Guest post by David Archibald
The most skillful climatologist the World has seen was Hubert Lamb (1913 – 1997). He can be credited with making the first prediction of the current solar minimum. This was in 1970 in a report (Weiss and Lamb) for the German Navy.
He did it by making a reconstructed record of the average frequency of southwesterly surface winds in England since 1340. Quoting Lamb “We sense a cycle or periodicity of close to 200 years in length.” and “There may be a valuable indication of the origin of this apparent 200 year recurrence tendency, in that the sharp declines of the southwesterly wind indicated in the late 1300s, 1560s, 1740s-1770s and now, in each case fell at about the end of a sequence of sunspot cycles which built up to periods of exceptionally great solar disturbance (around 1360-80, the 1570s, the 1770s, the 1950s and more recently). The frequency maxima of the southwesterly wind, and evidence of warm climate periods in Europe sustained over several decades, all bear a similar relationship to these variations of the Sun’s activity.”
Following is Figure 11.6 from Lamb’s 1988 book “Weather, Climate and Human Affairs”:
The frequency of the southwest wind at London is shown by the solar line. A tentative forecast (broken line) is made simply by moving the whole curve 200 years to the right, i.e. the forecast implied by accepting the apparent 200 year recurring oscillation shown by the series.
Successful predictions have many fathers. Lamb’s successful prediction forty years ago was the first prediction of the current minimum and reminds us that climate cycles can be relied upon to continue to the end of time.
References
Weiss, I. and Lamb, H.H. (1970) ‘Die Zunahme der Wellenhohen in jungster Ziet in den Operationsgebieten der Bundesmarine, ihre vermutliche Ursachen and ihre voraussichtliche weitere Entwicklung, Fachlich Mitteilungen, Nr. 160, Porz-Wahn, Geophysikalisher Bertungsdiesnt der Bundeswehr.
David Archibald
February 2012
William Astley says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:35 am
The sun was at its highest activity level in roughly 11,000 years during the last half the 20th century.
Not so: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Prime Minister JULIA Gillard thinks she can stop climate cycles by destroying Australia’s economy. But I hear a lot of Australians have a problem with that.So one of the two parties commits suicide.
Clarke and Dawe
http://youtu.be/yQgL1KdW_cg
J Calvert N(UK) says:
Right idea…But, I think if you try plotting it, you’ll find that the reason that exponential isn’t that much better is because if you consider the function to be total CO2 concentration, it is considerably super-exponential.
What you really want to plot instead is the total CO2 concentration above 280 ppm and then fit an exponential to it…Or, alternately, what I just did is used SOLVER, which allowed me to specify a functional form to fit the data to that subtracted off the baseline of 280 ppm. What I see visually is that (CO2 – 280ppm) is considerably better fit by an exponential function than a linear function, although the exponential does have a bit too much curvature. (If one actually allows the baseline concentration to be another fit parameter, then the best fit to the exponential form is obtained with a baseline parameter of ~256 ppm.)
P. Solar says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“…it suggested a decay constant of about 5 years.”
That time is largely one of diffusion into the oceans. What I am getting at here is the time until ultimate sequestration. That time should be on the order of decades, or we should see more of the ~60 year temperature cycle in the CO2 measurements.
This is all very interesting. It would be better if you could post a link to where you got it right. These incoherent and contradictory posts are not too convincing.”
Well, the post shows the manner in which one could fit a model. And, a system with a low pass characteristic will generally show greater sensitivity for long term trends than it will for annual cycles. That is the main point.
I’m not trying to convince at this point, merely to keep minds open.
It’s been quite some time since I made my original analysis and, as this is not my day job, I’m not sure if I kept any record of my scribblings. But, I now recall I did assume a second order model rolling off at -40 dB/decade because there are two main reservoirs (system states), being the Atmosphere and the Oceans. It may even be possible to get steeper roll-off, hence longer dominant time constant, by including the Land reservoir. But, I do not want to go too far in this direction because it is somewhat speculative without performing an in-depth analysis of the data.
“I think you will find there is a different time const for small amplitude variations circa 5ppm (surface water) and larger variations of the order of 100ppm which probably will involve deeper water.”
I agree. The whole thing may even resemble a pink noise process, which can be modeled as an infinite expansion of exponential decays. That is precisely why I do not want to tie myself down to a particular model, and just want to make the point that the expected low pass characteristic can tie all the sensitivities together. There’s a fellow over at Judith’s who frequently argues for a “fat tail” response of this type. While I do not think his particular model is necessarily the true one, it is a plausible one.
Pamela Gray says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:39 am
“Joel I don’t see an exponential rise in ppm of CO2. I question that prediction.”
It could be all kinds of functions. It’s more or less linear with an apparent additional slightly positive curvature. Anything beyond that is speculation.
Les Johnson says:
February 19, 2012 at 1:44 am
I don’t know, Les. The main point I take away from the discussion is that fitting a sinusoidal expansion to data often does have predictive value. As I am sure you are well aware, that is something the AGW advocates are anxious to deny (but, something we in industry know very well) because the obvious ~60 year cycle in the global temperature metric explains the run up of that measure in the late 20th century, as well as the current lull, without any significant impact from CO2 being necessary. And, that fact alone obliterates the foundation of the CAGW conjecture.
JS: I tried some of those ideas. About the best fit I could get using Excel was 280+4*10^-18*e^0.0023x. This gave a doubing time of 154 years. I’m intrigued now. I guess I’ll have
to try and buy the article!
Just so everyone else can see, here http://www.frontiernet.net/~jshore/CO2_concentration.pdf is a plot of the Mauna Loa CO2 data with 3 fits:
Linear 2-parameter fit in black to the form y = m*x + b
Exponential 2-parameter fit in red to the form y = A*exp(B*x) + 280
Exponential 3-parameter fit in green to the form y = A*exp(B*x) + C
As noted, for the 3-parameter fit, the optimal value found for C turns out to be C = 256 ppm.
Joel Shore @ur momisugly February 19, 10:23 am
Joel, please study the following, and see if you can de-mystify what you are on about. The sources include the IPCC and Hadcrut.
http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/linear-trends-on-noisy-data/
I’ve responded to your still evasive, even irrelevant answer again here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/#comment-897210
J Calvert N(UK):
I get a doubling time of 32 years for the 2-parameter exponential fit and 43 years for the 3-parameter exponential fit.
(By doubling time, I mean the time for the part above the baseline to double in value, not the time for the total CO2 concentration to double. If I instead ask when the CO2 levels will reach 560 ppm, i.e., double the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm, I get the year to be 2053 for the 2-parameter exponential fit and 2061 for the 3-parameter exponential fit.)
Bart @ur momisugly February 19, 4:43 pm
Re the approx 60-year underlying sinusoidal, please see my comment to Joel below, with the earliest (2003) reference to it that I’ve seen graphed, and a very silly misleading graph from IPCC AR4 using linear trends, and Hadcrut comparison.
You might like to exchange notes with Joel. (it can be a bit like trying to remove an eel from the hook with bare hands without injuring it though)
JS: What do you make the Doubling Time to be?
Bob_FJ says:
February 19, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Your next comment hasn’t appeared yet, and I have to go. But, I do want to note this statement by Joel:
“Only in the minds of those who don’t understand the concept of statistical significance and errorbars in trend analysis.”
I find this kind of justification very annoying. Such concepts are meant for specific data sets which have a definite underlying trend and measurements which are corrupted by independent noise. The model is a trend. If the real world is not actually linear, if it does not fit that model, then the error bars calculated under that assumption are on very shaky ground.
There are two concepts in opposition in such a case: bias and variance. When the model does not fit, your estimate is biased. When the model is really poor, the bias can exceed the variance. That is why statistical models are sought to be consistent. (While it is not necessary for an estimator to be unbiased to be consistent, those which manage it tend to be contrived applications, and it is certainly not the case here.)
Joel Shore says:
February 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm
“…Mauna Loa CO2 data with 3 fits:”
Begging the question. Try a quadratic fit. A cubic fit. A quartic fit. At some point, you will find a truncated polynomial fit which gives a better fit than the exponential. At that point, should we conclude that the exponential model is wrong?
In reply to Connolley.
William M. Connolley says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:23 am
>Astley: I do not understand why you statement “tenuous at best”.. How do you explain the last 23 Dansgaard-Oeschger events
Err, but what has this got to do with the “prediction”?
As we watch this specific solar change unfold, it will be evident whether solar changes can or cannot abruptly change the climate. I do not expect to affect your paradigm with my comments. If the planet abruptly cools, your paradigm will change.
Obviously, if the planet starts to abruptly cool the entire extreme AGW hypothesis was incorrect and a new policy will be required. I completely understand the majority has not reviewed the paleoclimatic record and do not understand that abrupt climate changes, such as the Younger Dryas Heinrich event or the past termination of interglacials is a cyclic physical fact, i.e. The observational evidence of abrupt cyclic climate change cycles at which time there is concurrent cosmogenic isotope change is agreed to by specialists to be a fact. Where there is not agreement is to what caused the past cyclic abrupt climate change periods.
The “prediction” is that past solar cycles caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles in the past which is warming followed by cooling and in some instances abrupt cooling. Solar cycle 24 is the start of the cooling phase of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
The observational record unequivocally supports this assertion. For example (see below for a link to Rahmstorf’s paper.)
“Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.”
If you presented a counter proposal as to what caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle in the past, that included a physical cause, that included observational evidence to support the hypothesis, rather than link to to AR-4 with no explanation, as to what counter hypothesis you or AR-4 proposes, I can respond to your comment. What specifically in AR-4 supports your assertion, that 70% of the 20th century warming was not caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and that the planet is not about to abruptly cool?
I see multiple fundamental errors in AR-4. The IPCC document is obviously controlled by a select group of people who started with a conclusion rather than try to solve a scientific problem.
I provide the following link to a resignation letter in response a press conference held by the principal author of a section of AR-4 to support my assertion that the IPCC process is controlled by a group that have started with a conclusion.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
“Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
…Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).”
I cannot agree or disagree with AR-4 unless you present a specific scientific hypothesis, that includes data, analysis, and so forth. (i.e. A hypothesis that can be disproved.)
It is fact that there is in the paleoclimatic record 23 Dansgaard-Oescheger cycles which occur cyclically with a periodicity of roughly 1470 years plus or minus around 80 years.. The very large Heinrich cycles, including the 12,800 year before present abrupt cooling “Younger Dryas” cooling cycle and the past similar Heinrich cycles are concurrent in time with the Dansgaard-Oescheger cycles, as is the 8200 year cooling cycle.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
It is a fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is linearly less and less as compared to previously formed sunspots. If the trend continues the sun will no longer be capable for producing sunspots.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
So in the paleo climatic record there are cycles of planetary warming, followed by cooling and in for come instances abrupt cooling at which time there are concurrent cosmogenic isotope changes and abrupt geomagnetic field changes. It seems logical that if the sun changes in the same manner as it has changed in the past that the same abrupt climate change will occur. What is not known is why the sun changed in the past and how that specific solar change caused the cyclic abrupt climate change.
My comment is we will have a front row seat to observe and resolve the questions noted above as it obvious that the current Dansgaard-Oescheger cycle is moving from the warming phase to the cooling or abrupt cooling phase.
Joel, please excuse my naivete. I always understood that exponential growth is marked as a rate of growth that increases as time increases. The curve is supposed to get steeper and steeper as time goes on. I just don’t see it. Now if you want to split hairs on a gnat’s ass, I suppose there are numerous degrees of exponential growth and algorithms to match. But that seems more like hedging your bet to me. It reminds one of the “acidification” montra. The ocean is a far cry from being acid and I think the growth of CO2 is a far cry from being what I consider to be exponential.
I also am wondering if we are being rather short-sighted. Looking at this very tiny snippet of CO2 in the ever-long history of CO2 on Earth seems a bit futile and demonstrates a desire to ignore the trees whilst we examine the little needles on the forest floor underneath just one little tree.
William Astley says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm
It seems logical that if the sun changes in the same manner as it has changed in the past that the same abrupt climate change will occur.
Except, as I pointed out, the sun did not change in the past the way you assume.
Bart @ur momisugly February 19, 6:27 pm
1) Sorry Bart, I screwed up on the sequence; my relevant comment to Joel was above, not below that to you. Here it is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/the-world-wont-stop-having-climate-cycles-just-because-they-are-inconvenient/#comment-897244 , and it contains the link to the sinusoidal/linear trend graphs that I’ve invited Joel to contemplate on. (If I were to ask direct questions, on form, he would probably divert to something else)
2) Yes, I also find that gobbledygook that caught your eye above to be exquisitely irritating.
In reply to Leif Svalgaard,
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:57 pm
William Astley says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm
It seems logical that if the sun changes in the same manner as it has changed in the past that the same abrupt climate change will occur.
Except, as I pointed out, the sun did not change in the past the way you assume.
Hello,
I do not believe I provided a hypothesis as to how the sun changed in the past during the Dansgaard-Oescheger cycle and the stronger Heinrich cycles. I stated that there are very large cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the Dansgaard-Oescherger cycles and there are larger cosmogenic isotope changes at the Heinrich events. There are unexplained geomagnetic excursions at the Heinrich events and at the termination of interglacial periods. I believe that is an observational fact, assuming the interpretation of the proxy record is correct. The specialists in that field have looked for different measurement techniques to confirm the observations.
If I understand your comment and lecture notes, the proxy solar activity based on direct observation is not necessarily and likely not constant overtime. (i.e. There is a subjective judgement as to what is or is not a sunspot and a sunspot group and the observational tools have changed.) I am not sure that invalidates Solanki’s assertion.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
I provided a link to Solanki et al’s paper “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”. Solanki compares cosmogenic isotopes deposits in the past to current to support his assertion. Is his assertion correct? It seems to provide a proxy measure of the heliosphere rather than sunspot count. I thought there was also geomagnetic field disturbance records that supports Solanki’s assertion for the short period of time that record is available. If I remember correctly the number of disturbances and the magnitude of disturbance in the geomagnetic field has increased by a factor of 2 comparing the 19th century to the later part of the twentieth century. The geomagnetic disturbance record supports Solanki’s assertion for the last 200 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Are there any hypotheses to explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Has this happened in the past?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
As I stated, it does appear we will have an opportunity to observe a Dansgaard-Oescherger cycle. What happened (geomagnetic field changes and paloeclimatic changes) before happened for a physical reason. (see the graph of past Dansgaard-Oescherger cycles in the Greenland Ice sheet core data.) There are a number of fundamental solar and paleo climatic questions that may be answered by those observations.
Nice, Bob_FJ. Thanks.
That IPCC AR4 chart … Wow. The guy who made it is either an imbecile or sociopathically dishonest.
William Astley says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:25 pm
I am not sure that invalidates Solanki’s assertion.
Solanki’s model is based on the assumed large secular change in the Group sunspot Number. This change is likely spurious and didn’t happen.
It seems to provide a proxy measure of the heliosphere rather than sunspot count. […] The geomagnetic disturbance record supports Solanki’s assertion for the last 200 years.
The heliomagnetic and geomagnetic data shows no difference between the 18th and 20th centuries. See e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Are there any hypotheses to explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Has this happened in the past?
Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots and pores. That mechanism seems to be weakening [we don’t know why, yet]. It is possible that it also happened during the Maunder Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:26 am
The heliomagnetic and geomagnetic data shows no difference between the 19th and 20th centuries. See e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Bart says:
I agree there is no law of nature that says it has to be exponential. The reason the exponential model fits so well is that our emissions of CO2 have been growing approximately exponentially and the fraction of CO2 that is rapidly partitioned into the oceans and biosphere has remained about constant. If either of these changes, then the growth of the CO2 concentration should change.
Of course, the part about emissions is in our hands. The part about the uptake of the oceans and biosphere is more complex…Some (many?) scientists believe that there will be some saturation effects eventually and these sinks will no longer be able to keep up; fortunately, we haven’t seen any sign of this yet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:26 am
Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots and pores. That mechanism seems to be weakening [we don’t know why, yet]. It is possible that it also happened during the Maunder Minimum.
When you say “we” you are not including all solar science, only the brand you subscribe to.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:26 am
Thank-you for your comments.
William
Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:35 am
“Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots and pores. That mechanism seems to be weakening. [we don’t know why, yet]”
When you say “we” you are not including all solar science, only the brand you subscribe to.
The ‘we’ covers everybody. Unless you can provide links that show that somebody understands why the mechanism is weakening.