By Javier
In a previous article here, I showed how anyone with a computer with internet connection and Excel could check the basis of the 980-year periodicity in solar activity, known as the Eddy cycle, and its excellent match with a North Atlantic iceberg proxy record, known as the Bond series.
In this part I will show you how the same can be done with a proxy for the Asian Monsoon strength based on the deposition of δ18O in a speleothem from stalagmite DA from Dongge Cave in Southern China.
The scientific reference article for this is: “The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate,” by Wang et al., 2005, can be found here. It is a highly cited article, with 1750 citations in Google Scholar. This is by no means fringe science we are dealing with.
And the data for stalagmite DA can be found here.
A plot of this data with both axis inverted for convenience is shown:
Figure 1. Wang et al., 2005 δ18O data from stalagmite DA in Dongge Cave.
As you might remember from the previous article, the frequency analysis for this data was performed by Steinhilber et al., 2012 and is available here.
Figure 2. Steinhilber et al., 2012 Lomb normalized periodogram of total solar irradiance (a) and Asian climate record (δ18O) from Dongge cave, China (b). The horizontal line marks the 95% significance level.
For the analysis, it is better if you detrend the data from its long-term trend, which is caused by slow orbital changes in insolation. There are better ways of detrending data, and Wang et al., 2005 used singular spectrum analysis. But, you can use the Excel trendline tool that gives the formula for a third-degree polynomial, which in this case is:
y = 0.0000000000087*x^3 – 0.000000117*x^2 + 0.00022*x – 7.4517
Figure 3. Polynomial fit to Dongge Cave DA stalagmite data.
So, you now just subtract the polynomial from the data, and its new trend is flat.
Figure 4. Detrended Dongge Cave stalagmite DA data.
At this point Wang et al., 2005 compare their data with the atmospheric Δ14C record and notice the high correlation, particularly for the 9-6 ky BP.
Figure 5. Solar proxy and Dongge Cave DA stalagmite data comparison. Notice that the x-axis is inverted with respect to the other figures.
But you want to go further and check the millennial periodicity found in the Dongge cave data to see how well it agrees with the other two millennial periodicities, in solar activity and in North Atlantic iceberg activity.
For that you need to reduce the noise in the data, and you should run a 75-point moving average through the Dongge Cave stalagmite DA data. This is equivalent to a 150-225-year average that doesn’t affect millennial variability.
Figure 6. Detrended 75-point averaged Dongge Cave stalagmite DA data.
Now it is time to compare all the data. Remember that 980-yr sine function with the formula y = sin 2π/980(x) that matched solar variability? The function did not match solar variability in the 4100-1800 BP period where the millennial periodicity had low power in wavelet analysis. That period was marked with blue boxes in the figures in Part I. Here I have modified the function to better represent solar activity by decreasing its amplitude during that period. Also, the Bond data has been compressed by 1.7% in the temporal axis to correct for the evident age model drift discussed in the previous article.
Now let’s plot it all together.
Figure 7. The millennial cycle in solar activity (red, the 980-year Eddy solar cycle), North Atlantic iceberg activity (blue, inverted, LHS), and Asian Monsoon strength (black, RHS). Thick arrows show periods when low solar activity, increased iceberg activity, and a weaker monsoon coincided within dating uncertainty. The blue box covers the period when solar activity did not display a 980-year frequency peak. At that time the periodicity became lost also in iceberg activity and monsoon strength. RWP, Roman Warm Period. DACP, Dark Ages Cold Period. MWP, Medieval Warm Period. LIA, Little Ice Age. MGW, Modern Global Warming.
We can follow up on the conclusions from part I:
-
There is a 980-year periodicity in solar activity cosmogenic isotope records, known as the Eddy cycle (Part I).
-
This periodicity shows an excellent match with North Atlantic iceberg proxy records, known as the Bond series, except for a period ~ 4100-1800 BP (Part I).
-
This periodicity also shows an excellent match with Asian Monsoon proxy records from Dongge Cave stalagmite DA, except for a period ~ 4100-1800 BP (Part II).
- The period of poor solar-climate match corresponds to a period when solar activity does not show a strong Eddy cycle periodicity, further reinforcing the solar-climate relationship (Parts I and II).
The evidence supports that the North Atlantic and Southern China display a millennial climate periodicity throughout most of the Holocene. This periodicity agrees well with historical and archeological evidence for the past 2000 years where a millennial periodicity can also be inferred. Reconstruction of solar activity from solar proxies displays the same periodicity in phase with the climatic periodicities. The most reasonable explanation is that small long-term changes in solar output of a periodic nature are responsible for the observed climatic effects. That we do not know what causes the periodicity or how the climate responds to long-term small changes in solar output is no excuse for ignoring the evidence.
The most important consequence for the present is that we are living through a period of several centuries when warming was expected from this millennial periodicity, and warming has occurred. Even if CO2 emissions since the mid-20th century have contributed to the warming, the implications and consequences of the proposed anthropogenic effect on climate are radically different if a strong cyclical solar effect is responsible for part of the warming.
Javier
I am surprised that you think CO2 has a ‘warming’ function.
This is not supported by the chemistry. CO2 can also be found to be cooling the atmosphere 1-2 um as evident from the experiment of identifying substances in earth’s atmosphere via deflection by the moon.
My data sets show clearly no influence by CO2/
The glacier and arctic data you quote are all in the NH and we know from the measurements that earth’s inner core has been moving north east, Apparently faster than usual during the past century.
Most data sets are biased towards the NH and not balanced.
So, we can explain modern warming by natural processes.
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..
Henryp,
What I know of chemistry doesn’t contradict that CO₂ can cause warming, even though it is more of a physical mechanism.
Yes the Northern Hemisphere has been warming more. It is where most of the land is located and global warming is being driven by NH land warming.
You are correct on that, and I understand that you think you are that man, but why would the rest of us think so? Your station data is interesting, but it conflicts with the well supported data that minimum temperatures have been on the rise. Even CET is very clear about that with its winter series.
Hi Javier
I had counted you amongst the 1% who are a bit more intelligent…
If you want to prove to me that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling you have to come up with a balance sheet showing me the results of exactly how much [more] heat is trapped [earthshine 14-15 um] and how much [more ] heat is deflected [sunshine 1-2 um and 4-5 um] if the CO2 rises with 0.01% in the atmosphere as it has in the past 40 years. I am afraid that the closed box arguments from our forefathers won’t work out for us in this case. That is the very mistake that science made that caused a wrong policy being pursued..
This being a difficult case, and me having no equipment I opted looking for an empirical way to find out for myself. Realizing that computers and automatic recording started about 40 years ago, it would be dumb to look at global T before that time.
It was clear that the increase in CO2 did not affect the temperature here in South Africa. If anything, my results indicated that the increase in CO2 was cooling the atmosphere. Indeed, my results also showed that there has been no warming in the whole of the SH, namely 0.000 K/annum whilst in the NH it was 0.024K/annum [over the past 40 years], giving me an overall average of 0.012K/annum. In addition, my results show cooling during the past 10 years or so.
These results are not compatible with AGW:
a) if CO2 is rising globally, as it does, as measured, one would expect to see temperatures rise everywhere.
the same way. That takes the G out of AGW.
b) if in the last ten years it started cooling [as indeed my graph for global minimum T shows] it means there is no warming anymore.
That takes the W out of AGW.
c) A further clue was the fact that there was no chaos in my random sample of weather stations [that was balanced to zero latitude]. when I looked at minimum T. You just cannot get better than 1.0000 on Rsquare. That takes away the A.
There is no man made warming!
I challenge you to come up with an alternative theory other than the one that I have myself for my own results: namely that earth’s inner core has been moving north east leaving the SH cooler or unchanged. (magnetic stirrer effect). The increase in greenery [on landmass] due to a variety of reasons, also traps heat. One can see this in Las Vegas where they turned a desert into an oasis. This may also be a contributory factor for the increase in T {NH) but I don’t by how much..
Be careful looking at CET alone as I happened to find that area a bit out of sync [although the GB wave is there] with the rest of the world. Perhaps this is to do with the occurrence of weather systems.
Come with me 1km down into a gold mine here and discover with me how big the elephant in the room really is….
Henry, my intelligence is not the issue here, and quite frankly my opinion amounts to nothing in this scientific debate. The arguments for why an increase in GHGs cause warming are in the scientific literature, and the evidence supports that they do. In my opinion the only question is how much. Obviously if the published science doesn’t convince you I won’t either. Your approach is fine with me and the evidence that you show interesting, but your case is common in science. There are always fringe hypotheses that try to explain things alternatively, and in 99% of the cases those fringe hypotheses turn out to be wrong, which is unsurprising. I lack the capacity to evaluate your hypothesis in a critical way, but that doesn’t say anything about it. Others do and you should subject your hypothesis to their consideration. And if they disagree, then you must consider the possibility that perhaps you are wrong.
In essence I’m a skeptic. So I am skeptical that a large proportion of the observed warming is due to the increase in CO₂. The evidence doesn’t support it, and the observed effects indicate the planet is responding less to CO₂ and more to long-term solar changes than what is considered in models. But my skepticism also works for alternative interpretations, and quite frankly I am deeply skeptical of hypotheses based on a supposed cooling, because such cooling hasn’t taken place so far.
Javier
Needless to say that I did look at all the so called ‘evidence’ of more CO2 causing global warming since when I started looking at this problem, about 9 years ago. You can throw at me what you like.
However, I figure you are not a chemist which may put you at a disadvantage with me. Perhaps the subject is also a bit off topic here.
I am just a hobbyist. Not interested in publication but willing to help push people in the right direction.,
You can duplicate my results provided you understand my sampling technique.
Start off by looking in your own backyard. Tell me: is it getting warmer or cooler, where you live? Let me know.
I was very surprised to find it was getting cooler in the place where I live: I am sure that started me off by maybe becoming sceptic of all results on global warming.
Your work on the various SC’s is very good and I commend you for that. I believe you are right on this but there maybe varying mechanisms causing the warming and cooling.apart from simple variation in solar irradiation…
Henry, I checked a couple of stations nearby where I live, and the data shows essentially the same that the average for the whole country. Slight cooling 1950-1976, warming of ~ 1°C 1976-1998, and flat since until the warmer El Niño 2015-17.
One degree average is quite a lot. I have distinct memories of colder winters in the 70’s that became milder in the 80’s so the data fits my experience. Global warming was something that happened in the 80-90’s.
OK.
that looks typical NH.
Remember to double check the source: my experience is that it is best to use the Spanish source
http://www.tutiempo.net
You cannot really go more than 40 years back because of the differences in measuring and recording unless you stick with Min. or Max. where it was simply a matter of reading the thermometer at where it got stuck every day.
Now, what you could do is look for a weather station in the SH at same [negative ] latitude as yours and see what you find there. If your theory of GW is correct you should find a similar trend as where you live > not so? If my theory is correct you will be surprised…..either way, you are on your way to building your own data set. You will need to look at least at 50 stations as a reasonable sample.
I used the derivative of the least square equations for each of the 4 periods that I chose to look at in time [backwards]. That gives you K/annum [if the station is using Celsius]
[as shown of each of the 11 stations of my example for South Africa above]
This way you don’t have to worry about longitude and you eliminate or very much reduce the error between stations.
As an example take the case of George, South Africa. the link to the original data is here:
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/George_Airport/688280.htm
It gives the average yearly mean, max. and min. temps, in that order, as per the first three columns.
I copied that data to my Excel sheet
For the years with missing data, you have to go to the individual months and look at every month’s average. Click on the relevant (blue) year and chose the month.
[For months with less than 15 days data I applied the rule that I would rather take the average of
[same] month of the preceding year and the following year, thereby adhering to Rule no. 1]
Once you have a complete list of the average annual temperatures, you can do the least square linear regressions from at least 4 points. [you need at least 4 points to define a function]. The overall result for George is an average decline of -0.0131K per annum since 1978, that is -0.5 degrees C, in total, since 1978, as shown (the value before the x, i.e. derivative)
By selecting different periods of data [in the graph] you can get the various inclines/declines from more recent times {i.e. the values before the x}, getting at least for 4 points for the speed of warming/cooling.
George is just one single result in my files. I have 54 in total.
Let me know if you there is anything that is not clear to you as to how I obtained my data.
Best wishes,
Henry
lol
sorry, forgot
there a few rules for building a correct dataset
1) no. of stations SH = no. of stations NH
2) all stations must balance out to zero or close to zero latitude
3) each hemisphere: divide stations 70/30 @sea/inland
it therefore does become a bit of a puzzle and for one man it is a lot of work unless you had a class of Stats students working for you>?
[use the university to your advantage]
Let’s see how this year and the next few years unfold. I say this year is a turn point.
What I am watching is overall sea surface temperatures now only at+.150c deviation down from around +.35c this summer.
Also snow cover, cloud cover and major silica volcanic activity. It is to bad we don’t have better data on cloud cover.
From ocean tid bits site and is updated every six hours.
Yogi said
Which is that solar declined most recently from 1990 or 1995 depending on whether one looks at UV or plasma.
Henry@Yogi
Interesting. My various calculations looking at a number of different parameters also bring me to 1995 as a turning point [on the sun], one of which was looking at Tmax (global) coming through the atmosphere. I was sure to see cooling starting from this date onward [on earth] but I guess that the oceans act like a capacitor so there is a lot of heat stored that only comes out later. A 5-10 year delay to see a turning point on earth is therefore perhaps quite normal. I also suspect a lot of incorrect ‘adjustments’ leaving people to believe it is still warming whereas in actual fact it has now started cooling – as my results are showing.
Ocean argument is failing as one can see by the latest data. I have been calling for this.
This should be the turn year as I have said countless times as the prolonged solar minimum gets going and this solar cycle has a long way to go yet.
Oceans were running around +.35c deviation this summer.
…..winter is coming….