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.
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm
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.
So far as I know the Milankovitch axial inclination cycle is thought to be around 41,000 years long. This coincides with the length of glacial/interglacial cycles prior to the switch to the 100,000 year cycle which coincides with the Milankovitch eccentricity cycle.
I can’t work out from your comments how you think these long term cycles would affect theories about climate change n much shorter timescales.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“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.
Still tilting at straw-men dalek?
Ninderthana says:
November 4, 2012 at 4:20 pm
I’m sure that if you look at climate system (with internal resonances spread over a range of different time scales) that 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.
Exactly. You won’t find out how much chaos is in a system until you’ve done the hard work of subtracting out the variations due to cycles to see what is left in the residuals. Even then, the as yet undetermined non-linearities are likely to lead to an overestimation of chaotic content.
This paper answers a question that has troubled me – if one conjectures that climate is a nonlinear/nonequilibrium system with associated oscillatory dynamics, HOW is this conjecture falsified? (If it cant be falsified then its not scientific a.k.a. Karl Popper).
The HK method is a good start in developing new statistical tools that break out of the straight-jacket of simple deterministic assumptions, and allow real testing of hypothesised nonlinear-nonequilibrium dyamics of the climate system. As such, this is a hugely important pointer for the way forward.
Kudos to Markonis and Koutsoyiannis.
tallbloke says:
November 4, 2012 at 4:31 pm
…
So far as I know the Milankovitch axial inclination cycle is thought to be around 41,000 years long. This coincides with the length of glacial/interglacial cycles prior to the switch to the 100,000 year cycle which coincides with the Milankovitch eccentricity cycle.
I can’t work out from your comments how you think these long term cycles would affect theories about climate change n much shorter timescales.
There is a way of reconciling periodic forcing (e.g. orbital effects) and nonlinear/chaotic dynamics. The two are not necessarily exclusive. There are 2 kinds of nonlinear oscillator – the unforced and the periodically forced. The latter, periodically forced oscillators, are likewise of two kinds – strongly forced and weakly forced. Strongly forced means that the frequency that the system adopts is the same as of a simple function of that of the forcing frequency. However in weakly forced nonlinear oscillators, there can be a very complex relationship between forcing frequency and the emergent frequencies of the system. In this case it can be very difficult to make out the forcing frequencies from looking at the systems oscillatory dynamics which can be unstable. However this does not mean that the system is not being forced, even though the forcing “signature” is hard to make out.
My guess is that the climate is something like a weakly forced nonlinear oscillator with a number of astrophysical forcings. However if the forcing is weak and the relationship between forcing and emergent system frequency is complex, how can this conjecture be falsified? The HK nonlinear statistical method described here is at least a start to the answer to this question.
I’m with George E Smith on this one, and for pretty much the same reasons. Given that rgbatduke called the paper brilliant, and Leif didn’t outright pee on it, it sounds to me like it has merit. But while I can breeze through most physics papers with at least a high level understanding of what they are about and how the data relates to the conclusions, this one is quite beyond me. Not that I couldn’t understand it if I had the time to research it (or maybe not!) but a laymen’s level explanation of the terms and theory that speaks to the issues George E Smith articulated would be much appreciated.
rgbatduke says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:43 am
I personally still think that we are missing one or two key pieces of the physics (surprising given that the physics in question is almost certainly known, but not recognized as being relevant),
Very insightful.
A particular problem with climate science is it’s resistance to ideas and insights from outside the discipline (or the Team, if you like). Students of the history of science will know that application of paradigms from different disciplines is often the way important advances are made.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Don’t know. The authors do not show us the last review with acceptance.”
==============================
Since when have you ever accepted anything, reviewed or not ?
It takes all the fun out of it 🙂
Reading this now, seems to be an understandable presentation on climacograms and their use in hydrology. Hopefully it will help me get my head around this.
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1135/1/documents/2011IUGG_HydrologyChange_transcript_2.pdf
Larry
rgbatduke;
I have to confess that I don’t understand why the climate community is as resistant to non-Markovian integrodifferential dynamics of the sort that gives rise to the multiple-timescale phenomena explored above. This is the kind of meta-analysis that should have preceded any attempt to numerically model local climate changes on the order of decades
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the die was cast early when initial theories simply calculated a value for CO2 doubling based on some very simplistic radiative physics, dumped the calculated number on top of current temps and said voila! disaster! When called on it, they trotted out the temperature record. When critics pointed out that the temperature record was well within natural variation, out came the hockey stick graphs from Mann and Briffa trying to prove it wasn’t. By then, positions were entrenched, there was funding aplenty for figuring out what CO2 was doing, and very little for understanding the underlying cycles that clearly must be understood to isolate CO2’s effects from the rest of the data.;
Now I shall go do a search on “Markovian integrodifferential dynamics” and see if my WAG as to what it is comes remotely close….
Gary Pearse says: November 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm
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.
I don’t presume to criticize or lecture on the topic, as I do know my own personal limits, but would offer this comment.
It is unfortunate that the term “chaos” has been so closely associated with “complex systems” in the popular lexicon, since that term implies unpredictability and frankly, chaos. The true marvel of complex systems is the emergence of order and robust stable states that are not readily apparent using traditional deterministic methods of analysis. This is the path that this paper is investigating.
That our climate is a “complex system” is indisputable. In the real world all energy transfer occurs at the molecular level and the atmosphere of earth contains something on the order of 10 ^44 (+/- an order of magnitude) molecules. All of them are in constant motion, colliding among themselves and transferring energy. Add to this variable energy being input into the system from all directions, changing land, the abundant biosphere and water with its constant energy intensive phase changes; yes it is a complex system. But it’s not “chaotic”. There is order. Why?
The analysis pursued by mainstream climate science using bulk deterministic building blocks is doomed to fail in its efforts to produce a model of our climate because reality is at a totally different dimension.
Are these authors correct in their analysis? I sure don’t know; greater minds than mine will have to work through that. But I do know they are at least on the right path. All of my almost 5 decades of observation and study tell me so. The answers will come when our climate is recognized and analyzed as the “complex system” that it is.
Hmmm finished a once over lightly — bottom line, his presentation (to me) effectively proves that climate (and almost all natural processes) are not random and cannot be modeled using an assumption of randomness in any of their important factors.
In short climate models you depend on an assumption of averaging improving accuracy, and analysis which depends on Gaussian random distribution of variables will not only be wrong but spectacularly wrong in an entirely unpredictable manner over time.
Is anyone else seeing the same inescapable conclusion that this throws essentially all of current climate “science” (term used reluctantly) in the dust bin?
Larry
Philip Bradley says:
November 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm
rgbatduke says…
A particular problem with climate science is it’s resistance to ideas and insights from outside the discipline (or the Team, if you like). Students of the history of science will know that application of paradigms from different disciplines is often the way important advances are made.
______________________________
I will second that comment!
Our scientific knowledge has expanded to the extent that it is now impossible for a scientist to have at least a passing knowledge of all the different fields. This means a commonly known concept in one discipline can easily be the missing key for another discipline.
u.k.(us) says:
November 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Since when have you ever accepted anything, reviewed or not ?
It takes all the fun out of it 🙂
1) most things are garbage
2) I review [for Nature, Science, GRL, JGR, Solar Physcis, Astrophysical Journal, Advances in Space Research, Monthly Notices of the Royal Society, and the like] about two papers per month and accept half of them. The other referee(s) usually agree(s) with me, especially if the paper is bad.
3) I tend to comment more on bad papers, because good ones speak for themselves.
strawbale23 says:
November 4, 2012 at 10:30 am
Very grateful to Anotony and everyone who helps keep this fantastic website going.
I think it would be very useful to a lot of people if there was a page set aside on WUWT where these research papers could be referenced so that people can get an idea of the latest developements.
Is this possible/a good idea??
thanks
==============================================================
If you mean a page where the post alone are listed with all its comments deleted, that sounds like it could be good. Possible? I don’t know.
If you mean a page with post that aren’t also ‘here’ where comments are allowed, I’d say not a good idea.
But it’s not my blog.
tallbloke says:
November 4, 2012 at 10:35 am
Odd… then the site operator seems to have left a raw working link. 36 pages came down for me.
Moderator, could you close by blocktext tag? Thank You.
You are welcome. -ModE
The presentation I linked to above by Demetris Koutsoyiannis is 37 pages in pdf.
It may be essentially the same material or a prior informal version from the look of it.
Larry
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 4, 2012 at 6:50 pm
u.k.(us) says:
November 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Since when have you ever accepted anything, reviewed or not ?
It takes all the fun out of it 🙂
1) most things are garbage
2) I review [for Nature, Science, GRL, JGR, Solar Physcis, Astrophysical Journal, Advances in Space Research, Monthly Notices of the Royal Society, and the like] about two papers per month and accept half of them. The other referee(s) usually agree(s) with me, especially if the paper is bad.
3) I tend to comment more on bad papers, because good ones speak for themselves.
==================================================================
Hi Leif,
Not taking sides. Just wanted to say I’m glad you’re here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 4, 2012 at 6:50 pm
=================
Thanks Leif, I was just trying to draw you out a bit.
Fun is fun.
On a related note, and prompted by this paper, I have run the last 30 years of monthly HadCRUT4 global temperature data through a Bayesian model that estimates the Hurst parameter of this time series.
The Bayesian model uses an exotic thing called Riemannian Manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC) to do this. The ‘Monte Carlo’ bit means that its basically a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model; the ‘Hamiltonian’ bit refers to the fact that model uses a simulated Hamiltonian dynamics to speed up the acceptance rate in the Metropolis-Hastings step of the MCMC model; and the “Riemannian Manifold” refers to the fact that there Hamiltonian dynamics is executed on a complicated Riemannian manifold in order to reduce the ‘burn in’ time of the Markov Chain sequence.
All in all, this approach implies a fair bit of sophistry and computational ‘grunt’ goes in estimating the Hurst parameter of a time series. Although built for other purposes, it seems reasonable to apply this machinery to test the assumption that the monthly HadCRUT4 global temperature data exhibits ‘long-range dependence’. If the model returns a Hurst parameter, H, of 0.5, then the time series can be represented as ‘normal’ brownian motion – i.e. a random walk. If the Hurst parameter is significantly different from 0.5, then it may be said that the time series exhibits long-range dependence – either of the persistent (H > 0.5), or of the anti-persistent kind (H < 0.5).
As it turns out, and based on the last 30 years of HadCRUT4 global temperature data, the RMHMC model estimates the Hurst parameter of the time series as 0.19 +/- 0.05 – i.e. that the time series exhibits strong anti-persistent behaviour. Based on this result, there is evidence that over and above any linear trend which may exist in the data, there is long-range dependence in the time series and that this should be taken into account when estimating error bounds on those trends.
(A lot more can be done with this kind of approach, and in truth I probably should. But for now, I think I shall go away and have a cup of coffee instead.)
Gary Pearse:
Chaos is described through a common consensus as
aperiodic long-term behavior in a deterministic system that exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions
— Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Steven H. Strogatz
In a stable system, the behavior is necessarily bounded.
The Earth system is incompletely characterized and unwieldy, which lends itself to be modeled as a chaotic system. A complementary model relies on multiple orders of stochastic functions to estimate its intermediate behavior.
So we have a macro view of the earth’s gross climate being chaotic. Imagine a micro view represented in decades as being understandable. Further imagine that we are in control. Delusional at best on the imagined part.
Try alt-248 °C.
Aggregated Std Dev? Perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Combining_standard_deviations
Ever hear about the statistician who drowned in a river an average of 3 ft deep?
I’ve used the KS test, see http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/KS-test.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Smirnov_test.
Интересно, что Колмогоров также занимался с геологической историей. Об этом, я не знал.
tallbloke says:
November 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm
“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.”
Still tilting at straw-men dalek?
Obviously, the Dalek is correct. Apparently, you consider the planet cyclomania to be like straw rather than being rock-solid.