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)
This is exactly the case, and as the prolonged solar minimum continues to exert itself as this decade proceeds, the temperature trend will once again be down.
These average solar parameters once attained will result in a temperature decline
avg. solar flux sub 90
avg. solar wind sub 350 km/sec
avg. ap index sub 5.0
Euv flux avg. sub 100
avg. cosmic ray count per minute north of 6500
imf sub 4.0
For details of the weather in 1878-1879 look at John Kington’s ‘Climate and Weather’ Collins New Naturalist (2010) pages 371-372. Notable volcanic activity, the winter 78-79 was one of the coldest with temperatures comparable to the 1690s, and cold enough for incipient glaciation in the Scottish highlands, 1879 was one of the coldest on record with one of the wettest summers on record.
@ur momisugly Jim Brock, who said: “Simplified: In an interglacial period (like now) it keeps getting warmer….until it doesn’t, and we have another ice age.”
Actually, an interglacial starts off very warm, and steadily declines in temperature, if this present interglacial is an example:
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Climate-Optimum.jpg
There are warming and cooling periods throughout an interglacial, as the above link shows. As this present interglacial has progressed, the warm periods are not warming as much, and the cooling periods are getting ever more cool. Eventually, we will go into a severe cooling period that won’t end until in about 85-90,000 years.
Leif see Fig 9 especially C and D in the last post at http://climate-sense-norpag.blogspot.com
I say ” Furthermore it is clear that the cosmic ray intensity time series reflected in the 10Be data is the best proxy for “solar activity “and that this correlates meaningfully with temperature-see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 24, 2013 at 11:20 am
http://books.google.com/books?id=vUtSluaODqYC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=the+11+year+solar+cycle+continued+during+the+maunder+minimum&source=bl&ots=g4qt3JnWMQ&sig=URAhIGZWdOjfuRpPj4w6ZRNnSx8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y-09UtWKFuaHygHOiYCYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=the%2011%20year%20solar%20cycle%20continued%20during%20the%20maunder%20minimum&f
This study supports much more solar variablitiy then some would lead us to believe. Great study
Pages 43-46 are very intersting ,in the above study. Totally in opposition to Leif’s continuing insistence of no solar /climate connections.
Dr. Norman Page, you are exactly correct.
“Cleopatra’s Needle” was erected in 1878.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Raising_the_obelisk.jpg
Obviously it’s not connected – but it does seem iconic… marking the year. GK
YES, solar minimums – like the one now looming – CAN cause ICE AGES, say Swiss scientists
Joe Born says:
October 4, 2013 at 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.”
Joe Born :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.
Your implication that any arbitrary data could be fit to eq (1) with anything but the trivial zero-slope line passing through the mean is incorrect. The a,b, and tau parameters are scaling, offset and time localization parameters which do not effect the transient behavior which starts at t=tau and ends when the response settles to its final value. In between the response the is determined by just to parameters, the natural frequency, w and the damping factor zeta, and must match the data at every point. That’s approximately 120 equations and two unknowns.
The is one and only one point in the entire temperature record which meets the criteria. That tau is exactly coincident with the onset of an impulsive event provides strong empirical support for the conclusion that we’re observing a real 2nd order climatic response.
But while we’re on the subject, how many unparameterized variables are present in a typical GCM?
YES, solar minimums – like the one now looming – CAN cause ICE AGES, say Swiss scientists
By Robert On October 3, 2013 · 9 Comments
….
“It may well be that actually humanity will find itself battling cold rather than heat in the generations to come.”
Could it be an ice age now?
——————————————————————————–
A quiet sun (NASA)
“Solar physicists think that the Sun is about to enter a “grand minimum”, a prolonged period of low activity,” says this article by Lewis Page.
“The current 11-year peak in solar action is the weakest seen for a long time, and it may presage a lengthy quiet period. Previously, historical records suggest that such periods have been accompanied by chilly conditions on Earth.”
“The “Little Ice Age” seen from the 15th to the 19th centuries is often mentioned in this context.
“IPCC-leaning scientists, however, say that the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been caused by solar variability – not even solar variability combined with sky-darkening volcanic eruptions – as the effects would have been too weak.
“That school of science would often suggest that the Little Ice Age was actually caused by a sequence of unusually powerful North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) atmospheric phenomena – or, in other words, that it was just a blip: rather like the current 15-year hiatus in global warming.
A Berne university statement issued just last week says that in fact the Little Ice Age most certainly could have been triggered by variations in the Sun. The Berne group has shown that the comparatively minor effects of changes in the Sun are actually amplified seriously by feedbacks on Earth.
Little Ice Age driven purely by strong and frequent volcanic eruptions and reduced solar radiation
Climate researchers at the Oeschger Centre for Climate
Some of the article I agree with ,with the exception that a more -NAO/AO were in the mix, while this article says they were not a necessary component for a prolonged weak solar period to bring about the Little Ice Age.
Other then that I think this article is on sound ground. Very well could be an explanation.
Leif and many others continue to predict solar cycle 24 activity to high as is evidence by the recent data.
Example avg. solar flux for Sep. 102.5 ap index around 5.4
Re Gary Pearse says: October 4, 2013 at 8:50 am There is another lesson to be learned from the HMS Challenger expedition, because one of its missions was to investigate the mysterious “Bathybius” that had taken on the same aura as today’s “Immaculate Convection” of heat hiding in the ocean depths. For example, see Bathybius in “Atlantic: Great Sea Battles, Heroic Discoveries, Titanic Storms, and a Vast Ocean of a Million Stories” by Simon Winchester. Link to Page 135 here: http://tinyurl.com/pprl4a8
“…None of these islands existed; they were as ephemeral and illusory as Atlantis. As was one further and final oceanic peculiarity that gripped the Victorian maritime mind for a short while: a supposed protoplasmic form of early life, an ur-slime. This was dredged up by the survey frigate HMS Cyclops [in 1857] and handed over to an initially not very interested T.H. Huxley, the paleontologist whose eventual coinage of the words agnostic and Darwinism indicates his strongly rationalist views. But rationalism failed him when, ten years after being handed the samples, he came back to look down the microscope at this jelly-like ooze: he became irrationally excited by it, promptly gave it a name (Bathybius haecklii – in honor of the German evolutionist who coined the word ecology) and declared it to be a primordial life-form that would surely carpet the seafloors everywhere.
“Six years later there came an outbreak of public embarrassment as another biologist performed some very basic chemical tests on the slime and discovered that Bathybius was not a life-form at all, but a simple chemical reaction in the test tube between seawater and the preserving alcohol. Perhaps, bleated later supporters of Huxley – who after all, was a great man in his field, a giant of his times – it could have also been caused by a seasonal taint of plankton bloom. But most sided with facts, and so in very short order the Bathibius that never lived was officially killed off. With mordant dignity Huxley renamed it Blunderibus, admitted his folly, thus recaptured his reputation in an instant . . .
“The Bathybius mystery having been solved meant that when HMS Challenger left the dockside in Portsmouth just before Christmas of 1872, she was less on a mission to discover the undiscoverable and correct the misconception of ages, and more on a scientific jamboree the likes of which had never been known, and which has seldom been repeated since.”
More details about Bathybius are in “Deep-Sea Biology” ed. by G.T. Rowe. Link to Page 26 here: http://tinyurl.com/os9xjau
“Bathybius had a short but significant life. After accepting its existence (with some reservations), Thomson wrote to Huxley from the Challenger on June 9, 1875, explaining that Buchanan had discovered Bathybius to be merely an inorganic precipitate caused by adding alcohol to seawater (Huxley, 1875). Huxley gracefully accepted his error. Despite this, the story has lived on as an example of the uncritical errors that may be made even by great scientists…”
Dr Norman Page says:
October 4, 2013 at 11:40 am
<i.I say ” Furthermore it is clear that the cosmic ray intensity time series reflected in the 10Be data is the best proxy for “solar activity “
You may say so, but that does not make it true [c.f. Lincoln’s dog with five legs]. For example, the cosmic ray modulation [as shown by 10Be data] was larger during the Maunder Minimum than in the 20th century, see panel 2d of Berggren’s paper. Would you say that solar activity and TSI, and temperatures were larger during the Maunder Minimum than during the 20th century? See also slides 16-20 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf for a wider perspective.
You know it’s interesting. If you look at the climate records of Minneapolis, which go all the way back to 1820 (one of the earliest records for this region), you see a warming trend from 1820-1840, then a long cooling trend from 1840-1877 when there is a sudden increase in temperatures. After the super warm winter of 1877/78 (warmer than anything before or since by a long shot), it never got as cold as it was prior. If you Google winter of 1877/78, you’ll find a write up about it by the University of Minnesota. The average temps that winter were consistently 15-20F above normal from mid November to April. Insects were reported by February, dusty roads prevailed around Christmas, and prairie fire smoke was present throughout the winter. It was not only the warmest winter ever, but was particularly cloudy. It is believed a very strong El Niño event took place that led to the warmth. The winters following were not particularly cold until the famous winter of 1880/81. There was a curious resemblance to 1877-1881 in 1997-2001… three very warm winters capped by a nasty one, which began with a strong El Niño event… and it now appears a step increase in temperatures occurred in Minnesota after 1997, similar to that of 1877/78. Find the Minneapolis data here: http://www.climatestations.com/minneapolis/ it’s a treasure trove of weather history for the center of the North American continent.
I think I may order one of the books on the Krakatoa event. There may not be any connection, but I am curious now about the larger picture, and how connected it may be with other events of the time. There must be a lot of info to fill all the pages which have been written about it.
Previous post in reply to
Richard M says:
October 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
Leif’s assertions about cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder Minimum are strictly his opinions and by no means the consensus. Many studies run couinter to his including the paper I just sent.
Thanks david dohbro (October 4, 2013 at 8:39 am) for linking to “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/ “ where Roy Spencer concludes:
“The fact that it has taken so long for the mainstream climate research community to ‘discover’ the importance of ENSO to multi-decadal climate is very troubling to me. There is no other explanation for them not seeing what was staring them in the face, except the political influence the IPCC and its supporters in government have had on the climate research community, in effect paying them to downplay the role of natural climate variations until nature could no longer be ignored.”
lsvalgaard says:
…………….
Numerology you say. Well, may be I did beter class of numerology than Ernest Brown or this guy Sturrock.
lsvalgaard says:
Fat-fingered today:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf
…………………………
No problem, found the link anyway. Just finished reading ‘unskilled and unaware’ link.
It says:
Although our emphasis has been on the miscalibration of incompetent individuals, along the way we discovered that highly competent individuals also show some systematic bias in the self appraisals.
D & K strikes in both directions, one might say.
-6#http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-010-9657
Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides
Steinhilber F, Abreu-Castineira JA, Beer J, McCracken KG
Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics, Vol. 115, No. A01104, 2010
doi:10.1029/2009JA014193
Abstract
We have reconstructed the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), its radial component, and the open solar magnetic flux using the solar modulation potential derived from cosmogenic 10Be radionuclide data for a period covering the past 9300 years. Reconstructions using the assumption of both constant and variable solar wind speeds yielded closely similar results. During the Maunder Minimum, the strength of the IMF was approximately 2nT compared to a mean value of 6.6nT for the past 40 years, corresponding to an increase of the open solar magnetic flux of about 350 %. We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of ~ 2250 years and amplitude of ~ 0.75nT. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years -5300, -3400, -1100, and +1500 AD. The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years. The long-term IMF has varied between ~ 2nT and ~ 8nT, and does not confirm a proposed floor (lower limit), with a minimum around the year -4600 and a maximum around zero AD that may be of solar origin, but with also may be due unknown long-term changes in the atmospheric effects or geomagnetic field intensity.
MORE PROVE OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN OPINIONS.
Solar variabilty is much higher then some think.
Is there a 72 year cycle in the climate data or SSN? I’ve noticed that this matches the Axial precession of earth, one complete precessional cycle takes a period of approximately 26,000 years or 1° every 72 years. the maximum of the last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago, in four thousand years the Axial precession will have completed one complete cycle which lands in the middle of the last glacial period. So could the maximum of the next major glacial period be only 4 thousand years away? and if so, we must be entering a major glacial period now.
Jeff Patterson: “Your implication that any arbitrary data could be fit to eq (1) with anything but the trivial zero-slope line passing through the mean is incorrect. The a,b, and tau parameters are scaling, offset and time localization parameters which do not effect the transient behavior which starts at t=tau and ends when the response settles to its final value. In between the response the is determined by just to parameters, the natural frequency, w and the damping factor zeta, and must match the data at every point. That’s approximately 120 equations and two unknowns.”
I’m not actually too well-versed in the statistics of times series, so my comment was more of a question than an implication: I’d like to get some sense of the probability.
In that connection, my count has now risen to ten. The six parameters I now count to specify a second-order-system response are amplitude, decay rate, natural frequency, initial value, initial first derivative, and time of inception (your tau). The sinusoid parameters are, of course, amplitude, frequency, and phase.
You’re probably right that including one or the other of the amplitudes (but not, I think, the ratio of those amplitudes) makes too aggressive a count. I had already thrown out offset. Furthermore, if there is some specific-date physical event you’re attempting to prove triggered the transient response, I could warm to the proposition that tau should be thrown out, too.
But surely it’s an overstatement to say that with the remaining parameters you “match the data at every [one of 120 points]” ? Didn’t you only get close? I’ll need to get smarter on statistics before I can actually calculate that probability from the residuals’ magnitudes, but it seems to me that they should be taken into account, no? Judging from all the buzzwords that get thrown around on this site, my guess is there are several habitues who could creditably compute that.