Profile photo of henryp

by

Best Sine Wave fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures:

October 2, 2012 in climate change

7 responses to Best Sine Wave fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures:

  1. 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, ……

    end quote

    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:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    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.

  2. Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, people looked at the planets to explain weather cycles, rightly or wrongly.
    see here
    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
    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….

    end quote

    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
    now see:

    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”

  3. 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.

    • Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,
      http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
      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.

  4. You might want to look at lunar / tidal causality. Orbital resonance keeps the lunar orbit in sync with planetary positions that are also thought to be the mechanism for “stirring the sun” and modulating sunspots. Lunar / tidal cycles case as much cold deep to warm surface mixing as does winds, so it is a large influence.

    There are a variety of lunar cycles, and I note that the Saros Cycle is 18 years 11 hours. 5 x 18 = 90 years, so very close to that 91.5 years. At 3 x Saros, the same ocean is under the moon at the same part of the cycle, and that gives the ‘about 60′ year cycle to the PDO et. al.

    So the solar UV and sunspots will be modulating at the same rate as the lunar orbital (so you can’t sort out causality by time correlation) and likely both of them are important, IMHO.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/lunar-cycles-more-than-one/
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/

    So, in general, I think you are on the right track with the discovery of the cycles and correlations. Hopefully this helps with the “mechanism” part a little bit.

    • Henry@E.M. Smith, thanks, I will be looking at that. I am sure that there is some extra terrestrial influence, but I think it is exerted by the planets on the sun. William Arnold had that figured out a long time ago, before they started with the carbondioxide nonsense.
      http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
      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….

      end quote

      According to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap (that is just a figure of speech, in fact it is probably a “wake-up”), 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 1998/1999.

      Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,
      now see:

      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.

      There is a clear and pertinent correlation with the best fit sine wave that I proposed for the observed current drop in global maximum temperatures?

      From there I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.

      So together with my own results, I have three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..

      (btw, I think Trenberth missing energy is in the peroxides and nitric oxides lying TOA, which he did not take into consideration at all)

Add Comment Register



Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

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>

1 trackback