Claim: Solar, AMO, & PDO cycles combined reproduce the global climate of the past

Guest essay by H. Luedecke and C.O.Weiss

We reported recently about our publication [1] which shows that during the last centuries all climate changes were caused by periodic ( i.e. natural ) processes. Non-periodic processes like a warming through the monotonic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause at most 0.1° to 0.2° warming for a doubling of the CO2 content, as it is expected for 2100, within the uncertainty of the analysis.

We find that 2 cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years determine practically completely the climate changes. All other cycles are weaker and non-periodic processes play no significant role. ( See Fig. 4 )

The ~65 year cycle is the well-known, much studied, and well understood “Atlantic/Pacific oscillation” ( AMO/PDO ). It can be traced back for 1400 years. The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.

Although the spectral analysis of the historical instrumental temperature measurements [1] show a strong 200+ year period, it cannot be inferred from these with certainty, since only 240 years of measurement data are available. However, the temperatures obtained from the Spannagel stalagmite show this periodicity as the strongest, by far, climate variation since about 1100 AD.

The existence of this 200+ year periodicity has none the less been questioned, doubting the reliability of temperature determinations from stalagmites. ( Even though the temperatures from the Spannagel stalagmite agree well with the temperatures derived from North Atlantic sedimentation; and even though the solar “de Vries cycle”, which has this period length and agrees in phase, is known for a long time as essential factor determining the global climate. )

A perfect confirmation for the existence and the dominant influence of the 200+ year cycle, as found by us [1] and with it the definite proof of absence of CO2 influence on the climate, is now provided by a recent paper [2] which analyses solar activities for periodic processes.

clip_image001

Fig. 1 Spectrum of solar activity showing the 208 year period as the strongest climate variation

The spectrum Fig. 1 ( Fig. 1d of [2] ) shows clearly a 208 year period as the strongest variation of the solar activity.

Fig. 2 ( Fig. 4 of [2] ) gives the solar activity of the past until today, as well as the prediction for the coming 500 years. ( This prediction is considered possible due to the ( multi-) periodic character of the activity. )

clip_image003

Fig. 2 Solar activity from 1650 to present ( measurement, solid line ) and prediction for the coming 500 years ( light gray: prediction from spectrum, dark gray: prediction from wavelet analysis ). Letters M,D,G denote the historical global temperature minima: Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg

The solar activity agrees well with the terrestrial climate. It shows, in particular, clearly all historic temperature minima. Thus the future temperatures can be predicted from the activities – as far as they are determined by the sun ( the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun ).

The 200+ year period found here [2], as it is found by us [1] is presently at its maximum. Through its influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last “little ice age” 1870.

The wavelet analysis of the solar activity Fig. 3 ( Fig. 1b of [2] ) has interesting detail. In spite of its limited resolution it shows ( as our analysis of the Spannagel stalagmite did ) that the 200+ year cycle set in about 1000 years ago. This oscillation appears, according to Fig. 3, regularly all 2500 years. ( The causes for this latter 2500 year periodicity are probably ununderstood at present.)

clip_image004

Fig. 3 Wavelet analysis ( showing which oscillations were active at which time ) of solar activity. The dominant oscillations (periods between 125 years and 250 years) are clearly recognizable and recurring every 2500 years

Summarising: the analysis of solar activity proves the existence and the strength of the 200+ year periodicity which we found from historical temperature measurements, as well as from the Spannagel stalagmite data. This 200+ year cycle is apparently the one known as “de Vries cycle”.

This solar “de Vries cycle” together with the AMO/PDO determine practically completely the global climate of the past ( Fig. 4 ). This rules out any significant influence of CO2 on the climate. The latter is not surprising in view of the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its weak infrared absorption cross section (also in view of the various proves of NEGATIVE water feedback ).

clip_image006

Fig. 4 ( Fig. 6 of [1] ) Measured temperatures ( black ) and constructed from the strongest 6 Fourier components ( red ). The Fourier analysis yields the 200+ year cycle for the main excursion: the drop of temperature from 1780 to 1870 and its subsequent rise to the present. This cycle was confirmed by the stalagmite data [1] and is again now confirmed by the solar activity [2] . One can see that the temperature is determined essentially by the 200+ year cycle superimposed with the 65 year cycle.

clip_image007

Fig. 5 Predicted global temperature of “official” models ( red ) and real ( measured ) global temperature ( green ), arbitrarily adjusted to agree at 1980. Source: Met Office

The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

One notes that in Fig.5 the curves were adjusted to agree at 1980. Correctly they should agree for preindustrial times. Such correct adjustment would probably increase the discrepancy between models and reality further substantially.

One may note, that the stronger temperature increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, which is “officially” argued to prove warming by CO2 is essentially due to the AMO/PDO.

References:

[1] Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records. H.Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, C.O.Weiss; Clim. Past. 9 (2013) p 447

[2] Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years. F.Steinhilber, J.Beer; Journ. Geophys. Res.: Space Physics 118 (2013) p 1861

==============================================================

Note: By publishing this, I offer it for discussion and consideration, I don’t explicitly endorse its methodology or conclusion as I have seen a number of curve fitting and cyclical exercises before that are able to extract cycles and then hindcast fit those cycles.  This may be one of those instances, so I urge caution in consideration of the claim. On the plus side, I did find this Nature SR article that shows a 208 year cycle (Seuss cycle) in Indian Monsoon data., and of course we know that there is a 65 year cycle in the AMO as outlined here. – Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve (Paris)

It’s just past nine in the morning here and Anthony has already put plenty of food for thought for the day on the table…

Louis

At least they are willing to make a falsifiable prediction, although I won’t be around for another 500 years to verify it. But if the climate continues to cool over the next few years, I would bet that they they are more likely to be right than Michael Mann and his hockey stick.

JJM.Gommers

Louis , I think the same, the next few years are crucial. Before 2020 the issue of global warming is solved. Even in case the coming years display some cooling trend it will be over in 2016.

Chris McSweeney

Singer and Avery (“Unstoppable Global Warming”) suggested there is a 1,500 year cycle. Then there are the much longer Milankovitch Cycles which will eventually drive the earth into a 90,000 year ice age. Civilisation has emerged during the current warm and productive “inter-glacial period”. Prior to that it was too cold for civilisations to develop. The very best statisticians should analyse the long-term temperature record and estimate the periodicity and amplitude of such cycles and progressively remove them from the temperature series – beginning with the longest cycles and ending with the shortest (65 years according to these authors). We would then all have a series to look at that has been decyclicized (the equivalent of a statisticians deseasonalized data). Whatever is left might then be attributed to mankind – and/or factors not previously identified. Do we have an eminent statistician who could advise whether or not this is feasible?
ChrisMcS

Greg

Seems like an unfinished edit under figure 1. It appears that the first line “climate” is wrong and was probably intended to be replaced by the second line “solar activity”.
“Fig. 1 Spectrum of solar activity showing the 208 year period as the strongest climate variation
The spectrum Fig. 1 ( Fig. 1d of [2] ) shows clearly a 208 year period as the strongest variation of the solar activity.”

Greg

The following graph experted from Thomas et al paper on Gomez Dome ice core also suggests circa 200 year principal component:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gomez_d18o2.png
ref:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#ref_8

Please define the “well-known, much studied, and well understood ‘Atlantic/Pacific oscillation’ ( AMO/PDO )”.
Please also define the mechanism through which the PDO varies global temperatures, since the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific.

strike

There are 2,5 degrees T-anomally difference between 1880 and 2000 in Fig 4? That can’t be Fahrenheit nor Celsius.

Greg

“This oscillation appears, according to Fig. 3, regularly all 2500 years. ( The causes for this latter 2500 year periodicity are probably ununderstood at present.)”
This is probably sign of modulation by another factor or constructive/destructive interference patterns. During destructive interference the wavelet analysis (with its shorter window) will show it as absent only for it to reappear at regular intervals. Often such modulation or interference interpretations are mathematically equivalent. Neither is “correct” until you understand the cause.

Greg

Stalegtite etc seems fine but I’m very cautious about the FFT idea. This seems like a repetition of RC Saumarez’s erroneous application that will necessarily just replicate the sample interval.
500 year projection seems very questionable no matter how you do it and actually seems unnecessary to the main point of the essay. 2100 would have been enough to make the point.

Greg

Bob says: “Please also define the mechanism through which the PDO varies global temperatures, since the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific.”
I was sure you’d contribut that. 😉
Although derived from N. Pac SST, PDO represents Pacific wide variation, I don’t see the authors saying N. Pac SST _causes_ global climate.

Frans Franken

Looks incomparably more plausible to me than the CO2 travesty.
So the next de Vries solar minimum will more or less coincide with the second next AMO/PDO minimum in 2080-2100. What global average temperature to be expected? It might be known as the Lübecke minimum, if not overshadowed by the start of the imminent next ice age.

RichardLH

Anthony: “and of course we know that there is a 65 year cycle in the AMO”
It is there in HadCRUT4 as well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144

RichardLH

Anthony: Sorry, forgot to include the data itself so as to demonstrate the cycle in context properly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144

Please identify the 6 temperature datasets used for the “Measured temperatures” in Figure 4 and please also identify the smoothing used on the global temperature data (HADCRUT4?) and model outputs (CMIP5 or CMIP3?) in Figure 5.

Greg

From referenced paper:
“…of the stalagmite data. The latter shows a drift over 1600 yr
of peak intensity from the 128-yr period to the 256-yr period.
A further doubling to ∼ 500 yr (peak visible in the spectrum,
right Fig. 3) causes the recent weakening of the 250-yr pe-
riod, visible in the wavelet diagram. Such a shifting of en-
ergy from a fundamental to a subharmonic frequency com-
ponent is characteristic of the Feigenbaum universal scenario
of transition to chaos by a cascade of subharmonics, for non-
linear, dissipative systems with energy input (Feigenbaum,
1978, 1983).”
I’m a little nervous of these frequencies being submulitiples of the circa 2000y dataset. (describing fig 5 of ref 1 that derives from Torrence & Compo 1998).
” This does not rule out a
warming by anthropogenic influences such as an increase of
atmospheric CO2. Such secular effects could have been in-
corporated by the DFT, e.g., into the 250-yr cycle obtained
from M6, and would then not show up as a discrepancy be-
tween SM6 and RM6.”
And such a rise being integrated in the DFT model would result in a drop after the end of the data when reconstructed.
I think the evidence of a ~65 year cycle is strong and may be projected into the near future with some confidence but the huge drop may be partially a result of some secular increase being incorporated into the cyclic model and leading to a saw-tooth component in the reconstruction.

johnmarshall

At least this paper considers the sun. The IPCC seem to think the sun is of no account so do not consider it, but then looking at their AR4 energy flow diagram I am not surprised they are so wrong.
Looks as though Bob T is on the case so we might get some good analysis.

Greg

The “M6” temperature record, from six european sites is interesting in that it does not show the sudden drop around 1945 that is forced into the Hadley SST records. There is a strong drop but not until mid 1950’s. This is in better agreement with variations in other physically independant records such as accumulated cyclone energy.

Greg

Bob says: “Please identify the 6 temperature datasets used for the “Measured temperatures”
Read the refs 😉
Yes, it would have been good to be more explicit in this essay.

Greg

Fig 4 above (from ref 1) may work better if the M6 data was not distorted by a bloody running mean.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers
15 y runny mean “smoother” has a negative lobe at 1.43*15=10.5 years. Any variation of that period will leak about 20% amplitude through the filter and be INVERTED.
since that is a typical value for the Schwabe solar cycle this could be doing nasty things to the data. Suggest cascaded running mean or gaussian, see above article.

Edim

Greg says:
December 17, 2013 at 2:30 am
“The “M6″ temperature record, from six european sites is interesting in that it does not show the sudden drop around 1945 that is forced into the Hadley SST records. There is a strong drop but not until mid 1950′s. This is in better agreement with variations in other physically independant records such as accumulated cyclone energy.”
It’s also in better agreement with the solar variations. Here the solar cycle frequency:
http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682612000417-gr1.jpg

William Astley

I am confused. The solar magnetic cycle is the dog and PDO is the tail. There is overwhelming evidence that there are warming and cooling cycles (both hemispheres, some of the cooling changes are abrupt climate change events) and that those cycles are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. Also I do not understand why there is no concern related to the current abrupt solar magnetic cycle change. We do not need to wait a hundred to two hundred years to resolve this issue. It appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. If Leif is about, please do ask what is meant by a solar magnetic cycle ‘interruption’ and also ask what a Heinrich event is and ask what caused the abrupt end to the last interglacial period. As I noted it appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event.
I found it astonishing at the AGU conference solar ‘update’ presentation that there were no comments concerning the disappearance of sunspots (sunspots becoming smaller and smaller and then as has occurred in the solar northern hemisphere there are no sunspots) which is quite a different observational change than a reduction in the number of sunspots. (Sunspots are the small dark spots in this composite picture and in this visual picture of the sun.) The AGU conference solar update did note the solar heliosphere pressure (solar atmosphere) has dropped 40%.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20131216_hres.jpg
For example, we had this paper that found 342 climate cycles (warming and cooling) in 240,000 years (with a pseudo cycle of 500 years and 1500 years) in the Southern Hemisphere. There is the same pseudo cycle in the Northern hemisphere. The word pseudo cycle is used as the timing between warming and cooling ‘cycles’ varies but it is roughly 500 years and 1500 years. The solar magnetic cycle is the driver, as there are cosmogenic isotopes at each and every warming and cooling cycle and (a second logical point) the warming and cooling cycles occur simultaneously in both hemispheres and with a duration of a half cycle of warming or a half cycle of cooling, of 70 years to 150 years (chaotic ocean current changes could not affect both hemispheres simultaneously and could not affect the regions for such long periods), except for the Heinrich events which are sever cooling periods of roughly 750 years.
William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and to cool cyclically. There are multiple mechanisms, two of which, cause the planet to warm when cosmic ray flux is high thereby making is it appear that increases in cosmic ray flux do not cause cooling. The planet has started to cool due to the most rapid decline in solar magnetic cycle activity in 8000 years.
Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle? (William: Yes it does.) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

Stefan

The wibbly-wobbly climate.
#drwho

Alan the Brit

Dela vu! They readily admit that they don’t fully understand exactly how the Sun could affect our climate, yet they readily dictate that something else, CO2 does! “We don’t fully understand how element A, the Sun, affects element B, the Earth’s climate, but we know for a fact that element C, manmade CO2, overpowers element A!”, Don’t ya just luv post-modern science?

Ed Zuiderwijk

“One may note, that the stronger temperature increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, …… is essentially due to the AMO/PDO.”
The death knell for the idiotic idea that the “hiatus” does not disprove the increase due to CO2. Because the PDO “correction” is needed to “restore” the “underlaying AGW” after 2000, whilst before 2000 it must be ignored since there would be no AGW left.
Now that’s what I call: creative accounting.

Paul Vaughan

Messed up statements:
“The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”
“the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun”
http://imageshack.us/a/img440/2402/yms.png
= simple geometric consequence of http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
= simple extension of Dickey & Keppenne’s (NASA JPL 1997) figure 3b
See Sidorenkov’s (2009) section 8.7 for heat engine basics.
This isn’t about total energy input but rather spatial distribution of input and consequent circulation. (Wind is the primary driver of ocean currents.)

rokshox

strike: “There are 2,5 degrees T-anomally difference between 1880 and 2000 in Fig 4? That can’t be Fahrenheit nor Celsius.”
The units of Fig 4 are standard deviations. See “T-Anomaly / sigma” on the scale.

I almost created a post on this, but you did a better job than I would have.
Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone ran this at http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientists-show-climate-driven-by-natural-cycles-global-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/
I commented there:

This fits in fairly well with a Chinese tree ring study that has 2500 years of data. It shows the local peak was in 2006. It can be used to hindcast the historical record, and to forecast some 60 years of cooling to 2068. After that it calls for warming to another peak at 2100 but somewhat cooler than 2006. (This is more similar to the stagmite FFT analysis than the wavelet analysis). The power spectrum shows cycles of 1324, 800, 199, and 110 years.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ I keep a link to that and a similar Japanese study at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html


P.S. I), http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/ranking-of-climate-blogs-dec-2013/ took a look at Alexa traffic and (of course) found WUWT ranks #1, and No Tricks Zone ranks #14, just ahead of RealClimate.
Impressive given that NTZ is “just” an English language source of German-centric climate news. Check it out, there are a lot of “acquaintances” there.


P.S. II) for a good old time, check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/ . There seems to be little new under the Sun. Figuratively, of course. Literally, utterly wrong. 🙂

Rant I) My previous comment got banished to the spam bin for too many URLs, sigh. Mods, please fish it out.
Rant II) The outside temperature here near Concord NH is -7.2°F. Today is the coldest day of the year. So far. Come on CO2, do your stuff – I’m losing faith in you!

mysql> select dt, lo_temp, hi_temp from daily where dt >='2013-1-1' and lo_temp < 0.0 order by lo_temp;
+------------+---------+---------+
| dt         | lo_temp | hi_temp |
+------------+---------+---------+
| 2013-01-24 |    -5.4 |    14.1 |
| 2013-01-23 |    -2.4 |     8.6 |
| 2013-01-03 |    -1.6 |    18.4 |
+------------+---------+---------+
herkimer

I have been looking at possible causes other than reduced solar activity for the CET temperature drops during past major solar minimums
Graph below is a detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global atmospheric cooling and warming periods over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040/2045 like they did 1910 and 1975
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/a-quick-look-at-the-hadgem2-es-simulations-of-sea-surface-temperatures/
If we hind cast the above ocean graph and in particular the 70 year Atlantic Ocean SST, pole to pole , we find that major SST troughs like 1905/1910 and 1975 could have also happened in 1835, 1765, 1695 For example the North Atlantic Ocean may have been cooling during the following past periods [And probably the Pacific as well.] based on the 70 year pole to pole cycle The major solar minimum periods of cooler CET climate are noted. They do match .
1940 to 1975
1870 to 1910 [Minimum 1880-1910]
1800 to 1835 [Dalton minimum 1790-1820]
1730 to 1765
1660 to 1695 [Maunder minimum 1645-1715]
1590 to 1625
1520 to 1555 [Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
1450 to 1485 [ Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
This could account for much of the cooling noted in the CET records during major solar minimums . These periods are also visible on the following reconstructed North Atlantic SST graph
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
http://i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
In other words a 70 year major oceans SST cycle could be partly [ together with volcanic eruptions] behind the extra cooling noted during historical major solar minimums .

The sun affects the AMO/PDO by altering global cloudiness via changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Variations in solar input to the oceans cause changes in ocean heat content.

“Having observed the apparent failure of the models with their speculative CO2 component and having seen the relative success of the solar and astronomic influences at anticipating real world changes I have written this article to draw attention to what I consider to be the underlying real world process of global temperature change. Global temperature is controlled quite precisely (although it is difficult to calculate) by solar energy modulated by a number of overlapping and interlinked oceanic cycles each operating on different time scales and being of varying intensities, sometimes offsetting one another and sometimes complementing one another.
Any other single influence such as an enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 is just one of a plethora of other potential but relatively minor influences which as often as not offset one another and leave the solar/oceanic driver unchallenged in terms of scale.”
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
Published by Stephen Wilde May 21, 2008

Gary Pearse

Fourier T we’ve seen before, to much criticism by the WUWT wrecking crew. I’ll let the crew deal with this. However Sun, AMO, PDO fits the records over shorter periods. Now lets see what is the biggest element here? Logic flash: if the source of heat for earth is our star, and it varies measurably in output and distance from us over time, we don’t need much else. The rest is lags and heat engine work. Analogously, if you are racing down the highway, it’s the motor pushing you. If you have a strong headwind, you will do work on the air that will slow you down; if you have good tailwind, work will be done on you and you will be able to go faster but the motor is the overwhelming principal component. The whole sordid AGW fungus comes from IPCC’s mandate 30 years ago was to measure the effect of man’s effect on climate, not to find out if man is having a major influence or not. Well naturally it meant ignoring the sun.

Chuck L

Bob Tisdale, or anyone else,I have seen some studies correlating Arctic sea ice extent with AMO, most recently, http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-finds-arctic-sea-ice-is.html . What confounds me is does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail when it comes to ocean & solar cycles and ocean and/or land temperatures & sea ice; I think that CO2, especially manmade CO2, is a miniscule piece of the climate puzzle but the physical mechanisms by which these cyclical and other external factors actually affect the climate seem very uncertain.

These results are very similar to my cooling forecasts using a longer period cycle plus the PDO.
For the development of the quasi periodic quasi repetitive cycle method of forecasting see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com and guest post on WUWT at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/29/commonsense-climate-science-and-forecasting-after-ar5/
Here is a summary of the conclusions – note the 2100 forecasts,
“In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate”.
It is encouraging to see the peer reviewed papers moving in this direction.

Rhys Jaggar

I agree with all the caveats about ‘curve fitting’, but at least this article discusses cycles known to be associated with real phenomena existing in climatology.

David in Cal

Fitting some curve to past temperature data proves nothing about future temperatures. A best, it might be vaguely suggestive. IMHO. The data period is too short, the data itself is uncertain. Warmist studies that assume a model that fits the past will therefore fit the future are bogus, as is this study.

These cycles show up in the CO2 data as well. They tend to lag temperature by some fraction of the wave length. This suggests the oceans are harmonically responding to the energy coming from the sun. If we have a significant drop in the rate of accumulation of atmospheric CO2 in the next thirty years (following a decline in global temperature) we will know that CO2 is not a significant force but a good lagging indicator of “climate change”.

Ulric Lyons

The AMO is a 69 year envelope that is a sub-cycle of the 207 year de Vries cycle. The astronomical periods behind this were first identified be me here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/ian-wilson-the-vej-tidal-torquing-model-can-explain-many-of-the-long-term-changes-in-the-level-of-solar-activity-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57568

Old'un

A little off topic, but NSIDC have screwed up their Arctic sea ice page today and are showing the Antarctic situation instead, which is a real eye opener. It clearly shows that sea ice levels are well in excess of two standard deviations above the 1981/2010 average – enough to make a warmist dive off an ice flow! http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Geoff Withnell

Chris McSweeney says:
December 17, 2013 at 1:11 am
…The very best statisticians should analyse the long-term temperature record and estimate the periodicity and amplitude of such cycles and progressively remove them from the temperature series – beginning with the longest cycles and ending with the shortest (65 years according to these authors). We would then all have a series to look at that has been decyclicized (the equivalent of a statisticians deseasonalized data). Whatever is left might then be attributed to mankind – and/or factors not previously identified. Do we have an eminent statistician who could advise whether or not this is feasible?
ChrisMcS
I am not an “eminent statistician”, but a fairly knowledgeble “cookbook” statistician. I would be willing to bet money that the data are far to noisy to get any useful result from such and analysis. I suspect the error bars would swamp any trending.

RE: Ric Werme says:
December 17, 2013 at 4:33 am
Coldest day of the year in New Hampshire, and it isn’t even winter yet. It was minus nine on my back porch as I left for work in the dark. Down in the Contoocoock River valley it got really cold: minus fifteen in Jaffrey and minus fourteen in Peterborough. Absolutely windless. As the sun came up every house had smoke or steam shooting up from the chimney, and then just hanging in the air. Even the poor fellow at the gas station pumping gas, (who was the only person I saw outside,) left hanging clouds of breath as he bustled about.
If you don’t like the weather, wait until Friday. It’s suppose to be forty with rain.

Ian Wilson

“The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.”
This statement is demonstrably false. Please read the following paper about the
North Atlantic Oscillation and the PDO/ENSO climate systems:
Wilson, I.R.G., 2011, Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation
Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
The General Science Journal, Dec 2011, 3811.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811
It is popular myths like the one following that hide the fact that
Sun and the Moon (the latter primarily through its tides)
have a direct influence upon the Earth’s climate systems.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/variations-in-earths-climate-on-decadal.html

KevinM

If figure 4 is correct, we’ll know soon.
I don’t like the degree of certainty in the article, nor the lack of digging into what causes these “natural oscillations”, nor the length of the dataset relative to the breadth of the results, not the dependence (as recounted here) on one stalagmite vs a collection of standards like ice cores, tree rings and lake mud. One stalagmite is not so different than one Yamal tree.
At least it makes a testable assertion. We’ll see.

kim

Please don’t tell me, Old’un, that the Palmer Peninsula is now cooling. Well, sure, it’s now Spring, but what about all that heat that Steig smeared temporally and spatially over the rest of the Antarctic?
================

When approaching a problem in science -the first thing to do is surely to take a look at the blindingly obvious and the simplest and most transparent working hypothesis. The establishment scientific community has resolutely refused to do that. This Luedecke and Weiss paper is a step in the right direction – but why they don’t go a step further and look at the millennial cycle is beyond me. However most other commentators here are still trying to sort out the processes and mechanisms involved in the climate system in order to make predictions or come up with mathematical formulas for the various cycles .This is not necessary for perfectly reasonable and transparent forecasting
Here are some more quotes from the post linked at the 6:11 AM comment above
“It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.” and
“NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV ,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved whole as represented by the temperature metric.”
In other words just look at the actual temperature data as shown in FIgs 3,4,and 5 at the link above.
I think that the idea that recent warming represents a peak in the 1000 and 60 year cycles is clearly the first working hypothesis that should be tested. As I said earlier
” .In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate”.

vukcevic

65 year cycle is not a fundamental, at least not the AMO one, it is a product of comined solar-terestrial variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

like a small child pumping on a swing, periodic forcings that are in-phase with natural resonance have a much greater effect over time than non-periodic forcings. CO2 is a non-periodic forcing.

Tom O

Shouldn’t we be calling Mann’s “work of art” hokey shtick instead of a hockey stick?