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.
George e smith
Astronomers,at least real astronomers,are held to a very high standard as to how they interpret observations and particularly the physical restrictions they place on themselves before arriving at a conclusion.This does not mean fear of making a mistake but rather seeing how things fit and then if cracks start to appear to go back to square one and re-arrange the picture or taking a wider view of the matter.In astronomy there was always a section trying to make things fit by bringing in assertions that don’t work or fall short and Copernicus himself commented on this and worth reproducing here as it could easily apply to this issue of climate –
“…although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified.” De revolutionibus, 1543 Copernicus
The wider view presently is that planetary climate has yet to be defined and there is huge damage with the present vague notion that it is possible to model climate like weather and all the mischief is caused in the blurring of distinctions.Few have yet to consider that the Earth has a largely equatorial climate due to its inclination or that a planet with zero inclination has a completely equatorial climate as opposed to a planet with a 90 degree inclination ,close to that of Uranus which has a polar climate.
If the modelers want to be useful for a change,let them model seasonal conditions for Earth while retaining all its daily and orbital attributes but substituting the present 23 1/3 degree inclination with the inclination of Uranus and they will come to understand what polar climate actually means,what an equatorial climate actually represents and a new template for climate studies.
pochas says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:02 am
Thanks for your helpful comments concerning dissipation and harmonics. Indeed dissipation or damping (or “friction”) is often cited as an important ingredient for nonlinear pattern. In the context of an “open” system through which energy flows.
To quote from Matthas Bertram’s PhD thesis (Controlling Turbulence and Pattern
Formation in Chemical Reactions, 2002, Berlin Univ.) – one of my key texts on nonlinear pattern formation:
Pattern formation in dissipative systems is a field of research that has been growing rapidly during the last two decades. The field is based on the observation that systems out of thermodynamic equilibrium are capable of generating complex self-organized spatial and temporal patterns (dissipative structures) [1]. Prominent examples of such nonequilibrium structures include flow patterns in hydrodynamic systems such as convection rolls and turbulence [2], processes of self-organization in nonlinear optical systems [3, 4] and semiconductors [5], excitation waves in the heart [6], spiral patterns of a signal transmitter in populations of the amoeba dictyostelium discoideum [7], and traveling waves and turbulence in chemical reactions [8–10].
The concepts of self-organization and dissipative structures go back to Schroedinger and Prigogine [1,11–13]. The spontaneous formation of spatiotemporal patterns can occur when a stationary state far from thermodynamic equilibrium is maintained through the dissipation
of energy that is continuously fed into the system.While for closed systems the second law of thermodynamics requires relaxation to a state of maximal entropy, open systems are able to interchange matter and energy with their environment. By taking up energy of higher value
(low entropy) and delivering energy of lower value (high entropy) they are able to export entropy, and thus to spontaneously develop structures characterized by a higher degree of order than present in the environment.
The research direction of nonlinear dynamics [14] has substantially contributed to a more detailed understanding of self-organization phenomena far from equilibrium. Studies of nonlinear phenomena can be traced back to Poincare [15] in the end of the nineteenth century, but first received considerable interest when in the second half of the last century oscillations and traveling wave patterns were observed in chemical reactions [8]. Following studies made possible to quantitatively understand abrupt changes in the behavior of a system
(bifurcations). One of the most important findings was that complex behavior such as deterministic chaos [16] is possible even in systems with only a few degrees of freedom.
The full PhD can be downloaded from:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_RXGJAF_XL5S1lHZEU4VndBcDg
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 5, 2012 at 1:03 pm
But the proof is in the pudding. Produce your 21st century prediction and your 17th century hindcast, then come back here.
More lolz. Where have you been for the last thirty years? Landscheidt predicted the solar slowdown from cycle 23 to a nadir in 2035 in 1988. Tim and I produced our cycles analysis over 20 months ago which covers the Maunder minimum and up to 2050.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/
There aren’t any solid physics in the dynamology models either, but at least we can successfully reproduce past activity as reconstructed by Lean to a Pearson R^2 value of 0.98.
So come on then we’ve shown you our prediction to 2050, time to show us yours. Oh, I forgot, your method only goes to the next cycle. We’ll have to settle for that. What is your prediction for the timing and amplitude of SC25 Leif?
George e smith
George you give these ‘giants’ credit they do not deserve because of what they did,we now inherit a mess.
The following sequential images represent what is probably the greatest astronomical discovery in that Copernicus worked out that apparent retrograde motion is merely an illusion generated by the orbital motion of the Earth.Like a car going around a traffic island faster than a car in an outer lane,the cars will temporarily move backwards to the view of the driver of the faster car and this is simply scaled up to planetary observations –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
A few centuries later,a long comes Newton and screws the whole thing up –
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
Look,I am an astronomer who is familiar with how observations are interpreted and transformed in perspectives we can understand and accept and I assure you that Newton’s idiosyncratic and false take on retrogrades has quite a lot to do with modeling in terms of absolute/relative time,space and motion,something his followers never really understood.Far from being a ‘giant’,when you wreck that much havoc on astronomical insights and methods as Newton did ,you can be sure severe damage is being done. Empirical modelers like their iconic ‘giants’ but I like astronomy more and especially where planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects mesh.
tallbloke says:
November 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Tim and I produced our cycles analysis over 20 months ago which covers the Maunder minimum and up to 2050
That is no physics, just curve fitting. and one can fit any curve. You might consult http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-6&page=articlesu9.html
to learn more on the dismal failings of such methods.
but at least we can successfully reproduce past activity as reconstructed by Lean to a Pearson R^2 value of 0.98.
Lean’s reconstruction is obsolete. But, I’m sure you can also fit any other reconstruction just as well. The main point is how well the various planetary predictions match each other.
What is your prediction for the timing and amplitude of SC25 Leif?
I don’t have any that is different from speculation. If the L&P persists, SC25 may be really low, like 7, but that is just speculation.
tallbloke says:
November 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm
What is your prediction for the timing and amplitude of SC25 Leif?
Well, what is your for SC24 and SC25? You seem to have already failed on SC24, perhaps you will better LUCK with SC25…
tallbloke says:
November 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Landscheidt predicted the solar slowdown from cycle 23 to a nadir in 2035 in 1988
http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/landscheidt/pdf/SwingingSun_79-YearCycleAndClimaticChange.pdf :
“The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”
When that didn’t happen [1990 was the 3rd largest cycle on record] in good astrological tradition it was time to revise the prediction like these ones did:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm
Just for the info: polar fields are on the threshold of the magnetic reversal. This old ‘numerology’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
got amplitude ok, timing one year out; sun was a bit hesitant, it aimed to go a year early, drew back and ended a year late. There is a lesson in there, don’t do science when numerology can suffice.
phlogiston says:
November 5, 2012 at 4:17 am
….
A very good book for an introduction and lucid explanation of chaos and nonlinear dynamics is “Deep Simplicity” by John Gribben, Random House.
I second that, having read it recently.
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“I assure you that Newton’s idiosyncratic and false take on retrogrades has quite a lot to do with modeling in terms of absolute/relative time,space and motion”.
I am a retired particle physicist, and your statement puzzles me a lot. I cannot see anything wrong in this statement:
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
Can you elucidate what you find wrong in this? When you check a planetarium program and go to a geocentric system the epicycles are there in all their glory. How could it be else? And certainly the description of Newton describes epicycles. It seems to me that it is just is a statement on coordinate systems.
You are making a strong statement, so please make your meaning clear.
AnnaV
The images of a faster moving Earth in an inner orbital circuit overtaking the slower moving Jupiter and Saturn in their outer orbital circuits is supposed to be self-evident therefore apparent retrogrades and their resolution requires no further explanation other than it is a scaled up version of a traffic island analogy I mentioned in the previous post
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
The 16th century version of those modern images was plotting the motion of Mars as the Earth overtakes it using the constellations as a backdrop against which to gauge when a planet appears to stop,go backwards temporarily and then moves forward again,the reason being that the Earth is moving faster –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
This is where modeling really comes in as rightly understood,Kepler’s drawing represents both the motions of Mars and that of the Earth whereas the modelers still think it is a geocentric depiction.I am at a disadvantage of having to condense a lot of work into a brief summary but if readers can follow the arguments so far they might just catch a glimpse of what went badly wrong unless they simply refuse to accept the mistake.
Newton’s absolute/relative space and motion is based on double modeling which is not allowed by the principles of astronomy,his idea is that we do not see the actual motions of planets so retrogrades constitute relative space and motion whereas a hypothetical observer on the Sun sees only direct motion.For Newton and his followers,Kepler’s diagram represents relative space and motion from a geocentric point of view so if you plonk the Sun in the middle of the diagram the retrogrades disappear – very simplistic and seriously wrong –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copernican_heliocentrism_diagram-2.jpg
You are quite right in one respect,the issue is extremely serious and I have only covered a fraction of what needs to be said.Any reader here can use the power of contemporary imaging to affirm the Earth’s orbital motion as it was originally done 500 years ago through the resolution of apparent retrogrades or interpret the images of Uranus to give greater detail to the characteristics to our orbital motion and use the information for many purposes and especially global climate.
Galileo complained to Kepler that people who could not alter their opinion refused to look through his telescope as they were completely comfortable within themselves with the older geocentric views and indeed this particular mindset exists today,not just with modeled human activity into global warming but also how the Earth’s orbital motion was extracted from observations of retrogrades –
“My dear Kepler, What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth” Galileo
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm
“For Newton and his followers,Kepler’s diagram represents relative space and motion from a geocentric point of view so if you plonk the Sun in the middle of the diagram the retrogrades disappear – very simplistic and seriously wrong -”
Well, in my view there is nothing very serious about this. I do not think there exists a scientist who has been through a mechanics course who does not know that gravitational solutions are solutions of many body problems. Nobody now thinks of the planetary system as the figure you depict. Already ellipses defy this figure and ellipses were known from the time of Kepler.
Those who find this paper interesting might also like to cast an eye back to this post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/25/is-the-enso-a-nonlinear-oscillator-of-the-belousov-zhabotinsky-reaction-type/
Anna V
There are probably a dozen different topics intertwined in this area ,one more important than the other,the greatest difficulty is therefore corralling the data and keeping it relevant for global climate and how it has yet to be determined properly.
In the matter of retrograde resolution,when telescopes started to emerge ,Galileo in particular extended the arguments for the Earth’s orbital motion based on what we see from a moving Earth and again,readers here can use sequential imaging of Venus as it moves around the Sun to gain the great satisfaction the first astronomers did when encountering an Earth that is both rotating and orbiting the central Sun –
http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg
“SALV.But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded and distinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a very large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same disc when it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning appearances. ”
SAGR. 0 Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an experiment [telescope]! Galileo
There is no chance whatsoever that scientists can define the Earth’s climate properly without using the same interpretative faculties that made sense of the Earth’s planetary dynamics in the first place and particularly the proper arguments which assigned retrogrades as an illusion seen from a moving Earth.
The next sequence of images of Uranus demands a modification to axial precession from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital trait as the polar coordinates are carried around in a circle to the central Sun –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The change in orientation of the rings to the central Sun is intrinsic to the planet’s orbital motion and is not an illusion.The degree of inclination indicates a polar climate in a spectrum that is bounded on one side by equatorial and polar on the other end of the spectrum.This and this alone defines global climate and everything else can be argued over after that.What is preventing a clearer view is the use of the clockwork solar system beloved of those in the late 17th century who created a train wreck with astronomical references and their causes in order to push ahead with modeling based on the idea that the behavior of objects at a human level scale up to planetary dynamics and orbital geometries.
“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.”
A very elegant solution for why and when this happens will be forthcoming in my Planetary Ordered Solar Theory. Just calling it “HK dynamics” tells us nothing about the why and the when.
old engineer says:
November 5, 2012 at 11:21 am
phlogiston says:
November 5, 2012 at 8:57 am
“It looks like the “climacogram” is just a fancy name for the log-log gradient i.e. the Kolmogorov-Richardson fractal dimension, of temperatures with time.
“Log-log” behaviour is characteristic of systems exhibiting nonequilibrium pattern behaviour. It means in this case that small changes happen all the time, big changes more rarely, really big changes very rarely – in a log-log pattern.”
===================================================================
Thanks for a good explanation of something, that as someone said earlier, is “way above my pay grade.” Searching Kolmogorov-Richardson on Google, I found entries for Richardson-Kolmogorov. One had a good cartoon to explain the concept.
Since we speak of “hundred year floods” and “ hundred year storms,” it looks like this log-log gradient is a good way to look at climate. In my Google search it appears as though Koutsoyiannis used this technique first to look at rain fall patterns. Looks like a good tool for further use.
Yes there is a clear log-log signature in many climate indices – it is telling us something.