Guest essay by Johannes Herbst
There is a much discussed graph in the blogosphere from ‘Tamino’ (Grant Foster), which aims to prove that there is no delay or pause or decline in global warming.
He states: Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the no-warming prediction:
Let’s get a larger picture:
- We see the red HADCRUT4 graph, coming downwards a bit from 1960 to 1975, and inclining steeper beyond 2000, with a slight drop of about the last 10 years.
- We see a blue trend, rising at the alarming rate of 0.4°C within only one decade! This was the time when some scientists started to worry about global warming.
- We see the green trend, used by the blogger Tamino in the first graphic, rising less than 0.1°C per decade.
- Below we see the Sunspot Numbers, pulsing in a frequency of about 11 years. Comparing it with the red temperature graph, we see the same pattern of 11 years pulsing. It shows clear evidence that temperature is linked to the sunspot activity.
Tamino started his trend at high sun activity and it stopped at low activity. Therefore the weak increase during 18 years.
Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change? If we look at the sunspot activity and the clear pattern it produces in the temperature graph, the answer is: 11 years or a multiple of it.
Or we can measure from any point of:
·high sun activity to one of the following
·low sun activity to one of the following
·rising sun activity to one of the following
·declining sun activity to one of the following
to eliminate the pattern of sunspot numbers.
Let’s try it out:
The last point of observation of the trend is between 2003 and 2014, about 2008. But even here we can see the trend has changed.
We do not know about the future. An downward trend seems possible, but a sharp rise is predicted from some others, which would destroy our musings so far.
Just being curious: How would the graph look with satellite data? Let’s check RSS.
Really interesting. The top of both graph appears to be at 2003 or 2004. HADCRUT4 shows a 0.05°C decline, RSS a 0.1°C per decade.
A simple way for smoothing a curve
There is a more simple way for averaging patterns (like the influence of sunspots). I added a 132 months average (11 years). This means at every spot of the graph all neighboring data (5.5 years to the left and 5.5 years to the right) are averaged. This also means that the graph will stop 5.5 years from the beginning or the end. And voila, the curve is the same as with our method in the previous post to measure at the same slope of a pattern.
As I said before the top of the curve is about 2003, and our last point of observation of a 11 years pattern is 2008. From 2008 to 2003 is only 5 years. This downtrend, even averaged, is somehow too short for a long time forecast. But anyway, the sharp acceleration of the the 1975-2000 period has stopped and the warming even halted – for the moment.
Note: I gave the running average graph (pale lilac) an offset of 0.2°C to get it out of the mess of all the trend lines.
If Tamino would have smoothed the 11years sun influence of the temperature graph before plotting the trend like done here at WFT, his green trend would be would be the same incline like the blue 33 year trend:
Even smoother
Having learned how to double and triple smooth a curve, I tried it as well on this graph:
We learned from Judith Curry’s Blog that on the top of a single smoothed curve a trough appears. So the dent at 2004 seems to be the center of the 132 month’s smoothed wave. I double smoothed the curve and reached 2004 as well, now eliminating the dent.
Note: Each smoothing cuts away the end of the graph by half of the smoothing span. So with every smoothing the curve gets shorter. But even the not visible data are already included in the visible curve.
According to the data, after removing all the “noise” (especially the 11 year’s sun activity cycle) 2004 was the very top of the 60 years sine wave and we are progressing downwards now for 10 years.
If you are not aware about the 60 years cycle, I just have used HADCRUT4 and smoothed the 11 years sunspot activity, which influences the temperature in a significant way.
We can clearly see the tops and bottoms of the wave at about 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970, and 2000. If this pattern repeats, the we will have 20 more years going down – more or less steep. About ten years of the 30 year down slope are already gone.
One more pattern
There is also a double bump visible at the downward slopes of about 10/10 years up and down. By looking closer you will see a hunch of it even at the upward slope. If we are now at the beginning of the downward slope – which could last 30 years – we could experience these bumps as well.
Going back further
Unfortunately we have no global temperature records before 1850. But we have one from a single station in Germany. The Hohenpeissenberg in Bavaria, not influenced from ocean winds or towns.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temperaturreihe_Hoher_Pei%C3%9Fenberg.PNG
Sure, it’s only one single station, but the measurements were continuously with no pause, and we can get somehow an idea by looking at the whole picture. Not in terms of 100% perfection, but just seeing the trends. The global climate surely had it’s influence here as well.
What we see is a short upward trend of about ten years, a downward slope of 100 years of about 1°C, an upward trend for another 100 years, and about 10 years going slightly down. Looks like an about 200 years wave. We can’t see far at both sides of the curve, but if this Pattern is repeating, this would only mean: We are now on the downward slope. Possibly for the next hundred years, if there is nothing additional at work.
The article of Greg Goodman about mean smoothers can be read here:
Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’
==================================
Johannes Herbst writes at: http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:55 am
“Unless those things vary systematically and significantly with solar activity they have no systematic effects and wash out. There are no convincing evidence that they do that I know of, but you might correct me on that by linking to what you consider compelling evidence for such variations and that they lead to temperature changes larger than the 0.1 degrees that we observe.”
All I can do is point to a regular periodic (or quasi periodic) ~60 year signal in the temperature data and conclude that something is going on.
If it turns out to be actually regular then Orbital has to be a candidate. It could be Sunspots also but that could be just a reflection of Orbital. Beyond that I am stuck at present.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/Extendedtempseries-secondpass_zps089e4c7d.gif
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:56 am
However, one cannot do the reverse by using the temperature series by itself and find separate identifiable signals from the various components that create the heat or lack thereof on the thermometer. So in a way, she a priori set the outcome of her analysis.
I think one can do that if there is enough variation of the parameters and enough data points. I have myself successfully done that with geomagnetic activity. But, in any case, other people have tried to quantify the effect of solar activity on temperature and they consistently find results in the 0.05 to 0.2 K range, so Lean’s finding is in the ballpark. At any rate, there cannot be an effect larger than that, otherwise it would be plainly obvious and it is not [otherwise we would not discuss it].
A particular interest of mine is temperature lags related to Earth Shine data (a pretty good proxi for clouds and other irradiance reflecting substances, thus amount of solar insolation penetrating the ocean surface) around the equatorial belt, since variously warmed/less warmed water there goes elsewhere as it rides the various currents and winds around the globe in a globby, lagged and various lackadaisical fashion. My back of the envelop hunch is that variations and trends in equatorial Earth Shine indices may show up later as changes and trends in regional land temperatures.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm
All I can do is point to a regular periodic (or quasi periodic) ~60 year signal in the temperature data and conclude that something is going on.
Although you might find people who claim there is a 60-year solar variation, it does not rise over the background [lots of peaks] noise to be significant.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm
A particular interest of mine is temperature lags related to Earth Shine data
I am also following that data with interest [and was at some point toying with the idea of installing one of their monitors in my backyard…]. They are a bit behind in reduction of the data, but so far there does not seem to be a clear solar cycle variation.
richardscourtney says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:57 am
“It seems you are claiming that two parameters (i.e. temperature and TSI) have a causal relationship but they do not correlate. Is that a correct understanding?”
No, I am saying they do not necessarily correlate on an obvious level. That to determine the correlation, you must have a notion of the input/output relationship which is defined by the transmission function from input power to output stored energy.
As an example, I refer you to the simple example in the post above.
Looking at a time series plot of P, you would barely register the constant offset of 1% of the peak signal. But, it would nevertheless be the dominant influence on E.
It can be even more subtle than this.The “1” could simply be white noise with unity area in the PSD below a frequency of w, and despite the complete lack of deterministic correlation, its effects would dominate E.
There is much about this system which is unknown. Jumping to the conclusion that there is no I/O relationship due to a superficial lack of obvious correlation is not justified at this time.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:47 am
“You can point me too an analysis that convinces you that there is an effect to be concerned about and I will take a look…”
As of right now, I have nothing I’d care to share. If you believe there is no evidence which rises to a level which could convince you of a linkage, I am fine with that. I have seen evidence which convinces me that the jury is still out. My glass is half full, and your’s is half empty. There is no reason which compels us to definitively proclaim the glass to be either full or empty at this time.
Proxie problems (a lack of good, consistent ones) and mixing different ways of measuring albedo harms our ability to study this feature of our planet. But mechanistically, I consider this intrinsic parameter to be a candidate for land surface temperature trends. Why? Because of the way in which oceans are heated equatorially to a lesser or greater extent via SW infrared. Trends here could very well end up as trends elsewhere. It’s just hard to say a trend exists when the raw data is so terrible.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/cloudy-outlook-for-albedo/
And I do not mean to correlate albedo measures with solar parameters simply because I haven’t observed a correlation between temps and solar parameters if I assume that temps are a good proxi for albedo. TOA solar indices are not part of my thinking related to temperature trends.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm
I have seen evidence which convinces me that the jury is still out. My glass is half full, and your’s is half empty.
If the jury is still out, it could go either way, so your glass is only quarter full, and thus not to worry about.
Sorry you ladies an gentlemen
you will never get it
because you all keep looking at the wrong parameter
Maximum temperature is a good proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere
and I have reported the results of a globally representative sample in my first table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
not cherry picked but properly balanced (longitude does not matter)
Once you figured out that there is a variation on an 87 or 88 years scale, as reported by various investigations, other than my own!, on energy coming through the atmosphere,it follows that as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
As the people in Alaska have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska since 1998
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
I find that in Alaska or at [60] to [70] latitude it has already been cooling at a rate of 0.55 degrees C per decade since 1998, on average
which is almost ONE full degree C SINCE 1998.
Soon, you will know that we are globally cooling and that it will get serious. You guys are still playing violin while Rome is burning,
ehhh,
that should be freezing….
you have no idea yet what is coming up in the next 20 years.
paradoxically perhaps, I should mention that where it will get drier it might even get a bit hotter…
that is how climate works…
if you know what I mean.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:16 pm
I don’t understand that at all. Tau and omega are presumably constants. If tau * w = 100, then
output = input / 10001
Now, you’ve said:
Since in the example above the output is the input over a constant, it’s not clear how this helps your case …
Now, you say “which of the components of P is going to have greater impact on E”. Well, since E = P/constant, that’s identical to asking which of the components of P is going to impact P the most …
But you haven’t defined your terms. What does “have a greater impact on” mean? First, what are you calling “components”? To be more precise, which of the following parts of P are “components”: 1, 100, w, t, w*t, and cos(w*t)?
Next, by “have a greater impact on”, do you mean “for a given absolute change in the parameter”, or “for a given percentage change in the parameter”. These give very, very different results.
Finally, how are you measuring the impact? I mean, if we change omega, the amplitude doesn’t change but the frequency does, and the opposite is true if we change the “100”. Which is the greater impact?
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
Thankyou for your post at February 10, 2014 at 9:16 pm.
It clearly expresses my puzzlement at the reply to me from Bart. I have been trying to decide how to politely express the puzzlement because I have already had a row with the egregious Gareth P upthread.
Your words summarise my view in language which I would like to be able to emulate. Thankyou.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“Although you might find people who claim there is a 60-year solar variation, it does not rise over the background [lots of peaks] noise to be significant.”
I believe you. I am just trying to explore where the ~60 year signal comes from. I assume you mean Scafetta as the “people”?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:09 am
I am just trying to explore where the ~60 year signal comes from. I assume you mean Scafetta as the “people”?
Good guess
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:39 am
“Good guess” 🙂
I suspect that it is a co-incidence that the two figures are the same. I can find no mechanism that would allow this to be directly Solar output related. The deltas are just too small. I believe that what we have is some orbital or other cyclically related phenomena which happens to have the same periodicity as sun spots or their sub-cycles.
Now all we need is a mechanism 🙂
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:16 am
I suspect that it is a co-incidence that the two figures are the same.
But they are not. There is no significant solar cycle of 60-years. Scafetta’s claim is bogus [as we have discussed before at great length here on WUWT].
@RichardLH
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html, just looking at
I think in the end, only the observed solar/planetary cycles Suess and Gleisberg are relevant for today. This is because whatever cycling happens on earth, must in the end, be a function of the amount of heat that is allowed through the atmosphere. The Gleissberg was confirmed by my own results, going back (only) to 1974. I would not trust anything before 1950 anyway. (no re-calibration of thermometers, no automatic temp. recording)
HenryP says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:57 am
“The Gleissberg was confirmed by my own results, going back (only) to 1974. I would not trust anything before 1950 anyway. (no re-calibration of thermometers, no automatic temp. recording)”
Interestingly, as we are only concerned with deltas not absolutes, it is possible to trace short term variability even in patched and re-worked records. 🙂
Leif:
I agreed that any delta in the Solar figures around 60 years in period length was too small to be significant. Did I not make that clear?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:13 am
I agreed that any delta in the Solar figures around 60 years in period length was too small to be significant. Did I not make that clear?
I sharpened the issue a bit by reminding you that the claim was bogus to begin with.
Leif: So what, if any, long term periodics do you accept can be derived from the Sun (as directly relevant here on Earth)?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:21 am
Leif: So what, if any, long term periodics do you accept can be derived from the Sun (as directly relevant here on Earth)?
There is a ~100 year quasi-period [probably not stable and may range from 80 to 120 years]. Anything longer than that is speculative, although a 200-yr period is often claimed to exist [based on cosmic ray proxies]. We know the reason for the standard 11-yr period, but have no good explanation for any longer periods, although there are [flimsy] claims of astronomical influences.
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:32 am
“There is a ~100 year quasi-period [probably not stable and may range from 80 to 120 years].”
Interestingly there is some support for a period of this sort timescale in my combined plot.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
I have dropped out the >75 year filter on this particular example but a possible part cycle of just this sort of length is visible in the shorter HadCrut only data.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
I also have support for a 90-100 year weather cycle, 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of warming as observed from earth (e.g. flooding of the Nile, Pirana, possibly even other rivers, to be further investigated)
8 years either way from the zero edge is the “pause”, (this is now!) where there appears to be little movement in temperature and weather.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
All I say to that, is that there is a lag from energy-in to energy out. So it is (mainly) the Gleissberg that determines this apparent weather cycle.
Thre decades of cooling is coming up.
Are you (we) ready?
[“The decade” or “Three decades” ? Mod]