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.
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. )
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.)
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 ).
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
The so-called AMO alone reproduces the global climate of the last ~150 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.765/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.765/trend
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
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.”
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.
There are 2,5 degrees T-anomally difference between 1880 and 2000 in Fig 4? That can’t be Fahrenheit nor Celsius.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The wibbly-wobbly climate.
#drwho
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?