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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Figure 4 – Parametric fit of (1) versus data ![]()
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Figure 10a – Residual from
primary 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:
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.
Related articles
- Detecting the AGW Needle in the SST Haystack (wattsupwiththat.com)
Gerard says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:30 am
Don’t ask me about the logic behind that three cycles i just look at the data.
Then look again: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png
The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts. If you do spectral analysis of the series you find power at 100, 67, 54, and 44 years, all are subharmonics of the 11-yr solar cycle.
The “sunspot time integral” and ocean oscillations can explain ~90-96% of climate variability.
Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/natural-climate-change-has-been-hiding.html
Earth was hit by a ginormous coronal mass ejection in 1859 that did not deflect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
If solar activity fell off the cliff, would that have resulted in more cosmic rays, and hence more water vapour, and hence a heightened greenhouse effect?
Jeffery, great analyses. My recent post is in line with your much more complex and thorough work: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/if-climate-data-were-a-stock-now-would-be-the-time-to-sell/#more-94942
your figure 8 and 9 and the 60+ yr cycles you mention are also observed in my data analyses, and are also in line with Roy Spencer’s recent post on 30yr period in ENSO cycles: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/on-changing-enso-conditions-the-view-from-ssmi/
coincidence? I don’t think so.
Consider volcanic activity. Krakatoa in 1883 is very close. What if this opened up some undersea lava sources that increased the warming of the PWP. This warming then gets spread over the planet during ENSO events.
david dohbro says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:39 am
your figure 8 and 9 and the 60+ yr cycles you mention are also observed in my data analyses
There is no 60-yr cycle in Figure 9, nor in solar activity on longer time-scales: : http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png
The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts.
lsvalgaard says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:28 am
So? Look at TSI before 1900. Repeat: there is no 60-yr cycle in TSI.
There certainly is a 60+year cycle quasi-periodic mode evident in the data that has persisted over the entire modern record. Whatever its cause, it certainly is not anthropogenic and so its provides no support to the AGW hypothesis. If it doesn’t surprise you that the entire modern climate record can be reproduced with great fidelity by a simple 2nd order differential equation and a sine wave, it should.
Jeff Patterson says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:45 am
There certainly is a 60+year cycle quasi-periodic mode evident in the data
There is a 60+year cycle in climate which is very clear, but no clear 60+cycle in solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png
The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts.
A paper in Nature 2004 by Scripps scientists note this change. They used records of the HMS Challenger from the 1870s, etc., to note a warming that exceeded what has occurred during the last 50 years.
“”The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years,” said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. “This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years.”
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1858
There’s our mysterious step -up and it was stronger than that of the past 50 years, which is supposed to have been “unprecedented” (95% confidence? sarc/off). Surely it couldn’t have been human CO2 emissions back then.
Leif
No, the dominant cycle is ~200 years
The following quotation taken from the Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.
May be we all should get advice from the Penn State researchers of the Center for Climate Risk Management that perform an interdisciplinary integrated assessment modeling research as part of a $2 million grant from the Department of Energy. … or may be research staff of the Penn State newly opened Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk lead by a retired rear admiral. … or ask participants of the Climate Strategies Forum/ October 14-17 in Washington DC held by the Association of Climate Change Officers…
There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives TSI
But there is in the geo-solar magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
or to be more precise 65 year pseudo-cycle (ooh yes, the pseudo-science one might say)
lgl says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
No, the dominant cycle is ~200 years
Nonsense: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png
http://www.leif.org/EOF/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf :
“the period around 100 years remains with the modulation by this period obvious in a visual
examination of a plot of the modified sunspot number data.”
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:53 am
“There is no clear 60-yr period in solar irradiance [or its magnetic field which drives TSI”
But there is in the geo-solar magnetic field
There is no such thing as the geo-solar magnetic field, as you have been told a zillion times.
want that preview,
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf :
Any way to migrate this technique to historic 10Be and ice data, I’m not really concerned about warming – but a way to look a past cooling event, would be cool.
Leif
Solar activity didn’t start in 1650 (or 1700)
Dr. Svalgaard is highly likely to be correct. If you’re correct on the 60 year cycle, something else is causing it. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Jimmy Haigh. says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:09 am
So what happened in 1878?
Major El-Nino event…..
http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/ACT19/COMUNICACIONES/Revistas/aceetal08.pdf
lgl says:
October 4, 2013 at 9:17 am
Solar activity didn’t start in 1650 (or 1700)
Correct, our actual data begins with the large cycles 200 years before the Dalton Minimum…
Excuse me asking what might be a dumb question, but if the surface temps lags the SST then can’t we just always know what the surface WILL be in a few months by looking at the SST? And on that point, does anyone know a website that shows a graph including current SST? Thanks.
This Patterson approach is an excellent method of deconvolving the natural modes in the temperature data.. It has been obvious for some time that the SSN is not the most useful measure of solar activity and its relation to climate and that the Be10 flux is a much better proxy for solar “activity” in relation to climate. For example Patterson’s Fig 3 above matches very well the NGRIP 10 Be concentration trends ( when inverted ) seen in the top record of Fig 1 in
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
This same record also matches the general temperature trends seen for comparable times in Fig 7 (taken from Christiansen http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf ) in the latest post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
which goes on to give an estimate of the timing and extent of the coming cooling. It is not a great stretch to propose that the break at about 1880 is an expression of the final (peak) warming phase of the 1000 year solar cycle inferred from the temperature record of the last 2000 years . See also Fig 6 in the link to my blog given above.
I believe there has been more science in this thread than in the entire IPCC corpus.
As a non-engineer, you lost me at “Any engineer will instantly recognize this shape as the step-response of a slightly under-damped 2nd order system as described by equation 1.”
But believe it or not, I can actually follow this…
The 60 year internal ocean oscillation provides the basic sine wave pattern.
Any trend in solar activity then superimposes a trend from one sine wave peak to the next or one sine wave trough to the next.
An increasingly active sun causes peaks to gain height from one to the next.
A decreasingly active sun causes troughs to gain depth from one to the next.