The Shifts Hypothesis – an alternative view of global climate change

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)

image

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.

image

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).

clip_image010

clip_image012

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:

  1. Beaugrand, G., & Reid, P. C. (2003). Long-term changes in phytoplankton, zooplankton and salmon linked to climate. Global Change Biology, 9, 801–817.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Douglass DH (2010) Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states. Physics Letters A 374 4164–4168
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  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
  9. Hare SR, Mantua NJ (2000) Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography, 47, 103-145.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Overland, J., Rodionov, S., Minobe, S., Bond, N., 2008. North Pacific regime shifts: definitions, issues and recent transitions. Progress in Oceanography 77, 92–102.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Trenberth, K. E., 1990: Recent observed interdecadal climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 71, 988–993.
  16. Trenberth KE, Hurrell JW (1994) Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific. Climate Dynamics, 9, 303.
  17. 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.
  18. Tsonis A., Swanson K., Kravtsov S. (2007) A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys Res. Lett. 34 L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 26, 2013 5:27 am

Science moves from discovering the what in sufficient detail to expose the why. The so called climate science moves from the why to discovering the what that follows the initially assumed why and ignores/adjusts/corrects the what that doesn’t. The amazing thing is that the “climate scientists” got away with as much as they did. Perhaps not so amazing if you consider the nature of the Salem Witch Trials.

Richard111
April 26, 2013 5:31 am

I am curious as to why no mention of the jet stream. It is having a marked effect on the UK climate currently.

Gordon Oehler
April 26, 2013 5:38 am

Is it just me, or is Figure 3 missing?

Beth Cooper
April 26, 2013 5:50 am

Lionell Grifith says climate science moves from the why to discovering
the what, a bit like ‘history’ for teaching a moral lesson or uncovering
laws of political destiny.

Luigi Mariani
April 26, 2013 5:51 am

The existence of abrupt change points in climatic system is a puzzling reality, primarily because (as stated by Pavel Belolipetsky) a theory useful to explain these events and to forecast their occurrence is not available at present. For example European temperatures changed abruptly in 1987 due to an abrupt change in westerlies that strongly intensified (Werner et al., 2000; Mariani et al, 2012) but at present we don’t know why westerlies changed and why a similar change happened in the southern hemisphere (Miriani et al., 2009).
We have some references about these phenomena, primarily the seminal work of Charney and De Voore (1989), (cited by Holton, 2004) that with a simple mathematical model highlighted the presence of abrupt change points between regimes with high zonal flow and regimes with weak zonal flow and high amplitude waves (in this context the European change of phase of 1987 can be read as a transition between weak zonal flow and high one).
It is also important to consider that abrupt changes of phase are typical of turbulent systems affected by deterministic chaos. Systems of this kind, submitted to a increasing forcing (due for example to GHG gases or solar activity or …) show an abrupt regime transition as discussed for example by Peixoto and Oort (1992).
In my opinion research on breakpoints is substantially slowed by the idea that the final objective of people that speak about abrupt changes is to dismiss the AGW theory founded on CO2 (which increases gradually and so should give gradual changes in temperatures and so on, as shown by GCMs). We have seen that this is only a preconception because the existence of the deterministic chaos can change a linear behaviour of forcings in a behaviour in steps of effects (temperatures and other variables). Nevertheless in my experience many true AGW believers do not want to hear about abrupt changes.
References
Charney, J.G. and J.G. DeVore, (1979), Multiple flow equilibria in the atmosphere and blocking, J. Atmos. Sci.,. 36:1205-1216 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281979%29036%3C1205%3AMFEITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Holton J. R., 2004. An introduction to dynamic meteorology, Elsevier, Academic Press, 535 pp.Bai J., 1994. Least Squares Estimation of a Shift in Linear Processes, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 15, 453-472.
Mariani L., Parisi S.G., Cola G., Failla O. (2012). Climate change in Europe and effects on thermal resources for crops. International Journal of Biometeorology, ISSN: 0020-7128, doi: 10.1007/s00484-012-0528-8
Mariani L, Parisi S.G., Cola G., 2009. Space and time behavior of climatic hazard of low temperature for single rice crop in the mid latitude. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, vol. 29, p. 1862-1871, ISSN: 0899-8418, doi: 10.1002/joc.1830
Peixoto J.P., Oort A.H., 1992. Physics of climate, American Institute of Physics, New York, 520 pp.
Werner, P. C., Gerstengarbe F.W., Fraedrich K, Oesterle K. Recent climate change in the North Atlantic/European sector, International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 20, Issue 5, 2000: 463-471.

H.R.
April 26, 2013 6:36 am

@richardscourtney says:
April 26, 2013 at 4:17 am
Responding to H.R.:
“Your post at April 26, 2013 at 2:33 am says in total
[My comment & Richards response]
======================================
Thanks, Richard. I wasn’t kidding that it was early and I needed to go back and look again. As soon as you mentioned it, I recalled that it wasn’t including the response on land. D’oh!
Thanks, again. A good reminder to others at my expense to keep that in mind throughout.

April 26, 2013 6:37 am

Clearly….”extraordinary changes of forcings in the northern extratropical regions”…is NOT the result of a linear relationship of minute, human caused changes in a benign trace gas. To promote this false hypothesis is science racketeering. Climatology has been agenda hijacked to promote one, of the many, multilevel science fraud markets. Regardless of the level of funding, all empirical evidence is juxtaposed to this false paradigm. Anthony has done a great service to Truth and humanity by providing this original scientific method forum….thanks !

JCrew
April 26, 2013 6:40 am

I enjoy the intelligence and openness presented at WUWT.

Steve Garcia
April 26, 2013 7:02 am

All this ties in with paleontologist Stephen J Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium” which he applied to evolution. In Punctuated Equilibrium Gould posited that species did no change gradually – that instead new species came in brief spurts separated by periods of steady-state plateaus. In biology these steady states lasted, of course, very long periods.
These steady state periods are equivalent to this paper’s regimes. Regimes are not new in this paper, but they latch onto a principle that does exist. The idea of linearity in global climate over long periods is MUCH too simplistic of idea. Nature does almost nothing linearly and looking for a straight line regression is pretty mind dead.
The PDO and ENSO themselves are 2-regime quasi-oscillations. Any climate theory – at least in the present continental-oceanic configuration needs to take these two into account and incorporate their regimes. And what that dictates is an understanding of relatively flat periods that step up or down periodically. No straight line regression makes any sense. To me this is all common sense, though common sense CAN lead one astray, so it means care must be taken to vet any common sense against reality. The Warmists believe in their own seemingly reasonable common sense, and if their principles were to be verified by reality, we skeptics wouldn’t have any reason to exist.
Coming out of the Little Ice Age, one would expect that for a good while the steps would tend to be a bit higher than earlier steps.
One thing to recommend the principles in this paper is that it all does test out against recent climate reality – something that the climate models in particular do not do.
This tying in with punctuated equilibrium suggests that such regime “thinking” should be one considered in perhaps all of the physical sciences. Straight-line regressions are fine for ultra-simplistic “look-sees” at progressions over time, but to think that the straight line tells anything but the most rudimentary direction might be going is science gone wrong. As I said, there is no straight line in natural processes over any length of time such as climate addresses..

Roger Knights
April 26, 2013 7:04 am

Nevertheless in my experience many true AGW believers do not want to hear about abrupt changes.

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the next step on their “escalator” is DOWN to pre-1998 levels?!

April 26, 2013 7:07 am

Try your ideas on CO2 data. I think it is a more accurate indicator of climate change and is globally uniform. However, it lags SST and is not a force for the changes but the results of those changes. My curve fitting efforts on regions yield R^2 better than .95.

Paul Linsay
April 26, 2013 7:15 am

The satellite global temperature record shows a clear step change near the giant 1998 ENSO. It’s flat with noise before and after. The “noise” is small ENSOs. The 1998 ENSO was large enough to trigger a shift to a different state = attractor in the nomenclature of nonlinear dynamics.

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 7:16 am

On March 13, 1989 a severe geomagnetic storm caused the collapse of the Hydro-Québec power grid in a matter of seconds. This was probalby the largest such event of the 20th century.
This would seem to be the cause for the biggest increase of the lenth of the Arctic melting season in the satellite record.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=210
It is equally the major feature of both Arctic Oscillation index and hadISST surface temperatures over the same period.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=211
Since AO is known to affect the weather of much of the northern hemisphere, it seem likely that this event is the origin of the “1987/88” event refered to here.
The heavy 9 year filter used in figure 1 taken from Lo and Hsu obcurs the exact data but it would seem to be consistent with this interpretation.

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 7:18 am

Paul Linsay says:
“The satellite global temperature record shows a clear step change near the giant 1998 ENSO. It’s flat with noise before and after. The “noise” is small ENSOs. The 1998 ENSO was large enough to trigger a shift to a different state = attractor in the nomenclature of nonlinear dynamics.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980928072950.htm
” a major geomagnetic storm began late on Sept. 24 [1998]… The geomagnetic storm measured 8.6 on a scale of 0 to 9 used to measure geomagnetic storm intensity. “

April 26, 2013 7:29 am

steveta_uk says:
April 26, 2013 at 4:45 am
Damn – where’s the edit function?

It can be found right there with your proofread-before-hitting-post function 😉

Jens Raunsø Jensen
April 26, 2013 7:30 am

Pavel Belolipetsky:
Pls explain your “validation procedure” and validation statistics that lead to the identification of the two regime shifts. The paper leaves one with an impression of a partly subjective method based on eyeballing (you use the term “visually”).
Luigi Mariani:
Interesting work you have published. I documented similar regime shifts in 1987/88 in land surface temperature records in Europe on this blog at http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=abrupt
regards jens

John Tillman
April 26, 2013 7:30 am

Richard111 says:
April 26, 2013 at 5:31 am
I am curious as to why no mention of the jet stream. It is having a marked effect on the UK climate currently.
——————————————————–
Richard,
The jet stream also occurred to me as a possible contributor to the apparently out of phase eastern Canada series.
North American farmers are well aware of the effect of the stream’s movements on weather. A good example was the impact on atmospheric pressure of the Pinatubo eruption, leading to the stream’s stabilizing rather than constantly shifting position. Thus the same areas repeatedly got thundershowers.

Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 7:40 am

John Tillman says: North American farmers are well aware of the effect of the stream’s movements on weather. A good example was the impact on atmospheric pressure of the Pinatubo eruption, leading to the stream’s stabilizing rather than constantly shifting position. Thus the same areas repeatedly got thundershowers.
A remarkable feature of Arctic ice coverage is that from 1997-2007 the annual variation was very stable and almost half what it was before or after. Do you have any reference for this jet stream – Pinatubo link?

John Tillman
April 26, 2013 7:46 am
Greg Goodman
April 26, 2013 7:49 am

Luigi says: “In my opinion research on breakpoints is substantially slowed by the idea that the final objective of people that speak about abrupt changes is to dismiss the AGW theory founded on CO2 ”
You may have a point but in my opinion it is more to do with the fact that most of those being paid to do climate research seem to presume a priori that it is steady (AGW) rise plus internal “noise”.
In that case any “step” is just seen as a downward noise followed by upward noise. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
However, as you point out, neither way of viewing the data validates/invalidates AGW since step changes could be the system response to gradual warming. (Don’t try to tell that to our Bob though).

milodonharlani
April 26, 2013 8:01 am

Mr. Goodman:
If a stepwise response be the earth’s climate system’s way of responding to gradual warming, through some threshold effect I presume, then what would account for the steps up prior to more rapid CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere after c. 1945, ie during the approximately century-long initial exit from the Little Ice Age?

richardscourtney
April 26, 2013 8:05 am

Jens Raunsø Jensen:
re your post at April 26, 2013 at 7:30 am .
As you say, there does seem to be a relationship between the work of Pavel Belolipetsky et al. (as reported in the above article) and your work reported in your Guest Post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/05/abrupt-changes-in-station-level-temperature-records-contradict-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-claims/
You detect ‘shifts’ by analysis of GHCN station records.
Belolipetsky et al. detect ‘shifts’ in SST records.
There seems to be clear need for direct interaction between the two of you to enable progress of the work. In my opinion, such progress needs to focus on why the feedbacks of a regime alter to enable and/or induce a switch between regimes.
Clearly, it would be fun to watch you interact between you and Pavel Belolipetsky on WUWT. However, the interaction would be more efficient if you were to make direct contact with him: his email is on the paper by Belolipetsky et al.. I respectfully suggest that you email him with a view to integrating the work of you and him.
Richard

commieBob
April 26, 2013 8:08 am

Luigi Mariani says:
April 26, 2013 at 5:51 am
… Nevertheless in my experience many true AGW believers do not want to hear about abrupt changes.

One explanation of CAGW is that there is a tipping point at which positive feedbacks take over and we get run-away warming. It’s the alarmists’ explanation for why, even if things are just fine now, they are going to get really really bad, really really suddenly, some time in the future. We won’t possibly be able to adapt. We’re all going to die. … etc. etc.
So, by the logic above, I think the alarmists actually rely on the possibility of abrupt changes.

Brian
April 26, 2013 8:10 am

The jetsream/Pinatubo and geomagnetic storm ideas are very interesting, whether or not one believes there is any AGW influence.

milodonharlani
April 26, 2013 8:11 am

It’s interesting and a little surprising to me that the shifts seem to occur more or less simultaneously in both hemispheres. Some climatic phenomena are out of synch, as currently with polar sea ice extent.
With heat being moved around the world in the seas & air, radiation reflecting off of and being absorbed by land and sea surface, both spatially & temporally, I’d expect some observable lag time between hemispheres, if for no other reason the greater land area in the NH and highlands over the South Pole, with ocean over the North.