Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics
Yannis Markonis • Demetris Koutsoyiannis Received: 9 November 2011 / Accepted: 15 October 2012 DOI 10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9
Abstract
We overview studies of the natural variability of past climate, as seen from available proxy information, and its attribution to deterministic or stochastic controls. Furthermore, we characterize this variability over the widest possible range of scales that the available information allows, and we try to connect the deterministic Milankovitch cycles with the Hurst–Kolmogorov (HK) stochastic dynamics.
To this aim, we analyse two instrumental series of global temperature and eight proxy series with varying lengths from 2 thousand to 500 million years. In our analysis, we use a simple tool, the climacogram, which is the logarithmic plot of standard deviation versus time scale, and its slope can be used to identify the presence of HK dynamics. By superimposing the climacograms of the different series, we obtain an impressive overview of the variability for time scales spanning almost nine orders of magnitude—from 1 month to 50 million years. An overall climacogram slope of -0.08 supports the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92. The orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) is also evident in the combined climacogram at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales suggests a big picture of irregular change and uncertainty of Earth’s climate.
Introduction
If you thought before science was certain—well, that is just an error on your part. -Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (1994 p. 71).
In the first half of nineteenth century, geologic evidence indicated that at least one glacial period existed in Earth’s geological history (Agassiz 1840; from Imbrie 1982). Some decades later, it became clear that during the Pleistocene (2,588,000–12,000 years before present time—BP), there were many glacial periods, known also as ice ages, followed by shorter interglacials, such as the one we experience since the onset of human civilization. Ice age lengths ranged from 35–45 thousand years in early Pleistocene to 90–120 thousand years in the last million years. During glacial periods, continental glaciers enlarged in length and volume, reaching the 40th parallel in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere, while similar phenomena have been identified in the Southern Hemisphere, too. Milankovitch (1941) provided an explanation for the ice ages based on Earth’s orbit variations, which was confirmed after some years by the first temperature reconstructions.
It is now well known that a succession of glaciation and deglaciation periods has not occurred all the time, but only in large periods defining an ‘icehouse climate’, such as the current (Pliocene-Quaternary) icehouse period that started about 2.5 million years ago, as well as the Ordovician and the Carboniferous icehouse periods, each of which lasted 50–100 million years (Crowell and Frakes 1970). In contrast, the ‘hothouse climates’ are characterized by warmer temperatures, abundance of carbon dioxide (concentrations up to 20–25 times higher than current) and complete disappearance of polar icecaps and continental glaciers. Recently, cosmic ray flux was proposed as the controlling factor of the transition between these states (Shaviv and Veizer 2003). As underlined by Kirkby (2007), this theory was both disputed (Rahmstorf et al. 2004; Royer et al. 2004) and supported (Wallmann 2004; Gies and Helsel 2005).
Additional findings showed that the climate of the Holocene (the last 12,000 years), earlier regarded static, was characterized by many climatic events, such as ‘Little Ice Age’, ‘Medieval Warm Period’, ‘Holocene Optimum’, ‘8,200 Holocene Event’ and ‘Bond Events’, deviating from ‘normal’ conditions for hundreds or thousands of years (Bond et al. 2001). For example, during the ‘Little Ice Age’ (1,450–1,850), the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 0.6 oC below 1961–1990 average (Moberg et al. 2005; Pollack and Smerdon 2004), while the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (950–1,250) was a period of warm climate in Europe and North America and has been related to other climatic events at various regions around the world (Grove and Switsur 1994), including China (Long et al. 2011), New Zealand (Cook et al. 2002) or even Antarctica (Hass et al. 2008).
The preceding ‘Younger Dryas’ episode is an even more impressive case of abrupt climate change that has occurred in the relatively recent climatic history. At the end of Pleistocene, when the last ice age ended and the retreat of the glaciers had begun, a rapid fall of temperature led the climatic system back to glacial conditions. The ‘Younger Dryas’ episode lasted for approximately 1,300 years (starting at *12,800 BP), covered spatially both Hemispheres and ended even more suddenly than it emerged when temperatures increased regionally up to 15 oC in few decades (Alley et al. 1993). Although the cause for this short return to an ice age period is still under debate, it has become clear that it is not associated with a single catastrophic event (such as the release of freshwater from the lake Agassiz in Gulf of Mexico or the impact of a comet) but is rather regarded as an integral part of natural variability (Broecker et al. 2010; Mangerud et al. 2010).
All these relatively recent events cannot be attributed to the Milankovitch cycles, whose periods are much longer (see below). Thus, it is very difficult to attribute the climate variability at multiple time scales (from decades to many millions of years) to specific quantifiable causal mechanisms that would be applicable ubiquitously. A more modest goal, which is the purpose of this study, would be to characterize this variability over the widest possible range of scales that the available evidence allows. Such characterization unavoidably uses stochastic descriptions and tools, but without neglecting the influence of identifiable deterministic forcings, such as the variations in Earth’s orbit.
Such stochastic descriptions are related to the natural behaviour discovered by the hydrologist H. E. Hurst at the same period of Milankovitch’s discovery. Hurst (1951), motivated by the design of High Aswan Dam in Nile and after studying numerous geo- physical records, observed that ‘although in random events groups of high or low values do occur, their tendency to occur in natural events is greater. This is the main difference between natural and random events’. In other words, in a natural process (e.g., river flow) events of similar type are more likely to occur in groups (e.g., a series of consecutive low flow years) compared to a purely random process (white noise) where grouping of similar states is less frequent.
Unknowingly to Hurst, A. Kolmogorov had already proposed a stochastic process that described this behaviour a decade earlier (Kolmogorov 1940), although both the process and the natural behaviour became widely known after the works of Mandelbrot and Wallis (1968), Klemes (1974) and Leland et al. (1994, 1995). Over the years, this mathematical process (or variants thereof) has been given many names, such as fractional Gaussian noise (FGN), brown noise, fractional ARIMA process (FARIMA) or self-similar process, while the natural behaviour has been called the Hurst phenomenon, long-range dependence (or memory), long-term persistence or scaling behaviour (Koutsoyiannis and Cohn 2008). Here, when referring to the relevant natural behaviour, the stochastic process (definition of which will be given in Sect. 5.1) or the related stochastic dynamics, we prefix them with the term Hurst–Kolmogorov (HK) in order to acknowledge the contribution of the two pioneering researchers.
The HK behaviour, detected in numerous time series, as detailed in Sect. 3 below, indicates fluctuations at different time scales, which may reflect the long-term variability of several factors such as solar irradiance, volcanic activity and so forth (Koutsoyiannis and Montanari 2007). The multi-scale fluctuations cannot be described adequately by classical statistics, as the latter assumes independence (or weak dependence) and underestimates the system’s uncertainty on long time scales, sometimes by two, or even more, orders of magnitude (Koutsoyiannis and Montanari 2007). This underestimation, which some regard counterintuitive, will be further demonstrated below in Sect. 6. Moreover, traditional stochastic autoregressive (AR) models cannot describe these fluctuations in an adequate way, because the autocorrelation functions of these models decay faster than those of the processes they try to model (Beran 1994).
The study of natural variability of past climate can now be based on a lot of available proxy records, some of which are discussed in Sect. 4 and analysed in subsequent sections of this study. These proxies are free of anthropogenic influences that could allegedly contribute to the observed changes. It is our aim to demonstrate some evidence of the presence of HK dynamics at different time scales (spanning nine orders of magnitude). We also examine the coexistence of deterministic controls (due to orbital forcing) and stochastic dynamics and try to identify possible connections between this stochastic dynamics and the modern, obliquity-dominated, orbital theory.
Fig. 9 Combined climacogram of the ten temperature observation series and proxies. The dotted line with slope -0.5 represents the climacogram of a purely random process. The horizontal dashed-dotted line represents the climatic variability at 100 million years, while the vertical dashed-dotted line at 28 months represents the corresponding scale to the 100-million-year variability if climate was random (classical statistics approach). For explanation about the groups of points departing from the solid straight line (with slope -0.08), see Fig. 10 and its description in the text
Fig. 10 Theoretical climacograms of an HK process with H = 0.92 and two periodic processes with periods 100 and 41 thousand years, all having unit standard deviation at monthly scale, along with the climacogram of the synthesis (weighted sum) of these three components with weights 0.95, 0.30 and 0.15, respectively; the empirical climacogram of a time series simulated from the synthesis process with time step and length equal to those of the EPICA series is also plotted
Fig. 11 Climacogram of sunspot number from original data (shown in the embedded graph) from the Royal Greenwich Observatory & USAF/NOAA (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt)
Conclusions
The available instrumental data of the last 160 years allow us to see that there occurred climatic fluctuations with a prevailing warming trend in the most recent past. However, when this period is examined in the light of the evidence provided by palaeoclimate reconstructions, it appears to be a part of more systematic fluctuations; specifically, it is a warming period after the 200-year ‘Little Ice Age’ cold period, during a 12,000-year interglacial, which is located in the third major icehouse period of the Phanerozoic Eon. The variability implied by these multi-scale fluctuations, typical for Earth’s climate, can be investigated by combining the empirical climacograms of different palaeoclimatic reconstructions of temperature. By superimposing the different climacograms, we obtain an impressive overview of the variability for time scales spanning almost nine orders of magnitude—from 1 month to 50 million years.
Two prominent features of this overview are (a) an overall climacogram slope of -0.08, supporting the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92 and (b) strong evidence of the presence of orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales clearly suggests a big picture of enhanced change and enhanced unpredictability of Earth’s climate, which could be also the cause of our difficulties to formulate a purely deterministic, solid orbital theory (either obliquity or precession dominated). Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading as those to describe it using classical statistics. Connecting deterministic controls, such as the Milankovitch cycles, with the Hurst–Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics seems to provide a promising path for understanding and modelling climate.
The paper and SI are available here: http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1297/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sure I could hear the distinct sound of Mann and the Team cocking all there PR guns as read that.
Ever think it might have been copied from a source where there was a line break, and thus a hyphen placed to continue on the next line?
Mr. Smith:
“In our analysis, we use a simple tool, the cli- macogram, which is the logarithmic plot of standard deviation versus time scale, and its slope can be used to identify the presence of HK dynamics”
Also, google is your friend.
What I understand from this paper is the while the Milankovitch influence clearly dominates, you cannot explain the climate behaviour deterministicaly on the basis of the Milankovitch alone.
John Kehr in his “Inconvenient Sceptic” book makes the same point and explains this phenomenon (in relation to the Eemian interglacial) in terms that are more easily comprehended by those less mathematically gifted (like myself).
This seems an interesting effort and worth a closer look.. Reminding people of our present place on our climate calender is a good thing also. We are living in an inter-glacial. If only people would think about what that means!:]
rgbatduke says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:43 am
Very well said.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Interesting how the paper was bumped down from Nature to GRL to its final resting place. I like that the authors reveal the reviews and rejection letters [I do it myself]. This should be standard practice.
Just like the unpredictability of climate the authors explicate, reversing trends affect journals too. ‘Down’ could soon become the new ‘up’.
Can someone help me out here…
Firstly, how are they showing orbital forcings signal in the instrumental records?
Otherwise, if they are only showing that the variability looks non-random (but of unknown cause) in recent centuries, then I am not sure what that is saying.
So, secondly, what does it mean when one finds pure randomness in nature? If all natural events are at base non-random (if we go with Einstein on that one), and climate is natural, then what does it tell us when we find non-randomness in nature?
The semantics here is interesting in the history of the IPCC because exclusion of attribution to ‘natural variability’ is sometimes (eg, SAR SPM) used to suggest exclusion of all natural causation, when in fact the original claim is the exclusion of natural randomness — where natural forcing such as volcanic and solar forcing had been specifically excluded in the original research.
(Also, has anyone noticed the historical climate change in recent times such that the Medieval Warm Period has receded and might now better be termed the Millennium warm period?)
Shame we can’t see the whole paper, it looks interesting. At least the tone is one of straight forward scientific investigation and not AGW propaganda.
However, I would have preferred it if they had not started out by trying to redefine “Ice age” to refer to glacial periods within an ice age and then introducing the rather silly term “icehouse” in its place.
It seems rather childish and popular language for a learned paper.
What caught my eye was the time to publish.Is 11 months normal ? Or just for those who wish to explore real science?Seems to me the Team is able to publish in a matter of weeks. Or was prior to Climategate.
It absolutely blows me away that nobody can interpret the sequence of images of Uranus which clearly,and I mean clearly,demonstrates the necessary modification to axial precession as a long term axial trait into a beacon for an annual orbital trait.It is plainly seen that the polar coordinates,acting like a beacon for the orbital behavior of a planet,require the introduction of an ecliptic axis around which those polar coordinates turn –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Is there some mental block that opts for axial precession,Milankovitch when it is easier to work with two separate axis needed to explain the seasons and why natural noon cycles vary ?.
Again,what is in those images that people are not seeing ?.The old ‘no tilt/no seasons’ would have been understandable a a perspective a few centuries ago but not now and particularly not now – the modification of axial precession as it was previously understood shifts the zero inclination poerspective from ‘no seasons’ to an equatorial climate.
What orbital variations have been observed in the satellite era?
How about sort of a “Dancing with the Stars” panel of judges who are well respected scientists in a variety of fields with the assignment of assigning points (1 to 10) for how well the paper does in repudiating the current AGW meme. That way the layman could understand the significance of some of these studies in terms of furthering or tearing down the consensus about AGW.
“””””…..David McKeever says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Mr. Smith:
“In our analysis, we use a simple tool, the cli- macogram, which is the logarithmic plot of standard deviation versus time scale, and its slope can be used to identify the presence of HK dynamics”…..””””
Thank you David.
“”””””…..In our analysis, we use a simple tool, the cli- macogram, which is the logarithmic plot of standard deviation versus time scale……”””””
Well I understand what “Standard Deviation” is and I even have a faint understanding of what time is. Now I am used to thinking of standard deviation being related to the statistics of some variable value or function, but It never occurred to me to plot “standard deviation” itself against time, without some underlying “whatever” which has the aforementioned standard deviation.
“Logrithmic plot” is less meaningful to me. I am familiar with the notion of plotting the logarithm of some variable, against another variable or vice versa, and also plotting the logarithm of one variable against the logarithm of another variable; but “logarithmic plot” of “standard deviation” of “whatever” leaves me cold in the dark.
And no the very last thing that nosy parker Google is; is MY friend.
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm
[…]
Gerald, read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6569849.stm
“Dr Stuart Eves, who works for Surrey Satellite Technology Limited, first came up the idea when he was given a framed page from an encyclopaedia published in 1815 for his birthday.
The page shows an orrery – a mechanical device detailing the relative positions and motions of planets and moons.
I started to add up all the statistics and I said: I reckon he had a point
Stuart Eves,
Surrey Satellite Technology
Made by the craftsman William Pearson, it showed the planet Uranus, with its spin axis in the correct plane, with six smaller objects spinning around it.
It was unlikely that these objects were moons. Although two Uranus satellites were found the 18th Century, the sixth moon of Uranus was not found until 1985, after Nasa’s Voyager probe flew past the planet.
After researching the subject, Dr Eves found that the Pearson orrery in the encyclopaedia page was based on observations made by Sir William Herschel, who discovered the seventh planet in 1781.
‘A ring suspected’
When Dr Eves tracked down Herschel’s notes detailing his observations of Uranus, he found the following passage: “February 22, 1789: A ring was suspected”.
Herschel even drew a small diagram of the ring and noted that it was “a little inclined to the red”. The Keck Telescope in Hawaii has since confirmed this to be the case. Herschel’s notes were published in a Royal Society journal in 1797.
Dr Eves told BBC News: “I was thinking, ‘could he have got all of that right’? He has one ring, rather than multiple rings as there are at Saturn; it is relatively close to the planet and it’s about the right size.
“The opening angle is about right. Astronomical software indicates that it may have been slightly more open as viewed from Earth on the dates Herschel was observing,” he added.
“But there are reasons for thinking that the ring plane moves about a bit, and he has the major axis of the ring plane in the right direction. I started to add up all the statistics and I said: I reckon he had a point.
“[Herschel] is not just superimposing a saturnian-style ring system on Uranus. I think it is compelling from a psychological point of view, because he really didn’t have much to compare it with at the time.”
Other astronomers have dismissed the possibility that Herschel discovered rings around Uranus. They claim that it would have been far too faint for him to have seen from the ground, using contemporary telescopes.”
I think I’m going to have to be steeped in this stuff a few times to get the funamentals. The graphs could have better captioning and a simple explanation first would help, although I realize this is a paper and not a post per se. The persistence factor is well known to anyone waiting for the weather to improve while working in the field. What is most surprising to me is that anyone could believe that weather processes are simply random. A long hot summer, a rainy spring, or a long cold winter are cliches. I’m not sure the water levels in the Aswan Dam are a place one might find to detect Milankovic cycles. I would think that the non random HK signals would be bumps on the deterministic M. cycles – I don’t get how they find themselves together here unless they are referring to the additive effect.
Regarding chaotic systems (not a big deal in this paper) that are often mentioned in terms of climate behaviour – that I don’t get. With a billion years of temp keeping within the bounds of 5 C above or 5C below average – this seems to me to be anything but chaotic. Chaos is not a thing that comes to mind when we look at a billion year+ unbroken chain of life which requires boundaries for existence. It must be the chaos of a tempest in a tea pot. Anyone care to enlighten.
Markonis & Koutsoyiannis provide important insights into climate “persistence” or “Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics” – over an amazing range of scales – 9 orders of magnitude. Available Global Climate Models are incomplete and misleading until they can reproduce these statistical trends.
Note: While the “final” paper is behind the paywall, see the Preprint provided.
James Hansen completely missed Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. Thus Hansen’s PNAS 2012 paper fails as another “argument from ignorance”.
Markonis and Koutsoyiannis acknowledge reviewer Bernard De Saedeleer. See:
Is the astronomical forcing a reliable and unique pacemaker for climate? A conceptual model study
Bernard De Saedeleer • Michel Crucifix • Sebastian Wieczorek 2012
Interesting insight into chaotic variations within deterministic forcings.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Interesting how the paper was bumped down from Nature to GRL to its final resting place. I like that the authors reveal the reviews and rejection letters [I do it myself]. This should be standard practice.
====================
Is its final resting place deserved ?
Or, has it been buried by the vanguard ?
Just inquiring.
Its important to understand the Milankovitch Cycles do not make the Earth colder/warmer by themselves.
The Earth, as a whole, gets just about the same total solar insolation no matter what the Cycles are doing (well actually, there is a very slight difference when the orbit is more circular but it is not enough to have any real change).
It is the Albedo of the Earth that changes – the amount of sunlight reflected by all those white, snow-covered glaciers. That is what makes the Earth warmer/colder.
So, if we have Milankovitch-Cycle-Driven-Albedo-Changes, then why can we not have Other-Driver-Albedo-Changes.
And we do. We have Snowball-Earth-Albedo-Changes of -25.0C and we have Pangea-Albedo-Changes of +10.0C. And this is exactly the complete range of Earth’s climate in the past.
We have Snowball-Albedo’s of -25.0C when CO2 is 12,000 ppm. We have +7.0C Early Pangea’s with CO2 at 500 ppm, We have warm Eemian Interglacials at +2.25C with CO2 at 280 ppm. We have Ordovician IceAge at -7.0C with CO2 at 4,400 ppm and we have Carboniferous IceAge at -1.0C with CO2 at 350 ppm and we have recent Albedo-IceAges at -5.0C with CO2 at 190 ppm.
What are the factors that can provide for these large Albedo changes (-25.0C to +10.0C)? Climate Science will not address it. They need it for the recent ice ages but all the ones before must have been caused by high GHG levels it seems.
“Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading as those to describe it using classical statistics.”
Well, if that turns out to be correct, them amongst those wasting their time must be included people who fit cycles of implausible precision to the movements of the planets.
Charles Gerard Nelson says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm
What orbital variations have been observed in the satellite era?
None
u.k.(us) says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Is its final resting place deserved ?
Don’t know. The authors do not show us the last review with acceptance.
Tallbloke
The degree of axial inclination defines planetary climate and that is what the sequence of images of Uranus indicate.the spectrum of climate goes from equatorial with zero degree inclination to polar with a 90 degree inclination.Were the Earth to have a 45 degree inclination it would acquire more polar characteristics than the 23 1/2 degree at present and this is how you use planetary comparisons to extract the common denominator for climate.
The previous view is that the Earth ’tilts’ towards and away from the Sun or any similar insinuation and this destroys the proper interpretation that the polar coordinates,acting like a beacon,are carried around in a circle to the central Sun by the orbital motion and its particular behavior.
Once I hear an orrery mentioned I have to shake my head – any person who looks at those images again will have every reason whatsoever to believe that the polar coordinates will keep turning to the central Sun so that in 20 years the polar coordinates will face us head on and the rings will be orthogonal to our view –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Had planetary climate been defined properly,all this cult of modeled global warming through human activity would have been avoided and it still can..
Jeff Alberts says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Gunga Din says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm
“investigated by combining the empirical climacograms of different palaeoclimatic recon- structions of temperature.”
Same typo, same section.
Ever think it might have been copied from a source where there was a line break, and thus a hyphen placed to continue on the next line?
=========================================================================
Yes. But it didn’t “show up” correctly here. As I said (or implied) in my previous comment, I suspect that at the end of the line after the hyphen, a “space” was inserted that prevented whatever word-processing program was used from recognizing the hyphen and deleting and connecting the syllables at the end of one line to the rest of that word’s syllables in the next line.
I wasn’t being critical or “picky”. Just pointing out a “you missed a spot” that the paper may want to fix.
(You have my permission to point out all of my typos in all of my comments …. but then kyou’d never have time for anything else!)
I’m sure that if you took at climate system (with internal resonances spread over a range of different time scales) that had was being [significantly] influenced from the outside deterministic forces (also with a range of different timescales), you would get Hurst Kolmogorov statistics that would indicate a pure chaotic system.
This would happen for the simple reason that specific time scales at which the external forcing factors would interact with internal resonances in the climate system will almost certainly be a function of timescale and of the interaction type (e.g. glaciation, long-term Carbon cycle, winds etc.).
Try getting five people to sing five completely different songs in completely different keys and see if you think they sound chaotic…
Oh, and I should add that the five singers completely change both the song they are singing and key at which they sing, at random times throughout their performance.