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
Greg
October 5, 2013 11:51 pm

Thanks Jeff . Since this thread is supposed to be about your analysis rather then UV (which is all very interesting too) here’s a link to your two results from your site:
http://montpeliermonologs.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stepcompare.png
It looks like fitting directly to the data as I suggested shows critical damped response rather then under-damped. Whoever designed this system made a damned good job of it. 😉

Greg
October 6, 2013 12:42 am

E.M.Smith says: “IMHO, any time you see “driven by ENSO” or “ocean cycles”, one ought to prepend “driven by lunar tidal changes”… ”
Indeed. Circa 9.1 cycle reported from different data by Scaffeta and BEST (land SAT) is lunar. Unfortunately it seems to get removed by Hadley processing from the SST record. See appendix here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
E.M.Smith says: “The stratosphere gets down to near /at ground level during the dead of the polar night. I think that matters. Perhaps a lot… Lets a big IR window open in the dark…”
Thanks, I was not aware of that. This may go some way to explaining why -/ve feedback from the IR emission side of the albedo change seems to dominate the +/ve f/b from reflection of incoming solar.
Up to 2007 it may have been reasonable see ‘accelerating melting’ over the limited period of detailed observations. Post 2007 disproves the idea of a dominant +ve f/b:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/

October 6, 2013 2:09 am

Jeff Patterson: “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.”
Thanks a lot for that clarification.
As to my equation, on the other hand, I’m afraid I was a little obscure; it was my way of reminding myself how much of a jump you made to see the second-order system.
It’s true that the shape you see there is reminiscent of an underdamped second-order system, and your equation (1) would indeed be a solution to q_2 \frac{d^2 y}{dt^2} + q_1 \frac{d y}{dt} + q_0 y = u_{-1}(t - \tau) (where your $\omega = \frac{\sqrt{q_0 q_2 – q_1^2/4}}{q_2}$)
without the -b. But from what I’ve been told in the past by people who I think know this stuff I think the presence of the -b implies memory that kicks the order up a notch, and the fact that the purported stimulus is an impulse rather than a step kicks it up yet another notch. Hence the ugly left-hand side of my last response’s equation.
I nonetheless take your point that not all the resulting coefficients should be treated as tweakable parameters, and the right-hand side of my previous comment’s equation’s was probably gratuitous. Still, many shapes we see remind us of many equations we’ve seen, and I’ve yet to shake the nagging suspicion that we may be seeing bunnies in clouds.

October 6, 2013 2:21 am

I’ll try that last comment’s LaTeX again:
q_2 \frac{d^2 y}{dt^2} + q_1 \frac{d y}{dt} + q_0 y = u_{-1}(t - \tau) (where your \omega = \frac{\sqrt{q_0 q_2 – q_1^2/4}}{q_2})

October 6, 2013 2:24 am

Sorry about my ineptitude with the LaTeX, but it worked on the test page.

Paul Vaughan
October 6, 2013 5:12 am

“[…] there is no good correlation of climate with sunspots or TSI, there is also no good correlation between UV and climate.”
Exactly wrong.

October 6, 2013 5:17 am

Paul Vaughan says:
October 6, 2013 at 5:12 am
“[…] there is no good correlation of climate with sunspots or TSI, there is also no good correlation between UV and climate.”
Exactly wrong.

It seems that nothing can shake the faith of a true believer.

Paul Vaughan
October 6, 2013 5:34 am

E.M. Smith
Moon only stirs.
Sun drives.

Paul Vaughan
October 6, 2013 5:36 am

Leif: Observations show you’re wrong in the most egregious sense possible. Don’t waste any more of my time.

October 6, 2013 5:39 am

Paul Vaughan says:
October 6, 2013 at 5:36 am
Don’t waste any more of my time.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. go away.

Paul Vaughan
October 6, 2013 6:04 am

Jeff Patterson wrote:
fundamental period = 209 years
Thanks for your contributions Jeff.

October 6, 2013 7:11 am

Leif said:
“No, the 18th century was brrr cold [colder than the 19th, 20th, and 21st].”
Apparently not, see here:
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hadcet-since-1659-monthly-mean-sep.png
though admittedly that chart shows Septembers but they are reasonable proxies for overall warmth being the time when the oceans reach maximum temperatures.
“and the 1942 disaster in Russia for Hitler was during that cooler period of less active sun in the middle of the 20th century…”
There was nothing special about the winter of 1942 (unlike 1812). Hitler thought it would all be over before winter and equipped his troops for speed rather than for cold.
The cooler period in the 29th century didn’t come along until the slightly less active cycle 20.
In this thread I’m finding Leif’s contributions rather more unreliable than usual.

beng
October 6, 2013 7:23 am

***
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2013 at 8:51 am
beng
The height of the tropopause and especially the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles is critical to the pattern of convective overturning beneath it.
There would be no tropopause if there were no direct interaction between ozone and sunlight creating the temperature inversion.
Changes in the temperature of the stratosphere immediately above the tropopause are enough to alter the entire global air circulation pattern in the troposphere.

***
Stephen, the height of the tropopause is controlled by the amount of convection underneath and the resultant Hadley cell structures. High at the equator, low or even absent at the poles. The convection is a direct result of the amount of absorbed surface heat (sensible and latent) there. Little to no surface-absorbed heat at the poles (especially in winter), little to no tropopause height.
Nothing to do w/UV, ozone, and such above the tropopause. The climate still worked when there was no oxygen (or ozone) for much of the earth’s history.

Richard M
October 6, 2013 7:25 am

The 1878 El Niño could have had an influence on temperature but not on energy. If it injected a surge of water vapor into the atmosphere it would cool the planet temperature while keeping enthalpy constant. Sure enough, the planet cooled over the next 30 years, And then, as the water vapor content fell the global temperature would slowly increase. This was what weather balloons found in the latter half of the 20th century. At present time the water vapor content has slightly increased and global temperature started cooling.
With variations due to ocean cycles this might explain the temperature record without much of a need to change the total energy of the atmosphere.

October 6, 2013 7:38 am

Beng.
The inversion at the tropopause puts a lid on upward convection.
Without that lid ,convection would go up much higher due to the pressure reduction with height constantly refreshing the uplifting process.
That lid is present due to ozone reacting directly with incoming solar shortwave and the temperature of the stratosphere directly affects the height of the tropopause.
It is true that the vigour of convection is a contributing factor to tropopause height.because it can push up against that ‘lid’ but it is ozone that put the lid there in the first place.
When there was no ozone (or a different amount of ozone) the circulation would have shown a different configuration.

beng
October 6, 2013 7:55 am

***
E.M.Smith says:
October 4, 2013 at 11:09 pm
@Leif:
And as that UV fades and blues diminish with more reds and infrareds; more of the TSI causes prompt evaporation of the ocean surface and less goes meters into the deep.

***
I agree. That’s why I’ve been saying that IR from GHGs can’t be significantly stored, and thus the transient and equilibrium climate responses to GHG changes is practically instantaneous (maybe a few months for full response). Responses from SW changes can be stored, and do have longer time-lags. But CO2 or any other GHGs don’t contribute to that storage, and heat-in-the-pipeline doesn’t occur directly from their actions.

Paul Vaughan
October 6, 2013 7:55 am

beng (October 6, 2013 at 7:23 am)
so we’re looking at equator-pole gradients of column integrals — thanks for the useful notes — helps with conceptualization of observed phasing & spatial pattern of equator-pole ozone & GPH gradients at annual & Schwabe timescales — so ozone & cosmic rays = symptoms not cause — field of differential velocities beneath (that will never sit still for temperature measurments) but GPH integrates across = beautiful

JP
October 6, 2013 7:59 am

” If it is a long Maunder instead of a shorter version, my hunch is that global climates will feel the affects of a colder cyclic weather pattern variation driven by intrinsic oscillatory convergence but it will again be blamed on a “cold” (sic) sun. ”
@Pamela Gray,
The beginning of the LIA preceeded the Maunder Minimum by 300 years. Most climate scientists put the beginning of the LIA with the 1315-1320 famine in Europe. The coldest decades of the LIA occured during the Maunder Minimum, but the negative temp trends preceeded the MM by 3 centuries. There have been some attempts to coorelate the De Vries Cycle with climate. But, I don’t think anything definitive has been settled.

October 6, 2013 8:16 am

Stephen Wilde says:
October 6, 2013 at 7:11 am
“No, the 18th century was brrr cold [colder than the 19th, 20th, and 21st].”
Apparently not…though admittedly that chart shows Septembers

Cherry picking, when data for the whole year is available. Check the GLOBAL reconstructions by Logle, Moberg, Lundquist, etc.
There was nothing special about the winter of 1942
except that 1942 was a very cold winter.
The cooler period in the 20th century didn’t come along until the slightly less active cycle 20
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.

October 6, 2013 9:10 am

Stephen Wilde says:
October 6, 2013 at 7:11 am
“No, the 18th century was brrr cold [colder than the 19th, 20th, and 21st].”
Apparently not…though admittedly that chart shows Septembers

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

October 6, 2013 10:43 am

Leif the data shows clearly that the Maunder Minimum temperatures and the Dalton temperatures were clearly cold periods.
Leif will probably deny the LITTLE ICE AGE

October 6, 2013 10:49 am

In the mean time Leif can,t even predict solar activity one or two months in advance.
His wrong prediction made Aug. 6 stated the solar flux would avg.120 and the ap index 10 for the period Aug. 06-Dec. 31,2013. WAY OFF, Solar Flux aveage for Sep. was 102.6 and Ap index was 5.4
Even worse for Leif ,the very quiet solar conditions are continuing as I write this.
Further the 2nt IMF during the Maunder Minimum has more support then less support and will likely prove to be true and verifed as this solar minimum continues to evolve.

October 6, 2013 10:52 am

Exactly Stephen , all the data shows what you have depicted in the chart you sent ,that I just resent. That is 100% certainty.

October 6, 2013 10:53 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 6, 2013 at 10:43 am
the data shows clearly that the Maunder Minimum temperatures and the Dalton temperatures were clearly cold periods.
As JP points out:
JP says:
October 6, 2013 at 7:59 am
“The beginning of the LIA preceded the Maunder Minimum by 300 years.”
And Wilde’s cherry picked temperatures do not single out the Dalton minimum as particularly cold
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hadcet-since-1659-monthly-mean-sep.png
Anyway, the eruptions of Mayon [1814] and Tambora [1815] caused temperatures to drop.
As usual, you are squirming uselessly, reciting obsolete mantras, and bringing nothing to the table.