Here are some highlights of these two new papers published in Physics Letters A by :
- Central Pacific region temperature dataset SST3.4 from 1990 to 2014 is studied.
- SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing.
- SST3.4 also contains a signal (<1 cycle/yr) showing El Niño/La Niña effects.
- This signal contains segments of period 2 or 3 years, phase locked to the annual.
- A 12-month moving average improves on a “climatology” filter in removing annual effects.
- Global ocean temperatures at depths 0–700 m and 0–2000 m from 1990 to 2014 are studied.
- The same phase-locked phenomena reported in Paper I are observed.
- El Niño/La Niña effects diffuse to the global oceans with a two month delay.
- Ocean heat content trends during phase-locked time segments are consistent with zero.
The papers, the link downloads the full PDF:
Paper 1 Abstract
Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057
Conclusions and summary
Phase-locked sequences are found in Pacific Ocean SST3.4tem-perature data during the periods 1991–1999, 2002–2008 and in 2009–2013. These three sequences apparently being separated by climate shifts. It is asserted that the associated climate system is driven by a forcing of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1)A direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2)A phase-locked response at either the second or third sub-harmonic of the putative solar forcing between 1991 and 1999; 2001–02 and 2008; and again between 2008 and 2013.
This study confirms the results of [1]that some of the largest maxima/minima in the oscillations of the phase-locked state corre-spond to well-known El Niños/La Niñas. For example, the sequence 1996 La Niña – 1997/98 El Niño – 1999 La Niña corresponds to a minimum–maximum–minimum portion of phase-locked segment #9. The climate system is presently (June 2014) in a phase-locked state of periodicity 3 years. This state, which began in 2008, con-tains a maximum (El Niño) at about 2010 followed by a minimum (La Niña) followed by a maximum (weak El Niño at about 2013). If the climate system remains in this phase-locked state, the next maximum will not occur until about 2016 – i.e., no El Niño before that date. On the other hand, if a maximum occurs before then, it will signal the end of the phase-locked segment (and therefore a climate shift).
On its web site [15]the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration asks: “How often does La Niña occur?” Answer: “El Niño and La Niña occur on average every 3 to 5 years. However, the histori-cal record the interval between events has varied from 2 to 7 years. …” Our findings show that duringphase-locked time segments the period is either 2 or 3 years. If a longer interval is observed, this is notrepresentative of a variable ‘period,’ but indicates the occur-rence of a climate shift between phase-locked segments.
It is pointed out that the 12-month moving average filter is demonstrably superior to the climatology method of removing sea-sonal effects in data. This is seen to be the case for interpretation of El Niño/La Niña data, which contains spurious annual effects when treated under the climatology scheme.
An extension of these results to global data will be presented in a second Letter [16]. It will be shown that patterns of sub-harmonics identical to those described here occur throughout the oceans.
Paper 2 Abstract
In part I, equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature index SST3.4 was found to have segments during 1990–2014 showing a phase-locked annual signal and phase-locked signals of 2- or 3-year periods. Phase locking is to an inferred solar forcing of 1.0 cycle/yr. Here the study extends to the global ocean, from surface to 700 and 2000 m. The same phase-locking phenomena are found. The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.
The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058
Conclusions and summary
Global ocean temperature time series from the surface to depths of 2000m since the year 2000 are found to agree in detail with those of other diverse climate indices. It is asserted that these systems are driven by a forcing unquestionably of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1) a direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2) a second phase-locked response at a period of two years or three years.
With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire cli-mate system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation, and is subject to interactions, most likely nonlinear, thatproduce the subharmonics of two or three year period, and is moreover evolving non-continuously, as evidenced by breaks in the pattern whose timing can be identified with known climate shifts. The most prominent manifestations of the pattern are found in the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. As emphasized in [2], the “natural” pe-riodicity of El Niño/La Niña is two or three years, and observations of longer intervals should be considered probable evidence for an intervening climate shift.
This is why there have been so many different climatic outcomes in the historical climatic record of the earth despite more or less the same forcing from various sources being in play.
The meat is in the historical climatic record which shows a different climatic outcome despite more or less the same forcing in place.
That means either this statement is correct or that various forces acting upon the climate in the past have not been consistent.
It has to be one or the other or a combination of the two because of the simple fact the climate of the earth has changed over time sometimes in a rather drastic manner while at other times hardly at all. The climate has not been static ,that is the fact of the matter.
Something is causing this to occur.
What it shows is that your various statements are incorrect, so ‘no meat’
The bottom line is the climate has changed as a result of out side forcing or earth dynamics or a combination of the two.
One can not get around that unless one wants to make the argument that the climate of the earth has always been static with no glacial periods or inter- glacial periods for example never mind other oddities in the climatic record such as the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum.
The glacial periods are well explained by the effect of [mainly] Jupiter on the Earth’s orbit and have nothing to do with solar activity or cosmic rays or CO2 or whatever other straw men people trot out. Still no meat on your utterances.
What is the “effect of Jupiter”?
Jupiter perturbs the orbit of the Earth, making it more round at times and more oval at other times and also moves the time of closest approach to the Sun around a bit affecting the amount of sunlight we get. Jupiter does not change solar activity IMHO: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
Environmental Earth Sciences
November 2014
Date: 18 Nov 2014
Jupiter’s effect on Earth’s climate
O. G. Sorokhtin, G. V. Chilingar, N. O. Sorokhtin, M. Liu, L. F. Khilyuk
Abstract
This paper deals with cyclical effect of Jupiter on Earth’s climate. The period of Earth’s interaction with Jupiter and of its effect on the position of Earth’s orbit is approximately equal to 11.86 years and the Earth’s temperature seasonal fluctuations is equal to 12 months. Modeling indicates that the superposition of large planets’ (mostly Jupiter) that effect Earth’s climate should result in the modulation of seasonal temperature fluctuations of ±2.5 °C with the total period of 12 years. The real climatic fluctuations in the near-surface areas of Earth are modified first of all by the Sun’s revolution around the center of mass of the Solar system, as affected by the gravitational pull of large planets (Jupiter and Saturn).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12665-014-3694-7
Leif,
I don’t think I have ever read before about the glacial period influence by Jupiter, but if I had seen it before I don’t remember it.
But it would not surprise me a bit.
Now I don’t think the orbital period of Jupiter is anywhere near as long as the interval between ice ages, so it can’t be that simple.
Do you know the period of this orbital eccentricity shift; or is it even a periodic effect rather than just cyclic ??
Thanks for mentioning it anyway. I will have to look out for any papers on that subject.
G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The evidence is in the FACT the climate is not static. I rest my case..
Please do. And leave it resting forever.
Leif and you always prove my point by showing how the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time. So thanks for making my point.
Your point being that the alleged correlations including the ones with solar activity do ‘not hold up over time’. So we seem to agree on that, so you can now rest.
Wrong for the reasons I just stated. That is where the connect is missing in that climate sensitivity to given forces is not going to be the same due to the mean state of the climate of the earth and the earth dynamic at that particular point in time. That does not mean however the climate does not react to those forces only that it reacts in a different degree to the given force.
You have tried to show this to be the case over and over again. Your last post is a great example.
Perhaps you painted yourself into a corner with “prove my point by showing how the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time”.
Now you are trying to save face by saying that sometimes they hold and sometimes they don’t and all ti different degree, sometimes this way, sometimes that way. All of that are simply excuses for the fact that there are no demonstrated valid correlations. And now, go rest your case. I think we have heard enough of meatless nonsense.
Leif again thanks for helping me draw these conclusions which I believe are on the correct path.
“the various forcing correlations do not hold up over time” is indeed a good conclusion. Glad to have been of help to get you to this point.
Exactly because the sensitivity of the climate to forcing depends upon the mean state of the climate/earth dynamic at that time of the given force.
This is my last post Anthony is going to get tired of this I think.
If one want to get into Milankovitch Cycles and see all the inconsistencies this a great paper to read.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
The main conclusion of the paper is “The start of interglacials is in line with the canonical view
of Milankovitch forcing dictating the broad timing of interglacials” and they go on “These observations suggest that one may be able to predict the broad duration of an interglacial from its very outset”.
My conclusion is that the M-cycles are well understood and the ‘inconsistencies’ are not important.
Whatever the forcing, it relates to the rate-of-change of temperature, not the temperature itself. To relate the forcing to temperature requires the time-integral of the anomaly of the forcing where the anomaly is the deviation from an average value.
In ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, it is asserted that the graph which shows that CO2 level and temperature go up and down together indicates that climate change is caused by CO2 change. Actually, with application of valid science (that the temperature depends on the time-integral of the forcing), that graph PROVES that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
that the temperature depends on the time-integral of the forcing
Clearly not, as the body continuously cools by radiating…
And the planet is continuously heated by insolation which is also not relevant to the point. The point being that the effect of a factor related to energy rate on temperature is cumulative with time.
It appears the difference is in the definition of the word ‘forcing’. I have used it to be synonymous with energy rate (power) while most, if not all others, use it to mean the time integral of power which is energy. To clarify, replace my use of the word ‘forcing’ with ‘energy rate’.
An integral is taken between a lower and upper limit of the dependent variable [the domain D]. If you do not specify what D is, the result is indefinite. As the integrand is positive [in your case], the integral diverges as time goes by. It is thus not clear what you mean.
Cancel “It appears the difference is in the definition of the word ‘forcing’” in my 3:57 post. I goofed on what I (briefly) thought others mean by ‘forcing’. All others that I looked at use W/m^2 which is power, same as I use it.
As to your 5:16 PM post, The ‘domain’ is the time period being considered. Pick any start date and end date. The domain may include both glacial and inter-glacial periods. The net effect of CO2 on temperature must be the time-integral of the CO2 forcing anomaly where the anomaly is the deviation from the average CO2 value. High levels of CO2 will produce up trends in temperature and low levels of CO2 will produce down trends in temperature. This produces a graph completely different from what has been measured at e.g. Vostok thus proving that CO2 is not a forcing.
If you have any [reasonable] function then the integral of the difference between the function and its average over any domain is zero [hint: there is as much area above the average line as below].
Leif,
You said “there is as much area above as below”. Exactly. Do that for any time period before 1900 and experience the epiphany of discovering that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Use a number slightly above or below the average and see the average slope of the calculated temperature trend change. Offset it up or down to match the temperature on any date. But always, the calculated temperature trajectory will show no similarity to the measured.
Understand the analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and discover that CO2 has had no significant effect on climate after 1900 either.
No. Not ‘exactly!’ The point is that the integral is ALWAYS zero no matter what the domain is.
You are barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps you didn’t see the correction of my typo: “not” was missing.
Let me try to clarify. Select a time period that includes part of both glacial and contiguous inter-glacial periods. The integration (using CO2 values from e.g. Vostok data) is of the CO2 anomaly (which is the difference between the value for that year and the average for the total period) from the start year to the second year, and then the anomalies from the second and third years from the start year to the third year, and then the anomalies of the second, third and fourth years from the start year to the fourth year, and so on. The result of the integration from the start year to the second year is a point (which is a temperature anomaly) on the trajectory at the date of the second year, the result of the integration from the start year to the third year is a point on the trajectory at the date of the third year, and so on. The result (with appropriate scale factors and offset) is a calculated trajectory of the temperature anomalies vs. time based on the CO2 level as it varies from the start time. The observation that this temperature anomaly trace has no resemblance to the measured temperature anomaly trace, and can not be made to resemble the measured anomaly trace by adding or subtracting any amount from the average, proves that CO2 does not act alone and at most is a very minor player.
In “agwunveiled”, CO2 is handled as shown in Equation 1 of http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html. As described in “agwunveiled”, I added temperature values calculated using the equation (with and without CO2) for each year to an approximation of the contribution from ocean cycles for that year. Coefficients on each factor were (alternately and repeatedly) adjusted to achieve the absolute maximum R^2 when compared to a HADcrut4 based combination of reported temperature anomalies. As shown in Table 1 of the analysis at “agwunveiled”, R^2 is more than 0.9 and not significantly different whether the influence of CO2 is included or not which demonstrates that the effect of CO2 change on climate is insignificant.
This whole methodology is somewhat better laid out in the paper published at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
Lots of folks have been barking up the same tree. That doesn’t make it the right tree. Many will be embarrassed as it becomes more obvious that it was the wrong tree.
The equation (the first one in agwunveiled) allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend tthrough 2013 calculated using data to 1990 (24 years earlier) and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013. The predictions depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020. The predictions to 2037 for two assumptions of SS numbers are graphed in Figure 1 of the “AGWunveiled” paper. Click on my name to see the graph through 2013 with 2.5 sigma limits wrt the calculated trend.
There is a lot of what appears to be random uncertainty in reported measurements of AGT. I found s.d. = 0.09 k wrt the trend calculated by the equation. The calculated trend is down but because of the large uncertainty in the measurements it could be up to 5 years before the calculated trend is verified.
Regardless, the integral will always be exactly ZERO.
Leif,
You are not paying attention. The result is a series of integrals.
As a simple example, assume the case of CO2 varying lineally from 280 at time 0 to 300 at time 20. The trajectory of the integrals is a series of numbers that vary as a parabola starting at -10 at time 0, bottoming a bit lower than -55 at 289.5 and curving back up to zero at time 20. Zero only occurs at the end of the time interval.
Hi Leif Is the ice at the poles the same reason the windscreen of my car ices up on a cold day when I turn the heater on.? A hot interior radiates outwards till it meets a surface and the cold of space radiating inwards till it meets the same surface and the result icing
No, cold doesn’t radiate inwards. The surface loses heat by radiating in all directions. Space is a good sink for the heat. Turning on the heater does not cause icing up.
Heater circulates air. When the air inside the car cools down against the cold windscreen (your cold “radiating inwards”), its relative humidity increases and some moisture condenses. If the windscreen is cold enough, some humidity can first condense and then freeze on the glass. It is sometimes awful to be already driving along highway and then suddenly some humidity melts in the heater just enough to end up frozen in the windshield blocking all visibility.
If the sky is cloudless during a night, a car parked out may get its windshield heavily frozen even when the air temperature is not necessarily below freezing point. The windshield cools by radiating so that it ends up colder than the air, then it condenses and freezes some moisture from the warmer and relatively humid air. But this is just my theory – never measured the air temp above by windshield compared to the windshield temp.
Cold doesn’t radiate inwards? I thought it did.
Just like when you turn on a light, you’re really turning off the dark.
☺
Proof: the wick of a burning candle turns black from all that dark it is sucking up…
..funny but untrue – it`s actually spitting it out..
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
I have believed this was the case for years from several sources of data but these are just 2 more confirming that the Sun controls our climate and weather. Piers Corbyn after all does a good job of predicting weather using the Sun in combination with the Moon. I know he doesn’t get everything right, nor does he have predictions of events that happen. Sometimes there is not enough indication of an event. Where he shines is in the prediction of off the wall events that no one could have foreseen like the blizzard in the midwest in 2008, the 4 huge snowstorms from the day after Christmas thru Jan in winter 2011-2012 to name a couple. Hurricane Irene was another. Anyway, this appears to be a pretty thorough analysis.
The politicians who have been flirting with the UN’s IPCC, and its human CO2 global warming mantra, are not interested in such research. It is irrelevant to them. Leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, they proclaimed that the science was settled and that AR4 was the gold standard in climate science, based solely on peer reviewed research. They decided human activity CO2 is the culprit.
So who is going to educate today’s politicians who have adopted the environmental doctrine as an article of faith?
Leif, let us assume everything you are saying about the climate is correct and that very SLOW Milankovitch Cycles are the key to climate change.
If this premise you hold to be true is correct ,how do you reconcile/apply Milankovitch cycles to all of the many abrupt climatic changes that took place from 22000 years ago to 10000 years ago as the article below confirms has happened through ice core data?
In addition how do you reconcile the fact that at one time glacial/ interglacial phases corresponded highly to the obliquity phase of Milankovitch Cycles only to correlate more to the precession phase of Milankovitch Cycles then finally in the last 800000 years the glacial/inter-glacial cycles started to correspond to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and no longer to obliquity? Why are there inconsistencies? What is the explanation ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Not EVERY climate change is due to M-cycles. Only the very long time scales. And there really aren’t serious inconsistencies. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
“The available evidence supports the essence of the original idea of Koeppen, Wegner, and Milankovitch as expressed in their classic papers [Milankovitch, 1941; Koeppen and Wegener, 1924], and its consequence: (1) the strong expectation on physical grounds that summertime insolation is the key player in the mass balance of great Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets of the ice ages; and (2) the rate of change of global ice volume is in antiphase with variations in summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes that, in turn, are due to the changing orbit of the Earth.”
The key is to analyze the right variable:
“the results presented here demonstrate the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself”.
Here is the classic Milankovitch paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/197-203-Milankovich.pdf
Not EVERY climate change is due to M-cycles.
Correct so the question is what is the something else that must be causing some of the other climate changes?
Any complex enough system has internal random fluctuations and the climate is no exception.
One direction I am leaning in, is the climate changes due to the random chaotic nature of the climate system which gives a mean climate that at times only needs to be moderated to the slightest degree (by any potential climate force no matter how slight ) which results in a cascade of changes due to the non linearity of the climate system.
One must remember the climate is in a delicate balance between glacial versus inter-glacial.
Where my earth dynamic part of my thinking comes in is in times prior to around 2.7 million years ago Milankovitch Cycles were still present and probably the same as they are currently are and yet the climate would not under go glacial-inter-glacial cycles.
I propose the earth dynamics of ice coverage, land-ocean arrangements ,land elevation were different and are some of the players that can account for this.
I propose the earth dynamics of ice coverage, land-ocean arrangements ,land elevation were different and are some of the players that can account for this
You don’t need to propose this, as this is the standard, generally accepted assumption
The apparent difference being you are of the opinion the earth has enough internal random fluctuations to account for this due to the non linearity of the climate system combined with the state of the force of Milankovitch Cycles at any given time. I think that is where you are at. If so I finally have where you are coming from. .
You cannot make such a simple-minded assertion with any hope of being realistic. I am not ‘coming from’ anywhere or anything. I am perfectly willing to accept any specific hypothesis provided evidence that convinces me is presented [with numbers, physics, math, error bars, the works]. So far, I have not seen any regarding the shorter-term variations that pass the ‘smell test’.
Hi again Leif
Our wireless com’s and remote sensing use a forcing (watts) to create a feedback (photons) This is not nature at work rather man manipulating nature . http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0hzDN81ei5cC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=atmospheric+heat+electrons+and+microwaves&source=bl&ots=cLRLKS7Wsq&sig=1yhQcbzhihVjII2TrivMfcVTIio&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8LhjVPSdJqXLmwXAg4CABw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBw
Here’s just a snippet of north American broadcasting and power (ERP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_broadcast_station_classes
Co2 debate is a distraction away from this truth. No mater how long I microwaved water I couldn’t get it to react like this to microwaves . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8
I don’t know what this has to do with the topic under discussion.
Fair enough
Not only, ‘fair enough’, but the way it should be. It is OK to speculate and fabulate as long as it is clearly labeled as such.
This exchange today was very good in my opinion.
lsvalgaard
January 11, 2015 at 2:28 pm
No, cold doesn’t radiate inwards. The surface loses heat by radiating in all directions. Space is a good sink for the heat. Turning on the heater does not cause icing up.
Hi again Leif
For heat to transfer , doesn’t it have to come in contact with something cold for a photon to release. As heat rises cold wants to rush in and replace the void.
At the macroscopic level, heat is the transfer of energy from the high temperature object to the low temperature object. At the particle level, heat flow can be explained in terms of the net effect of the collisions of a whole bunch of little bangers. Warming and cooling is the macroscopic result of this particle-level phenomenon. At a particle level Coulomb’s Law rules (opposites attract and likeness repel )
Fascinating !!!
Still cold does radiate ‘inwards’
No, for a black body the rate of emission is set only by the temperature of the object.
A ‘not’ was missing.
Hi Eli Rabett
If you place a 100c sphere in a oven and set to 300 C , at some point the sphere starts to radiate inwards to the centre and gain temperature .
Like a cool atmosphere does NOT towards a warmer Earth either..?..
The sphere is ALWAYS radiating inward, The sphere is always radiating outwards. If you have a greenhouse gas in the sphere it is always radiating everywhich way.
What you are talking about is the NET energy transfer. If the surface and the inside are at the same temperature then the net is zero. If the surface is warmer then the net transfer is from the inner surface to the gas inside.
One of the confusions here is the definition of heat, which has its roots in the 18th century before people had a very good handle on radiative transfer. FWIW you can distinguish the NET energy transfer as heat and the radiation from bodies as thermal radiation. That reserves heat transfer by radiation as a NET exchange of thermal radiation (Eli is calling it thermal radiation because the intensity and spectrum is determined by the temperature of the body and the emissivity)
OTOH you would have to convince a whole lot of people and rewrite considerable textbooks and journal articles. Good luck with that:), but the distinction does keep things clear in one;s mind.
I believe it’s because of cold space that hot spheres exist. Cold space allows the sun to build pressure .While it’s trying to emit (hot) in all directions, cold space has it contained from all directions . If cold doesn’t create cooling then wouldn’t the big bang be a runaway affect
If you embed a hot sphere in a hot space, it would still be hot…
Perhaps you should read up on some elementary physics on this.
http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/index.html
http://www.physics4kids.com/
Leif I see hot as a forcing and cold as a feedback.
How important is flowing cold water for a nuclear reactor ?
http://www.physics4kids.com/
take the tour
davidswuk January 13, 2015 at 2:34 am
Like a cool atmosphere does NOT towards a warmer Earth either..?..
A “radiate” was missed…..
Re: “Two new papers on ‘climate pacemaker’…” by Douglass and Knox.
The headline “… solar activity …” is misleading. Let me explain the essence of these papers.
First, the “pacemaker” is the annual solar irradiance from the Sun. From astronomy one knows that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is eccentric. As a result the Earth is closest to the Sun in early January [perihelion] and more radiation strikes the Earth than in July. This annual signal has an amplitude of 22.6 W/m2 and is constant. This 22.6W/m2 solar radiation signal drives the Earth’s climate at 1.0 cycles/year. This signal should not be confused with the more familiar much larger seasonal effect, also annual, which is observed at locations north or south of the Equator.
Next, one knows that any non-linear system driven at a fixed frequency can cause a response at subharmonics of that frequency. For a frequency of 1.0 cycles/year this means that responses at ½, 1/3 … cycles/year—i.e. periods of 24, 36 … months. Observation of a subharmonic signal is evidence of both the existence of such a forcing and a nonlinearity. If there is no nonlinearity, then there can be no subharmonic response.
Our papers report the observation of phase-locked signals at subharmonics of 1.0 cycles/year in various climate indices — such as the sea surface temperature signal, SST3.4. We identify these oscillating phase-locked signals with the familiar El Nino/La Nina signals. We point out that the climate system is presently in a phase-locked state of period 3 years. If the climate system remains in this state the next maximum will be at about Nov 2015. This means no El Nino before that date.
One can find these papers at http://www.rochester.edu/~douglass/recent-publications.html.
David Douglass
Department of Physics
University of Rochester
Jan 13, 2015
David , could you give an example of the sort of equation which produces subharmonics ?
BTW , you link 404s
The solutions of the equation for the forced non-linear 1-D oscillator yields subharmonics.
See Stoker (reference 10 in first paper): Section 7 in chapter IV
The corrected link to our two papers is http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/recent-publications.html.
David
This is from Leif , (last paragraph of this post) which makes much sense to me and is needed in this field to bring balance.
On the other side you have speculators like myself which is good but I can not nor can anyone else prove they are correct in what they say.
A perfect example( and there are many others so many others) would be the Younger Dryas sudden beginning ,ending and the climate changes within the period.
This mystery, is still that a mystery and I feel quite strongly until this area of climate change can be solved any future climatic forecast are speculation. Still this is not going to stop me from putting forth my best guess and hope that evidence as years go by support it but evidence as the years go by could as easily go the other way.
I think from all the diverse opinions that have been put out there and people of Leif’s persuasion saying they have no proof that the truth(I speculate) is probably a blend of all this.
The upshot of all of this for me is not to stop speculation but to be much more open minded to opinions that are different from mine. This is what I am learning as I proceed in this most difficult field.
You cannot make such a simple-minded assertion with any hope of being realistic. I am not ‘coming from’ anywhere or anything. I am perfectly willing to accept any specific hypothesis provided evidence that convinces me is presented [with numbers, physics, math, error bars, the works]. So far, I have not seen any regarding the shorter-term variations that pass the ‘smell test’.
The Younger Dryas, imho , was not unusual within the context of the Pleistocene. This sort of thing is seen many times in the ice core record, with the sudden temperature spikes or interstadials followed by a stepdown to previous cold conditions.
You have put your finger on the real paradox of the ice age, that is, when ice extent is at it’s greatest and hence ice albedo is likewise, it suddenly warms, max ice albedo notwithstanding.
I will add that this has >nothing< to do with CO2.