The Great Climate Shift of 1878

Guest essay by Jeffery S. Patterson

My last post on WUWT demonstrated a detection technique that allows us to de-noise the climate data and extract the various natural modes which dominate the decadal scale variation in temperature. In a follow-up post on my blog, I extend the analysis back to 1850 and show why, to first-order, the detection method used is insensitive to amplitude variations in the primary mode. The result is reproduced here as figure 1.

clip_image002 clip_image004

Figure 1a – First-difference of primary mode Fig 1b – De-trended first-difference of primary mode

We see from Figure 1b that once de-trended, the slope of the primary mode has remained bounded within a range of ± 1.2 °C/century over the entire 163 year record.

The linear trend in slope evident in Figure 1a implies a parabolic temperature trend. The IPCC makes oblique reference to this in the recently releases AR-5 Summary for Policymakers:  

“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).”

True enough, but that has been true since at least the mid-1800s. The implication of the IPCC’s ominous statement is that anthropogenic effects on the climate have been present since that early time. Let’s examine that hypothesis.

Up to this point I have been using de-trended data in the singular spectrum analysis (SSA) because de-trending helps to isolate the oscillatory modes of the climate system from the low-frequency trend. We are now interested in the characteristics of the trend itself. Figure 2 shows the SSA trend extracted from the raw Hadcrut4 northern hemisphere data.

clip_image006

Figure 2 – SSA[L=82,k = 1,2] on Hadcrut4

We see the data oscillates about the extracted trend with approximately equal peak –to-peak amplitude until about the year 2000. More about this departure later. The really interesting characteristic of the trend is revealed when we look at the first-difference (time derivative of the red curve of figure 2), shown in figure 3.

clip_image008

Figure 3 – First difference of extracted trend

Any engineer will instantly recognize this shape as the step-response of a slightly under-damped 2nd order system as described by equation 1.

clip_image010 (1)

where a is the step-size, b the offset, w the natural frequency, z the damping factor and t the offset in time at which the input step occurs. clip_image012 is the unit step function which is zero when its argument is negative and unity elsewhere.

A parametric fit of (1) to the data of figure 3 is shown in figure 4.

clip_image014

Figure 4 – Parametric fit of (1) versus data clip_image016

I know what you are thinking. That fit is too perfect to be true. It must be an internal response of the SSA filter. We can test that hypothesis by integrating equation (1) and comparing it to the unfiltered data.

clip_image018

Figure 5 – Indefinite integral of (1) versus data

We see the resulting integral fits the unfiltered data, with the residual exhibiting the same oscillatory behaviors as before. The integral of (1) yields eqn. 2 below:

clip_image020 (2)

I know what you’re thinking. We’ve said all along that the AGW signature would show up as a step in in the slope of the de-noised temperature data, precisely what we see in figure 4. Is this the AGW smoking gun? If we plot figure 3 and the raw data on the same graph we see the real smoking gun.

clip_image022

Figure 6 – First-difference of extracted trend versus data

Around the year 1878, a dramatic shift in the climate occurred coincident with and perhaps triggered by an impulsive spike in temperature. As a result, the climate moved from a cooling phase of about -.7 °C/century to a warming phase of about +.5°C/century, which has remained constant to the present. We see that this period of time was coincident with a large spike in solar activity as shown in figure 7.

clip_image024

Figure 7 – Solanki et al, Nature 2004 Figure 2. Comparison between directly measured sunspot number (SN) and SN reconstructed from different cosmogenic isotopes. Plotted are SN reconstructed from D14C (blue), the 10-year averaged group sunspot number1 (GSN, red)

Virtually all of the climate of the last century and a half is explained by equation (2) and the primary 60+ year mode extracted earlier as shown in figure 8b.

clip_image026 clip_image028

Figure 8 – Primary mode SSA[L=82,k=3,5] vs. residual from eqn.(2) (left) Fig. 8b – eqn. (2) + primary mode vs. hadcrut4

As others have observed, this 60+ year mode plotted in figure 8a is highly correlated to solar irradiance.

clip_image030

Figure 9 – This image was created by Robert A. Rohde from the data sources listed below

1. Irradiance: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

2. International sunspot number: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsunspotnumber.html

3. Flare index: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/astronomy/readme.html

4. 10.7cm radio flux: http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol_home.shtml

Note that the reconstruction due to Solanki et al shown in figure 7 disagrees with figure 9 in terms of present day solar activity. The temperature record clearly tracts Solanki, but I’ll leave that controversy to others.

The residual from Figure 8b, shown in Figure 10, shows no trend or other signs of anthropogenic effects.

clip_image032 clip_image034

Figure 10a – Residual from clip_image036primary mode Figure 10b – Smoothed histogram of residual

A similar analysis was done on the sea-surface temperature record. The results as shown in Figure 11:

clip_image038

Figure 11 – SST (red) vs. Hadcrut4 (blue)

We see the land temperatures follow the ocean surface temperature with a 4-5 year lag.

Conclusion

The climate record of the past 163 years is well explained as the integral second-order response to a triggering event that occurred in the mid-to-late 1870s, plus an oscillatory mode regulated by solar irradiance. There is no evidence in the temperature records analyzed here supporting the hypothesis that mankind has had a measurable effect on the global climate.

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.
5 3 votes
Article Rating
289 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 6, 2013 10:55 am

Stephen between you and me I want Leif ,and others to continue to deny solar climate/connections and less solar variability. For if they agreed ,then we would have nothing to argue and prove.
We will be proven correct ,they will be proven wrong and it will be very very soon.

October 6, 2013 10:56 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 10:49 am
In the mean time Leif can,t even predict solar activity one or two months in advance.
Nobody can [except the nuts that can predict it thousands of years in advance].

October 6, 2013 11:00 am
October 6, 2013 11:03 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:00 am
http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/ice-age-began-bang/
LEIF wrong again.

Volcanoes did it, not the sun, stupid.

October 6, 2013 11:12 am

Leif that is the point ,you keep saying with certainty there are no solar /climate connections, you down play the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minmium solar variability and temperature impacts with certainty, and now you say no one can even predict solar matters one or two months in adavance.
It sounds like you are not being consistent.
Right or wrong I am consistent and I will not DEVIATE from my stance of solar/climate connections and the average solar parameters that are needed to bring about the connections.
I stand by that and the solar variabilty issue , which is solar variabilty is much greater then you keep trying to convey.
All of this will be resolved in the very near future.
AGAIN AND IF WRONG I HOPE YOU BRING IT OUT
solar flux avg. sub 90
solar wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
solar irradaince avg. off .015% or more
ap index avg. 5.0 or lower
cosmic ray count avg. north of 6500 per min.
euv flux avg. sub 100
imf avg.4.0 nt or lower
If these solar parameteer averages are met going forward into this decade the temperature trend WILL BE DOWN.The amount of sub-solar activity prior to these conditions being reached later this decade is now sufficent in duration of time.
Easily falisfied if wrong.

October 6, 2013 11:14 am

Volcanos as I have been saying if you read my previous post are one of the secondary items associated with a prolonged solar minimum period. I have sent many studies that lend support to this thinking.

October 6, 2013 11:17 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am
you say no one can even predict solar matters one or two months in advance.
It sounds like you are not being consistent.

We can predict 10 years in advance, but not two months. Nothing special there. I can predict that next July [in northern hemisphere] will be warmer than the coming November.
I will not DEVIATE from my stance
Cult members and other nuts also will DEVIATE from the given truth, no matter what happens. And Stephen will take ANY outcome to be consistent with his views. Such people are very low on my pole.

October 6, 2013 11:17 am

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id69.html
VOLCANO INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH PROLONGED SOLAR MINIMUM PERIODS

October 6, 2013 11:19 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:14 am
Volcanos as I have been saying if you read my previous post are one of the secondary items associated with a prolonged solar minimum period
Sure, the volcanoes erupting 50 years before sunspot lows were controlling the Sun. I am sure you can find papers that claim that too. And even people dumb enough to actually believe that.

October 6, 2013 11:22 am

Leif , soon everthing you say as oppossed to what Stephen, and I suggest will be able to be actually observed in real time as this prolonged solar minimum continues and we will have answers to the extent of solar variability and to the extent of how solar variabilty impacts the climate.

October 6, 2013 11:22 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id69.html
VOLCANO INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH PROLONGED SOLAR MINIMUM PERIODS

The guy who runs this outfit [Mr. John Casey] is a well-known certified fraud and caters for people dumb enough to be hoodwinked by his nonsense.

October 6, 2013 11:24 am

Leif, the point is I have taken a stance and that is one of my secondary effects like it or not, right or wrong. That is ONE of my secondary effects in the solar climate connection puzzle. MINE..

October 6, 2013 11:25 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:22 am
we will [soon] have answers to the extent of solar variability and to the extent of how solar variabilty impacts the climate.
Perhaps it will be opportune to wait selling the fur until the bear has been shot.

October 6, 2013 11:26 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:24 am
It must be lonely at the top crying in the wilderness.

October 6, 2013 11:35 am
October 6, 2013 11:37 am

Leif , you will be proven wrong, I will be proven right, that is my prediction. Time will tell,if I am wrong you can say I told you so. Until then it is wait and see.

October 6, 2013 11:38 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:35 am
https://www.google.com/#q=other+stars+and+sun+variabiltiy
more info that supports my views.

One of your sources that supports your view says:
“sun’s variability appears much smaller than stars with similar level of…”

October 6, 2013 11:39 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:37 am
Until then it is wait and see.
You can wait in solitary silence then.

October 6, 2013 11:40 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:37 am
if I am wrong you can say I told you so.
I would never stoop that low…

Greg
October 6, 2013 12:31 pm

Lief, thank for your many informative posts here but don’t feel obliged to reply to every idiotic comment by Salvatore del….
It’s easy enough to skip comments starting with Salvatore del… , but then I have to read yours to see whether you have something useful to say or just another reply to Salvatore del Silliness.

October 6, 2013 12:38 pm

Greg says:
October 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Lief, thank for your many informative posts here but don’t feel obliged to reply to every idiotic comment by Salvatore del….
Having brought up four unruly children [‘chips of the old blockhead’] I know it is hopeless, but perhaps my comments may be informative to others nevertheless.

Greg
October 6, 2013 1:07 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
E.M. Smith
Moon only stirs. Sun drives.
Very poetic. Do you have more than poetry to substantiate that declaration? I’m not against such a proposition, so can it be proven?
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=542
second derivative attenuates very long variation, 4y and 6y LP filters have zero at those periods.
What is left is the decadal scale variation. In post WWII period where data is most reliable it seems clear the major periodicity is circa 9 years.
Avoiding the known WWII glitch in ICOADS and using the peaks annotated on the graph gives 9.05 years for the obvious decadal variation.
This is compatible with Scafetta and BEST derived periods of 9.1 +/- 0.1 year
This may be a blurring of two separate lunar cycles of 18.6/2 (eclipse cycle) and 8.8425 lunar perigee precession : (1/9.3 +1/8.85)/2 = 1/ 9.07 , or either one given the precision of the data and analysis.
Scafetta showed how such a periodicity in the earth orbit is due to the presence of the moon.
A solar influence could be at play on 50-100 year time scale but presence of circa 11y is not evident.

October 6, 2013 1:46 pm

Leif said:
“And Stephen will take ANY outcome to be consistent with his views.”
Incorrect. I have pointed out various events that would invalidate my hypothesis if they were to occur.
and Leif said:
“Cherry picking, when data for the whole year is available. Check the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions by Lohle, Moberg, Lundquist, etc. http://www.leif.org/research/NH-Temperatures.png
Lets take a step back and look at Leif’s whole year chart. Note that it is a reconstruction rather than the actual temperature recordings from Hadcrut that I referred to.
Nonetheless there is a big step up of temperatures in the 18th century which correlated with increased solar activity.
As evidenced by Leif”s contributions here he will not take ANY data inconsistent with his views.

October 6, 2013 1:52 pm

I said:
“The cooler period in the 20th century didn’t come along until the slightly less active cycle 20”
Leif said:
“Nonsense: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/hadcrut4_annual_global.png cooling started during the highest ever solar cycles 18 and 19 in the 1940s and 1950s.”
But Leif forgets the effect of the negative PDO which started to cool the air a little before the start of low cycle 20 and which then amplified the cooling effect of low cycle 20.
It has always been my contention that we must consider both the top down solar effects AND the bottom up oceanic effects.

October 6, 2013 1:52 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
October 6, 2013 at 1:46 pm
As evidenced by Leif”s contributions here he will not take ANY data inconsistent with his views.
by definition that is so, as the data drives my views.