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)
@Joe Kirklin Born October 5, 2013 at 6:37 am
Joe, you’ve got this all wrong. We extract the trend using standard SSA analysis. We are interested in how the slope of the trend varies over time so we differentiate. We notice the result appears to be the step response of a second order system which generically is described by equation 1. We verify our suspicion by doing a parametric fit of equation 1 to the data. Once we verified that indeed a good fit is obtained, only then did we look for the “trigger” coincident with the tau found by the fit.
Your differential equation seems to be describing some sort of Lagrange optimization but regardless of the inner workings of the fit algorithm, the gradient search doesn’t add degrees of freedom, it just finds the optimum settings of the knobs, of which here there are five, three of which are irrelevant to the transient behavior.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 9:47 am
I don’t mention numbers because the data is not available.
I just showed you the data…
I do however refer to direction of trend
With no data how can you discern the trend?
You have previously asserted that an active sun warms the entire atmospheric column whilst a less active sun cools it. That is the established viewpoint.
Wrong. It is not only the sun that plays a role. CO2 causes cooling, different at different levels.
Now you confirm that an active sun cools the relevant region and an inactive sun warms it.
So, you maintain that more ozone cools the stratosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 9:50 am
And, Leif, your chart shows that the cooling stratospheric trend stopped around 2000
From 2000 on the cooling continues as if evident from my chart: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png
I was correct in my prediction that no matter what the data shows, they ALWAYS support your wrong ideas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JA016220/abstract
The article shows that Leif’s conclusions have been superseeded by others doing similar studies.
Leif:
Thank you for the data. I had not seen it before.
With that data one can see the trend.
You previously said that the sun warmed the entire atmospheric column when the sun is more active. You attribute the cooling trend to CO2 which places you firmly in the AGW camp.
An active sun appears to reduce ozone towards the poles (and above 45km) without the need to invoke an effect from CO2.
Your chart shows a dark line which clearly stops declining around 2000. What are the two colours meant to represent?
Other sources show a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s despite increasing amounts of CO2.
The idea (which you share with AGW proponents) that our CO2 cooled the stratosphere appears to have been falsified.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
The article shows that Leif’s conclusions have been superseeded by others doing similar studies.
The article shows that hey are agreeing with me [that is the consensus bit].
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:22 am
You attribute the cooling trend to CO2 which places you firmly in the AGW camp.
Cooling is AGW?
Your chart shows a dark line which clearly stops declining around 2000. What are the two colours meant to represent?
I very carefully show what the colors mean: pink is at 50 hPa, blue is at 30 hPa. That you ask shows that you do not pay attention.
Other sources show a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s despite increasing amounts of CO2.
The cooling is different at different altitudes
The idea (which you share with AGW proponents) that our CO2 cooled the stratosphere appears to have been falsified.
The two trend lines [dashed] show steady cooling, the stratosphere now about 2 degrees cooler than in the early 1980s. Just as predicted by CO2 cooling.
No the article shows they are NOT agreeing with you.
The article state the IMF filed at the end of the Maunder Minimum is estimated to be 1.80nt plus/minus .59 nt which is considerably lower then the florr proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver of 4.0 nt
Everybody read it ,it is in blcak and white.
that is IMF FIELD.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:37 am
No the article shows they are NOT agreeing with you.
From the article:
“[1] Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux.”
” Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum.”
In the three years since then, Lockwood and Owens have realized that they were wrong on this last bit. Remember that they both are members of my team: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
And are engaged with me to write up the newest consensus as we speak.
In the meantime solar flux avg(102.5) and ap index(5.4) for Sep,. running much below Leif’s predictions of 120, and 10 respectively for period AUG. 06- DEC. 31 ,2013
As solar cycle 24 continues to be much weaker then Leif , and others suggest.
That article you sent does not suggest otherwise, and is concerned with post Maunder Minimum data.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:37 am
No the article shows they are NOT agreeing with you.
On the floor: Crooker and Owens [same Owens] http://www.leif.org/EOS/Crooker-Owens-2011.pdf write:
“Possible evidence for a floor value to heliospheric field strength has been presented by Svalgaard and Cliver (2007, 2010) using long-term historical records and by Owens et al. (2008) and Crooker and Owens (2010) using measured CME rates over the past solar cycle. An update of the results presented in the latter two papers is shown in Fig. 2. Carrington-Rotation-averages of CME rate and heliospheric field strength are plotted against each other covering the period from the last solar minimum in blue to the recent minimum in red in the left panel. If the loss of flux is accomplished by opening closed loops in ICMEs through interchange reconnection, then the heliospheric field strength should depend upon how many CMEs are fed into the heliosphere. The points in the left panel of Fig. 2 are consistent with this view, although the scatter is broad. When binned by CME rate, in the right panel, a clearer pattern emerges. Evidence for a floor value to the heliospheric field strength is the fact that the hyperbolic tangent curve fit to the points intersects the B axis at a finite value for zero CME rate. That value is ∼3.8 nT, comparable to the lowest averages plotted in the left panel.”
And within the error bar comparable to our value.
It is amazing how you squirm.
The conclusions are Leif your guess is a guess nothing more,nothing less and this grand solar minimum is going to prove you either correct or wrong.
I SAY WRONG.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:48 am
That article you sent does not suggest otherwise, and is concerned with post Maunder Minimum data.
It was meant to show that Owens and Lockwood are on my team re-evaluating the issue.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:52 am
I SAY WRONG.
who cares what you say…
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 4, 2013 at 12:33 pm
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.
yet another study suggesting a floor of 2nt during the Maunder Minimum.
Looks like I need to counter what appears to be disinformation from Leif:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
“note that stratospheric temperatures have been relatively constant over the recent decade 1995-2005.”
Meanwhile CO2 emissions accelerate so it wasn’t our CO2 that caused the cooling stratosphere.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 4, 2013 at 11:42 am
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.
There are so many this is endless, but I will stop here. I have proved my point, which is they all guess and don’t know..
Stephen like the AGW crowd, Leif is going to believe only the data that applies to his way of thinking, and if it should run counter it will be ignored or taken as false.
We know better.
Stephen take a look at the studies I just sent which shows their is no real answer as to how variable the sun might have been during the Maunder Minimum in contrast to now.
I THINK THIS GRAND MINIMUM WILL ACHEIVE THESE SOLAR PARAMETER LOW AVERAGES
solar flux sub 90
ap index sub 5.0
solar wind sub 350 km/sec
euv index sub 100
cosmic ray count per min. north of 6500
imf 4.0 nt or lower
solar irradiance off 015% or more
If acheived the temp. response will be down due to these primary solar efects and all the associated secondary effects. This following sub-solar activity in general which started in earnest during year 2005.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:58 am
First you say that my graph agreed with you, now you changed your tone:
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 9:47 am
Now you confirm that an active sun cools the relevant region and an inactive sun warms it.
now you changed your tune:
Looks like I need to counter what appears to be disinformation from Leif
As I said: no matter what the data shows you will ALWAYS claim that the data supports your view.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:55 am
Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides Steinhilber F, Abreu-Castineira JA, Beer J, McCracken KG
Note that these people are members of my team and participating in the re-assessment. The paper you cite is already obsolete in this rapidly progressing field spear-headed by my research and leadership.
Richard M says:
October 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Worth pursuing, IMHO. Beneath the pimple, there may have been a nasty boil (every pun intended).
Leif not convincing, because even the article you sent suggest no one really knows. which is my point.
This grand minimum will clear up things one way or the other. I will wait and see what actually takes place.
Stephen is consistent in what he is saying which is a quiet sun will produce a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern due to a decrease in temp. contrast in the stratopshere between high latitudes and lower latitudes, due to ozone distribution changes ,which is backed by strong evidence to support this is indeed the case.
He is saying the polar vortex will weaken but expand under this condition which is correct.
Salvatore.
I think the solar change up to now has only stopped the surface warming trend with perhaps a slight cooling since around 2005.
If the sun stays quiet we should then see a drift towards surface cooling as you suggest and the cause will be reduced solar energy into the oceans as a result of a more meridional global air circulation pattern which gives more clouds and higher global albedo.
La Ninas will strengthen relative to El Ninos for a gradual but irregular decline in air temperatures.
Leif thinks our CO2 caused the stratospheric cooling of the late 20th century when in fact it was the sun which at certain levels destroys more ozone when it is active as opposed to the established view that an active sun creates more ozone.
The sign of the ozone response to solar changes reverses above 45km and towards the poles as we can clearly see from observed stratospheric temperature changes.
Leif even admitted that an active sun within a single cycle causes cooling in the lower stratosphere above the tropopause in high latitudes but refuses to accept the logical implications of that observation.
If he accepts such a link within a single solar cycle he should also accept it across multiple cycles but no, he simply defaults to the belief that CO2 was responsible for the lower stratospheric cooling at high latitudes despite evidence to the contrary.
Leif the current quiet solar period in 2009-2010, (much more active then the Maunder Minimum in contrast) , has already produced a IMF field lower then your floor of 4.0 nt.