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.
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
148 Comments
April 27, 2013 8:42 am

Hey Greg Goodman
“…someone in denial or some anti-eco teabagger. ”
Don’t speak of what you don’t understand.
The so called “tea- party” is a philosophical union of Conservatives and Llibertarians who believe in a constitutionally limited US Government. That’s it.
They harbor no hate.
The same cannot be said of you.

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 9:08 am

vukcevic says:
– Europe in 1920’s had already network of accurate geomagnetic stations, all of these in 1925 recorded sudden change in the Earth’s magnetic field with respect to time, better known as a ‘geomagnetic jerk’. The 1925 was the strongest ‘jerk’ ever instrumentally recorded (for more details see paper by Dr. Susan Macmillan of British Geological Survey http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/3979/1/3887C5F0.pdf page 2)
I do not see any particular contradiction with any part of my hypothesis or with the N.A. SST change in 1925.
===
Where is this ‘jerk’ in your plot , I cannot see it.
If it is not present , what I am seeing is a change of level in AMO , as noted in my AMO-ACE graph, that appears to show a dislocation between the two plotted datasets. Such a step change being unique in the both our graphs.
Now if there was a jerk that caused other physical climate effects that would be interesting and may give reason to regard the temperature shift as real, possibly a consequence of the magnetic ‘jerk’.
However, I do not see evidence of this in either plot under discussion. Do you see something that I do not?

April 27, 2013 9:46 am

Greg Goodman says: April 27, 2013 at 9:08 am
Where is this ‘jerk’ in your plot , I cannot see it.
No you will not see it, as I explained in the previous post, but let me try again:
– The SST reconstruction graph is based on the combination of solar and the presumed Earth core-mantle boundary magnetic field secular oscillations (Jackson -ETHZ & Bloxham –Harvard) data.
Tectonic movements are strictly Earth’s lithosphere and very uppermost mantle processes, and its effects are unlikely to register further down at some 3-5000 km depth of the outer core,
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbdxa/earthfg.gif
where the magnetic field is generated. Tectonic movements do not reach the outer core due to the mantle’s magma dumping, however changes of the magnetic field at the core-mantle boundary are the main source of the secular variability of the earth’s field as perceived on the surface.
My SST reconstruction graph is based on the Earth core-mantle boundary magnetic field secular oscillations.

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 10:27 am

Thanks Vuk, so that brings me back to the very first point I made about your graph. You show something (whatever it is) that seems to follow AMO reasonably well throughout the record. With the exception of the pre-1925 segment being about 0.1 too low.
So either there is a dislocation in the relationship that you are trying to suggest at the time, OR there is a data sampling issue in one of the data sets.
This is VERY similar to what I had already noted a couple of years ago in AMO-ACE. A similar dislocation with a presumably unrelated physical quantity at exactly the same time against the same temp reconstruction.
That rather puts the suspicion on any data issue being with the notoriously problematic and probably over-corrected SST records.
I don’t know why it so hard to communicate this idea.
If someone has a reason to disagree and can account for it in some other way fine. But we don’t even seem to be talking the same language so far.
I hope I’ve explained it better.

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 10:57 am

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PR.htm
Ah, I’m starting to see why don’t link or clearly state you data sources. As far a I can see from your description, Geo-Solar is SSN (as “proxy’ of solar field reaching earth’s surface) plus a simple cosine oscillation from a rather simplistic and speculative model of what happens at the mantle boundary.
So if there was some real magnetic event in 1925 your model would not show it anyway unless it was solar in origin.
The idea of your graph is interesting but it does not provide any information either way on the reality of the 1925 shift in AMO . By similar but opposite logic the shift is not a problem for your hypothesis either.

April 27, 2013 10:57 am

Greg Goodman says:
[I criticise Mario for saying :“Well it’s clear that CO2 is NOT causing the ENSO process for a number of reasons. This has been shown. ”]
[It is not “clear” , neither has it been shown. Instead of making pointless assertions perhaps show it or link to somewhere else that you think has shown it.]
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That you spelled “criticize” wrong, or haven’t been able to understand or know something, does not make it untrue. Your response to a lack of understanding is to criticize other people. Perhaps you could be more introspective instead eh? There are entire threads on WUWT that show CO2 could not have warmed the oceans.
If your goal is “science based on consensus and insult” Then, by all means continue to follow your own recipe in three steps.
1) tell everyone how you don’t know (as you did)
2) tell people who may know, that their statements are pointless claims (as you did)
3) say, I agree with Mosher (as you did)
There, now don’t you feel better?

richardscourtney
April 27, 2013 11:03 am

Mario Lento:
re your post at April 27, 2013 at 10:57 am
The only “pointless claims” in this thread have been from Greg Goodman who has asserted that there must errors in the SST data because the data do not indicate what he wants, but he has refused to provide any evidence for this assertion.
I suggest not feeding the troll.
Richard

Greg Goodman
April 27, 2013 11:16 am

“That you spelled “criticize” wrong ….”. Brilliant science bongo. I speak English English. You can’t spell criticise ! You don’t even know that the past tense of spell is spelt. WoW. If you don’t jack about science at least you can pick out what you ignorantly think is a spelling mistake and criticise [sic] that instead.
” There are entire threads on WUWT that show CO2 could not have warmed the oceans.”
Duh , it must be true then. No one every posted anything that was wrong of WUWT now did they?
I haven’t seen such a stream of emotionally motivated drivel as I’ve seem here today. I might as well go and try to explain to Real Climate that CO2 does not matter , I’d get more sensible responses.
For once I managed to have a cordial and constructive exchange with Bob Tisdale and I agreed with some Mosh said, so all is not lost.
As for the rest of it….. Boing ! “Time for bed” said Zebedee.

April 27, 2013 11:18 am

Hi richardscourtney: I was thinking the same thing – but felt obliged. I thought my post would be amusing to Greg Goodman. And as well, I summarized his method in 3 steps.

Matthew R Marler
April 27, 2013 11:20 am

richardscourtney:Untrue. The model of Belolipetsky only has two factors but the model of Pratt has more; e.g. it includes a CO2 effect which the model of Belolipetsky does not need.
There are models with high R^2 that have CO2 concentrations in them, and models with high R^2 that do not have CO2 concentrations in them. All the models with high R^2 are post-hoc, where now post-hoc includes the facility to choose which subsets to model, and which of zillions of functions to use for the models. If we start to find that some models have consistently made better predictions of out-of-sample data, then we’ll have some reason to prefer some models to others.
What we have here is a post-hoc model with Heaviside functions as predictors, with the rise times estimated by eyeball. At present those poorly estimated rise times do not correspond to any other processes or events that have been independently confirmed. If such processes or events are ever discovered to have occurred at those times ( but not other times), then the model will acquire credibility. For now, it’s just another contribution to the library of post-hoc models.

richardscourtney
April 27, 2013 12:10 pm

Matthew R Marler:
In your post to me at April 27, 2013 at 11:20 am you say

What we have here is a post-hoc model with Heaviside functions as predictors, with the rise times estimated by eyeball. At present those poorly estimated rise times do not correspond to any other processes or events that have been independently confirmed. If such processes or events are ever discovered to have occurred at those times ( but not other times), then the model will acquire credibility. For now, it’s just another contribution to the library of post-hoc models.

I agree. In that respect the model of Belolipetsky is similar to GCMs.
However, it has the advantage over GMS in that it is simpler, uses fewer variables, and what it does is known.
Like any such model, its value is its ability to indicate lack of knowledge.
The shifts model suggests that climate is a system of regimes which switch from one regime to another for no known reason. This may – or may not – be shown to be true. But investigation of the suggestion can be expected to provide useful information about climate behaviour.
Climate science has had no significant development for three decades because – without success – it has been focused on finding a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW. In my opinion, the work of Tisdale, Jensen and Belolipetsky provides a possibility of advancing the science.
Richard

Bart
April 27, 2013 12:27 pm

OK, yes, there could be sudden steps indicating regime changes. However, these could be phantoms of inherent randomness, too. For example, here is a random walk, created by making a running sum of random numbers (well, OK, numbers from a pseudo-random number generator on my computer).
Obviously, there are times when the data appear to jump, e.g., at about 1200, 2000, and 8500 on the x-axis. The series is still stationary in the increments, and not particularly exotic.

April 27, 2013 1:24 pm

Greg Goodman says: April 27, 2013 at 10:57 am
….from a rather simplistic and speculative model of what happens at the mantle boundary.
It is speculative since no-one ever will be able to measure magnetic field changes at the outer core-mantle boundary. It is far from simplistic, it is a standard model widely accepted, there are dozens and dozens of papers on the subject here is a <a link and you can pick your choice
Svalgaard accepts data from Jackson-Bloxham as the best approximation available,

April 27, 2013 1:51 pm

richardscourtney says: April 27, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The shifts model suggests that climate is a system of regimes which switch from one regime to another for no known reason.
The CET 350 year long oscillating upward movement appear to be synchronized with the ‘up and down’ (mainly upwards) shifts in the frequency and intensity of the events of the far N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
Could that be one of known reasons, it is not known, or it is a ‘known unknown’.
There I conclude my testimony, questions are acceptable, but the clear and concise answers may not be forthcoming.

Pamela Gray
April 27, 2013 2:08 pm

Let’s get down to the brass tacks. Where the rubber meets the road. Where we put the peddle to the metal (thanks Mrs. Guillory – WW II Army sergeant – for your thick 6th grade ruler pointed right at me, and boy did I need that ruler – I was such a pill in school!)
The warming oceans of a La Nina clear-sky can be calculated and even modeled. Yes modeled. The amount of change in a La Nina-seasoned pool of equatorial warm water can be physically clear-sky calculated (and I am betting it already has been calculated) and modeled! Do you get that folks? That scenario can be calculated using past data. Second, its potential latent stored-heat release into the atmosphere in terms of where and how much can also be calculated (and I am betting it already has been calculated), and therefore modeled, again based on past data.
Given the MONSTER fickle nature and power of ENSO (a non-random monster that cannot be cancelled out of observational data), one can forget solar variation (insert hair-on-a-gnat’s-ass) cooling and warming effects, and one can ignore the (teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini) addition of CO2 warming. The BEST any climate model can hope for is to set up (statistical) model scenarios of potential medium term surface temperature (or if you prefer, climate disruptions for the weak minded) variations based on the past 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 year ENSO parameters. Needless to say, the further the prediction extends outward into the future the less we can count on the scenario actually happening.
My advice? 1. Wear layers. Too cold? Add a layer. Too warm? Strip. 2. Keep an umbrella in the car -good for shade or rain. 3. Pack on emergency blanket in your first aid travel kit. 4. Don’t ever go ANYWHERE, even down the street, without access to a flashlight, shelter, water and food for at least a 24 hr period.
Advice from a WW II Army sergeant . What’s not to like. That woman taught MEN how to fight!

richardscourtney
April 27, 2013 2:14 pm

vukcevic:
Thankyou for your post addressed at me at April 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm.
You say

The CET 350 year long oscillating upward movement appear to be synchronized with the ‘up and down’ (mainly upwards) shifts in the frequency and intensity of the events of the far N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
Could that be one of known reasons, it is not known, or it is a ‘known unknown’.
There I conclude my testimony, questions are acceptable, but the clear and concise answers may not be forthcoming.

Thankyou very much. That is a perfect example of what I meant when I wrote

The shifts model suggests that climate is a system of regimes which switch from one regime to another for no known reason. This may – or may not – be shown to be true. But investigation of the suggestion can be expected to provide useful information about climate behaviour.

Whether or not “clear and concise answers” are obtained about your hypothesis, investigation of it and other hypotheses is invited by the inferences of the works of Tisdale, Jensen and Belolipetsky.
It cannot be known whether one, some or all three of them will be found to be right in part or in whole. But finding out would remove climate science from the dead-end in which it has been stuck for decades.
Richard

Paul Vaughan
April 27, 2013 10:20 pm

Greg Goodman
a new paper from Nikolay Sidorenkov & Ian Wilson exploring southern hemisphere 9 year variations: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V007/TOASCJ130415001.pdf

pompousgit
April 27, 2013 10:32 pm

Mario Lento said April 27, 2013 at 10:57 am

Greg Goodman says:
[I criticise Mario for saying :“Well it’s clear that CO2 is NOT causing the ENSO process for a number of reasons. This has been shown. ”]
[It is not “clear” , neither has it been shown. Instead of making pointless assertions perhaps show it or link to somewhere else that you think has shown it.]
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That you spelled “criticize” wrong…

And we should prefer your opinion in this to the Oxford English Dictionary that allows both -ize and -ise? If Greg is an Australian, then he would automatically use the -ise form since that is the correct Australian English spelling. What relevance does your opinion on how to spell a word have to an interesting discussion of climate change?

April 27, 2013 11:14 pm

pompousgit says:
April 27, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Mario Lento said April 27, 2013 at 10:57 am
And we should prefer your opinion in this to the Oxford English Dictionary that allows both -ize and -ise? If Greg is an Australian, then he would automatically use the -ise form since that is the correct Australian English spelling. What relevance does your opinion on how to spell a word have to an interesting discussion of climate change?
++++++
You’re right, –and I was not being nice, double bad on me.

Paul Vaughan
April 28, 2013 7:14 am

As I said before:
A. “The 2 step-dates emphasized by Pavel Belolipetsky correspond with […]”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/enso-myth-5-enso-only-adds-noise-to-the-instrument-temperature-record/#comment-1273466
B. “There are very serious defense implications […] This certainly isn’t just about climate.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/enso-myth-5-enso-only-adds-noise-to-the-instrument-temperature-record/#comment-1272365
——-
Pavel,
Can you think of a reason why variations in the rotation rate of the sun would be far better synchronized with Jupiter-Earth-Venus (JEV) tidal cycles than with the sunspot cycle?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tlatov_makarov_22a_jev_r_anim.gif
I’ve shared background info in comments volunteered here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/paul-vaughan-comparing-jupiter-earth-venus-alignment-cycles-with-variation-in-the-solar-rotation-period/
Best Regards

Kevin Kilty
April 28, 2013 9:43 am

“The principal indicator of global warming is, by definition, the global mean temperature…”

Some people would also propose that the rate of increase of global temperature, or even the rate of rate of increase are valid measures. But of course nowadays we speak of “climate change”; so, look at the number of possible indicators. The more indicators available, the more difficult it is to test hypotheses.

Kevin Kilty
April 28, 2013 9:57 am

Taking a cue from Bob Tisdale, one night several years ago I decided to take the ENSO (3.4) index and phase shift its time integral against global temperature, and if memory serves right, a lag of the integral by less than a year did a respectable job of predicting global temperature. So, a linear equation with the coefficients representing integration is a pretty good, simple model without input of PDO at all. Now global temperatures are so polluted with “data reduction” that I no longer trust the assessment such a model.

Pavel Belolipetsky
April 28, 2013 8:37 pm

Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your comments. At first I tried to respond to them but then there became plenty of them and I conclude that I’m not able to respond quickly. One of the reason is that I’m not experienced in internet conversations and another is that I have not so many free time during this weekend due to family activities. Thus I will try only to highlight main features.
This hypothesis was obtained from data analysis. I think it is interesting and your responses also suggest that it is interesting. Also it has some advantages over other existence. I don’t know how to reject or falsify it. In this situation I performed activities in order to inform as many other people as I can, who are interested in the topic. At last this post on WUWT was published. I think there are many people here who are better then me in statistics, who know more about physical processes in climate system, who can suggest possible explanations of shifts etc. I suppose this can help to reject or to find additional evidence for the Shifts hypothesis.
There were many good questions, suggestions and critique in comments. So I think I should respond and I have what to respond and what to add. But I need time to prepare, something about two weeks. When I’ll be ready I will publish my response.
Special thank to Richard S. Courtney. Because of him this post became interesting – my style is not so good.
Also I’m ready to perform joint survey. Who are interested can contact by email, which is available in preprint.
Best wishes,
Pavel

1 4 5 6