The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or forums.

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1191194 - 25/04/2013 20:35 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
SNAFU. You have my permission to use and link any data l have presented on here. Although you don't need to. This is an open forum. The owners being WZ. Thanks for asking.appreciate your encouragement actually

Some considerations Bill
BIll said."The most [u]recent cycle has been the 6o yr cycle."[/u]

The 60 yr cycle has been in operation for eons. Its very presence is a type on constant.
The other cycles of qian and lu are also constant in nature. They are not quasi periodic like the ENSO or QBO.

The 21, 62, 116 and 194 yr cycles are constants because they are thought to be extra terrestrial ,meaning they evolve from planetary motions and masses and have a forcing impact on our sun and other planets including earth. The frequency period of 60 yrs cycle does not alter unless the solar system falls apart.
THe concept of moons tidal influence is related but in a more minor way l assume

This could be tidal and/ or geomagnetic with flow on effects through amplification. and or resonance

"One has to forecast them.".

Because the frequencies are fixed values . The combined amplitudes and frequencies can be calculated .
You can with confidence predict the next maunder minimum or in fact any future minimum with the information qian and lu have presented.and the same for warm periods.

The resolution of a forecast is obtained from determining all the cycles . Qian and lu's resolution of 4 frequencies is sufficient to find major minimum and maximum periods in earths climate.

" we can't tell what the cycle is doing now"
Yes we can. Using constructive interference you can accurately predict that we reached a sub maximum from 1994 to 2oo2 and all 4 cycles commenced a trending down .
After the peak of the 21.2 cycle( solar cycle 24) . I believe that is mid this year. AL 4 cycles will be on a downturn .
This will continue for the remainder of the downturn for cycle 21.
So top gear downhill!! for the next 11 years .Is a good analogy
and l like BG's analogy of when the rogue wave or crest comes.
THe deep fall is spectacular.
I believe that is the forecast for the next 11 years at least.
A climate shift event like 1975 but in the opposite direction.
We should notice ALL major climate parameters ( anomalies) to change substantially
This is the time to start observing and note taking and recording of this event as it continues to evolve
You have already been talki8ng about the start of the event
THe levelling off of global temps and the changes in the NH atm


Thanks for the link to new scafetta paper ARNOST.
I have been under the weather today ( pun) and really not keeping up with all the fab' info and rebuffs being presented
I still have to read the 5 or so articles ROM posted in solar that he said would keep me busy. grin
None the less looking forward into the future to be able to tackle some of my to do list of things which has got way out of hand recently crazy

Thanks SB for your response.I will check out Qians paper again soon.
I thought your work on C02emissions and global temps was awesome .!!!! Keep the posts going . I have read some of your work and still have copies of a few graphs
'Remember the cumulated soi graph you did with the steep inclines! Had a look today and could not overlay them with them with the 4 freq graphs of qian and lu.
ENSO is not' directly 'trending with the 4 frequencies.
However l would not out rule an indirect link.

So with the C02 emissions
So no correlation hey. !!or in fact an inverse correlation!!
C02 does not force temperature.
How did the IPCC scientists miss that ??
That means C02 emissions are NOT a driver as such

Regarding the saw wave or square wave created with overlaying frequencies.
Are you able to overlay qian' and lu's 4 frequencies and add on the 1500 yr one l overlayed .
Could you make a graph with that to show if step ups or downs are produced over time
What is the maths for that like?

What l am asking is. Can you try seeing if that does happen with those frequencies?

Thanks for your comments MIkE H
I am not in a position to comment myself as l have not checked the math'. I take on board your observations.
Cherry picking is a poor analysis tool

I thought that the correlation of the 4 frequencies with past warming and cooling episodes of the climate since 900 is uncanny. From an eyeball perspective it is such a good correlation with the carbon 14 proxy time series,one would not even bother to do a mathematical correlation.

Re . The co2 concentration atm
I believe if the climate cools due to extra terrestrial forcing ( qian and lu's 4 frequencies). The ocean then commences to uptake the C02 into storage.

Re :zero anomaly for ENSO, SOI and Nino 3.4 .
It is an amazing statement. I don't doubt you are wrong as l get the feeling you and BILL have studied this inside out.

If this is the case. ENSO, SOI or Nino 3.4 are nor forcing factors in the long term variability of the climate?

If this is the case . The only way to explain a warming trend or in fact ANY global temp' trend is through external forcing agents like Scafetta's planetary solution?

#1191198 - 25/04/2013 21:07 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
ROFLMA! @ "C02 does not force temperature. How did the IPCC scientists miss that ??"

Umm, they didn't miss it, it's you crikey that has missed the science that dates back to earlier last century...

#1191210 - 25/04/2013 22:17 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
SOI inter-decadal shifts
About a year ago, I put up a couple of graphs in the thread "Climate and Climate Change/ENSO Discussion 2012".
The first, in Post #1103736, used the CUSUM technique to identify a sharply bounded 60-year period of La Nina dominance from 1917 to 1976, followed by a 25-year period of El Nino dominance from 1976 to 2000.

I later commented (half in jest) that the switch from La Nina to El Nino dominance, which Arnost pointed out was the Pacific Great Climate Shift was determined by CUSUM to occur within a day or two of the 23rd of June 1976.

The second graph, in Post #1105539 converts the CUSUM gradients of the first graph to constant short-term mean values of SOI and plots them on the record of actual SOI values.

From 1917 to 1976 the mean value of the SOI was +1.35, and from 1976 to 2000 it was -3.40.

All three break-points on these SOI records are quite close to those on the global temperature and carbon emission records.
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1191216 - 25/04/2013 23:22 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
George M Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 98
Re #1190821 "I see five sharp inflection points on this trace, spaced between 29 and 34 years apart. The two negative points, at 1909 and 1975 are 66 years apart, and the three positive points, at 1879, 1943 and 2005 are 64 and 62 years apart. Thus, there is a period of oscillation of about 65 years.

The period of oscillation on the smoothed global temperatures for 1850 to present HADCRUT4 data is not 65 years but is approx. twice that at 126 years. 1879 to 2005 represents one period of oscillation or complete "wavelength" in your time-series. The plotted time series shows an underlying increasing trend with a superimposed quasi-periodic oscillation. And the question is, how were the trend lines arrived at? Eyeballing the lines suggest that they do not correspond to the "least mean square lines" for those periods e.g. the trend lines peak at the same points as the peaks in the anomalies curve. If the lines have not been calculated by the least-mean-square fit, then there is a problem that is best illustrated by this link misleading graphs from Science Stats and Stuff website (underneath the Arctic Sea graphs critique). The misleading graphs post finishes with "Without an impartial technique to decide how to fit, we can "eyeball" all sorts of lines."

Re 1191136 "In Post #1190821 (above) I showed a graph of smoothed world temperatures since 1850: the HadCRUT4 series.
I fitted a series of linear trends separated by sharp inflection points spaced about 30 years apart. These trend lines had very different slopes, making it seem unlikely that world temperature trends at this time scale are largely due to an exponential increase in human-caused carbon emissions.

The "misleading graphs" link above has relevance here in that it also plots USHCN V2 temperatures and CO2 emissions time-series graphs but without using a log scale axis. By eyeballing trend lines the Science Stats and Stuff website arrives at this final graph which, to some degree, could counter the conclusion reached in comment #1191136. The SS and S graph doesn't use temperature anomalies presumably because the CO2 data is in ppm ...

The graph in #1191136 has time-series graphs (using logs) for temperature anomalies and [CO2] in ppm. IMO temperature anomalies could or should be plotted against CO2 anomalies using the same baseline/years to calculate the temperature anomalies. The end result could be something like this Wood For Trees graph 1980-2013 which shows CO2 "anomalies" and temperature anomalies for RSS and UAH for 1980 to 2013 giving a result that is ... The graph also has RSS and UAH trend lines for 1998 to 2013. CO2 anomalies were relative to a baseline value of 370 ppm and is then scaled back for comparison. Maybe, I've created a misleading graph!

#1191225 - 26/04/2013 00:22 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

I agree with George M.

CO2 should be plotted so that it is comparable to the temperature or to the predicted warming rate.

This formula provides for 3.0C per doubling of CO2 and matches the TempC anomalies we usually use.

3.0C per doubling:

CO2 Trend = 4.33*ln(CO2ppm) - 24.8

Incorporating the typical lags in the climate models:

CO2 Lagged Trend = 3.47*Ln(CO2ppm) - 19.94

(there is another which takes into account lags

#1191260 - 26/04/2013 11:19 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
George M
1. 126-year period?
I am puzzled at your assertion that "The period of oscillation on the smoothed global temperatures for 1850 to present HADCRUT4 data is not 65 years but is approx. twice that at 126 years." Surely a record that is only 163 years long does not support the estimation of a period as long as that.
2. Misleading graphs
Looking at graphs 3, 4, and 5 in your link, I can see why you think that my identification of break-points linked by straight-line trends cannot be trusted. I believe that the ambiguity on those graphs is caused mainly by showing the original data as well as the 5-year average data. For the purpose of estimating long-term behaviour, the original data is largely "noise" that obscures the trends. With apologies to "snafu", the often-copied graph of HadCRUT4 raw data that he cites via is an example of a graph displaying so much noisy detail that trends cannot be seen. My graphs contain no such short-period noise. The HadCRUT data has been smoothed by its authors using 21-point binomial smoothing; the emissions data may have been smooth as collected. I well know the traps of misleading graphs but, in this case, I believe nearly all the break-points can hardly be disputed.
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1191369 - 26/04/2013 22:24 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
VOSTOK ice core research indicates temperature change comes first and then C02 change follows.? or at least they seem in unison or sympathy.

How does that relate to our situation in 2013 ?

As temps level out as in 12o Kyr ,
CO2 continued to increase for awhile.
and then C02 declined as global temps dropped.?
So CO2 has not forced?.. Temperature has forced C02?

The Vostok ice cores produced data demonstrating a close link between carbon dioxide and temperature through the last glacial cycle. Upper curve: CO2 concentration, parts per million. Lower curve: reconstruction of atmospheric temperature from measurements of the isotope Deuterium. Both are plotted against age (thousands of years Before Present, with present on the left, i.e., time running right to left).


CO2 is a component of a positive feed back loop but if temp changes as seen on VOSTOK graph the CO2 follows

So CO2 is follower and Temperature is the forcing agent for CO2 increase

A solar downturn will decrease temp. Temperature decrease C02
That's what VOSTOKS graph indicates


The link you gave was excellent and have taken some notes

Of note is the total lack of consensus on the role of CO2
in global temperature oscillation

From the link you gave me yesterday

Controversy has abounded since 1800.

So you laughing at me is not unexpected.

The jury is out and who gets the last laugh is likely only a decade away.

I look forward to the continuing episodes of the history of AGW.. chuckle chuckle.

Great informative link CB
That is an excellent compilation of the history of the C02 induced global warming theory

Trying to rebuff your argument in the context of this thread about oscillations proved easier than l thought.
The skeptics and AGW proponents have been at logger heads since 1900 and nothing has changed
Quite a few oscillations ( pun ) in the arguments presented below by this most excellent research by

Public support of either view has been oscillating since that time and still is.
There was no consensus then and there isn't now in 2013 some one hundred and 13 years later

FROM your link and l took the liberty of a summary highlighting the lack of consensus and the swings in consensus since 1830

First theory by Fourier 1820.
regarding changes in the composition of the earths atmosphere .

Tyndall 1859
finds that both water vapor and C02 can 'trap' infra red radiation

so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.

In 1896 Arrhenius
Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere,
and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C
suggested the level of CO2 acted as a ...regulator.. of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s
long-term equilibrium temperature.

He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate,
it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high.
Högbom doubted it would ever rise that much. One thing holding back the rise was the oceans.

the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part.
But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.

Chanberlin regarding carbon cycles
Chamberlin was emphatic that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere did not necessarily stay the same over the long term.

1900- 1940 SKEPTICISM VS AGW proponents
-ABW theory too simplistic
- fluctuating cloudiness not considered

- unanswered questions regarding the absorption spectral bands of CO2 and H2O.
( quantum thermal dynamics unfolding

-Hulburt's own calculations supported Arrhenius's estimate that doubling or
halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature,

-the idea that adding CO2 would change the climate "was never widely accepted
and was abandoned.. when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be]
absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor."
-These reasons reflected a nearly universal conviction that
the Earth automatically ..regulated.. itself in a "balance of nature."
- scientists repeated the plausible argument
that the oceans would absorb any excess gases that came into the atmosphere.

-1948, "The self-regulating mechanisms of the carbon cycle can cope with the present influx of carbon of fossil origin.

- 1938 Guy CALLENDAR.. The data proof 'wars' commence.. Callendar successfully records global temps and
carbon dioxide monitoring
As for the future, Callendar estimated, on flimsy grounds,
that a doubling of CO2 could gradually bring a 2°C rise in future centuries.
Predicted a self sustaining global warming
Callendar countered that the thin layer of ocean surface waters would quickly saturate C02 absorption capacity
Callendar tried to explain that the laboratory spectral measurements were woefully incomplete.

-in 1924, even without ocean absorption it would take 500 years
for fuel combustion to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

AGAINST ( extreme skeptic)
as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow"
to the CO2 theory. Therefore, said this authority, "no probable
increase in atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation.

AGAINST ( critics)
Most damaging of all, Callendar's calculations of the greenhouse effect temperature rise,
like Arrhenius's, ignored much of the real world's physics.
" ignored the crucial energy transport by convection as heated air rose from the surface "

(Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind
of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.

The Theory Restored (1950-1958)

spectral analysis improves with instrumentation and results show spaces for C02 to penetrate

In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation


PLASS 1956
PLASS calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise.using computer modelling

human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.

The same old arguments emerge ( water vapor/clouds), ( absorption capacity of oceans),
( mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere?)

Carbon 14 isotope
Carbon-14 is also created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere
1950..First mapping of global air circulation

In 1955- 1965 the chemist Hans Suess argued using Carbon 14 isotope studies
he concluded that the oceans were indeed taking up most of the carbon that came from burning fossil fuels.

ROGER REVELLE 1965 confirmed the above findings of SUESS ( peer review.. LOL)
showed that the oceans turned over completely in several hundred years
(an estimate soon confirmed by evidence from other studies).(31)
At first sight that seemed fast enough to sweep any extra CO2 into the depths.


REVELLE changes his mind ...with further investigation. Regarding ocean buffering chemistry and
absorbtion of CO2 by the surface ocean layer

1959 Bolin and ERIKKSON confirn REVELLe's findings re buffering hypothesis

The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2,
most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air
before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss.
the chemistry of air and sea water would eventually reach an equilibrium —
but that could take thousands of years.
figured that atmospheric CO2 would rise some 25% by the year 2000.

Mikhail Budyko. agrees AGW could become a problem. The adjective 'catastrophic 'emerges

Revelle, SUESSE employ KEELING to improve C02 monitoring.
Determined base line level of CO2 in 1960 and determined two years later the C02 levels
in the atmosphere were increasing above the expected rate if oceans were absorbing

C02 levels begin to rise.

New advanced models confirm
Princeton computer specialists in 1967. They had managed to produce a model that simulated something roughly like the
actual climate of the planet, with deserts and sea ice and trade winds in all the right places. Out of curiosity they
doubled the amount of CO2 in their simulated atmosphere.
The simulated global temperature rose a couple of degrees.

Leading scientists continued to doubt that anyone needed to worry at all about the greenhouse effect( HUBERT LAMB)
At worst, he thought, the rise of CO2 at the current rate might bring a 2°C temperature rise over the next 400 years,
which "can hardly be called cataclysmic.

The CO2 theory, he pointed out, failed to account for the numerous large shifts that he had uncovered in records of
climate from medieval times to the present. Many agreed with Lamb that a "rather sharp decline" of global temperature
that had been observed since the 1940s put the whole matter in question.

1972 J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000.

Other gases like methane , sulfur , aerosols , soot added to the list .

1970's contention. Calculations . The missing carbon?

KEELING finds CO2 concentrations rises are not linear."mysterious spells of faster and slower growth."

1985 a French-Soviet drilling team at Vostok Station in central Antarctica had produced an ice core
two kilometers long that carried a 150,000-year record, a complete ice age cycle of warmth, cold and warmth.
They found that the level of atmospheric CO2
had gone up and down in remarkably close step with temperature.

AGAINST ( My comment )
Notice the C02 lags the temperature change

Also note how sensitive C02 is to seasonal changes in temperature from the earths axis tilt

VOSTOK ice core studies
The CO2 levels in their record got as low as 180 parts per million in the cold periods and reached 280 in the warm periods,
never higher. But in the air above the ice, the level of the gas had reached 350 —
far above anything seen in this geological era and still climbing.

( my comment)
The temperature increase in the VOSTOK research ALWAYS precedes the C02 release and vice versa

t seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles. In fact most scientists
had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's
orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles")
matched the timing of ice ages with startling precision.

Positive feed back hypothesis emerges. Amplification through temperature fed back loop.

Multiple models indicated AGW

Rising global ocean heat content confirms models. SOLAR couldn't be responsible for such an increase

Paleontology reveals fossils plant studies show evidence of C02 concentrations and temperature changes

At 2010. The oceans have taken up half of the emitted C02 ( 55%). Emissions of Co2 have quadrupled

Arctic melts as modeled by computers

( MY COMMENTS below)

1990's 2000
research blossoms in abundance


1997 to present. Global temperature trends level as C02 emissions continue to climb..

MOdels predictions questioned as temps come close to boundaries of expected scenarios

Extreme weather events. Natural or man-made

Media battles re the arguments about the truth become intense in world media and politics

1950's prediction re the climate in 2000 are found to be both true and false

IPCC 2007 report found to be questionable on a number of parameters. Whilst some observations were on target
-World organizations dedicated to AGW proliferated to assess climate change
Government funding increased
and Skeptics groups continued to emerge and challenge

Blah Blah!!
Nothings changed


HAS ANYTHING CHANGED !! There is still no consensus amongst the researchers.
If there was.. sKs would not have a cause!


#1191371 - 26/04/2013 22:31 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
LittleDavey83 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/12/2005
Posts: 725
Loc: Coral Cove, QLD
Fascinating crikey, kudos kudos kudos!! What an amazing summary!!

#1191388 - 27/04/2013 03:12 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Yup... Well done!
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

#1191412 - 27/04/2013 09:32 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: crikey]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: crikey
VOSTOK ice core research indicates temperature change comes first and then C02 change follows.? or at least they seem in unison or sympathy.

How does that relate to our situation in 2013 ?

As temps level out as in 12o Kyr ,
CO2 continued to increase for awhile.
and then C02 declined as global temps dropped.?
So CO2 has not forced?.. Temperature has forced C02?

So CO2 is follower and Temperature is the forcing agent for CO2 increase

Good on you crikey for reading the link I posted.

Have a read of the below section as it looks like you might have missed it. It should be of interest to you seeing as you are into climate cycles.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

This paragraph answers your questions above.

An important clue came from some especially good Antarctic ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth. Confirmation came in 2012 from evidence that the lag was confined to the Antarctic ice cores: after an initial temperature rise followed by evaporation of CO2 from the Southern Ocean, globally the rise of CO2 had preceded the rise of temperature.

#1191474 - 27/04/2013 22:36 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Don't often see Greenland's temperature versus CO2 in the last ice age very often.

Pretty uncorrelated if I say so myself.

[Note this is Antarctica's CO2 estimates. The CO2 numbers from the Greenland ice cores have been discarded because they don't match the 3.0C per doubling proposition - there are some 350 ppm estimates in the middle of the last ice age for example].

#1191494 - 28/04/2013 09:12 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
What is the source of the data on your graph, Bill?

Edited by Surly Bond (28/04/2013 09:12)
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1191503 - 28/04/2013 10:51 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Temps from NGRIP extended (its virtually exactly the same as GISP2, it just goes back a little farther)

Based on the do18 temperature conversion formula for the Greenland Summit verus the borehole temperature conversion formula (which increases the amplitude of Greenland's temps by 2.5 times - just accentuate the changes in Greenland's temps by 2.5 times if you want the traditional number ie. -10.0C becomes -25.0C). After many travels around this topic over time, I think the borehole conversion formula is off by 2.5 times.

CO2 from the Epica Dome C ice core at =3/ln(2)*ln(CO2 ppm/280).

Note: I can chart CO2 in ppm as well, but then it is not comparable to the temperature unless one uses the Ln(CO2 ppm). Also note that CO2 is responsible for a small amount of the temperature change in the ice ages which most people don't point out - Al Gore for example.

#1191523 - 28/04/2013 12:57 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
Thanks, Bill, for the sources.
I will have a look at it, but probably post on a thread that is about ice-age data, not inter-decadal data.
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1191608 - 28/04/2013 22:51 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
I was intrigued by your negative correlation between temp' trends and C02 concentration in the atmosphere .SB.
and as Bill has pointed out he has concerns re the data he presented on Greenland ice age temps and C02 ppm.

The correlation trends between C02 seem to be varied? Some positive linear , some negative . ?

To keep on thread topic
Here is some info and conjecture on the Annual seasonal c02 oscillation. Blew my mind really. I am still tussling with what l looked at tonight. phew! Just didn't expect these results really
C02 in the atmosphere in the 20th C,has an annual sine wave cycle/oscillation ( see below)

This C02 data is taken from The Hawaii monitoring site in the middle of the Northern hemisphere Pacific ocean

The explanation for the annual 'seasonal'? cycle is given as seasonal fluctuations in photosynthesis ..?

Overlaying the seasonal C02 cycle with the Northern hemisphere seasons.and equinox and solstice

- As winter in NH approaches ..CO2 INCREASES !!
- CO2ppm rises EVERY September equinox ( when daylight is equal in both hemispheres) and is an inflection point on the graph.
However this inflection point is not reciprocated at the march equinox?

-The C02 downward inflection point is ALWAYS April /May being the Northern hemisphere spring when new plant growth emerges

-The seasonal cyclical change in Co2 is around only 7ppm with an average NH global temp' variability of 14.3 deg c
So temps swing from an 8 deg C ,in winter in the NH
increase in summer to an average of 22.4 deg c
The C02 concentration does not trend with NH temp fluctuations of a massive 14.3 deg c?

In fact the inflection points on the downturn sine wave are very sharp.
I find this surprising as i would not of thought spring growth could create such as strong and sudden drop in C02.

In terms of the no of hours of daylight
As the sun moves further from the NH and winter sets in and temperatures DROP. Co2 Increases!! ( Cold temp' drops can cause C02 Increases?)

When there is equal amount of sunlight in both hemispheres in March equinox, Co2 continues to increase.
It is not until May.., the Northern hemisphere spring that CO2 takes a drastic decrease.
As summer progresses in the NH. THe C02 ppm decreases.!!!
Inverse relationship between co2 and temp trend.
There is NO positive correlation between temp trend and Co2 ppm in this data?!
So as temperatures are soaring in the NH summer. The co2 concentrations are actually in a downward decreasing, reducing phase!
Quite paradoxical really. As we seem to always associate C02 increases with heat.
But this is not always the case.
- I was particularly taken back by the fact that in every NH autumn in September without fail, the upward inflection point is always present. The inflection point is one of the equinox points.? C02 ALWAYS increases the September equinox!

This phenomena does not happen at the March equinox

There appears to be some sort of tipping point in NH spring at the 'top' of the cycle but the tipping point at the minimum is clearly the September equinox.!

In the NH temperature changes of 14 deg c in the NH annual temp cycle with only as little as 7ppm change in C02?

I believe ocean evaporation allows more C02 into the atmosphere
when oceans warm and Oceans absorb /dissolve C02 int0 the oceans from the atmosphere when oceans cool.

Thanks for the link CB.. Plenty f info' there

Great you enjoyed the C02 history summary LDavey!
I actually enjoyed the info as well.

#1191615 - 28/04/2013 23:58 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
Seven-year rainfall trends in Eastern NSW uplands

Lake George and its historic levels
This graph was presented in the thread "General Weather/Lake George".

It uses 7-year rainfall totals from two local stations to model the levels of Lake George. The model is very successful. The chosen 7-year damping must happen to match the behaviour of the lake and the groundwater store of the lake basin. The model works despite the lack of evaporation data, which would allow a water balance.
In general, 7-year rainfall totals caused the lake to be empty for much of the first half of the 20th century, and full for much of the second half.
As with the SOI record, I use the CUSUM technique here for precise dating of the major changes in 7-year rainfall totals.

Lake George and Manilla 7-year rainfall totals
Lake George is in the Southern Tablelands of NSW and Manilla (my town) is on the North-West Slopes, NSW. These sites are at similar altitude and distance from the Tasman Sea. For climate, the main difference is latitude: Manilla is at 31 degrees south and Lake George is at 35 degrees south.
First I plotted the 7-year rainfall totals on the second graph. (plotted on the last year of each group, when the rainfall affects the water-table). Next, I plotted the cumulative deviation from the mean (CUSUM) on the third graph. By eye, I located the major changes in trend. Reading off the co-ordinates of these break-points allowed me to find the slope of the trend lines.

Finally, I converted the CUSUM trend-line slopes to short-term mean values of 7-year rainfall totals to plot on the fourth and fifth graphs.

Note. All values here relate to 7-year rainfall totals. Since these predict the level of Lake George, they reflect the ground-water state of that lake basin. For uplands of NSW, I take them to relate to ground water storage in "Upper Valley Alluvium".
1. The pattern of inter-decadal mean rainfalls in these two places is almost the same. Rainfall was high in the last decade of the 19th century, low in the first half of the 20th century, high in most of the rest of that century, and normal since.
2. The first two break-points showing rainfall change are slightly delayed at Manilla: 1897 to 1899, and 1949 to 1951. However, the change from the second high-rainfall period down to normal rainfall comes very much earlier at Manilla (1982) than at Lake George (2000).
3. Only the late 19th century rainfall is relatively further from the mean at Manilla: 16% above the mean vs. 11% above the mean. In the early 20th century, values were -5% vs. -10%; in the later 20th century, +4% vs. +9%, and recent time, both were on the long-term mean. Lower rainfall variability at Manilla is also shown by a Standard Deviation of 7-year rainfall totals of 0.38 vs. 0.53 at Lake George.
4. Droughts: these graphs specify the severity of all long-duration droughts at these two places. (Droughts lasting less than seven years hardly register.)
By far the most severe droughts on these graphs happened between 1901 and 1950. No later droughts compare with them. At Lake George, there were two very long extreme droughts in 1906-1915 and 1941-49, while at Manilla there were four or five shorter extreme droughts around 1902, 1918, 1929, 1942 and 1947. (Dates of onset were earlier than these.)
The "Big Dry" drought of 1997-2009 in "South-eastern Australia" does not register at either of these two places.
The Bureau of Meteorology published two "Special Climate Statements" on this drought:
Maps show that Manilla was never in the zone of below average rainfall in this drought (It was in drought for 12 months in 2002.) but Lake George was within the eastern edge of it. Strangely, on my graph this was a time of completely normal rainfall, not drought.
5. World climate: these episodes of inter-decadal high and low rainfall in upland NSW seem to have no relation to world climate changes.
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1191778 - 29/04/2013 21:05 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
Awesome research there SB!!
Some very clear trending there.. I wonder what caused that great shift in rainfall anomaly in 1949?
One of those 'step' shifts you often mention.!! Certainly doesn't match your SOI findings.?
Wet phase at George Lake was in the dominant El Nino phase and dry phase was in the La Nina dominant phase? and was not affected by the great mid 70's climate shift.

It would seem it is a myth that a la nina phase will bring you rain as we so often would hope
At George lake it brought drought?
Such is the complexity of our climate. Generalization is obviously quite misleading

Here is the centennial climate report from Aust' Bureau Statistics year book ( 1900 to 2000)
It has some excellent decadal rainfall maps that may be useful for you

scroll down the page for all the juicy decadal rainfall maps


This is good as well

#1191780 - 29/04/2013 21:08 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
Thanks for posting in solar thread ROM. Great to see more research on solar and earths climate being released into the major media stream.

I was interested in a number of sun cycles in your article quoted by the Russian scientists,which are awfully close to Qian and Lu's frequency set.

Qian and Lu have 21, 62, 116 and 194 ( cycle lengths in yrs)

Noticing that the Polkovo scientists in Russia highlight 2 of those cycles

11 year ( which is half a Hale cycle) 11 + 11 = 22 ( 22 yr HALE cycle. cycle of magnetic variation of the sun)
Hale's observations revealed that
the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. .

the 200 yr cycle.
THe 200 yr cycle maxed' in 1998 ( year of El Nino record)
and is on a downward trend for 100 yrs.according to Qian and lu ( 2010)

Have just started to collect some information on this cycle as it is pertinent to our current situation according to Qian and lu(2010). We have a 200 yr max at this current point in time coinciding with a peak in global temps

Here is some research by Tallbloke , Anthony Watts and basil copeland ( 2009)
Noting peaks in global temps at the max of the De Vries cycle..

"There is a 210 yr cycle called the Suess or De vries cycle
A very significant, high amplitude, sharp peak is evident in the spectrographic analysis of many temperature and solar proxies at around 205 years. This is known as the De Vries cycle (The page has been deleted at Wikipedia), commonly given as 200 or 210 years. It doesn’t seem to relate in any simple way to planetary frequencies, and this has been a puzzle. However, there have been some attempts to find combinations which fit the period....

plenty of number crunching and speculation here.
at this blog.
Tallbloke gives a demonstration of how the various cycle periods can overlay to produce what could be described as major and minor amplitudes

Tallblokes cycle analysis is different to Qian and lu ( 2010) TB uses some much smaller cycles and is attempting a higher resolution from 1860.
This resolution does not capture qian and lu's sub grand maximum at around 2000.
The reason being is that they used shorter frequencies.

Great to see this research underway!!

I thought this observation made by TALLBLOKE in 2009 is pertinent

Solar cycle 24 has been a damp squib compared to preceding solar cycle 23. We haven’t seen such low activity levels solar cycle 6 reached its peak in 1806 – 206 years ago. The De Vries cycle seems likely to be a solar system wide period linked to the frequencies of planetary motion interactions, affecting both the Sun and Earth-Moon system.

#1191814 - 29/04/2013 22:32 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
Surly Bond Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2003
Posts: 2193
Loc: Manilla, near Tamworth NSW
Thanks, crikey, for the reference to "A hundred years of science and service...".

The decadal maps of the distribution of rainfall terciles in Australia support my results, so far as they go.
Most of eastern NSW is below average 1900 to 1940, average 1940 to 1950, and above average 1950 to 2000. (End of data.)
Prof. Zillman AO says:
"1991-95, one of the most severe droughts of the century over eastern Australia, with total losses estimated in excess of $5b."
It seems it is always necessary to come up with figures to show that the latest drought is the worst in history. A likely story! evillaugh

Your second link was interesting, but did not go so far as to provide answers to my questions like: "Why does rainfall at both 7-year scale and at multi-decadal scale vary a lot more at Lake George (35 degrees south) than at Manilla (31 degrees south)?"
Something to do with the annual march of the Sub-Tropical Anticyclonic Belt, I'll bet! nerd
Data are cheap; information is expensive!

#1192075 - 30/04/2013 21:08 Re: Inter-decadal climate cycles or shifts [Re: Surly Bond]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 3184
Loc: Tweed Heads
SB said
It seems it is always necessary to come up with figures to show that the latest drought is the worst in history. A likely story!

THe definition of 'climate history' or a record seems to be defined From 1900 ..when reliable data has been collected .. I often hear the weather news reporters say ..A record was broken at a particular stations and you get a little anxious and then you realise they are aloud to say that when the staion has ben operating for 30 yrs or more.
We have very few stations with over 100 yrs of data.
Did you see the number of stations that had a 50 deg C max from that 2000 report.? We have hit 50 deg C before. I thought there was a lot of 'whoha' about 50 deg C being a new record nearly this year?

This data from ABS ( Aust bureau of statistics)year book 2000 tells the story well Comparing the 30's and the 90's for rainfall

As for Lake George. I have attempted something of a response.
Will post soon.

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 40 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Ben, Enriquez, Goody, Ken Langdon, msp, Summer?, weather freak
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529243 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image