Mail (will not be published) (required)
October 2, 2012 in climate change
henryp said on February 21, 2013
It seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes. Attempts have been made to explain 20th century global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variation associated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, ……
It appears at least one attempt did not fail, albeit that maybe I am a lone voice ?,
I have been able to confirm this, by looking purely at maximum temps:
Looking at the data from Anchorage (graph below) every place on earth is on its own sine wave (A-C curve), probably depending a lot on the exact composition of substances on the top of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, I can correlate the flooding of the Nile exactly with the 40-50 years period of warming (= minimum flooding at the end) that is followed by the 40-50 years of cooling (=maximum flooding at the end) that are apparent within this 88 year solar/weather cycle.
henryp said on March 10, 2013
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, people looked at the planets to explain weather cycles, rightly or wrongly.
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with
maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….
Acording to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap, as being around 1995.
and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998.
Anyway, look again at my best sine wave plot for my data
1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.
Do you see the pertinent correlation with my sine wave?
I am concerned about looking at older data which is why I looked only at data from 1973-1974, when automatic recording began.
I really don’t trust the base line of temperatures before 1925 as it seems nobody can supply me with a calibration certificates of thermometers from those days.
Also, the way of recording, meant that you did a reading every 4 hours or so,
which may have affected the average for the day, nevermind the fact if people were sick or on leave and the job just did not “get done”
Greg said on March 26, 2013
These graphs prove nothing at all unless you provide a physically demonstrable cause for your predictions. Otherwise you can fit any function you like to your data.
henryp said on March 29, 2013
Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,
the best fit seemed to me to be a binomial (correlation coefficient: 0.997!!!)
When I first saw that curve, I realized that I was looking at degrees C/ t (years) square
God had thrown me a curved ball. Namely, this indicates to me a natural process. Cooling follows on warming. Thankfully, someone pointed me to the fact that this could also be an a-c curve as the binomial would lead to such an amount of cooling as has not seen before.
As to Greg’s other problem: to provide a cause. I have found an answer there too. Looking at maxima (energy-in): the time warming started coincided with ozone declining, both NH and SH. The cooling coincided with ozone increasing, both NH and SH.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
CAPTCHA Code *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Please create an account to get started.