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.
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.
|
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
There are possibly multiple effects taking place here. I haven’t fully assimilated this posting yet, but what certainly jumped out at me is the claim to find regime shifts at times of magnetic field reversals. I’ve used the regime shift algorithm in professional work, and have some sense of its sensitivity to the tuning parameters, so I’m holding back on jumping on the bandwagon here. But I’ve done enough work to know that there is some connection with global temperature changes and the Hale cycle, so I’m open to the possibility that there is something to this.
As for a response measured in months rather than years, there is that too. Anthony and I have shown that there is a “weak” response in temperature signals to the solar cycle that is of an order of magnitude that even Leif acknowledges is there. So there is the effect that you would be looking for. But that doesn’t rule out other effects on longer time scales, like a bidecadal effect influenced by the reversal of the sun’s magnetic field.
Personally, I think Alan might want to try running the regime shift indicator on a random noise series with mean and standard deviation comparable to the data in question to see if it picks up “regime changes.” I wouldn’t be surprised that it does: random walks reverse direction at random intervals. That doesn’t rule out the usefulness of the technique. It might show that “this” is not like “that” — i.e. yes, the method can find “regime shifts” in random data, but those shifts occur randomly, whereas here we have shifts occurring at harmonic or quasi-harmonic periodicity. And that would be something.
Finally, how does this square with Dr. Spencer’s thesis of being able to generate temperature variations of a magnitude seen in the instrumental data from “random” effects? Seems like we now have two competing theories here on WUWT. How do we decide which is the more likely? Which is the more “testable?” Any takers?
Point of view from one of the regular Joes that visit here (the peanut gallery as was once referred to on this blog).
It seems to me that on the subject of the Sun influencing climate there is a lot of discussion (arguing?) over apples and oranges with a few lemons thrown in. Dr S says that a change in TSI does correlate to a change in Earth’s temperature but one so small it doesn’t matter. However, if a change in TSI causes A which then causes B which then causes C which then causes some greater change in Earth’s temperature, does that really mean that the TSI change caused that temperature change? Or is the TSI change just a part of the entire process that depends on all the other causes being equal each and every time to result in the same temperature change? If any one of those individual causes gets modified then so would the outcome, so can the TSI change still be considered the cause of the temperature change? I would think not, especially in such a chaotic system. In the end it seems insolation is the key. Can we all agree that so many variables affect insolation that there is no simple cause and effect that can be pinpointed?
Again, just a comment from the sidelines. It does make for interesting reading though.
I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).
Three Hale’s Cycles in a PDO and cosmic wave crowns alternating in each phase of the Hale, or each Solar Cycle. Presto, changeo, a mechanism for the alternate heating and cooling of the two phases of the PDO cycle. Now, if we could only connect the shape of that cosmic ray peak with albedo…..
====================
Anthony,
One of my favorite papers on this topic is ” Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming” by Bratcher and Giese published in 2002. Of course, the IPCC completely ignores the paper and its prediction of a cooler climate regime “in about four years.” I thought the climate regime turned at the end of 2007/beginning of 2008, but the current warm El Nino has me wondering now. What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.
It will be interesting to see this play out.
I suggest that solar activity harmonically accelerates the oceans natural cylces such as PDO rather than forcing regime changes. The data is best fit with combinations of sine and cosine functions with harmonics that more often result in sawtooth and triangular forms rather square waves. It takes only a little force properly timed to magnify the amplitude of a vibration.
Nigel Calder has a blog called Calder’s Updates with many good posts on solar-cosmic and other topics, such as:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
It doesnt seem to have the hits it deserves, IMHO.
“”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.””
Even the AGWer’s are trying to have it both ways. They say the sun does not affect climate, but yet use a weaker, cooler sun as the excuse for no run away global warming when CO2 levels were many times higher.
Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am
There is not such an El Nino time ago:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
This last El Niño was not a usual one, if you take into consideration that El Niño was named as such because of the appearance of a north-south warm current around Christmas, by peruviian fishermen; that´s El Niño 1-2 area not 3-4. A real El Níño opposes south-north cold Humboldt´s current.
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:02 am (Edit)
I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
40 SSN is also the ‘neutral’ value where the ocean neither gains nor loses heat-energy.
This means a lot more heat got stored in the oceans, as evidenced by the upwards trend of OHC from the ’50s. That heat-energy has to be solar in origin because long-wave radiation from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the ocean, whereas solar short-wave radiation goes down tens of metres or around 200 feet.
So even in negative phases of the PDO, we will still get some strongish El Nino’s as the ocean burps some of the excess energy back out while the sunspot number is low.
Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.
I was expecting that old doc Svalgaard might come in, maybe he is a bit of a rough diamond (not that he thinks much of my contributions), but still he is a gemstone when the matters solar are considered.
C’mon doc we may not always agree but still like to hear from you.
Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am (Edit)
What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.
If you look at a comparable time when the sun was getting weaker after a run of strong cycles, the same thing happened:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sst-ssn1870.jpg
“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.”
Circulation. Less(or more) output from the sun changes the air and water circulations(their extends I would think). The same way as heating water in a pot would create movements in the water by exciting the molecules. Exactly in detail how Earths circulation is influenced is not understood yet. But the strong correlation of the solar cycles and shifts in temperature trends can be seen even in the “adjusted” data.
Britannic no-see-um says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:22 am
I liked that letter from Nigel Calder!
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
moahahahah! It describes the situation so well!!
Well done, Nigel Calder!
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
Very fascinating reading, and there is no doubt that the sun does play a role in climate regimes, as it were, but I think the very opening assumption that the build up of CO2 remains purely a logarithmic effect throughout the the entire range of increase may not be correct, and may be proven to create its own “regimes” as it were.
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2, and so we should see “jumps” to new “regimes”, or what could also be called attractors in the terminology of chaos theory. I think the recent appearance of the Arctic Dipole anomaly could be one such attractor, that would not be predicted from a smooth logarithmic effect of CO2, and while not predictable (certainly none of the GCM’s forecast its appearance) it is quite deterministic and not a random event. As a positive feedback event it behaves much like any attractor (or regime, if you prefer), and creates the conditions (i.e. the warming of the arctic) that will reinforce itself.
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attactor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.
idlex says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
Interesting question – is the direction of photon emission / scatttering from CO2 random or not? Here’s my empirical take on it.
Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering (absorption-re-emission) at a (presumably) random angle.
If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering (absorption-re-emission) type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.
In principle the direction of this “diffusive radiation” should be random, EXCEPT for one factor: the exponential reduction with height in air density.
An analogy: a one-celled animal – the paramecium – swimming in a pond homes in on food items in the following way: if it “smells” in the water an increasing food concentration, it reduced the number of times it changes direction (randomly) and if the food smell gets weaker, it increases the frequency of (random) direction changes. The result of this is, on statistical average, swimming toward higher food concentration and finding the source of the food smell.
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.
Interesting to see what your model will output. I would hazard – following your football analogy – the earth surface would approximate Germany’s goal, and outer space the goal occupied by the English / Australian / Argentinian goalkeepers.
Vuk etc. says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:41 am
Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.”
Being aware of that problem caused me to propose independently varying ocean cycles underlying the ENSO phenomenon, becoming more apparent over longer time scales and in my view becoming highly visible on a 500 year timescale from MWP to LIA and then to date.
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs since the temperature of the equatorial SSTs must be one of the factors dictating the positions of the jets and the ITCZ.
Ocean SSTs must have been cooler than now because the jets were much further equatorward during the LIA according to various sources including ships logs.
So the period 1950 to 1970 was a time when negative ocean phases more than offset the effects of the more active sun.
The active sun was apparently trying to allow the jets to move poleward but the lack of support from the cooler SSTs meant that the poleward latitudinal shift if any was very weak. Then when the ocean SSTs warmed from the late 70’s onwards the necessary support was provided and the jets move significantly poleward.
Since the sun became weaker from the late 90’s the jets have moved back equatorward again but not as far as they will do soon enough because the ocean SSTs are not especially low as yet due to the energy overhang from a long spell of poleward jets letting more solar shortwave into the equatorial oceans.
And as I have previously shown the observed changes in global albedo match very well the latitudinal shifts in the cloud bands.
Alan of AppInSys [main article]
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
At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.
Willis E. posted this nice graph of the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa and the ice cores. Looks more like a hockey sick than the above data to me. This graph of 2004 to 2009 shows how linear the CO2 rise is (and that the data is changed)
The discussion about the CO2 measurements is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950’s thru 1970’s) are accurate. Why?
Because in 1972 and later in 1979 the labs I work in tried to use Infrared Spectrophotometers to come up with an analytical test method… and failed miserably.
In the first case the staff included 2 PhD analytical chemists, one grad student finishing up his PhD thesis, two with MS degrees in Chemistry and one with a BS in Chemistry. The wet chemical method we were trying to replace took three days and had to be carried out under a nitrogen blanket. (we all hated it) The batch had to sit in the mix kettle for the entire time so adjustments could be made and the company lost money for every day it sat. Therefore there were major incentives to get that new test method working. Unfortunately the data was all over the place. (perhaps other older chemists can comment)
For those not familiar with chemistry, the generic analytical procedure is as follows:
1. Run the “unknown” sample and the pure chemical of interest.
2. Pick out a strong clean peak for the chemical of interest that has no interference in the “unknown” sample.
3. Pick out a “calibration standard” material that does not interfere with the peak of interest and has a strong peak in an area where the unknown does not.
4. Make up a series of five to ten “calibration standards” using a set amount of the calibration material and known amounts of the pure chemical so the range expected in the unknown is covered.
5. Run ten or more curves for each calibration standard amount to determine precision and accuracy.
6. Plot the calibration curve.
7. Spike the unknown with the calibration standard and use the two peaks and the curve to determine the amount of the chemical of interest in the unknown.
To actually determine the area under the peak of interest either cut out the curve and weigh the paper on an analytical balance OR draw a baseline and measure the height of the curve and the width at 1/2 the height and multiply. Computers were not hooked to analytical equipment until the end of the sixties and then only by “rube goldberg” methods. It was the eighties before combined analytical/computer equipment was really available.
So how is the early data at Mauna Loa with a lot of “noise” tortured into giving results with a 0.1 PPM “precision”?
“4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.”
In other words run a line through the data (remember no computers in the fifties) and toss out the data that does not fit the line.
This also puts a question mark on the Mauna Loa data. Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago… Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
This information is especially interesting when the 1972 Earth Summit was already claiming “Global Warming” as a problem BEFORE we finished coming out of the cooling. This is shown in the above article’s graph of PDO shifts. The shift was in the mid 70’s not at the beginning of the decade.
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.
If I may be so immodest as to call attention to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/figure6.png
I’m wondering if the “regime shifts” that Alan is discerning are not simply the “turning points” shown on the above graph, which are closely aligned with phases of the solar and lunar nodal cycles? Here the mechanism is straight-forward: the broader amplitudes are governed by variations in TSI, and the frequencies are related to the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle. What is curious is that the TSI signal tends to be stronger with the odd numbered cycles than with the even numbered cycles. What this chart doesn’t explain, by itself, is the upward trend in the late 20th Century; it just demonstrates some evidence of periodicity in the global temperature data. And maybe the “regime shifts” are just mirroring that periodicity. This would explain their frequency. It wouldn’t explain the trend.
In other words, explaining shifts of global temperature, and relating them back to a solar influence, is not hard at all. What is hard is explaining the trend in the data. Incidentally, there is a trend in the figure linked to above, but it is so minor in relation to the the amplitudes of the decadal and bidecadal cycles that it seems inconsequential. Which is why I think the trend could well be “random” along the lines of what Dr. Spencer has been positing.
The matches are impressive, how these “shifts” correspond very well to solar cycle transitions. The question is, is there a way to use this finding to create a quantitative model of these temperature changes, to see what the implications are? A match is suggestive that you’ve found something important. How important, is something more difficult to determine.
Interestingly, the ramp up of cycle 21 corresponds to the 1976 climate shift very well, and marks a ramp up from cycle 20 after dropping from the record cycle 19. Then, the last three cycles have remained at elevated solar activity levels, but declined fairly steadily, behaving remarkably similarly to the PDO. HOWEVER! The problem is that the previous PDO shift, downward from 40’s, occurs about a decade before the ramping up of cycles ends, the shift associated with cycle 18 instead of 19. So that is a problem which remains to be explained.
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
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.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:06 am
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??
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A link would indeed be interesting because I don’t think he’s going to have one.
KevinUK,
I don’t think Steven mosher is who you describe. Check into again.
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
Even Leif’s adjustments, which have not been accepted by the mainstream no matter what he tells you, aren’t so large from 1880 as to make much difference to the situation. The fact remains, the average SSN over the second half of the C20th was significantly higher than the average over the period of record, or even just the C20th as a whole.