by Verity Jones and Tony Brown (Tonyb)
Back in October Tony asked me to help with a big idea. Searching Norwegian climate site Rimfrost (www.rimfrost.no) Tony had found many climate stations all over the world with a cooling trend in temperatures over at least the last thirty years – which is significant in climate terms. You see Tony had a grand vision of a website with blue dots on a map representing these “cooling stations”, where clicking on the dots brought up a graph of the data and the wonderful cooling trend. Would this not persuade people to look again at the notion of worldwide global warming?

I asked Tony how many stations he had in mind. “Oh two hundred or so…” He suggested breaking it down into bite-sized chunks and sending me sets of ten at a time. I was to compare the data with that on the GISS site and/or those of national met agencies where available to verify the source, and produce graphs to a standard template.
We were concerned that this could be seen as ‘cherrypicking’ nonetheless it was an attractive idea. In many cases it was not just cherrypicking the stations, but also the start dates of each cooling trend. Despite these reservations we decided to go ahead, although ultimately we have not completed the project, partly for these reasons, but also because it is a case where the journey became more important than the destination and it is worth sharing.
The first 10 (Set 1) of Tony’s target stations, which at this point I should say seemed to be a randomly chosen set, were:
- Brazil – Curitiba (1885 to 2009) Cooling 1955 to 2009
- Canada – Edmonton (1881-2009) Cooling from 1886 to 2009
- Chile – Puerto Montt (1951-2009) Cooling from 1955
- China – Jiuquan (1934-2009) Cooling all years
- Russia – Kandalaska (1913-2009) Cooling 1933-2009
- Iceland – Haell (1931-2009) Cooling all years
- India – Amritsar (1948-2009) Cooling all years
- Morocco – Casablanca (1925-2009) Cooling all years
- Adelaide – Australia (1881-2008) Cooling all years
- Abilene, Texas – USA (1886-2009) Cooling 1933-2009
The comparisons in many cases were not straightforward. While many matched GISS data, some of the graphs in Rimfrost used unadjusted data, others homogenised data. For some such as Kandalaska, there was a close but not exact match to either GISS data set. The data for Haell was clearly from the Icelandic Met Office, but I could find no match for Edmonton to any GISS series or data from Environment Canada (although having looked at Canadian data further since I am not entirely surprised). The first set took much longer than we had anticipated; however, I drew the graphs to a template and prepared to start on Set 2.
Tony also wanted a ‘spaghetti’ graph for the anomaly data of the first set, and this is where it got most interesting. In fact we were blown away by what the graph looked like. Taking these ten locations from across the globe and superimposing the anomaly data produced a sine wave-like pattern (Figure 2) with distinct cooling from the early 1940s to mid-1970s followed by warming to present; for many of the locations the older data was warmer, or at least as warm as present. Now I had seen this before with many individual stations, but it really impressed me to see the pattern matching from such far-flung locations.

But in the meantime there were other developments. Tony knew I was interested in putting the GHCN v2.mean temperature data from stations all over the world into a database. As usual, this exceeded my own knowledge and capabilities, but I had made a start and was learning as I went along. Tony, whose contacts and connections never cease to amaze me, put me in touch with a computer professional, database, web and mapping expert who was well known to commenters on The Air Vent, Climate Audit and WUWT as “KevinUK”. Kevin was also keen to put climate data into a database.
By now this was the end of November. Kevin and I rapidly established a good rapport by email and voip and, with really only a few pointers to GHCN and GISS datafiles from me (and probably lots of hindrance), he rapidly built a fully functional database. Not only that but he set about writing software to plot graphs and calculate trends from the data and put the whole lot on an interactive map – and all this in a period of about 6 weeks. It is still a work in progress, fixing glitches and preparing Version 2.0; for more information see blog post Mapping Global Warming and the website itself: www.climateapplications.com.
I did deliver 40 graphs for Tony in the end, but I was quite slow about it (and that “sine wave” pattern kept showing up again and again and stuck in my mind). Tony had moved on to researching other climate projects and Kevin’s maps meanwhile showed so much more than we ever could. With the “sine wave” climatic pattern in mind, the following maps (focussing on North America and Europe) show how climate has cooled, warmed, cooled and warmed again since 1880.

So is this “sine wave” the true climate signal? It would seem so, although we can’t expect it always to be so regular. Choosing stations that are more closely geographically located does give a more homogeneous shape to the wave.


It is most extreme in the high Arctic – Figure 4a shows the graph for six stations above 64N where the magnitude of change is +/- several degrees Celsius. Further south (e.g. Figure 4b – four stations in the US) the magnitude is smaller, and close to the equator (Figure 5, Madagascar) the magnitude is less still.
A final point – with the exception of the Madagascar graph, which was prepared for a blog post (link), all these graphs were part of different sets (the first 40 stations for which data was examined). Although the original data was chosen for its cooling trend this, in many cases, results from warmer temperatures in the period 1930-1940 than present.
The wave pattern is still present in many data sets worldwide, no matter what the overall trend. In some the date of the onset of warming or cooling is later or earlier, depending on location – as would be expected with the oceans moving warmth around the globe. In others however the wave pattern is not present or is obliterated by something – in these sets should it be present or not? Is it wiped out by anthropogenic effects on the temperature record such as growth of cities and even small rural communities though the otherwise cooling 40s, 50s and 60s?
For us the take-home message of this study was simply how widespread and consistent the wave pattern is, and this, ultimately is very convincing of the veracity of the arguments against CO2 as a primary cause of current warming. From the physics I don’t doubt it has a role in warming, but its role needs to be disentangled from the large magnitude natural climate swings that are clearly present all over the world – a pattern that is not widely disseminated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:21 am
Not muddled, just not understood by yourself, can I advise a link that might be enlightening.
The link does not contain the words ‘solar velocity power wave’…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:27 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:04 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:04 am
I see that my associate “jinki” is giving you a caning on solarcycle24.com
You have never been known for common decency. Even lying about the identity of ‘jinki’.
richard telford says:
September 4, 2010 at 3:53 am
You can tell rather little about the cause of warming from the temperature records alone. You have to consider the forcing histories, both natural (solar, volcanic, etc.) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gases, aerosols etc.).
Response:
Even after working on the NM temperature data, I had lots of doubts about trying to use the results for anything other than some sort of indicator. But if we can see this cyclical result over the past and next several hundred years, we can say that this trend is some sort of natural, and then by my definition “unforced”, effect. When other oscillations seem to match up, it does lead one to think about correlations but we should be very careful about that. The latest 30 year warming period matches nicely with CO2 increase (however, the previous 30 year cooling period doesn’t).
Geologic glacial cooling and interglacial warming seem also to be rather regular and natural. Over the past few thousand years there have been what seemed to be forced mini-warming periods and little ice ages. Lots of theories and likely drivers but WUWT?
The roles of all the GHGs and particulates may prove in the end to be very important in finally determining these “near/short term” dramatic climate shifts but obviously H2O (the GHG and the liquid and ice forms) and the sun will probably be proven to be the more significant long term players. Only my opinion – not quite enough data yet – but we will probably collect enough and be able to analyze this very soon. Bright people and the data will finally give us a greenhouse gas theory that can be easily explained to any elementary school student (and me)!
Bernie McCune
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:04 am
No, jinki, [not sure what the muddled ‘solar velocity power wave’ concept is] solar activity does not follow the sine wave pattern of this topic.
—————–
Leif,
OK, I give up after trying Google to find what the heck “jinki” refers to. Only thing I found is some Japanese anime series about autobots or something.
What is it?
John
Hi Ms Jones and Tony
Excellent work
I took liberty to superimpose the Arctic’s resultant Geomagnetic field (de-trended GMFz) on your Fig. 2 temperatures chart.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TB-A-GMF.htm
It appears to be a good match.
More details about the Arctic Geomagnetic is available at:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Bill Yarber says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:50 am
==
Peter
You have the cause and effect reversed. Look at all the ice core data. Earth’s themperatures increase and CO2 concentrations increase 200-800 years later. When Earth’s temperatures decrease, CO2 concentrations finally fall 800-2,000 years later.
======================================================
Bill, taking that one fact, CO2 is not even a good insulator, much less heating or warming the planet.
The ‘cycles’ are going to do what they are going to do, and doesn’t give one hoot what CO2 levels are.
Three cheers for the project!
I’m generally no fan of graphs that look like an escaped caterpillar, but this one is good. That the cooling sites are so widely diepersed and yet produce that wave is really eye-popping. Good job.
And as for comments requesting that the project team state the cause of the wave, I didn’t get that to be the point. It seems to me that speculation on the cause has been left to the reader as an exercise.
John Whitman says:
September 4, 2010 at 9:37 am
OK, I give up after trying Google to find what the heck “jinki” refers to.
Geoff was banned on solarcycle24.com for bad behavior and therefore posts over there under a false name ‘jinki’ even claiming to have undergone a sex change.
Leif Svalgaard as always keeps the sun honest!
Perhaps his forebears came from ancient Egypt in the days of the heretical Pharoah Akhenaten for whom the sun was the one true god, controlling and responsible for the good and the evil things affecting mankind.
3,350 years later we are still arguing for and against!
Verity and TonyB: Very well done. Stellar. Natural variation that is not explained by monotonically increasing CO2… Way to go!
What I am seeing more and more, which is quite exciting, is that more amatuers are getting involved in this class of science, and as we have seen from astronomy, this can only be a good thing!
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 9:59 am
Geoff was banned on solarcycle24.com for bad behavior and therefore posts over there under a false name ‘jinki’ even claiming to have undergone a sex change.
—————–
Leif,
OK heh ehe ehhhh. . . . .
But, it is tooooo late. I think I am hooked on the Jinki Japanese anime series now. Seems it was targeted for adults somewhat. That is your fault. Take care. : )
John
roger says:
September 4, 2010 at 10:04 am
in the days of the heretical Pharoah Akhenaten for whom the sun was the one true god, controlling and responsible for the good and the evil things affecting mankind.
3,350 years later we are still arguing for and against!
They were, of course, quite wrong. It was not the Sun that regulated everything [rising of the Nile, when to harvest, etc] but simply the change of the seasons which is due to the Earth’s changing disposition relative to the almost constant Sun. Current debate has not progressed much further, it seems…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:04 am
The sine wave is pretty simple really, it follows the PDO trend and as Scaffetta and others have noticed it also follows the solar velocity power waves. A similar solar modulation pattern is also a close fit.
“Solar velocity power waves” – are these related in any way to oscillation in the relative position of the barycentre and the sub-Jupiter point – i.e. oscillation of the sun’s angular momentum? As described in this paper:
Decadal variations in geophysical processes and asymmetries in the solar motion about the Solar System’s barycentre
Nikolay Sidorenkov, Ian Wilson, and Anatoly Khlystov
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, EGU2010-9559, 2010
Link: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-9559.pdf
A quote from this paper:
Ian Wilson et al. (2008) presented evidence that claimed that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. This paper showed that the recent maximum asymmetries in the Solar motion about the barycentre have occurred in the years 1865, 1900, 1934, 1970 and 2007. These years closely match the points of inflection in the Earth’s LOD [length of day].
Its interesting the inflection years listed seem close to inflection years of the PDO.
Can I echo Verity’s thanks for all the constructive comments.
Vuk said;
“I took liberty to superimpose the Arctic’s resultant Geomagnetic field (de-trended GMFz) on your Fig. 2 temperatures chart.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TB-A-GMF.htm
It appears to be a good match.”
Yes it does Vuk.
It would be interesting to see how other elements such as the PDO and the jet stream also match up. I suspect there are dozens of causes of changing climate (of which we currently know very little) At any one time a few combine to cause minor changes but periodically many of the more important ones combine to create major changes.
Man is a big factor in local effects (through UHi and land use) but I doubt he is a major player on a global scale. It would be nice if everyone wasnt so fixated on C02 and looked at the cause and effect more objectively
Tonyb
Be careful about about the apparent widespread indications of cyclic climate patterns.
Many geophysical phenomena expressed as a time series of measurements exhibit what is called flicker noise characteristics. Flicker noise is very counter-intuitive. For example it is easy to show mathematically ( using Fourier analysis) that a flicker noise time series has no average value. Sure you can take some number of years and compute an average value for that interval but all other equal value intervals will have different average values. The average does not exist. Over increasing long intervals increasingly large variations are evident. This is the essence of the 100 year storm concept.
Another problem with flicker noise phenomena is that the human eye nearly always sees a low frequency periodicity- usually semi- sinusoidal – in flicker noise time series data plotted on lin-lin axis. However the “clearly apparent periodicity” is usually an illusion with no evident spike or peak in the Fourier spectrum of the data series.
This is not to say there is no climate periodicity, just that eyeball identification of said periodicity in time series data is far from conclusive.
phlogiston says:
September 4, 2010 at 10:50 am
Ian Wilson et al. (2008) presented evidence that claimed that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized …
We looked into the changes of solar rotation very carefully in http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf and it is hard to see any significant systematic variation over time, c.f. Figure 1.
There seems to be a very weak dependence on activity in the sense that more activity slows the surface rotation down [Figure 2]. This is what would be expected: the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.
Thanks plenty for this!
Brgds from Sweden
/TJ
The physics can be correct in principle, while the magnitude of the effect has little overall effect.
Since the CO2 rise does not prevent the documented cooling in the 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 periods, it seems quite apparent that the CO2 effect is getting swamped by other much more powerful forcings.
The CO2 entanglement is there. It is just very weak.
The wave pattern of global mean temperature anomalies seen here appears to match those displayed in Girma Orssengo’s work posted by A. Watts on April 25, 2010. I believe Girmo used Hadcru raw data. Is my assumption correct?
Two cities that really stand out for me in the list of cities showing cooling up top are Edmonton and Curitiba.
Edmonton because in 1886 it would barely have existed. Wikipedia lists the first public building built out side of the fort in 1871. Today it is a city of roughly a million people. Interesting that wikipedia also lists the coldest day as
“1886 – Edmonton’s coldest temperature is recorded as -49.4°C on January 19”
Any temperature station in the area of what was then Edmonton would be located in the heart of the city now and so a prime candidate for Urban Heating Effect. That it would show cooling over that time is truly bazaar.
As for Curitiba here is a picture of what it looks like today. Draw your own conclusions.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Psy7928WSbc/Rfhnkm4RxZI/AAAAAAAAAE8/jCc2Xo-Bv40/s1024/DSC03428.JPG
For Rollie
Is Had CRU raw data? From what I can read about it, it is decidedly not raw. But I’m sure Girman Orssengo used Had CRU data.
Bernie McCune
Bill Yarber says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:50 am
Peter
You have the cause and effect reversed. Look at all the ice core data. Earth’s themperatures increase and CO2 concentrations increase 200-800 years later. When Earth’s temperatures decrease, CO2 concentrations finally fall 800-2,000 years later.
CO2 concentrations have been increasing over the last 200 years because we came out of the LIA and the oceans warmed, outgassing CO2. Any fool can see that CO2 is a lagging indicator, nota forcing! That is why it is obvious to anyone without an ulterior motive that AGW is the biggest scam ever foisted on humanity!
The temperature rise following the ice ages was ~6 deg C and resulted in a CO2 increase of ~100 ppm which was only fully realie, as you say, ~800 years or so after the temperature rise. The temperature increase since 1850 is less than 1 deg C but we’ve had an increase in CO2 of more than 100 ppm.
The logic of your argument is flawed.
Richard M says: September 4, 2010 at 6:48 am
“I’ll add one more item to refute Peter Ellis’ item 1). Ferenc Miskolczi and his theory of a constant GHG effect.”
The referenced paper is not the latest one. The latest paper (published in E&E in 2010) enforces the conclusions of his previous papers and presents measured data to prove the regulatory role of the H2O vapors. More details here: http://global-warming-explained.blogspot.com/
Re: vukcevic
Thanks for being so prompt in sharing this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TB-A-GMF.htm
Even though I don’t buy many of the attempts to explain the physics, no one has come (even remotely) close to convincing me that these variables are independent.
We can leave the physics to the physicists, but from my interactions with physicists, climate scientists, etc. during the past 2.75 years, I am convinced that they need help with the analysis of existing empirical data.
For example, nonstationary spatial phase relations have been largely (& in most cases completely) ignored.
This is far from trivial. There is something called “Simpson’s Paradox” which applies here.
–
Re: Geoff Sharp
Geoff, the wave is nonstationary.
For those unfamiliar with this term:
The (ephemerally) “60 year cycle” cannot be temporally extrapolated.
[I base the preceding comments on empirical records.]
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 10:41 am
If the sun were truly constant, even the solar cycles would be as predictable as tides.
The Constant Sun is an illusion, just as the serenity of an volcano thought extinct is one day shown to be a transitory state of quiescence.