Guest post by Paul Vaughan, M.Sc.
Awhile back I drew attention to temporal patterns shared by the <i>rate of change</i> of solar cycle length (SCL’) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). (See here.)
Correspondence I received later alerted me to the existence of fairly widespread misunderstandings about fundamental differences between the following:
a) Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
b) North Pacific SST (SST = Sea Surface Temperature).
Some folks, thinking of the PDO, seemed troubled by a <b>mis</b>perception that the Atlantic tracks SCL’ <i>much</i> better than the larger Pacific.
Supplementary graphs may help motivate efforts to overcome misunderstandings:
The North Pacific & Solar Cycle Change
Paul Vaughan, M.Sc. – Sept. 4, 2010
Awhile back I drew attention to temporal patterns shared by the <i>rate of change</i> of solar cycle length (SCL’) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). (See <a href=”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/18/solar-terrestrial-coincidence/”>here</a>.)
Correspondence I received later alerted me to the existence of fairly widespread misunderstandings about fundamental differences between the following:
a) Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
b) North Pacific SST (SST = Sea Surface Temperature).
Some folks, thinking of the PDO, seemed troubled by a <b>mis</b>perception that the Atlantic tracks SCL’ <i>much</i> better than the larger Pacific.
Supplementary graphs may help motivate efforts to overcome misunderstandings:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dp says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Where are all the outer planets while this is going on?
The Green curve in the graph at the link below shows the combined effect of the motion of (predominantly) the gas giants on the up-down motion of the sun’s equatorial plane relative to the centre of mass of the solar system smoothed over two Jupiter orbits. The blue curve is changes in Earth’s length of day. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
It does seem to bear some relation to Paul’s plot of rate of change of solar cycle length. Thanks for an interesting post Paul.
Re: jorgekafkazar
Clarification:
SCL has been measured using a complex Morlet 2pi wavelet. SCL’ is then found by differencing. There is edge-effect (particularly the last few years). I share your appropriately-cautious views on extrapolation.
Hi Paul
Differentiating could be a useful tool. Prompted by your SCL-SST graph, I applied it to the North Pacific GMFz (Δt=12years) and by delaying the result by 12 years, I got reasonable match for the PDO.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOz.htm
p.s. for PDO I normally use the washington.edu data (1900 – ), do you have link for 1855 – ?
Has the influence of the moon been ruled out in climatestudies?
Seeing the effect the moon has daily on the oceans (and thus the atmosphere),
and seeing the change in its orbit, combined with the gravitational pull of the sun this should have at least some effect?
The following link has a study into the moon cycles and how they could influence climate:
http://globalweatheroscillations.com/GWGCNCF/index.htm
I would like to see some discussion on the merits of this study.
Paul Vaughan, M.Sc.
Thank you for responding to my pitful cry for help.
Your response was basically lost upon my tiny mind, since your explanation didn’t resonante with me.
Now, I think I understand what the graphs show
scl 2pi does not track with PDO1a.
That means the graphs provide no insight into the real world, right?
Your charts are a send up of, right?
Is the point you are tying to make that we need to understand more about the relationship between SST and Atmospheric Pressure?
Or is that too simplistic?
Paul Vaughan says: “Since not long after I began climate investigations in late 2007, I have believed that something terribly simple has been right under the noses of physicists & climate scientists – but overlooked…”
I get the same feeling, Paul. The more “climatologists” dance widdershins around the hockey stick, defending the indefensible, the more I suspect we’re being diverted from something even shakier and more fundamental.
@ur momisugly AusieDan says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:25 am
“Can somebody please help out, by rewriting this post in language which is more understandable,”
Paul is just trying to relate the length of solar cycles to see surface temperatures and temperature differences across large ocean areas, known as oscillators.
Meanwhile, I would not trust his orange line representing solar cycle length, here is the data on solar cycle length, see what you think, I reckon he is up to a bit of rather fishy wiggle matching; http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html
Ulric Lyons says:
September 5, 2010 at 4:41 am
Meanwhile, I would not trust his orange line representing solar cycle length, here is the data on solar cycle length,…
I agree. There is something odd about the SCL’ line. The change (in years) in SCL over SC10-14 is as follows.
sc10 -> sc11 +0.5
sc11 -> sc12 -0.5
sc12 -> sc13 +0.6
sc13 -> sc14 -0.4
SC14 ended in August 1913 so I can’t quite understand where the huge dip in Paul’s graph comes from which starts in ~1895 and ends in ~1913. There is a SCL change of -1.5 years from sc14 -> sc15 but my understanding of “solar length theory” is that shorter cycles cause warming ; longer ones cooling. I suppose the SCL’ for SC14/15 could have produced the post 1913 warming – but that still leaves no explanation for the earlier dip.
It is just possible that you could get some kind of fit using post-1913 data only – but it’s a stretch as there would then be no explanation why a -1.5 year change in SCL in 1913 produced a sharp rise in SST but a 1.2 year change in SCL in 1964 didn’t produce a fall of similar magnitude (I am using start/end dates consistently).
I think it would be helpful if Paul explained exactly what he’s done – or has he already done this in previous thread. Apologies to him if he has.
chart 2 is definitely a beauty, i haven’t seen something this nice that suggests the celestial climate driver is the primary driver since Landscheidt plotted AP index to global temperature trends. Somebody should run some stats on chart 2 and publish it.
Ulric Lyons says: September 5, 2010 at 4:41 am
John Finn says: September 5, 2010 at 5:55 am
……………………
You can always try PDO vs magnetic field instead using 11 or 12 year difference (for one solar cycle).
Here is GMFz data file:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMFzNP.txt
Subtract GMFz for year 1800 from 1812 for the12 year delay (or 1811 for 11 y diff.) , enter the difference at 1800, and so on until 1998 ( 2010-12), plot and compare to the PDO graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOz.htm
Phlogiston, INGSOC: Regarding, “Combining the morsels of stark data given in the last two posts, one could draw the odd conclusion that the AMO drives North Pacific SSTs (or vice versa).”
Always best to compare the two SST datasets directly, because they do not correlate. The data has been smoothed with a 121-month filter in the following graph. I detrended the North Pacific SST anomalies (north of 20N) to help the comparison (since the AMO is detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies). And I threw in NINO3.4 SST anomalies just in case you were interested (it has very little trend so it wasn’t worthwhile detrending it).
http://i56.tinypic.com/t9zhua.jpg
There are parts of the North Pacific that do correlate with the AMO according to NOAA:
http://i38.tinypic.com/10f3yg3.jpg
The map is included in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/08/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-2.html
vukcevic says:
September 5, 2010 at 7:47 am
Ulric Lyons says: September 5, 2010 at 4:41 am
John Finn says: September 5, 2010 at 5:55 am
……………………
You can always try PDO vs magnetic field instead using 11 or 12 year difference
… and eventually we might come up with something that fits. Isn’t this the problem. Try enough combinations and you’re bound to get one that looks convincing.
@ur momisugly vukcevic says:
September 5, 2010 at 7:47 am
I see from the graph that the PDO and N.Pacific have been moving in opposition for a couple of decades every 45yrs; http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/northpacificsst_pdo.png
John Finn
There is a good reason for it. The AMO has 70% correlation with the Arctic GMF
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
It would not be odd if the PDO, which arises in the north Pacific, is correlated to its GMF too.
Ulric Lyons
I would not be surprised if it is something to do with the circulation ‘loop time’ of the N.Pacific currents.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_(borderless)3.png
Ulric and John Finn: Paul isn’t plotting solar cycle length in fig2. He is plotting rate of change of solar cycle length.
Paul Vaughan says:
September 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm
“The presentation style is deliberate.”
Colour me gobsmacked.
@ur momisugly tallbloke says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Ulric and John Finn: Paul isn’t plotting solar cycle length in fig2. He is plotting rate of change of solar cycle length.
………………………………………………
Yes, realized already, so why the big drop at 1895 as John said, there is not that much difference between C13 and C14, the change from C19 to C20 has not been treated so generously, and where is the nearly 2yr difference between C22 and C23 gone then ??
@ur momisugly tallbloke says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm
And why does the orange line rise from C15 through to C17, while the cycles are getting longer ?
@ur momisugly John Finn says:
September 5, 2010 at 11:05 am
… and eventually we might come up with something that fits. Isn’t this the problem. Try enough combinations and you’re bound to get one that looks convincing.
………………………………………..
The sunspot cycle is not the solar variable driving this anyway. Most land surface temperatures move in unison with the solar wind speed, but regional SST`s move in opposition to the solar signal around the solstices, moderating land temperature extremes towards polar regions, and at the equatorial regions.
As indicated previously:
SCL has been measured using a complex Morlet 2pi wavelet. SCL’ is then found by differencing. (Easily reproduced.)
As also indicated above, the wavelet parameter (2pi) can be varied. There are also other wavelets (besides Morlet).
Bear in mind that the wavelet is operating on monthly data and that it is a complex wavelet (i.e. it has both a real & imaginary part – [this is how phase information is extracted]).
Important:
“Eyeballing” methods based on ~11 year steps between either maxima or minima ignore the vast majority of the data. Wavelet methods utilize all of the data.
vukcevic, rather than resorting to lags, I would recommend differentiation (not necessarily just once) &/or integration. Also bear in mind the spatial dimension. For example sometimes spatial anti-phase is mistaken for a temporal lag. …But I think you already get the idea. (And clarification: I am speaking in general, not about any specific example.) The challenge with the spatial dimension is the aggregation criteria, which can be varied to detect pattern thresholds. (Physical geographers use the term MAUP [modifiable areal unit problem].)
Ulric Lyons says:
September 5, 2010 at 11:20 am
The convergence/sypathetic/divergence of N. Pacific SST and PDO should remind one of the Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice doing exactly the same sort of thing. They cross each other, they run parallel with each other in unison or on opposite sides of a gap, and they are doing it with noise attached. A fractalized DNA strand. You might say there is a Climate DNA sequence that needs decoding.
Paul Vaughan says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm
As indicated previously:
SCL has been measured using a complex Morlet 2pi wavelet. SCL’ is then found by differencing. (Easily reproduced.)
Ok – I’ve see you have mentioned the “complex 2pi wavelet” in an earlier post. Could you now tell us why this is an appropriate method of measuring SCL.
Important:
“Eyeballing” methods based on ~11 year steps between either maxima or minima ignore the vast majority of the data. Wavelet methods utilize all of the data.
I would like to see more detail on this. SCL refers to the Solar Cycle Length. The SCL is, by definition, a step of ~11 years. What “vast majority of data is being ignored”? What part of the wavelet analysis produces the 1895-1913 dip in SCL’ ?
I apologise for my lack of understanding.
tallbloke says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Ulric and John Finn: Paul isn’t plotting solar cycle length in fig2. He is plotting rate of change of solar cycle length.
Yes I know – that’s why I posted a list of SCL differences between successive cycles. I think Ulric knows it as well.
rbateman wrote: “They cross each other, they run parallel with each other in unison or on opposite sides of a gap […]”
One can find such relations for dozens upon dozens of pairs of terrestrial climate variables. The keys are things such as spatiotemporal aggregation criteria, integration over spatiotemporal harmonics, eddies/back-eddies/turbulence at a variety of spatiotemporal scales, etc. – i.e. this is the stuff of advanced physical geography.
Conventional statistical methodology is inapplicable. The assumptions are violated.
Wavelet methods can be tailored to handle the challenge. The stuff I’ve been doing is not even so much as a speck on the tip of the iceberg of what will be done with wavelets in the future.