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.
While major events like volcanic & solar eruptions surely affect earth’s climate, there must be some more regular forcing if cycles and/or steps objectively occur on some recurring basis. IMO there is evidence that cycles are genuine and not mere random fluctuations in a chaotic system.
There seems good reason to conclude that these repetitive forcings are primarily extraterrestrial, in some combination of solar variations and planetary orbital mechanics, if not indeed galactic as well.
milodonharlani says:
April 26, 2013 at 8:24 am
While major events like volcanic & solar eruptions surely affect earth’s climate, there must be some more regular forcing if cycles and/or steps objectively occur on some recurring basis. IMO there is evidence that cycles are genuine and not mere random fluctuations in a chaotic system.
There seems good reason to conclude that these repetitive forcings are primarily extraterrestrial, in some combination of solar variations and planetary orbital mechanics, if not indeed galactic as well.
Pavel,
I like your approach, you are removing some obvious influencing factors and exposing the underlying factors. If you continue, and remove some more of the remaining factors, such as indirect solar, and volcanic forcing, you might be able to produce a model which will more accurately reproduce the temperature means from the 20th century. This may, or may not, help explain the regime shifts you exposed.
Small editorial note: “a step function ‘witch’ equals zero” – Should be ‘which’ – unless you are suggesting witchcraft is involved;)
Joe Said:
“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.”
Well Said Joe, One must be constantly vigilant that one’s premise is not corrupting their conclusions.
In the AGW case, it seems apparent that outside political influences are very much in play in this corruption.
.
milodonharlani:
Your post at April 26, 2013 at 8:24 am says
It seems useful for me to again post the following but I do not know how it ‘fits’ with ‘shifts’.
Observed climate changes in the holocene do not require the existence of any driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.
Chaotic systems vary, and purely harmonic variations may occur independently of any chaotic effects.
Please remember that global temperature rises 3.8 deg.C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8 deg.C during the other 6 months of each year. But global temperature only rose about 0.8 deg.C throughout the last century.
In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.
The trivial 0.8 deg.C rise throughout the last century could be an effect of harmonic oscillation because an oscillating system can be expected to exhibit harmonics over periods much longer than a single oscillation.
Indeed, the observed changes in global temperature with apparent frequencies of ~900 years and ~60 years could be harmonics.
So, both chaos and harmonics could each be expected to provide variations to global climate of the form and magnitude recently observed. Therefore, such variations do not require any driver and the observed variations may not have had any driver (although I think they do).
Richard
Joe says:
April 26, 2013 at 4:51 am
Joe has an excellent explanation of the value of this article. Different ways of looking at the data can be very helpful. In this moment, it is a tad early to complain that this way of looking at the data has not suggested a theory that explains the data.
Hmmm. As I read that I thought: Chaos Theory and bifurcations.
As the paper says there are climate regime changes – in chaos theory these would be called attractors. So what would drive the chaos and what kind of Poincare Section should we be looking at the ‘slice’ that shows ENSO is just one view.
Something is required that could provide a mechanism with multi-year effect as E.M. Smith has proposed such as the Saros cycle. The movement of the oceans is affected by large Rossby waves with potentially chaotic interactions. These waves initiated perhaps by the Saros cycle and the thermohaline circulation can be extremely slow moving 10cm/sec or less (see http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc513/Chelton.Science.1996.pdf ). As these waves propagate and are influenced by the rotation of the Earth and the topography of the ocean bottom it is probably not feasible to do a ‘simple’ Fourier analysis. However, several crossing Rossby waves with differing frequencies changing the transport of cold or warm water at the surface could alter the SST and therefore the weather above. The winds would counteract or support the Rossby wave flow, dependent on their own chaotic atmospheric movements, and the clouds or lack of them would moderate the warmth of the currents. But all as interacting chaotic systems with their own varying attractors.
This chaotic system of chaotic systems may show some kind of pattern but it would not be something that statisticians would be able to use as there would be only the occasional fortuitous linear relationships which would then break down after pseudo-random periods. The Rossby wave periods are so long that some of them possibly appear not as waves but as ocean currents to modern metrics – but they could provide the regime change engine.
Dear All,
Thank you for your responses to my post. They are very important for me. I was away for some time and not able to quickly answer on questions. Now there are so many questions. So I will try to provide only short responses on some of them.
Steve Garcia says: “..As I said, there is no straight line in natural processes over any length of time such as climate addresses..”
I quite agree with you that there are no straight lines in natural processes and suggested Climate regime index should be considered as approximating of some mode of variability. Possibly some index like Nino34 but with more long period could be find later. I even have some ideas there to seek, but it needs additional investigation.
There were many comments about the possibilty of CO2 to be the cause of hypothesized shifts. I think it is possible that CO2 is the cause. But also it is possible that cause is the Sun. And also it is possible that no reason is needed. Last opportunity is clearly explained by Richard S. Courtney:
“Observed climate changes in the holocene do not require the existence of any driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.”
Also figure 3 disppeared, but it can be seen in preprint.
Thanks for a fine post, reasoning given, data referenced and predictive test indicated.Did the authors run their extrapolated temperature numbers into the near future?
Acknowledging its early days, for this Shift Hypothesis, it seems a simple test is indicated.
Using 1910-1940 data to recreate temps from then to present is very interesting,yes other agents will effect future, but the shape of future temps should be dominant in in near future runs, if this twin state idea has strength.The bones should be exposed by the prediction and camouflaged by the noise.
Or am I getting ahead of the information available?
So are we finally returning to science?(Climatology TM)
@Peter Azlac, good point E.M seems to be onto something.The approximately 60 year signal is back, Chaos theory might get some respect and “I do not know” is becoming speakable.
It’s not clear to me how the climate shift dates were selected. Statistical evaluation? By eye? This needs clarification and justification in the paper. Also what justifies the apparently arbitrary selection of climate bands (e.g., 30S to 30N for the tropics. Why not something else such as the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn which at least have some astronomical basis?)? The methods section needs some work.
Gary says: “It’s not clear to me how the climate shift dates were selected. Statistical evaluation? By eye?”
Yes, by eye. Our eyes are good detectors. There are some uncertanities in months and lenghts of shifts. This needs additional investigation that was not performed yet.
Gary says: “Also what justifies the apparently arbitrary selection of climate bands..”.
You may select another regions, but it is better to consider regions with one dominating mode of variability (e.g. ENSO, PDO ..)
The only shifts that matter are between jetstream zonality or meridionality and climate zone movements latitudinally either poleward or equatorward.
I have long been contending that jetstream and climate zone shifting are a negative system response to any forcing element.
The amount of energy that an atmosphere can retain is set by mass, gravity and insolation.
If any other factor seeks to alter that amount of energy then jet stream and climate zone shifting occurs to negate the effect.
I am glad that others are now moving towards that point of view.
I have a lot of previously published work on that very point.
OK, So Global-warming-climate-change-extreme-disruption by CO2 is now found to be episodic. All of these shift anomalies rise. There is no refutation of the CAGW scare here, the run-away train of panic and mis-information.
Good article though, thanks.
“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”
Well here you go:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature ”
The sun is the cause but the effect is significantly modulated by the oceanic response.
A shift occurs either when a poleward drift in the climate zones switches to an equatorward drift or vice versa.
Late 70s the climate zones began to shift poleward and jetstream tracks became more zonal with a reduction in global cloudiness.
Around 2000 the climate zones began to shift equatorward and jetstream tracks became more meridional with an increase in global cloudiness.
A poleward shift involves increasingly zonal jets and an equatorward shift increasingly meridional jets.
Zonal jets result in less global cloudiness for more energy into the oceans and system warming.
Meridional jets result in more global cloudiness for less energy into the oceans and system cooling.
(A lot of new or rarely seen names in this thread–good.)
Mr. Courtney,
I too think that there are drivers & that presumably observed fluctuations are not chaotic, although this opinion may not yet have been statistically confirmed.
“There is no refutation of the CAGW scare here,”
Yes there is.
In light of the scale of circulation changes between MWP and LIA and today of around 1000 miles latitudinally the effect of our emissions might contribute less than one mile which becomes insignificant unless you can show the greater distance that our CO2 emissions cause the circulation to shift.
Then there is the issue raised by Murry Salby that by far the majority of the CO2 rise is induced by ocean surface warming and nothing to do with us at all.
There is good reason to suspect that all our emissions are quickly absorbed by the local biosphere and that all the observed changes in CO2 amounts are a result of changes in the thermal balance between oceans and atmosphere.
See here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
“Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions”
Mike Haseler says:
April 26, 2013 at 2:08 am
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.
My collegues also showed this feature to me. But how to explain what does it mean to people who don’t understand what is 1/f noise?
Of all the acts performed in the service of anti-science across the years of the climate debates, the conscience effort to convince the world by force of fervor, repetition and outright trickery that earth’s interglacial climate is all but without significant natural variation (except of course when it is necessary to explain a pause in the warming!) is an excellent candidate for being both the most pernicious and the most damaging. Comparing and contrasting past shifts and variations with those of the present is obviously one worthwhile path of inquiry to any real believer of the scientific method. Maybe it’ll get you somewhere, maybe it won’t, but it’s obviously worth exploring. As has already been stated in this thread, however, the moment someone makes a good-faith effort to do so, it gains no traction due to what is essentially the AGW logic that ‘any past conditions are by definition similar in no meaningful way to recent conditions; therefore there is nothing to be learned from comparing the two. QED.’
You are no friend of reason when your actions force observers to think about just how insightful George Orwell was. I am not suggesting for an instant that “CAGW ~1984,” but when you wholeheartedly embrace the maxim that “…who controls the past controls the future,” and transparently engage in all manner of anti-science shenanigans in the effort, you declare intellectual war on that large swath of society that believes deeply in the scientific method and the vital contribution it makes to a more or less reason-driven coexistence. And well, that’s just not cool.
I know that was a rant, and I apologize for it, but I do think I feel better now ;^>
Stephen Wilde says:
April 26, 2013 at 10:30 am
““There is no refutation of the CAGW scare here,”
Yes there is.”
That warm ocean water can hold less CO2 than cold is one of those facts that is never mentioned by politically bent warmists and the main stream media.
This fact is one I often argue, to refute CAGW scare-ism.
Thanks.
All I see in this article is a description of shift changes, but the article clearly says the causes remain unknown.
The entrenched warmista will not be swayed.
> how to explain what does it mean to people who don’t understand what is 1/f noise?
That is easy enough to demonstrate acoustically – also the difference between 1/f noise and 1/f^2 noise. But much harder to understand why these things exist (and whether the correct representation of the phenomena should be 1/f^a where 0 < a < 2 – implying fractality). Wikipedia's entries on white noise and pink noise suggest that a lot of people in different fields are asking themselves this question.
RobRoy:
Your post at April 26, 2013 at 11:49 am says
Let us be clear: swaying warmunists is not the yardstick.
Entrenched warmunists would not be swayed by glaciation of the equator.
As I pointed out above in a previous post at April 26, 2013 at 4:32 am, the paper provides clear evidence that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. As I say there
If 80% of the anthropogenic emissions had made a significant difference to SST then the “similar reconstruction for the second part (after 1950)” would not have been possible.
Richard
Is Bob on vacation today?
Warmunistas would claim that another Snowball Earth was entirely consistent with their models.