Detecting regime shifts in climate data – the modern warming regime ended in 1997

The Analysis of the Global Change using Hurst Re Scaling

S.I.Outcalt : Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Michigan

Abstract: Three data sets used to document the case for anthropogenic global warming were analyzed using Hurst Rescaling. The analysis indicated that a more likely interpretation of the data is that the observed linear trend in global temperatures is an artifact of regime shifts. The dramatic “hockey stick” trace, which began in 1976 accompanied by a major transition in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ends at the onset of the 21st Century and might be better termed the modern warming regime. This regime was replaced by a pronounced cooling regime. These observations attenuate the demonic interpenetration of the linear trend in the historic global temperature data.

Introduction: Hurst Re Scaling or Integral Inflection Analysis is a simple operation which is used to detect regime transitions in serial data. Although it is seldom employed the technique of has been demonstrated to be extremely effective in the detection of regime shifts in serial data [Outcalt et.al.(1997), Runnalls and Oke (2006)]. The method is named in honor of H.E.Hurst, who used the extremes of the integral of deviations from the record mean of serial data to analyze persistence in time series. The method is based on the assumption that most natural data is composed of regimes ranging in scale for geologic epochs to turbulence. In this world view nature has a strongly fractal structure with serial regimes covering the entire range of space and time.

Implementation: Dplot software uses a variety of rapid operators to analyze serial data. A small group of operators are used in Hurst Re Scaling Analysis. These operators are the calculation of the integral trace or the cumulative deviations from the record mean, mean value subtraction, linear trend removal and normalization. The analysis begins with the subtraction of the record mean followed by integration. Inflections in the integral trace signal regime transitions. If several variables are used in the analysis they may be normalized and plotted on the same graph. Another informative integral trace can be produced by removing the linear trend before integration. This operation phase shifts the initial inflections but signals subsets of record that might be parsed and analyzed using simple integration after mean subtraction. Even in the case where the data is in deviations from the record mean initial mean subtraction ensures integral closure. Trend removal on integral traces before normalization insures that the normalized integral traces cover the entire range of zero to unity.

The Test Signal: Three sets GHCN, HadCRUT3 and NASA were used as test signals. These data signals are remarkably similar and are displayed as figure 1.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The three record used as a test signals.

Integration: Integral traces were calculated from the test signals. Two integrations were performed. The first integration was done after a second mean subtraction to assure integral closure and the second followed trend removal and mean subtraction. These traces are displayed as Figure 2.

clip_image004

Figure 2. The initial integration (open symbols) displayed strong inflections near the the major global climate transitions in 1936 and 1976, which were accompanied by major ocean circulation transitions. The integrals of departures from the linear trend (filled symbols) indicate a major transition in the last decade of the 20th Century.

Figure 2 suggests that the period from 1976 until the end of the record should be parsed for detailed analysis. The traces of the 1976-2008 segment of the record were integrated and normalized after mean subtraction. The traces resulting from these operations is displayed as Figure 3.clip_image006

Figure 3. These traces indicate that the modern warming regime ended in 1997.

Figure 3 indicates that a major transition occurred at the onset of the 21st Century. The global thermal response to this transition is somewhat muted. An inspection of the data displayed as Figure 1 shows only slight downturns near the end of the record in 2008. However, ground temperature data collected by Janke(2011) and analyzed by the author indicates a major shift from a warming to cooling regime in the early years of the 21st Century. This ground temperature data is based on the mean annual temperatures calculated from probes at 1 m intervals in three 6 m boreholes along Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain Park, Colorado. The annual mean temperatures were calculated from hourly observations and are therefore extremely robust. The data were collected in mountain tundra terrain above treeline along an east / west ridge. The data from these boreholes is displayed as Figure 4.

clip_image008

Figure 4. Mean annual temperature profiles from Trail Ridge. The temperature inflection in BH2 profile is an artifact of the 1976 onset of modern warming. The Terzaghi equation makes it possible to estimate the overlying inflection dates. The upper inflections in all three boreholes indicate a dramatic transition from a warming to cooling regime in the early years of the 21st Century.

Figure 4 indicates a dramatic shift in the climate at Trail Ridge. Linear extrapolation if BH2 profile below 4 m to the surface yields an extreme minimal estimate of a 2C surface temperature drop. As disturbance profiles are parabolic [Terzaghi (1970)] the actual drop in surface temperature over the first decade of the 21st Century is probably more than double the conservative estimate in the realm of 4-6 C.

Conclusion: This short analysis indicates that an alternate model of climate change based on serial regime transitions rather than anthropogenic global warming is consistent with the results of the Hurst Re Scaling analysis.

References:

Janke,J.R.(2011) personal communication.

Outcalt,S.I., Hinkel, K.M.,Meyer,E . and Brazel,A.J.(1997) The application of Hurst rescaling to serial geophysical data. Geographical Analysis 29, 72-87.

Runnalls,K.E. and Oke,T.R.(2006) A technique to detect micro-climatic inhomogeneities in historical records of screen-level air temperature. Journal of Climate 19: 959-978.

Terzaghi,K (1970) Permafrost, J. Boston. Soc. Civil Eng. 39(1): 319-368

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

I can’t claim to fully understand this, but it does seem to confirm analytically what is evident qualitatively, that the globe hasn;t been warming in over a decade.

Pamela Gray

This meshes so well with Bob Tisdale’s work.

Rick Bradford

But if we accept this analysis, I don’t see how we get to denounce and destroy capitalism.
/sarc

The borehole data is interesting, but reflects surface temperatures, not near surface air temperatures. Surface temperatures are influenced by snow cover and solar insolation.
Like with decreasing Arctic ice, decreased snow cover will lead to more heat loss from the ground and climate cooling.

daveburton

“…the demonic interpenetration of the linear trend…”
Huh?

Crispin in Waterloo

I believe there was a Canadian borehole study of a similar style that showed a 6 Deg C rise in the Arctic over the past 150 years. If ‘things go back’ it might mean a return to the earlier temperatures. Is it possible that during a cooling event, the Arctic might continue to warm as a follow-on from the ending of the ice age? If so the overall change will be different from the recent past (10k years).

Caleb

Borehole data from a ridge in California?
Oh well, makes as much sense as boring holes in Bristlecones.

Tom in Indy

The mainstream media won’t touch this. It does not fit thier agenda. The founders thought they established a system where a free press would prevent government from asserting its will over the populace. Unfortunately, the founders never envisioned a scenario where the press would be sympathetic to a totalitarian cause.

pat

3 July: Guardian: Leo Hickman: Is it now possible to blame extreme weather on global warming?Wildfires, heatwaves and storms witnessed in the US are ‘what global warming looks like’, say climate scientists
VIDEO: ‘The odds are changing’: Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, discusses the relationship between weather extremes and global warming on PBS Newshour.
Hickman: I put this question to a number of climate scientists…
Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution, at the Met Office Hadley Centre…
Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the Penn State Department of Meteorology…
Dr Clare Goodess, senior researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit…
Dr Doug Smith, who leads decadal climate prediction research and development at the Met Office Hadley Centre…
Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences…
Harold Brooks, head of the mesoscale applications group at Noaa’s National Severe Storms Laboratory…
Michael F. Wehner, staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory… http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/03/weather-extreme-blame-global-warming?newsfeed=true
no prizes for guessing what the abovementioned “CAGW scientists” had to say.
back in the real world:
3 July: UK Daily Mail: Graham Smith: Washout summer could lead to rickets epidemic in children not exposed to regular sunlight needed to produce vitamin D
Dr Nicola Balch, an associate specialist in child health at the British Medical Association: ‘People need just 20 to 30 minutes of sun three or four times a week to ensure they get enough vitamin D, but obviously with our weather it can be impossible to get this.’…
The miserable weather has sparked calls from doctors for vitamin D to be added to foods and supplements rolled out nationally…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2168264/Washout-summer-lead-rickets-epidemic-children-exposed-regular-sunlight-needed-produce-vitamin-D.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
——————————————————————————–

Maus

Anthropogenic Ice Age, obviously. Again.

pat

anyone care to comment on this?
3 July: Fox News: Douglas Main: What’s behind the record heat?
Climate change?
The early heat waves of summer — following higher temperatures in spring and winter — could also be part of a pattern of climate change.
“It’s consistent with what we’d expect in a warming climate, but it’s hard to quantify any effect climate change might have on an individual event like this heat wave,” Crouch said.
While only one heat wave cannot by itself be linked to climate change, a significant increase in these types of events over time could be a hallmark of a warming planet. “An increasing frequency of heat waves —that’s one aspect of climate change you can point to,” Carbin said.
Over the past few years, daily record high temperatures have been outpacing daily record lows by 2-to-1 on average, according to the website Climate Central. A 2009 study found that if the climate were not warming, that ratio would be expected to be even. So far this year, there have been 40,113 high temperature records set or tied, compared with just 5,835 cold records, a ratio of about 7-to-1.
“This could be a harbinger of things to come,” Weber said
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/
——————————————————————————–

Ben U.

These observations attenuate the demonic interpenetration of the linear trend in the historic global temperature data.

“demonic”? Maybe “devilish” was meant, in the sense of troublesome? or maybe it’s a typo?

Brian D

Demonic interpenetration? He’s equating the linear trend to something that’s pornographic in nature?! LOL! LOL!

Professor Outcalt:
I like the concept of this calculation.
Some questions though.
Besides the fact that we’ve trashed the continuity (and virginity) of the databases you ran the Hurst exponent series on; I am curious about the legitimacy of running this series on a generic (also frequently discontinuous and confusing) aggregate of methodically different world temp measurements. Wouldn’t it be better to use this exponent series on some validated long term temp records from specific locations? There’s no need to wade into the alligator choked swamp to contest the number of unknown beasts in the water. Especially when the keepers of those databases never seem to know exactly what goes into any particular aggregate.
Could you run this on the satellite measurements? I know you can’t get a very long time series from the satellite data, but it should be more trustworthy.
You’re trying stir the wrong pot Pat. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/the-kevin-trenberth-seth-borenstein-aided-fact-free-folly-on-the-usa-heat-wave/. The you can go crawl back under whatever you crawled out from under. I’d say rock, but I hate insulting innocent rocks. Perhaps something septic?

MattN

Figure 3 appears to be a CuSum plot, but it is inverse to what I would expect it to be if it was cooling…

Paul Vaughan

Many geophysical series show integral changepoints ~1945 & ~1976.
They’re coherent with Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) Earth-Crossing integral changepoints.
A. HCS Earth-Crossings:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2yydr92.png
B. HCS Earth-Crossing Integral:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2nbc3dw.png
There’s a whole branch of the solar-terrestrial-climate literature that went off the rails – raising decades of controversy – simply because B was either ignored or hidden. Whether ignorance or deception, bright forces are up against the ugly, dark side of human nature.
Best Regards to All.

Matthew R Marler

Let’s see: first, we have data from a personal communication, with the methods of data collection poorly described. then, we have a totally impenetrable figure 4, with (a) no clear explanation of which variables are calculated and which variables are measured and (b) no clear explanation of which plotted variables are responses and which are antecedents; third, the diffusion equation contains no terms for seasonal variation in temperature (with freezing in fall and winter, thawing in spring and summer) or annual variation in rainfall, insolation, temperature or snow cover. Lastly, in the Hurst analyses and the core analyses, there are no comparisons of the calculated curves to some expectancies dependent on any models of random variation plus linear change (or any other model of change), that is, there is no hint of what is usually called “statistical significance”.
I’d recommend a substantial rewrite and resubmission.

Paul Vaughan

atheok says (July 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm) wrote:
“There’s no need to wade into the alligator choked swamp to contest the number of unknown beasts in the water.”

That about sums up the current state of the climate discussion.

David Falkner

The references are a little sketchy. And the post itself is pretty barebones. I am not the kind of person that has time to go look all of this stuff up. Given that our economy is based on specialization, I can only assume that Mosher will hold this against me while everyone else understandingly forgives. Still, a little more explanation is needed or this is just toilet paper floating in the septic tank of the internet. Sorry if that seems harsh, but it is totally forgettable.

Paul Vaughan

Matthew R Marler (July 3, 2012 at 8:30 pm):
“[…] there is no hint of what is usually called “statistical significance”.

The model assumptions don’t hold, so why waste time generating meaningless p-values? Climate research is in the exploratory phase; it’s nowhere near the level of knowledge necessary to do meaningful inference. Too many turn a blind eye to this reality. I do hope you (& many others) will reconsider from the perspective of deeper fundamentals.
Matthew R Marler (July 3, 2012 at 8:30 pm):
“I’d recommend a substantial rewrite and resubmission.”

It’s a casual blog post written by a volunteer, not a formal document written by a well-paid employee with a guaranteed-secure pension. The distinction is day vs. night (real, animated grassroots vs. stuffy, yawn-inducing formality).
All a blog post has to do to succeed is stimulate the audience.
Whether applied well or not by the author of this particular article, the post draws attention to a very useful exploratory tool (that can also be used as a meaningful inferential tool in other contexts where inference model assumptions are tenable).
My concern is that we’re already severely short on climate blog articles about data exploration. Sometimes we go for weeks without anything interesting. If the bar is set artificially high for data exploration articles, we just get watered down in more (waste-of-time IMO) philosophy & politics.

Claude Harvey

Such a technique assumes the data plots being analyzed are legitimate. After all the howling about how the major composite temperature records (other than satellite) are fatally flawed at best and fraudulent at worst, isn’t it colossally mendacious for readers to claim the subject analysis of those records means anything at all?

pat says:
July 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm
anyone care to comment on this?
3 July: Fox News: Douglas Main: What’s behind the record heat?
Climate change?
The early heat waves of summer — following higher temperatures in spring and winter — could also be part of a pattern of climate change.
“It’s consistent with what we’d expect in a warming climate,…………
===================================================
Sure, it’s a ridiculous load of tripe. Every year since time began, some points on the earth break records. Every year, without exception. This is because there was never a time that some place didn’t have extreme weather. So, what the lunatics have been doing, is chasing an area with extreme weather and checking the records. Sure enough, some of them get broken. Recall, they said the same exact thing about the winter we had in Kansas a couple of years ago…. except they were cold records…… which, they said they expected. Well, so do I. It doesn’t have anything to do with a warmer world. In fact, the global temps this year have been well below the temps of 2010.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/its-sooooooo-hot/
Personally, I find the opportunistic nature of these cretins, attempting to score points off of human suffering, a bit insulting, but insightful towards their character.

“I am curious about the legitimacy of running this series on a generic (also frequently discontinuous and confusing) aggregate of methodically different world temp measurements. ‘
long ago on CA a couple of us played around with Hurst ( Im a fan) and these series. I think either stockwell or D hughes and I discussed it. mmm cant recall now. I was bothered by the fact that the index is a amalgamation of air temps and SST.. hmm two entirely different beasts.
The point being, it is one thing to compare the temperature index to itself to look at changes.
its quite another thing to analyze it as if it were physically meaningful.
OHC is physically meaningful.. the combination of air temps and SST.. hmm. not so sure.
That said, its always fun to play with methods.
In simple terms the temperature index is really beside the point when it comes to AGW.
we knew long ago, long before the index ever went up that GHGs will warm the planet.
And if the temperature index goes down, we will still know that GHGs will warm the planet.

noaaprogrammer

2012 summer temperatures here in northwestern USA have been below normal while temperatures in states further south and eastward have been above normal, but only the hot temperatures and storms and forest fires and their possible connection to climate change are what is reported in the MSM. In the northwest, some people have replanted their gardens 3 times because the seeds rotted in the cold soggy soil.

Rolf

This is ‘interesting’ and just as adequate as is the CAGW or even AGW or maybe GW.
Frankly this is just as scientific and valid as is the AGW reality.
One word, bullshit, but I am sure peer-reviewed.

Very cool paper and thanks for posting this Anthony. This is above Tamino’s head. Hurst makes perfect sense and these methods are well defended. This is better/more accurate than just fitting a linear trend.

Nick in Vancouver

“the technique of has been”
“normalization insures that” – ensures?
“inflections near the the”
“traces resulting from these operations is” – are?
“Linear extrapolation if’ – of?

jcbmack

Great paper. Thanks for re-posting this Anthony. Hurst makes perfect sense and it is well defended in the paper. I think Tamino is over his head with a paper like this.
REPLY: Oh, he’ll try to shoot it down anyway. – Anthony

Venter

Sins of omission as usual, by Mosher, while preaching his favourite Gospel. Let me correct it
” we knew long ago, long before the index ever went up that GHGs will warm the planet.
And if the temperature index goes down, we will still know that GHGs will warm the planet, PROVIDED ALL OTHER THINGS REMAIN UNCHANGED, WHICH IS HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE IN A CHAOTIC SYSTEM ”
The capital letters are mine.

Allan MacRae

“Detecting regime shifts in climate data – the modern warming regime ended in 1997”
Impossible! We were told there was runaway global warming by the United Nations, for Chrissake! AND James Hansen! AND Michael Mann! We’re STILL being told that by the UN, AND Jim, AND Mike. And when have the UN and these other guys EVER told us a lie? Impossible!
And besides, I only predicted imminent global cooling in an article written in 2002! So how could it have started five years earlier? Show me the time machine? Impossible!
/sarc off

P. Solar

Prof. Outcalt
This may be an interesting way of bringing out what is obvious to an objective inspection of temperature and sea level data and was stated by Phil Jones: “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.” However, I think you need to explain the processing a bit better and comment on why the shoot upwards in the period when the warming stops.
Also , is this a cumulative intergral (CDF) or a sliding window. It’s a bit unclear what you are actually plotting here, though I think once it is clear it would make the point nicely.

P. Solar

It would be interesting to see the same analysis on mean sea level. All this data has been tweek and massaged but they can’t rig it enough to hide the obvious change since 1995.

We should welcome this kind of analysis, which is sorely lacking in mainstream climate science, because it allows us to identify short to medium term climate drivers and assess their size/impact. In this case I think snow cover is behind the borehole cooling, but would like to see data from boreholes outside snow cover areas.
Even NASA/GiSS admit that the CO2 forcing is not much more than 25% of the total change in forcings since 1850, and given the large uncertainties could well be less.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/

Nigel Harris

Why does this analysis end in 2008? Colour me skeptical, but with data available to 2011, my instinctive first question is – would the results of this analysis change if it were extended to use all currently available data? And why on earth was that data not used?
Also: no links provided to data used, no detailed description of the method used, no assessment of statistical significance, no description of the interpretation of these charts.

Currently I am completing an article which will precisely define causes of the climate shifts in the Northern Hemisphere, I used name Geo-Solar cycle
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Southern Hemisphere’s response is affected by the Circumpolar current’s temperature wave, which interpolate within GS cycle, in addition to the inertia of larger oceanic mass damping the natural oscillations. Any serious analysis should consider giving a degree of disengagement between the hemispheres

Steve C

Very interesting. That’s a splendid inflection in Fig 3 – very hard to deny that something happened. I’m also intrigued by the much deeper and more sharply-defined 1930 dip in the HadCRUT data compared with the other two in Fig 2. Must be the different techniques used in British and US data massage parlours – ours will give you inflections that’ll be the envy of all your friends!

P. Solar

vukcevic, that’s very interesting. Do you show anywhere what this “geo-solar” cycle is composed of ? There certainly seems to be a strong relation.
I would caution on the use of moving averages (which I assume is what your 3yma means) running means pull peaks to one side or the other dependant on surrounding data (see your NH 1902). In worst case situations they can invert a peak (see your AMO 1958). None of this is helpful when you are looking for correlation.
They also let a lot of spikiness through that one is usually hoping to remove.
In this case I would suggest at least using a 1-2-1 binomial weighting for your three year filter.
It also looks like you are not removing enough “trend”. Since the fitted slope is a result arbitrarily dependent on where the circa 65y cycle falls in the window of data available, you would probably be no less justified in removing the slope to best fit the cyclic component, or centring the detrending on 1940. Even if the non-cyclic component can crudely be taken as linear, it would be pure chance if detrending the essentially arbitrary period of the data, found the correct trend.
I think this kind of cycle nature is actually what is shown by the analysis in this article rather than the “regime shift” the author calls it.
I look forward to seeing what you’re writing up. This looks a lot more credible that a lot of stuff I’ve seen.

P. Solar

Phil Bradly links to:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/
>>
That basic issue has been a focus of climate research for 20 years, ever since the National Academy of Sciences’ famous “Charney report” (see references below) in 1979 estimated that the world would warm between 1.5° and 4.5°C if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air were to double.
>>
So despite all the shouting and MASSIVE gravy train of expenditure we have not advanced one jot on the fundamental question since 1979 !!!
Incredible.

TomVonk

D.Koutsoyiannis has published much about Kolmogorov-Hurst phenomena so it is not as rare as the OP means.
The problems I have with this post are:
– it is not exactly described what is being done (a few equations would go a long way). It is really not clear to me what the figures say.
– all H or K-H analysis apply to random autocorrelated data. Indeed the fundamental assumption is that the studied variable is random. It is neither clear nor accepted that the system’s variables (temperatures, pressures, velocities, densities, cloudiness etc) are random.
– Using a “global temperature” which is produced by spatially averaging over some spatial grid per definition destroys all spatial correlations. As “climate shifts” are supposed to be the result of interaction between spatial structures (see Tsonis and Oceanic Oscillations f.ex), it is highly doubtful that a statistical analysis of such a composite variable where all spatial correlations are destroyed would show anything relevant to the dynamics of “climate shifts”.
– Then, completely on the other extremum of spatial structures, a single point is chosen. While the global parameters destroy spatial correlations, using local parameters supposes that there are none.
So considering a time series at a single spatial point is hardly relevant to the dynamics either.
What stays is that while the both spatial methods are invalid considered independently, they show many similitudes. This is puzzling.

Borehole temperatures are not just dependent on solar but mainly geothermal heating which averages 30W/sq.m. over continental crust but can be as high as 100W/sq., even higher near volcanoes but lets ignore that. So such variable input make this data unreliable I would have thought.

P. Solar says:
July 4, 2012 at 1:57 am
…..
Hi Solar
Thanks for the notes. I am well aware of moving average shortcomings (yes it is 3 y ma), it is as an aid for easier visual inspection, but annual values are also shown.
AMO is taken from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data where the trend is already removed
The NH temps appear to have an upward trend, I’ve just plotted trend line and came with y = 7E-05x – 0.075.
The article is nearly finished, based on half a dozen well known data files, it shows mechanism at work, but does not go into theory of the energy transfer, that will come later on; words of caution: the article is only dealing with short to medium term oscillations, longer term and the upward trend are not considered.
When finished it will be available on line.
I’ve put similar post on the RC (Unforced Variations thread), but since I am not on Gavin’s list of ‘favorites’ he may demote it to ‘bore hole’ where lot of good stuff is to be found.

According to UAH, temperatures in the last couple of weeks are lower than 2011, despite the end of La Nina.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

” we knew long ago, long before the index ever went up that GHGs will warm the planet.
And if the temperature index goes down, we will still know that GHGs will warm the planet”
==========
Here is a simple proof that says otherwise:
Radiation in = radiation out at TOA. An atmosphere with GHG radiates from both the surface and the atmosphere, while an atmosphere without GHG radiates only from the surface. For any value of atmospheric radiation greater than zero, the surface radiation must be reduced by an equal amount to maintain the radiative balance. Thus, surface radiation must be lower with GHG than without. Thus, the surface temperature must be lower with GHG than without.
Radiation in = radiation out
Solar in = Surface radiation out + atmospheric radiation out (with GHG)
Solar in = Surface radiation out + 0 (without GHG)
therefore: Surface radiation out (without GHG) > Surface radiation out (with GHG)
therefore: Surface temperature (without GHG) > Surface temperature (with GHG)

I agree with John Marshall above….geo-thermal energy is assumed constant AND insignificant in the one dimensional Carbon warming models. The ‘radiative budget’ is an intentional deception and ‘energy balance’ is the real determining factor….in a chaotic system that never achieves balance. What happens in the atmosphere is the final, visible end reaction to a long series of unseen primary forces.
[note on reply echoes….moderation & posting delays can cause unintended, comment content echoes]

kim2ooo

Oh my….
So Bill Nye … “The Science Lie”…err guy.
Care to explain why this warming ended?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/02/Conservatives-Beating-Bill-Nye-the-Global-Warming-Guy-But-Obama-Soon-to-the-Rescue

P. Solar

vukcevic says: the article is only dealing with short to medium term oscillations
If medium mean circa 65y, then explaining and taking out most of those would be a huge step in terms of analysing what remains (instead of pretending half a 60y cycle due to CO2).
Try a 1-2-1 weighting, it’s trivial to do and will probably be visibly better. It looks like a five point filter would be better and may help identify the correlations.
“AMO is taken from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data where the trend is already removed”
Well I’d always try to get my data a unprocessed as possible before spending too much time on it.
“The NH temps appear to have an upward trend, I’ve just plotted trend line and came with y = 7E-05x – 0.075.”
Yes that’s small anyway, but if you are taking the “trend” over that full data you show in that plot, you are biased by starting and ending at different points in the cycle. This is not the underlying trend. It is the underlying trend plus part of the trend of an incomplete number of cycles.
I don’t think the concept of “trend” has much validity in this context so I would suggest you are free to remove whatever linear variation makes the data fit best, without any loss of generality.
There may be some linear or quadratic or century scale variations as well. You may wish to grossly approximate whichever it is by a linear relation. It’s a fair first approximation that may help isolate the short to medium cycles you are looking at but it is a bit arbitrary, which is why you don’t lose anything by doing what works best.
Even if the AMO data claims to be “detrended” this is not more rigorous than an arbitrary linear adjustment so there is not reason why you should not add your own linear adjustment to that which has already been done. Since the linear model which was fitted to do the detrending has not physical meaning you are not losing any generality by adding your own.
I can see by eye from your plot that both NH and AMO would fit the GS signal better with a bit more linear adjustment.

Paul Vaughan

@TomVonk (July 4, 2012 at 2:11 am)
Regionally differentiated spatial contributions to earth rotation variations are constrained in spatially global aggregate by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (LCAM).
Interannually differentiated temporal evolution of the well-constrained spatially-global aggregate is systematically constrained in hierarchically-tuned temporal aggregate by Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
http://i49.tinypic.com/219q848.png (solar-terrestrial-climate weave)
A concise, beautifully-written foundations primer for sensible parties wishing to develop deeper appreciation & understanding of nature:
Dickey, J.O.; Marcus, S.L.; & Chin, T.M. (2007). Thermal wind forcing & atmospheric angular momentum: origin of the Earth’s delayed response to ENSO. Geophysical Research Letters 34, 7.
Best Regards.

Paul Vaughan

vukcevic (July 4, 2012 at 12:23 am)
“Any serious analysis should consider giving a degree of disengagement between the hemispheres”

The steepest gradient is at the ACC, not the equator.
You are alert & wise in suggesting we not ignore the profound impact of steep stationary gradients on aggregates.
Adequate attention to zonal ocean-continent contrast at the boundary layer is also missing in many of the generalizations we routinely encounter.
Aggregation criteria in general deserve infinitely more attention than they receive in the climate discussion.
Best Regards.

Keith Battye

Tom in Indy says:
July 3, 2012 at 6:55 pm (Edit)
The mainstream media won’t touch this. It does not fit thier agenda. The founders thought they established a system where a free press would prevent government from asserting its will over the populace. Unfortunately, the founders never envisioned a scenario where the press would be sympathetic to a totalitarian cause.
——————————————————————————————–
That is so true. The Frankfurt School has totally infected the media, organized labor and the social democrats everywhere. We are all in great peril.

Sou

Yeah, yeah. A new ice age is on its way for sure. (Another one gone emeritus.)