Godfrey Dack writes in with this:
Everyone will be familiar with the difficulty of listening to a conversation held with a friend in a crowded room with many other conversations going on at the same time. So it is with many fields of scientific investigation where it is difficult to tease a particular trend out from masses of data. In the first case, we could call the friend’s conversation ‘The Signal’, and the background conversations ‘The Noise’.
In looking at climate data, trends (the signal) can be graphically represented by a (generally) smooth curve, usually flanked by a range of experimentally predicted or actually measured values (the noise). Joining up every point on a graph of such data would give a jagged line which could be thought of as a combination of many alternating functions over a wide range of frequencies.
If you tuned an old-fashioned analogue radio away from any station the hiss you would hear would be termed ‘White Noise’ whose frequency distribution would be random but whose intensity would be equal over all frequencies like the spectrum of pure white light. Another type of noise encountered in nature shows a random distribution of frequencies but each frequency octave carries the same amount of energy and, because energy of a wave is inversely proportional to the frequency, to make all ‘octave containers’ have the same energy, low frequency octaves carry a greater proportion of the overall energy and because, in light, low frequencies are at the red end of the spectrum this noise is called ‘Pink Noise’. Pink noise phenomena occur a lot in nature and can be the result of some low frequency (i.e. long time-period) disturbance.
In a recently published paper with the snappy title – ‘Intrinsic Pink-Noise Multidecadal Global Climate Dynamics Mode ‘ (paywalled) the authors claim to have discovered pink noise energy signatures, on time scales over many decades, appearing in historical climate proxy data both before, and after The Industrial Revolution. The authors looked at two large data sets: monthly average surface temperatures from 1901 – 2012, and radiological ice-core measurements dating back many thousands of years.
The ‘pink-noise’ aspect of the analysis suggests that there may be some aspect of climate variation due to a naturally produced slow varying function which may be acting together with anthropogenic factors in a resonant fashion rather like an adult pushing a child on a swing just at the right moment can rapidly increase the amplitude of the swing.
The authors make no attempt to identify the origin of the suspected natural component, be it solar, astronomical or as yet of an unsuspected nature, however, if such natural forcing does exist on top of man-made forcing, it may exaggerate the significance of anthropomorphic factors in climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Low frequencies are due to the clustering of volcanic eruptions, land and sub-marine (with no long term data on the later), but generally do not have fixed periodicity.
My money is on oscillations on the huge amount of energy (and energy differentials) stored in the oceans.
But eh, it’s all irrelevant. Nobody has the data to show what is happening off the right hand side of graph 2(d).
Peter
http://carbonconnections.bscs.org/media/images/content/1244.gif
“When the jet fluctuates in both strength and position, if fluctuations in position are relatively large compared to those of strength (as is the case in observations) then the leading EOF is the dipole f1(x).”
There was a typo in the original work. The above f1(x) should have said f2(x).
You can’t identify human impact on “climate” (whatever that is), even less “global climate,” until you have identified and fully accounted for every natural driver. They, the “global warming” charlatans never did this, because they didn’t want to! At the very root of their pseudo-scientific “models” lies the assumption that all global warming is man-made.
If instead you recognize and take into account just the major natural oscillations we know of, e.g., from the work discussed here (there are also many other similar papers, e.g., [1-6]) due to ocean cycles, solar cycles (they are connected), Svensmark’s effect [7], solar shift to UV in times of high activity, &c., it turns out that just about all 20th century warming has a natural explanation, and in consequence the alleged human impact dwindles to zero.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-010-4204-2
[2] https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X17120212
[3] https://doi.org/10.1360/972013-1089
[4] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.02.011
[5] https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-016-1287-y
[6] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2016.08.020
[7] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
Earth’s climate is not amenable to ANY statistical analysis, since it is totally* driven by changing amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, primarily from random volcanic eruptions, but since circa 1850, also by anthropogenic SO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels resulting from the Industrial Revolution .
*Since it is impossible to measure total solar irradiance from the Earth’s surface via proxy measurements, there is no evidence that it has ever changed within historical times.
So far, satellite measurements, above the atmosphere, have only shown changes too small to be discernible in the climatic record.
Burl,
You may be right.
However, I suspect that there are factors additional to your ‘amount of CO2 aerosols’
Solar irradiance; other shielding effects besides aerosols; land cover [some anthropogenically caused, some not]and albedo; Milankovitch cycles; vulcanism; ocean currents; which themselves are probably affected largely by the position of continents; albedo of the oceans, with plankton blooms etc.; tectonics and mountain orogeny.
Some I was able to recall late at night; I am sure other factors will affect weather and temperature and climate, to lesser or greater degrees.
auto
It is ridiculous to even entertain the thought that non existent AGW, which has hi jacked all natural variability which was in a warming mode from the end of the Little Ice Age to 2005 had any climatic impact on the global temperature rise.
My point will be proven now – over the next few years as global temperatures continue to fall in response to all natural climatic factors now transitioned to a cold mode.
If there is any validity to AGW , the global temperatures should continue to rise now-next few years, but they will not because AGW does not exist.
What controls the climate are the magnetic field strengths of both the sun and earth. When in sync as they are now(both weakening) the earth should grow colder.
In response to weakening magnetic fields the following occurs:
EUV light decreases – results in an weaker but more expansive polar vortex. Greater snow coverage.
UV light decreases – results in overall sea surface oceanic temperatures decrease.
Increase in GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS- results in changes to the global electrical circuit, cloud coverage , explosive major volcanic activity.
In other words during periods of very weak long duration magnetic field events the earths cools due to a decrease in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud/snow coverage and explosive volcanic activity.
Thus far all overall global temperature trends for the past year or two have been down and I expect this trend to continue.
Godfrey Dack writes in with this:
“The ‘pink-noise’ aspect of the analysis suggests that there may be some aspect of climate variation due to a naturally produced slow varying function which may be acting together with anthropogenic factors in a resonant fashion rather like an adult pushing a child on a swing just at the right moment can rapidly increase the amplitude of the swing”
Are Telluric currents (Earth Currents) the pink noise???
https://www.nap.edu/read/898/chapter/18
Bruce Leybourne: Earth as a Stellar Transformer — Climate Change Revealed | EU2015
I see the Hoops he talks about as how high and low pressure systems work.
Emminent meteorologists from the meteorological departments around the world presented a manual on climate change as back as 1966 [WMO, 1966]. In this document they proposed several methods to separate trend from natural variations; and understanding the cyclic nature of natural variation. I used these techniques in around 1975 onwards as one of the author is my boss [late Shri. K. N. Rao].
Global average temperature anomaly follow the 60-year cycle. The data of 1880 to 2010 presented a trend of 0.6 oC/Century and Sine curve varying between -0.3 and + 0.3 oC. The American Academy of Sciences and British Academy of Sciences combinely broughtout a report inwhich they presented a graph with global mean annual temperature anomaly with 10-, 30- & 60-year moving average curves [I presented the 10 year moving average for dates of onset over Kerala Coast in 1975-77]. At 60-year moving average eliminated natural cyclic part and showed the trend.
Here the 0.6 oC is the trend associated with all kinds of human interferences including global warming with manipulated/adjusted data series. IPCC said more than 50% is greenhouse effect part inwhich global warming is a part. If we take 50% as global warming, then the trend is 0.3 oC/Century. By correcting the met network factor for urban and rural, this will be around 0.15 oC/Century. With Climate Sensitivity factor coming down with CO2 increase as radiative forcing is not dynamic but static, even by 1000 years the global warming component is far less than 1.0 oC which is far less than seasonal and annual temperature range [> 5 oC]. Scientists must give importance to natural variability in rainfall to understand the disaster proneness of a given area for appropriate planning/action.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
climate system [as defined by IPCC], more particularly orography and general circulation pattern.
If the data follow a cyclic pattern, raising arm of the Sine curve present a different story compared to falling arm. For example for the above mentioned 60-year cycle in temperature, the raising arm presents + 0.6 oC for 30-years and the falling arm presents – 0.6 oC per 30-years. Indian Southwest Monsoon [June to September, 78.0% of annual rainfall] raising arm presented around + 300 mm and falling arm by around – 300 mm. However, over different parts of the country the rainfall patterns are different. For example, Western Ghhats controls the major part of rainfall on leeward side [dry semi-arid zone] and windward side [sub-humid]. Also, general circulation pattern in different seasons are quite different. In Andhra Pradesh met sub-divisions, annual rainfall presents 132 year cycle. The southwest monsoon rainfall presents 56-year cycle. Though northeast monsoon rainfall also presents 56-year cycle but in opposite phase. The cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal follow the northeast monsoon pattern. In agroclimatic analysis the cyclic nature clearly reflects in floods and drought conditions.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“Pink” noise is characterized by a monotonically decaying signal power density proportional to the inverse of frequency (1/f). Unlike that of any oscillatory system, including natural climate, it is utterly devoid of any spectral lines or peaks produced by periodic or irregular “modes.” Like many wannabe “climate scientists,” the authors baldly invoke advanced signal-analysis concepts without comprehending their basic implications.
It’s a strange spectacle. The climate research community are struggling uncomfortably with whether to allow themselves to believe that the climate is “capable” of changing by itself without human help.
This amounts to denial of ice ages, and denial of the entire discipline of geology. A small price to pay apparently for self-righteous climate orthodoxy.
Ah. The magic stuff that is anthropogenic CO2 pushes, pulls, tugs, and shoves the intrinsic variables of planet Earth. Just like the magic solar stuff. Tiny catalysts that are trotted out as the true giants of the system, depending on which one you are a fan of. Reminds me of the magic substance humans have that is said to be the reason one needs an adjustment to one’s backbone.