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
vukcevic
October 4, 2013 9:56 am

The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts.
Agree!
It is governing cycle of all major observed sunspot cycle anomalies,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/100yearCycle.htm
btw. first time calculated from the astronomic data in 2003 (by Vukcevic) published in 2004.

October 4, 2013 10:04 am

Dr Norman Page says:
October 4, 2013 at 9:48 am
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 the past 220 years the SSN and the Be10 Flux are in good agreement. We have just re-evaluated that at two recent workshops.
For example Patterson’s Fig 3 above matches very well the NGRIP 10 Be concentration trends
Here you show that you are a bit confused. The 10Be concentration is not the same as the 10Be flux. The concentration depends on the deposition which in turns depend on the climate [good circular argument there], while the flux depends on the production [the sun]. You see: the 10Be is mostly generated elsewhere than in the polar caps and are brought up to the ploes by atmospheric circulation. It is estimated that at least half the 10Be variation found is caused by fluctuations of the climate.

October 4, 2013 10:05 am

vukcevic says:
October 4, 2013 at 9:56 am
btw. first time calculated from the astronomic data in 2003 (by Vukcevic) published in 2004.
Has been known for a hundred years…

Bart
October 4, 2013 10:14 am

RC Saumarez says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:24 am
“What worries me is whether either of these are unique representations of the data.”
Yes, that is always the danger.
Richard M says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:42 am
I was going to mention that. A stretch, but I have always been fascinated by the power of that blast since reading The 21 Balloons as a kid. 200 MT is a helluva punch.
A little off in the date, but maybe some other geological shift occurred previous which then led to the explosion…?

Stephen Wilde
October 4, 2013 10:17 am

Never mind 10Be, cosmic rays, magnetic flux, solar wind, sunspot number et. al.
The best proxy for the solar effect on climate could well be the average net latitudinal position of the ITCZ in any given year.
First, though, we need to ascertain the position of the ITCZ at which the global energy budget would be balanced.

MattN
October 4, 2013 10:17 am

“So what happened in 1878?”
My first thought was the Carrington Event, but that was 1859.

MattN
October 4, 2013 10:25 am

Between Willis and Jeff, WUWT is bringing the heat today…

vukcevic
October 4, 2013 10:26 am

You see: the 10Be is mostly generated elsewhere than in the polar caps and are brought up to the poles by atmospheric circulation. It is estimated that at least half the 10Be variation found is caused by fluctuations of the climate.
Agree again.
There is a good match between Greenland’s data for 10Be end the CET
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm
as both are strongly affected by the Arctic’s jet-stream
Dr. S
(100year cycle) Has been known for a hundred years
Indeed, but not calculated numerically from another ex-SSN source of data, which raises possibility of an association to the rest of the solar system’s dynamics.

October 4, 2013 10:30 am

Leif – I’m not confused – re the point I’m making – as you must obviously know the NGRIP 10Be flux record in the Berggren Fig 1 shows the same relationship to Patterson Fig 3 as the concentration record.
Also you know quite well that at various times the 10 Be and SSN records are not similar e.g Maunder minimum.

October 4, 2013 10:30 am

Jeff Patterson: “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.”
I don’t know whether it should surprise me or not; by my count there are are eight parameters in that mix, not counting the DC offset.

Richard M
October 4, 2013 10:36 am

Bart says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:14 am
Richard M says:
October 4, 2013 at 8:42 am
I was going to mention that. A stretch, but I have always been fascinated by the power of that blast since reading The 21 Balloons as a kid. 200 MT is a helluva punch.
A little off in the date, but maybe some other geological shift occurred previous which then led to the explosion…?

I had similar thoughts. Also, given the strong El Niño in 1878 it could be the date is skewed by this event. What might have been just a large bump gets added in. If the explosion created a crack in the ocean crust a lot of heat could flow out. I’ve always wondered about the PWP. Many believe it is the result of the trade winds (SOI), but maybe it is the cause.

October 4, 2013 10:39 am

Me: “by my count there are are eight parameters in that mix, not counting the DC offset.”
Sorry, miscounted. Should be nine.

Jim Brock
October 4, 2013 10:43 am

Simplified: In an interglacial period (like now) it keeps getting warmer….until it doesn’t, and we have another ice age.

October 4, 2013 10:44 am

Here’s an idea: around 1880, the American bison herds were slaughtered almost to extinction. The sudden loss of millions of large ruminants possibly had an effect on the climate.

GlynnMhor
October 4, 2013 10:47 am

“Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight” – Vitek Tracz
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/66.full?sid=cb2de807-61a8-4dda-ba15-3b4c76e0c627

October 4, 2013 10:55 am

vukcevic says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
(100year cycle) Has been known for a hundred years
Indeed, but not calculated numerically from another ex-SSN source of data, which raises possibility of an association to the rest of the solar system’s dynamics.

Your ‘calculation’ is just numerology. Brown in 1900 used the same constants and method and found a different result [61 years!] http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Borwn-Sunspot-Tides.pdf , but the crown of all numerology is still Harrison’s: http://www.leif.org/research/Numerology.pdf
Can you beat R^2 = 0.999,995?

October 4, 2013 10:57 am
October 4, 2013 10:59 am

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…
And this puts Dr. L.S. into the “dissembling information category”. Can we REALLY SAY OUR RECORDS begin with large cycles 200 years before the DALTON, based on sparse, “cottage industry/hobby” observations of sunspot numbers with no uniform basis to measure them? I’d say MODERN observations of the solar cycles (radio, Xray, sunspots with a criteria, flares, etc) begin at the END of the 19th century and are not completely refined until the ’50’s or ’60s. Making or implying anything BETTER than that is more smoke than the Chinese are making right now.

October 4, 2013 11:07 am

Dr Norman Page says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
Leif – I’m not confused – re the point I’m making – as you must obviously know the NGRIP 10Be flux record in the Berggren Fig 1 shows the same relationship to Patterson Fig 3 as the concentration record.
You are very confused, as the concentration record is heavily influence by climate, rather than the Sun. And you used flux and concentration in your response as if they were the same thing. And the flux and concentration records or rather different [and not at all like your Fig. 3]
Also you know quite well that at various times the 10 Be and SSN records are not similar e.g Maunder minimum.
Which is irrelevant for your thesis back to 1850. There are plausible reasons for the discrepancy during the Maunder Minimum, e.g. the Livingston & Penn effect.

CaligulaJones
October 4, 2013 11:14 am

“Roger Sowell says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Here’s an idea: around 1880, the American bison herds were slaughtered almost to extinction. The sudden loss of millions of large ruminants possibly had an effect on the climate.”
A point I’ve tried to make to environmentalists for years: if millions of cattle farting now are a danger, you have to at least “back out” the millions of slaughtered bison to get a net, not a (pardon the pun) gross figure…

October 4, 2013 11:15 am

Max Hugoson says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:59 am
Can we REALLY SAY OUR RECORDS begin with large cycles 200 years before the DALTON, based on sparse, “cottage industry/hobby” observations of sunspot numbers with no uniform basis to measure them?
Yes we can, as Galileo was a very careful observer: http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/sunspot_drawings.html
animation: http://academo.org/demos/galileos-sunspots/
Modern sunspots are also counted with small telescopes, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png

Michael D
October 4, 2013 11:19 am

This is a fascinating analysis building on statistical estimation theory, Jeffrey, but just as fascinating to see the global-think in the comments as experts propose explanations and new details. The 1878 el Nino event appears to be particularly relevant.
Jeffrey, in your dataset the time to the left of the 1878 apparent step in the forcing function is worryingly short. For full confidence in the analysis I would want the time period to the left of 1878 to be longer than the natural frequency w, which as you say is (just barely) observable to the right of the step response. Do we have any options for getting more data (even proxy data?) to the left of what you have now?

October 4, 2013 11:19 am

Leif whether the Berggren 10 Be concentration and flux records (when inverted ) from 1850 – 2000 are similar to each other and to the Patterson Fig 3 I’m quite happy to let readers judge for themselves via the link I provided earlier.
I never said there was no reason for the discrepancy between SSN and 10 Be data – just that it existed – and is significant if you are looking at lower frequency cycles.

October 4, 2013 11:19 am

There is a question about the usefulness of a model which, like this one, is not predictive. For the purpose of controlling a system, one needs a predictive model.

October 4, 2013 11:26 am

Dr Norman Page says:
October 4, 2013 at 11:19 am
I never said there was no reason for the discrepancy between SSN and 10 Be data – just that it existed – and is significant if you are looking at lower frequency cycles.
The discrepancy [and there is one ~1895] in the modern data is due to errors or problems with the cosmic ray data, possibly caused by Krakatoa’s eruption in the 1880s. But apart from that short glitch the 10Be and the SSN agree quite well for the past two hundred+ years. You are doing yourself a disservice by so desperately trying to attach yourself to the flimsy cosmic ray data [and non-existent 60-yr cycles in TSI] rather than sticking with the atmospheric stuff.