since it affects the trend, not the steps. I’d like to see the algorithm applied to a detrended data set.

tallbloke says: July 5, 2010 at 3:49 am
I think the Arctic is the key to the most of climatic events affecting the Atlantic basin north of Equator, including the Atlantic oscillation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Exact coincidence of any ‘driver’ to climatic diagrams is probably almost impossible, and to be honest I was very surprised by correlation in the above link. For a time I was also puzzled by 6 year delay between AMO and GMG and finally got answer, see bottom of the same link or the and answer to Dr. S.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/a-note-of-sincere-thanks/#comment-423001
where you can find links to a couple of research papers.

Stefano Zottele

I can only tell what I see and that is that after more than 2 years of low solar activity we had here in north Italy 2 years of abnormal snow **(ask to the winter industries) and 2 short summers (ask to the climatization industries).
Now we are living in the third short summer and I accept (small) bets on how much will be the snow this Year!
** this is not personal experience because millions of peoples here in europe had very good ski experiences this years.

Ian W

Why do people repeatedly say “there is no (known) mechanism for this effect’ and then imply that therefore its not a real effect?
I doubt that any of the readers here know of or understand the mechanism by which alkaloid poisons kill you: But does that mean after watching several people eat toadstools and die, you will happily eat toadstools as well – as you don’t know ‘the mechanism’ so their dying cannot be a real effect?

Gail Combs

Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.
___________________________________________________________
The latest fight over the sun’s influence is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/
oneuniverse has given a pretty good rebuttal that highlights the bias.

Don B

Landscheidt believed global temperatures lag the aa geomagnetic index by 4-8 years.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin found Arctic sea ice lagged global temperatures by 8 years, figure 2.16
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?

Rhys Jaggar

The step changes in temperature resemble a ‘random walk function’.
Any studies done yet to try and determine the parameters which determine in which direction the random walk goes at each branch point, or is that still a couple of layers higher than is feasible at this time?

Enneagram

This shows that while IPCC and railway specialists as Pachauri and Hansen (coal trains) and their play station models were only focused on the atmosphere, the real issue was in the seas, like this paper by Klyashtorin shows (page 50, fig.9.1):
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Our friend Vukcevic goes a step forward and show us the link between GMF and Climate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?

Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:00 am (Edit)
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?

According to the planetary theory we are developing, the rest of the mass in the solar system causes changes in the distribution of the molten and magnetic materials inside the Earth. It also causes changes in the sun which affect it’s internal oscillations and sunspot production. We have some evidence behind our ideas.
For example:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/

tallbloke wrote: “Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those.”
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.

idlex

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner.
I’ve been wondering about this. I’ve read several times that CO2 absorbs photons of a particular frequency, and this kicks electrons into a higher orbit, but after a while the electrons fall back to the former orbits, and the photon is re-emitted in a random direction. While the molecule is in this excited state, it can’t absorb another photon. So if an infrared photon emitted by the surface of the earth is captured by a CO2 molecule, it will re-emit this shortly afterwards with an equal chance of the photon being re-emitted upwards as downwards. So it would seem that there’s a 50% chance of the re-emitted photon either being absorbed by the earth’s surface, or disappearing into outer space. Yet I keep reading that the atmosphere re-radiates something more like 60% of its photons back to earth, and only 40% into outer space. I’ve also read that some climate models have 90% of the re-emitted photons going earthwards. Why is that? And what happens if some of the re-emitted photons get captured by other CO2 molecules?
So I’ve been thinking of building a little computer simulation model of a rather topical sort. The CO2 molecules would behave like footballers on a football pitch which represents the atmosphere, with the earth’s surface being the goal at the west end, and outer space the goal at the east end. The ball, which represents a photon, is kicked out of the west end goal mouth, and either rolls all the way through to the goal at the other end, or it is picked up by one of the football players. This footballer then turns with the ball at his feet and kicks it away, either returning it back towards the west end goal, or pushing it upfield towards the east end. In this way the ball gets passed around between the players until it finally ends up in one goal or the other. There is a constant stream of balls coming out of the west end goal. When a footballer has a ball at his feet, he can’t pick up another one until he’s kicked his current ball away somewhere. Who’s likely to win this sort of football match? Will it work out at 5-all, or 6-4, or 9-1? How will the results vary as more footballers are added?
Before I go away and start writing this model, I just thought I’d ask: is this an at all plausible representation of the passage of photons through a CO2-laden atmosphere?

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:21 am (Edit)
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.

You asked “What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability?”
I was just trying to help you find the answer. But if you are only interested in aftereffects and not causes, then fair enough.

TFN Johnson

40 years ago I attended a weekend course on time series analysis run by the head of GE (USA). After a day and a half of maths somewhat beyond me someone asked him how he handled a change of trend.
He replied “Gee, a change in the trend – that’s a very deep concept”.
My scepticism about this sort of thing has lasted 40 years, and this article hasn’t changed my opinion….

kramer

I’d like to know if the graph with the temperature has adjusted or raw temperature data.