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
Not to mention Graham, O’Higgins, and San Martin.
=================
I like it, and this sure beats “we’ll just have to wait and see” comments from solar “experts.”
The claims may look nice but sorry, it is ludicrous to interpret the accidental maximum of the function at the period of 208 years as a law of Nature even though it was extracted from 400 years of data only (just about 2 periods) and it doesn’t substantially differ from the nearby wiggles. If one calculated the statistical significance of the evidence supporting that “something special goes on around 208 years of periodicity”, the statistical strength would be something like 1 sigma if not less. Such fluctuations are inevitable even for random data (red noise).
The peak at the periodicity of 88 years is arguably much more significant.
It’s also my understanding that there’s no before-20th-century evidence supporting the omnipotence of PDO/AMO/Solar etc.
OK now we know AGW is not the game-changer, can everyone go get a real job?
“weather – happens”
Thank you Dr. Luedecke and Dr. Weiss.
Very good article.
I read it as even more confirmation that climate change is cyclic and natural.
It’s interesting to see the recent changes in the WUWT Reference page charts for South Atlantic sea surface temps and also the AMO charts. The South Atlantic temps do plunge periodically but they have recovered just as sharply to keep a slight upward trend in the smoothed value. That is not the case of late. The recovery spike is not there so the smoothed value will decline markedly. Meanwhile the AMO has a pattern of periodic spikes with peak to peak trends aligned with the rising value of the smoothed line over recent decades. That too has changed of late as the spike is muted and the smoothed value is about to turn markedly down. It appears there is a recent “sea change” in the Atlantic temp trend charts to go along with general downturn in the PDO and well, we know the story in the solar cycle. All of this raises the question of whether Arctic sea ice coverage is just a random fluke this year or a response to new temp trends in the Atlantic that are not random but cyclical decline. All of this points to more need for sea ice obfuscation by the deniers of cyclical cooling.
We have a serious problem. Everyone who analyzes climate in terms of cycles comes up with different numbers! This is extremely annoying! Excluding Pluto and including the sun and our moon, there are 10 magnetic and gravitationally interacting bodies in the solar system. It can’t be that hard. Of course, I guess if you work for the government there are certain things you just don’t do.
This cracks me up.
1. they use 6 european stations back to 1757. As Anthony will tell you all station exposure prior to the CRS means large uncertainties in the underlying record
2. They do a simple average of the stations.
3. They then use the ANOMALY divided by the standard deviation. Oi vey.
4. They use ice core from antartica to ‘stand in” for the southern hemisphere
Here is a clue. You can find anything you look for. Moreover, you’ll get a much better answer if you divid by the cube root of the standard deviation, multiply by nostradamuses birth weight, and subtract 1.33576, on tuesdays.
Here is another clue. Any result that finds a small influence for C02 is wrong.
“Here is another clue. Any result that finds a small influence for C02 is wrong.”
Why is that, Mosher? The past 17 years have shown us little to no influence for CO2. Either CO2 has little influence or there are negative feedbacks that counteract the CO2 influence. So why cling to the notion that your CO2 God is all-powerful?
OK.
One. Yes, many people who look at the climate “see” cycles: Yesterday’s temperature went up and down, yesterday’s sun went up and down – but at a slightly different time in the day. Sunday’s cold front went through, and Monday’s temperature went very far down but it was very clear, today’s temperature went down slightly less so, tomorrow’s temperature will be again a little bit higher, and – by Friday – it (might be) – back near-normal again with more clouds. Next spring, maybe like this spring, maybe not.
We are by nature and training and evolution/nature/(intelligent) design able to see cycles, and by nature and design expect to see cycles. So mote it be.
Now, the question is: Are there longer cycles than yearly that either affect climate (temperatures) or is “Climate” (the average of all global temperatures) merely a “number” for whatever cycles happen to be vibrating about (randomly AND resonantly) at today’s moment in time?
Two. I am suspicious of the article’s “200+ year” cycle: It is too conveniently close to their “65 year cycle” third resonance. Also: I understand the PDO/Pacific fisheries cycle is not 65, but closer to 68 years period. (The writers are correct: That 68 (or 65) year cycle extends clearly in the record back to the first records of the Pacific.) Is not 3×68 (198 years) matching what they expect to see during that 200+ cycle?
If a 200+ cycle is “only” 0.15 degrees, but the 68 year cycle is a “barely detectable” 0.10 degrees, every year close to that 200 year resonance point will be 0.25 “high” (on average) over a fairly long period of time- like what we see now.
But what explains the longer 1000 year cycle?
Third: To explore THAT topic: Do we not FIRST have to get some form of “agreement” on what cycles have occurred in the past?
Thus, A Skeptic’s 97% Acceptable Questions:
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Little Ice Age lowest temperature “bottomed out” between 1600-1650 at -1.0 degrees from today’s reference 0.0?
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Medieval Warming Period “peaked” between 950-1050 AD at 0.6 degrees above today’s 0.0 reference point in 1970?
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that there were peaks and troughs a bit later: That some years AFTER 1050 were as hot as today, and some years BEFORE the LIA were as cold as that low point?
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that – cycles aside – some years” are “just weather” and some variation from the “average perfect cycle” are going to be different? (But today’s 17 year of “no measurable increase despite CO2 increasing steadily” IS well past statistical variation.)
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that today’s 2000-2015 nominal 0.25 degrees acceptable as a “starting point” to compare past temperatures against some long-term plot?
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the trough of the Dark Ages did occur? (What was that low point, and when did that trough occur?)
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Roman Warm Period did occur? (But, when did that high point occur, and what was its peak temperature?)
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Minoean Warm Period did occur? (But, when did that high point occur, and what was its peak temperature?)
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that we are in a Modern Optimum Period (of unknown duration – now 12,000 years long) between 12,000 year hot points inside a longer 100,000 massive glacier cycle?
Mosher says:
“You can find anything you look for. ”
“Any result that finds a small influence for C02 is wrong.”
QED.
From ref [1]:
“The agreement of the reconstruction of the temperature
history using only the six strongest components of the spec-
trum, with M6, shows that the present climate dynamics is
dominated by periodic processes. This does not rule out a….”
I don’t think that is the correct conclusion to draw, especially when the visual comparison this comment relates to is a 15y low-pass filtered version of the data anyway. (As I commented above, it would have fitted even better but for the crappy running mean filter they chose).
“only the six strongest components” really means 16 fitting parameters (probably plus 17th as constant). They should be able to get pretty close to anything with that. It is not proof that climate is dominated by periodic processes.
Sorry, I’d like to agree, but that is not the correct conclusion to be drawn from that model.
:blush: my spelling checker failed to point out that 3*6 is 18 , not 16 (not my fault , honest).
[But if “16 fitting parameters” becomes “18 fitting parameters” what does the “17” become? Mod]
RACookPE1978 says:
Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Little Ice Age lowest temperature “bottomed out” between 1600-1650 at -1.0 degrees from today’s reference 0.0?
Nope. I agree with most of the rest, but I think the LIA really bottomed out in the 1500s. The trend started back up when the Maunder event sidetracked it temporarily giving a false bottom. My best guess, the MWP maxed out in about 1100, the LIA bottomed out around 1550 and the modern warm period maxed out around 2000. A 900 year cycle.
My big question is this… If it fits the temperature of the [last] 200 years, which temperature sets did they use?
If they use the temperature data sets of the global warmists, data sets that have been manipulated down in years past and manipulated up in recent years, doesn’t that pretty much totally destroy any credibility of their research and findings?
Richard M says:
December 17, 2013 at 8:44 am
Mosher says:
“You can find anything you look for. ”
“Any result that finds a small influence for C02 is wrong.”
QED.
———
Beat me to it Rchard. Sad thing is Mosher is completely blind to this.
Hi,
This does not seem to be a serious scientific work. You fit pretty much anything well with a 7th degree Fourier decomposition. The periods of the sine and cosine functions in this decomposition are 254/j, j= 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; they are not the ~200 and ~65 always mentionned in the paper.
The affirmation the those two periods are much important than the others in fitting the short temperature history is unsupported (and false).
Also: could someone print this fourier decomposition over a couple of millinia before and after…? We will see how bad a choice this is for prediction.
I just had 10 minutes to look at this during lunch time, but I think that his is not serious.
JD
QED. Hmmmn.
That’s Latin for Quoting Errors Deliberately?
Love the word “ununderstood”.
I think in climate science there is a lot of ‘misununderstanding’ going on.
Including the ebb and flow of glacials and interglacials?
Mosher says:
“Here is another clue. Any result that finds a small influence for C02 is wrong.”
Louis says:
December 17, 2013 at 8:42 am
“Why is that, Mosher? The past 17 years have shown us little to no influence for CO2. ”
Steven is being sarcastic.
/sarc
TBraunlich says:
Love the word “ununderstood”.
I think in climate science there is a lot of ‘misununderstanding’ going on.
Yes, that made me smile too. It’s a double negative, it should have been they are derstood. 😉
Well, above stood. See, it works.
=============
RACookPE1978 says:
“Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Little Ice Age lowest temperature “bottomed out” between 1600-1650 at -1.0 degrees from today’s reference 0.0?”
I hope not, see this CET reconstruction from tonyb: http://snag.gy/GPfpe.jpg
“Do 97% of serious climate skeptics agree that the Minoan Warm Period did occur? (But, when did that high point occur, and what was its peak temperature?)”
It seems that advocates of man-made warming rewrote history and decided that the Minoan Warm Period peaked around 1300-1200 BC, by looking at temperatures in Greenland, and at least 97% of the sceptics believed them: http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
They actually flourished from around 2700 BC, like many other cultures did, 1300-1200 BC was a
cold period in the temperate zone that caused the demise of most of them, including the Minoans.
Ulric Lyons,
That second chart is a keeper! I’ve added it to my chart collection. Thanks.