Guest post by Pavel Belolipetsky
The IPCC, Bob Tisdale and others have presented hypotheses to explain 20th century warming. This article presents another. My co-workers and I call it the “Shifts” hypothesis. And we consider it to have advantages over other hypotheses in terms of simplicity, consistency over time, and homogeneity for the two considered regions. It is described in a submitted paper which can be read here
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf
Its simplicity is that it uses only two factors to obtain an explanation of general features in each considered region. And it displays consistency over time because it provides the same explanation for the warming of the beginning and of the end of 20th century. This consistency enabled a fit of linear regression coefficients of data from first part of century (before 1950) to obtain similar reconstruction for the second part (after 1950). The homogeneity between regions means that shifts occur at similar times in the temperature time series of the tropics and of the north middle latitudes although the two time series differ. This homogeneity provides confidence that the Shifts Hypothesis applies globally.
It is an old idea that climate exists in “regimes” (or states) and that climate variations often occur in the form of shifts between them. Thus, regime shifts are rapid reorganizations from one relatively stable state to another. The idea gained in acceptance in the 1990s.
Many articles have been published [1-20], showing that climate shifts appear to be an essential feature of Earth’s climate system. Yasunaka and Hanawa [20] described a “regime shift” as an abrupt transition from one quasi-steady climatic state to another, and its transition period is much shorter than the lengths of the individual epochs of each climatic state. Kevin Trenberth [15] was among the first to characterize a climate shift and reported a “different regime after 1976”. Douglass and Knox [6] wrote that abrupt shifts in Earth’s climate system are common.
Lo and Hsu [10] provide a good illustration of climate shift in northern extratropical hemisphere at late 80th (Fig. 1)
Fig. 1. Time series of 9-year running-mean surface temperature anomalies (°C) in five chosen regions. Modified from Lo and Hsu (2010).
Importantly, the idea of quasi-stable regimes and sharp shifts between them is very different from the widespread view (e.g. of the IPCC) that the climate system is naturally in equilibrium and passively follows changes in radiation forcing. The existence of regimes and shifts between them suggests there may be strong negative feedbacks and buffering spaces holding the system in each regime. And there should be critical thresholds, after reaching which system moves from one regime to another.
The common feature of all studies concerning climate shifts is that causes of observed shifts are unknown. Or, in other words, there are no outstanding changes in known external forcing which induce climate shifts. For example, what extraordinary changes of forcing to northern extratropical regions are known which can produce the changes shown in Figure 1? And it is clear that IPCC climate models showing near constant feedbacks are unable to reproduce these features.
It seems that the only available mechanisms for the observed shifts are weakening of negative feedbacks or strengthening of positive feedbacks over short periods. Why and how the feedbacks would vary is not known, but there is clear need to determine this.
In our studies of regimes and shifts we considered sea surface temperature (SST) and not combined land-ocean temperatures: this was to diminish the level of variability which may mask the shifts. We compared two important regions; i.e. tropics (30S-30N), and the north middle latitudes (30N-60N). We found that probably there were three climate regimes in these regions from 1900 till now: the detected regimes were before 1926, from 1926 till 1987, and after 1988.
It seems that during each of the 1925/1926 and 1987/1988 shifts, the mean temperature rose to a new level around which natural oscillations occur. This assumption of shifts allows for an easy way to reconstruct SST anomalies at the tropics (30S-30N) and north middle latitudes (30N-60N). Of course there are some residuals between observed and reconstructed values, but they are quite homogeneously distributed during the century. This homogeneity of residuals is not the case for reconstruction by anthropogenic forcing.
Fig. 2. a) Blue line – SST in tropics, red line – linear regression on ENSO and climate regime, studied by 1900-2012 years b) ENSO influence on tropical SST; c) climate regime influence on tropical SST.
Figures 2 and 3 provide very simple linear regression models for SST dynamics in the tropics and north middle latitudes. Quite adequate reconstructions are obtained as linear combination of shifts with ENSO for tropical SST, and shifts with PDO for north middle latitudes SST. Correlation coefficients for monthly mean anomalies are 0.86 and 0.81, respectively. Is this simple? Yes, I think it is.
And the homogeneity is a remarkable feature. The temperature time series of tropics and north middle latitudes are very different, but the way of warming is common: they each exhibit shifts at near the same times.
Fig. 3. a) Blue line – SST in north middle latitudes (30oN-60oN), red line – linear regression on PDO and climate regime, studied by 1900-2012 years b) PDO influence on SST in this region; c) climate regime influence on SST in this region.
Symmetry allows fitting linear regression coefficients for data from only the first part of century (before 1950) and obtaining nearly the same reconstruction. In our paper we used the data from 1910 till 1940 (15 years to both side from shift in 1925/1926) and with almost the same quality reproduce the whole period from 1900 till now (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. a) Blue line – SST in tropics (30oS-30oN), red line – linear regression on ENSO and climate regime with training period 1900-2012 years, purple line – the same linear regression with training period 1910-1940 years; b) the same as “a” but for north middle latitudes (30oN-60oN).
Various studies have indicated the existence of many shifts in the 20th century. And we are not the first to have observed shifts at 1925/1926 and 1987/1988. However, our working definition of shifts has some differences from that used by Yasunaka and Hanawa and many others. We define a climate regime as a quasi-steady state with known sources of variability. Additionally, we assess a climate regime shift as being significant and systematic changes that separate one climate regime from another and occur besides intra regime variability. For example, a step change of SST in the tropics in 1976 is clearly seen in time series, but the shift in 1987 is not obvious at all (Fig. 2).
The 1976 shift is, in general, associated with ENSO and could be almost reproduced by direct linear association with ENSO Nino34 index (Fig. 1b). Therefore, according to our definition, it should not be considered as a regime shift, because it is described by known intra-regime variability.
This is a fundamental difference between our work and that of, for example, R. Tisdale who considers ENSO to be a part of regime shifts.
We claim that our approach has advantages over others because – using our approach – we have shown that most of temperature anomalies produced by apparent shifts could be explained by known sources of variability (ENSO and PDO indexes) and only the shifts of 1925/1926 and 1987/1988 occur independently of known intra regime variability.
More detailed description of our hypothesis is in our preprints:
Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI, Degermendzhi AG, Hsu HH, Varotsos CA (2013) Empirical evidence for a double step climate change in twentieth century. Preprint. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf
(Now under review in Climate Dynamics)
Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI (2012) Hypothesis About Mechanics of Global Warming from 1900 Till Now. Preprint. viXra:1212.0172.
All the calculations used for producing the figures were made in Excel by standard functions. Archive containing these files could be downloaded by following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmvg6ccjy6iy7q2/Calculations2.zip
I want to thank Richard S. Courtney and Robin Edwards who helped to prepare this post.
References:
- Beaugrand, G., & Reid, P. C. (2003). Long-term changes in phytoplankton, zooplankton and salmon linked to climate. Global Change Biology, 9, 801–817.
- Chavez FP, Ryan J, Lluch-Cota SE, Miguel Niquen C (2003) From Anchovies to Sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, 299, 217-221.
- Deser C, Phillips AS, Hurrell JW (2004) Pacific Interdecadal Climate Variability: Linkages between the Tropics and the North Pacific during Boreal Winter since 1900. Journal of Climate, 17, 3109–3124.
- deYoung B, Harris R, Alheit J, Beaugrand G, Mantua N, Shannon L (2004) Detection regime shifts in the ocean: data considerations. Progress in Oceanography, 60, 143-164.
- Douglass DH (2010) Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states. Physics Letters A 374 4164–4168
- Douglass DH and Knox RS (2012) Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts. Physics Letters A. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2012.02.027
- Fischer T, Gemmer M, Liu L, Su B (2012) Change-points in climate extremes in the Zhujiang River Basin, South China, 1961–2007. Climatic Change, 110:783–799 DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0123-8.
- Flint PL (2013) Changes in size and trends of North American sea duck populations associated with North Pacific oceanic regime shifts. Mar Biol (2013) 160:59–65 DOI 10.1007/s00227-012-2062-y
- Hare SR, Mantua NJ (2000) Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography, 47, 103-145.
- Lo TT, Hsu HH (2010) Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical northern hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11, 210–215.
- Mollmann, C., Diekmann, R., 2012. Marine ecosystem regime shifts induced by climate and overfishing—a review for the Northern hemisphere. Adv. Ecol. Res. 47, 1–46.
- Overland, J., Rodionov, S., Minobe, S., Bond, N., 2008. North Pacific regime shifts: definitions, issues and recent transitions. Progress in Oceanography 77, 92–102.
- Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38.
- Sarmiento JL, Gloor M, Gruber N, Beaulieu C, Jacobson AR, Mikaloff Fletcher SE, Pacala S, Rodgers K (2010) Trends and regional distributions of land and ocean carbon sinks. Biogeoscinces, 7, 2351-2367.
- Trenberth, K. E., 1990: Recent observed interdecadal climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 71, 988–993.
- Trenberth KE, Hurrell JW (1994) Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific. Climate Dynamics, 9, 303.
- Tian Y, Kidokoro H, Watanabe T, Iguchi N (2008) The late 1980s regime shift in the ecosystem of Tsushima warm current in the Japan/East Sea: Evidence from historical data and possible mechanisms. Progress in oceanography, 77, 127-145.
- Tsonis A., Swanson K., Kravtsov S. (2007) A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys Res. Lett. 34 L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.
- Veit RR, Pyle P, McGowan JA (1996) Ocean warming and long-term change in pelagic bird abundance within the California current system. Marine ecology progress series, Vol. 139, 11-18.
- Yasunaka S, Hanawa K (2002) Regime shifts found in Northern Hemisphere SST Field. Journal of meteorological society of Japan, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 119-135.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And absolutely no mention of CO2 in the original paper… clearly not a factor that matters a damn!
Very interesting. That something extraordinary happened in 1988 has long been noticed in European temperature records – it marked a shift to e.g. mild winters in Middle and Northern Europe. With the recent colder winters, this regime seems to wane. So now I wonder if we already have witnessed a new shift – or will soon witness it – this time to the colder?
“It seems that the only available mechanisms for the observed shifts are weakening of negative feedbacks or strengthening of positive feedbacks over short periods. Why and how the feedbacks would vary is not known, but there is clear need to determine this.”
Your paper shows a c.a. 60 year period between climate shifts in the Pacific which you link to ENSO and the PDO. In this respect, E.M. Smith (Chiefio) has suggested that the c.a. 60 year cycle of the PDO can be linked to the Saros cycle:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
He states:
“I think it is the case that the reason the PDO/ AMO swaps on a quasi-3-Saros basis is that it takes 3 periods for the lunar tidal forces to be back over the same ocean at the same point in the Saros cycle. I think it likely that other resonances with lunar tidal cycles will be found.”
If he is correct then a similar “shift” analysis for the Atlantic Ocean based the ENSO AMO relationship should give similar results but out of phase by c.a. 18 years.
In this respect one should also look at the harmonic analysis studies of Lord Kelvin in devising the tide predictor machine.
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/predhist.html#Up
An interesting paper by Kelvin on his work is here:
http://www.bartleby.com/30/16.html
Pavel:
Your post is up and you are getting responses in the thread.
See, Anthony Watts is one of the ‘good guys’. Provide an article with sufficient interest, clarity and content and he will give it a ‘fair crack’ in the competition for publication on WUWT.
Now, your your ideas and analysis will get true peer review in this thread. Be prepared for strong argument because people here have sufficient respect for ideas, studies and research to try to demolish them. If your work can withstand the criticisms it will become important. And if it cannot withstand the criticisms, then your article will have contributed to understanding and knowledge of all who participate in the debate of it.
Congratulations, you achieved what you wanted! Now, you have to live with it!
Richard
For more than 5 years I have been telling people that climate variation is 1/f noise. 1/f noise is “noise with memory” which tends to occur in systems where there is a shift in state.
1/f noise is also extremely difficult to model and tends to create false trends and cycles (particularly when averaged).
No one needs to prove to me that the climate “shifts state” because a simple analysis of the noise told me this was overwhelmingly likely over half a decade ago.
OK so if the predictions of this model are so good can we see a training period of 110 years and the predictions for 2013 to 2100?
Come on that is obvious and easy!
Stay cool!
I see shifts in temperature regimes but temperature is not climate. Your model doesn’t appear to address dry vs. wet along with warmer/colder. Did I miss that? It’s an early morning read for me. I’ll check later.
The correlation coefficient between “GHGs anomaly” and “Climate steps” is 0.88. Thus the “Steps” you describe are actually a little better at explaining the rise in CO2 rather than temperature.
Just saying…
Interesting how in figure 1 the Canadian shifts are almost directly opposite to the Eastern US & Europe.
It would also be interesting to see if the 2000-2010 period shows the same thing, I seem to remember that it might well do.
That’s very AMO: http://i37.tinypic.com/14ln95l.jpg
I’m sure I see a weakening of La Nina conditions for several years from 1925 and 1989:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image34.png
X Anomaly:
Your post at April 26, 2013 at 2:50 am says in total
The article says
So the article specifically refutes the implication of your post.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the temperature rise has induced the CO2 rise?
Richard
I don’t see that this “explains” anything – it just adds an alternative description to the temp variables over most of the last century. Unless you can give details of why the regime shifts occured exactly when they occured, and predict when future shifts will occur, and of what maxnitude/sign, then this is a descrption, not an explanation.
Figure 2(c) shows two regime shifts. Can you demonstrate that this cannot be due to AGW influence moving the climate from one regime to another?
H.R.:
Your post at April 26, 2013 at 2:33 am says in total
Well done! That is the best example of ‘goal post shifting’ I have seen this week!
The article says
In other words, the analysis only considers sea surface temperature (SST).
It would have been silly to assess “dry vs. wet” because all of the sea surface is wet.
The article also does not consider, “combined land-ocean temperatures”, or land temperatures, or precipitation, or wind speed, or …..
Richard
eco-geek says:
April 26, 2013 at 2:14 am
OK so if the predictions of this model are so good can we see a training period of 110 years and the predictions for 2013 to 2100?
Come on that is obvious and easy!
—————————————————————————————-
Not until / unless we can predict any regime shifts that might happen in that period.
One part of this that I suspect will be attacked – assuming the whole idea isn’t simply ignored “because 97% of the world’s scientists already know exactly what’s happening” * – is the matter of “shifts = regime changes that can’t be explained by known factors” because it implies that they’re really just a form of variability that we haven’t found the drivers for yet.
IMHO that’s most likely true but it’s going to have a hard job gaining traction because of the mainstream’s propensity for dismissing what can’t be explained with current knowledge rather than looking for new knowledge to explain it.
*how’s that for a re-wording of “the consensus” to show how ridiculous it is?
Added: Got distracted by the postman while typing that and I see that steveta_uk has already proved me right 😀
AGW pundits take note – if you can prove your own assertions as quickly as steve just proved mine then we may start listening to you 😀
steveta_uk:
Your post at April 26, 2013 at 4:12 am provides Pavel with the impossible task of proving a negative.
Actually, Pavel’s article reports that their analysis does demonstrate that .
The article says
One regime shift was before 1950 (at 1926) and the other was after it (at 1987).
More than 80% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions were after 1950.
Richard
Joe, I’m not advocating this viewpoint at all – I just don’t see that the concept can be used to disprove it either ;(
But didn’t Marcott already show the uptick occured before 1950? (/sarc)
Many Moons ago I read an introduction to the branch of mathematics called chaos theory. I am sure everyone recalls chaos theory was born out of work to develop meteorological models. The discussion on bifurcated systems cited the Earths climate as a (possible) example of a bifurcated system, with one state glacial and one state warm.
This seems to build more detail on this approach. Intesting.
Interesting.
It seems my typoing is a bifurcated system with two states – right and wrong…..
Dr Paul, “typoing” is an interesting word. Was it [intentional]? It “right” typoing making errors?
Damn – where’s the edit function? intenational->intentional, It->Is. Typoing in action.
[Internally Internationally intentional? 8<) Mod]
steveta_uk says:
April 26, 2013 at 4:12 am
I don’t see that this “explains” anything – it just adds an alternative description to the temp variables over most of the last century. Unless you can give details of why the regime shifts occured exactly when they occured, and predict when future shifts will occur, and of what maxnitude/sign, then this is a descrption, not an explanation.
Figure 2(c) shows two regime shifts. Can you demonstrate that this cannot be due to AGW influence moving the climate from one regime to another?
—————————————————————————————————-
Steve, you along with many AGW supporters) seem to be missing a fairly important point about proper science – it doesn’t always involve “explaining things” in one go. Explaining things is always the ultimate goal, but there are steps before that which are absolutely vital in pursuit of the truth.
One of those steps is working out what questions to ask, and where to look for the answers. The AGW machine makes fundamental mistakes by answering those. Their appraoch is:
What to ask: “How can we fit this finding within the framework of CO2 driven warming?”
Where to find the answers: “By collecting more of the same data we always do and finding new ways to analyse it”
If there’s a flaw in your basic hypothesis then thats akin to beating your head repeatedly against the same brick wall in the hope that it will become a doorway.
What this post suggests is somewhere else (although not entirely new) to look. That’s the intelligent person’s way to do things – if something isn’t working quite right then step back and look from a different angle. It suggests the following alternative to developing a migraine:
What to ask: “Is something that we don’t know about, or know about but haven’t looked at right, causing the climate to undergo small step changes at fairly short intervals?”
Where to find the answers: “Possibly anywhere, so we really should start looking before we fracture our skulls”.
CO2 induced AGW seems an unlikely driver for this (though, being scientifically minded, I’m NOT ruling it out) for a couple of reasons:
(1) It appears from this initial piece that such steps may have occurred, with similar magnitude, at a time when CO2 couldn’t have been the cause
(2) on the initial analysis it appears that temperatures between the steps have remained essentially “flat” allowing for known variability. The only (known) mechanism for CO2 affecting climate is by warming so, if it was the driver of the steps, you would expect to see a step followed by a steady ramp-up (caused by CO2) followed by another step when a threshold was reached.
That doesn’t seem to be the case given the apparently very good fit (far better than AGW theory manages, and from a far simpler model) using the step-flat-step model suggested here.
steveta_uk@ur momisugly
“Figure 2(c) shows two regime shifts. Can you demonstrate that this cannot be due to AGW influence moving the climate from one regime to another?”
Perhaps more importantly, can any AGW proponent show that CO2 shifts the climate from one regime to another? They can certainly ASSERT it, loudly and often, but they clearly haven’t shown it.
When it comes to climate we are children playing in a puddle, oblivious to the ocean in front of us. But I did enjoy the read.