Some new findings about the recent warming trends

[Roger J Smith]

This is a rough schematic drawing of the earth's annual movement through a postulated field structure in the solar system magnetic field. I have simplified the diagram by showing only earth and Jupiter. There would be similar sectors in place for other planets. The reader should realize that these sectors are rotating at roughly the same angular displacement as the outer planet although there could be minor variations in that caused by flexing as the planet moves closer or further from the Sun in an elliptical orbit. 

The convention in my diagrams and in some other astronomical drawings I have seen is to show the December position of the earth near the top of the circle and the June position near the bottom, so that March would be on the left and September on the right. The motion of all planets in the solar system is counter-clockwise in this scheme. This diagram is approximately to scale, the planets themselves are not as large as the circles so those are more representative of the magnetospheres perhaps. 

................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................. O .... Jup ..............................................................................

.............................................................................xxx.......xxx......................................................................................

............................................................................xxxx..........xxxx.....................................................................................

........................................................................xxxxx...............xxxxx..................................................................................

.....................................................................xxxxxxx...........xxxxxx......................................................................................

.......................................................................xxxxxxx.........xxxxxxx.......................................................................................

..........................................................................xxxxxx....xxxxxx...........................................................................................

.....................................................E....o...................xxxx..xxxxx.............................................................................................

.....................................................................................@ ...SUN ................................................................................

................................................................................xxxx.......xxxx........................................................................................

...........................................................................xxxxx................xxxxxx................................................................................

.............................................................................xxxxxxx.......................xxxxxxx.............................................................................

This particular diagram might approximate the "J-field" sectors in the SSMF at a time when Jupiter was in the part of its orbit where we pass it in late December and it appears in the winter sky above Orion and in the Milky Way. But the earth's position as shown would be around mid-February, so in this hypothetical case the earth has recently moved through two segments of the J-field structure and during the following summer it will move through two more (note these are moving so by that time they will be a few degrees further to the right on this diagram). Realize also that the solar system is three dimensional, this is one of two times in Jupiter's orbit where earth's orbit has the same inclination relative to the Sun. By the time Jupiter moves around to the left side of this diagram (three years later) it is also around 2 deg above our orbital plane so those field sectors may be somewhat above the earth's north pole when we encounter them.

Both the asymmetric look and the widths indicated are deliberate features meant to capture what I think the research data demonstrate about the shaping. 

The original research that I outlined in the thread posted several years ago suggests that while the impacts on earth's atmosphere may be generally simultaneous, there may also be components that more effectively manifest near the stronger portions of our magnetic field and then residuals propagate downstream. This might imply that there should be a lag between sector encounters and warmings (if warmings are the actual result) in the CET since the North American sector is somewhat stronger. I had identified the most likely lag time as 2-3 months. However, if the activity is stronger perhaps it then becomes more simultaneous with this lag effect perhaps muted. 

 

 

[Roger J Smith]

This post will introduce the actual data file which is attached. 

You can find the following features in this file (which is an edited version of a larger research file I have created).

In the cells A to AE 1 to 2922, all the daily CET values are posted. These are in groups of eight years in each column. The data file has been maintained after I downloaded a csv version of the UK Met Office file around 2011. I have input the monthly finished (not provisional) data after each month since then and occasionally I cross-check to avoid errors. One way I do this is to calculate averages for each new month to see if they match the UK Met Office values. 

The data are stored without decimal places as you see them on file. The first value (in A1) is 32 which is read as 3.2 C.

These are mean daily temperatures. 

Some further guides and explanations to that section can be found below the data block, that is to say, around rows 2924 and down towards 2950 or so, starting in column A and extending most of the way beneath the data block.

Then in columns AF to AP, there are calculations of daily average CET values for the ongoing data set. This is right up to date even including July 2019. So for each day of the year, a 248-point average (247 for August to December) is available and reduced to one decimal place (like the data set, no decimal points are shown). The average for leap year day is also calculated from its 58 data points. The data block has two blank cells for the two missing leap year days in the years 1800 and 1900. Those are at D1521 and Q60. For my own work, I have inserted large negative numbers in them so that if I overlook removing them from formulae, I will spot that error. I left this out of the thread file however.

In the data block that fills AR to BV 1 to 3000, the daily anomalies are calculated. Those are in every case the difference between the value in the data block and the daily average. If the first entry day of the data set has value 32 and the daily mean is 34, then the anomaly for that day is -2 (meaning -0.2 C deg). The range of daily anomalies is generally about -12 to +11 but anything over 4 (showing as 40) is quite significant, record values are often in the range of 7 to 9 deg above or below normal. There is a slightly larger variance in winter than in summer in the UK climate.

The anomaly block allows direct comparison of different times of year, if we had formulae that only compared actual temperatures, there would be a large "apples and oranges" problem comparing the outcomes. But comparing anomalies while not 100% precise is a lot better. Eventually I might need to refine this to comparing standard deviations but the ranges don't really expand or contract that much in this climate. 

To make formula extensions from first terms a little easier to manage, I have created buffer zones between row 2923 and row 3000 which are the data from the next columns in rows 1 to 78. What that means on a practical level is that I can overturn formulae approaching the data limit in groups of several nearly equal values without having to land in on the exact cell where the column ends (which would be row 2923). But to prevent missing any empty or spurious data cells (the spurious ones would be data from outside the designated formula zone) I have placed 77777 in row 301 across the anomaly block. If a formula "forgets" to update to the next column in a downward copy extension (further data blocks created in the file), then a huge number will appear even if it's an average of 40 terms because that 77777 will be far bigger than the possible sum of the 40 terms, and so in the graph that I would be using to inspect the outcome, a huge invalid spike would appear. So in that way I have added some quality control to the process ensuring that the formulae being used to generate various data sets actually stay in the going-forward mode using only valid data. 

Anyway, moving further to the right in the file, the next block of data relates to lunar declination and the full-new moon cycles. This does not form part of our discussion here, while it's interesting in and of itself, no suggestion is made that any of the recent warming could emanate from any such process, so while you may want to look in on this section and its graphs, you can also safely navigate past it to sections that show planetary time scales. In each case, whatever is posted in this data file has some explanations or guides below the data or to the left of where the data block begins, and I have highlighted those in green. 

The main portion of the file for you to reach and inspect (relevant to this thread discussion) is located in columns starting around JS and moving through the rest of the J_ section into the first few letters of the K columns to KF. This is after some files showing data for Mercury and some other planets, and a column related to solar cycles (in col IV). All of that is basically irrelevant to our discussion so I could have removed it but was fearful that formulae in the Jupiter section might then degrade, so I only removed data segments that were done later and posted to the right of these Jupiter segments. 

In the Jupiter research area, the data near the top of the block will show eleven segments with similar opposition dates, and complete 395 to 403 day temperature profiles for all of those. That takes you down to around row 420, after which there's a section that shows how similar Jupiter-Saturn orientations look when averaged out. That is not a primary part of our discussion here so navigate down through that to row 1051 where the working files are located for this discussion. Each column starting at row 1051 is titled and has some relevance to this thread. Each column is also part of some graph available in that same area (which runs as far down as about row 1500, with the one exception that the comparative Mars file runs to about row 1800. 

The various graphs illustrate all the points being made in the thread and have some commentary attached within the excel file. 

To the right of the Jupiter research section there are further sections giving more detailed results for Mars, Saturn, Venus, and Uranus-Neptune. Once again, these are not really the primary focus of this discussion but I did include the graphs of the most recent profiles to compare with the Jupiter results, mainly to test out whether the Jupiter results are unique to that system or are shared by other field sector systems in this AGW (postulated) warming period. 

I think that's enough of an intro to bring on the file itself now. You can refer to this post or just muddle your way through the file, but I think it will be easier if you check this post for the general overview. Once again, the three basic elements to get you oriented are:

-- the raw data appear in A to AE 1 to 2922.

-- the calculated anomalies for the data appear in AR to BV 1 to 2922.

-- the Jupiter analysis appears in columns that begin around JS and end around KF.

Everything else in the file, you're quite welcome to peruse, but any detailed discussion of that should be left until we have a chance to discuss the main focus which is the material in the JD to KC 1051 to 1500 section, and the graphs which appear near those data columns. (anything created as a graph will be so close to the data that you won't have to scroll right or left to find it, but you might have to scroll up or down, it will be somewhere just outside the boundaries of the data columns). 

The file may open around the JS-KF columns, or Jupiter data section. You might want to start there if you understand the background of how the data set was assembled, or you may want to start the tour of the file around A2924 where the first explanations begin. I will try to make improvements to the file after any discussions or questions, so this is by no means a finished product. 

CETnew.xlsx

[Devonian]

7 hours ago, Catacol said:

Not only is this a staggeringly arrogant response, you also demonstrate you haven't even bothered to read the posts properly at all. Had you done so you would have seen that this is a complex theory (no getting away from that) which is set alongside AGW and not as a replacement. Usually those who don't understand something either choose to ask a question to enable greater understanding, or they keep quiet.

Your kind of cheerful intransigence stifles debate, it does not improve it. If you have nothing constructive to contribute then vacate the thread.

 

Then perhaps YOU should have read my post rather than resort to the 'Pseudo-science book of personalised insults' first?

The arrogant don't say things like 'I think' they state - rather like you have in actual fact.  Also, my post contained four questions....

Finally if Roger's theory is correct then some of the warming is due to some kind of Jupiter effect, thus meaning less of the warming is anthropogenic - so it's not 'alongside' but 'part of'. Maybe Roger is indeed the next trail blazing Galileo, a poor persecuted soul who history will find to be right, but I think (again, 'think') not. If I'm allowed to say that without  more personalised insults???

Edited August 16, 2019 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

9 hours ago, Catacol said:

Not only is this a staggeringly arrogant response, you also demonstrate you haven't even bothered to read the posts properly at all. Had you done so you would have seen that this is a complex theory (no getting away from that) which is set alongside AGW and not as a replacement. Usually those who don't understand something either choose to ask a question to enable greater understanding, or they keep quiet.

Your kind of cheerful intransigence stifles debate, it does not improve it. If you have nothing constructive to contribute then vacate the thread.

 

Do I detect an overreaction there, Catacol?

[weirpig]

This thread alas is way over my head  I get the jist that  theories have been put forward that  some other contributing factor could be affecting climate change.  ( i shall try to have a more in depth look later )   Anyway off to open another thread  asking the question why do we get fluff in our belly button?  That i can contribute to. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by weirpig

[JeffC]

why does everyone have to get so defensive and annoyed?

Roger has evidently put a lot of effort into producing something that may be of real scientific merit and deserves the consideration of anyone interested in climate and weather and above all science as a whole. As far as I know - and I admit I haven't deciphered it at all yet - Roger is NOT saying AGW doesn't exist, he's saying he's spotted something very complicated that may actually have a bearing on things that may influence AGW, either exacerbating or mitigating depending on the phasing of magnetic fields.

I don't have any issue with people asking questions to aid understanding but why not park preconceptions before reading and understanding (or at least trying to understand) what Roger has developed as a hypothesis. Just because it may not fit with your own perspective doesn't make it any less or indeed any more valid...

[JeffC]

3 minutes ago, weirpig said:

This thread alas is way over my head  I get the jest that  theories have been put forward that  some other contributing factor could be affecting climate change.  ( i shall try to have a more in depth look later )   Anyway off to open another thread  asking the question why do we get fluff in our belly button?  That i can contribute to. 

Directly proportional to the size of the belly button and number of woolly jumpers worn without a t shirt

[Methuselah]

39 minutes ago, JeffC said:

why does everyone have to get so defensive and annoyed?

Roger has evidently put a lot of effort into producing something that may be of real scientific merit and deserves the consideration of anyone interested in climate and weather and above all science as a whole. As far as I know - and I admit I haven't deciphered it at all yet - Roger is NOT saying AGW doesn't exist, he's saying he's spotted something very complicated that may actually have a bearing on things that may influence AGW, either exacerbating or mitigating depending on the phasing of magnetic fields.

I don't have any issue with people asking questions to aid understanding but why not park preconceptions before reading and understanding (or at least trying to understand) what Roger has developed as a hypothesis. Just because it may not fit with your own perspective doesn't make it any less or indeed any more valid...

I have no problems with Roger's hypothesis per se; my concerns relate only to the of availability of evidence and the degree of effect...Should there be one?

As we already know of all kinds of climate drivers, ranging from 100% known facts -- that certain atmospheric gases trap heat, and that the vagaries of Earth's orbit cause periodic oscillations between warm and cold -- to barely, if at all, appreciable correlations between our climate and Solar radiation, so my question is: Where among all these will any influences from Jupiter's and Saturn's respective magnetic fields sit? 

 

[Derecho]

7 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

This post will introduce the actual data file which is attached. 

 

Right so from the excel files I can see that you have taken the daily CET data from 1772 until 2019 and pasted it in columns A to AE with each column representing 8 year periods.

You then add up the CETs at months covering 8 periods in columns AF to AM and then sum them up in column AN and take an average of AO. So this represents a daily climatology from the 8 year periods

You then use this as a climatology for the daily CET means in columns AR to BV. These anomalies are then used for these columns marked as Dec, Jan, Feb, etc (JT to JY). and seem to use a mean based off steps of 12 years and 5 days….

So…

Dec

Cell AR1101 – 5th January 1775

AS2567 – 10th January 1787

AU1111 – 15th January 1799 etc.

 

Jan

AR1502 – 10TH February 1776

AT45 – 14th February 1788

AU1510 -18th February 1800 etc,

Then you create another column KF which takes the mean of the 39 subsequent days of each time step, why 39? Isn’t this just a slightly extended version of a monthly mean? This tells us nothing. Where do the months come from in each of these columns. They are just long 40 day running means over different time periods.

The 12 year JUP cycle then produces this graph (column KF) , bearing in mind that the actual anomalies are divided by 10 so there isn't much deviation from zero.

So bear in mind this is just some sort of 40 day running mean from the CET series broken into steps, in a tiny portion of the world and only shows a tiny deviation from some complex climatological mean, how on earth can this tell us anything about warming trends?

Also how can anybody know how magnetic fields come into play with this when there is no magnetic field data used in this study?

Edited August 16, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Roger J Smith]

Thanks for comments and interest, I think I agree with JeffC's assessment that this work is potentially something that can help us understand the actual details of the recent warming that I think almost everyone accepts has taken place. 

I will get to providing an answer to the specific questions about the data after this post, possibly about an hour or two after you see this. Here for comparison are the CET averages for the periods used in the study. For August to December and the full year, anything ending in 2019 will be adjusted by edit (I have at least that power) going forward, would not expect any of the numbers to change by more than .01 or .02. This table can be used to get a sense of the range of increases in the most recent interval(s) over the earth calendar year. 

The last two lines of the table show the increase of the most recent 31-year interval (1989-2019) compared to the average of 1772-1988 and also compared to the average of all data. 

Interval __ JAN _FEB _MAR _APR _MAY _ JUN _ JUL _ AUG _SEP _ OCT _NOV _DEC __ YEAR

1772-2019 _ 3.44 _ 4.07 _ 5.56 _ 8.10 _11.32 _14.36 _16.05 _15.69 _13.40 _ 9.90 _ 6.19 _ 4.25 ___ 9.36

1772-1833 _ 2.40 _ 3.95 _ 5.24 _ 8.04 _11.46 _14.47 _16.03 _15.66 _13.25 _ 9.68 _ 5.68 _ 3.63 ___ 9.12

1834-1895 _ 3.28 _ 3.98 _ 5.13 _ 7.94 _10.98 _14.33 _15.71 _15.38 _13.09 _ 9.30 _ 5.81 _ 3.93 ___ 9.07

1896-1957 _ 3,94 _ 4.07 _ 5.68 _ 8.04 _11.28 _14.22 _16.05 _15.63 _13.35 _ 9.83 _ 6.32 _ 4.63 ___ 9.42

1958-2019 _ 4.14 _ 4.30 _ 6.18 _ 8.40 _11.55 _14.44 _16.41 _16.10 _13.90 _10.81 _ 6.97 _ 4.80 ___ 9.83

1958-1988 _ 3.57 _ 3.64 _ 5.55 _ 7.99 _11.16 _14.25 _15.96 _15.69 _13.65 _10.60 _ 6.59 _ 4.68 ___ 9.44

1989-2019 _ 4.71 _ 4.95 _ 6.81 _ 8.80 _11.94 _14.63 _16.87 _16.52 _14,16 _11.02 _ 7.36 _ 4.92 ___10.22

1772-1988 _ 3.26 _ 3.95 _ 5.38 _ 8.01 _11.23 _14.33 _15.93 _15.57 _13.29 _ 9.74 _ 6.03 _ 4.15 ___ 9.24

incr last 31y __1.45 _1.00 _ 1.43 _ 0.79 __0.71 __0.30 __0.94 __0.95 __0.87 _ 1.28 _ 1.33 _ 0.77 ___ 0.98

incr (all data)_1.27 _0.88 _ 1.25 _ 0.70 __0.62 __0.27 __0.82 __0.83 __0.76 _ 1.12 _ 1.17 _ 0.67 ___ 0.86

________________________________________________________________________

Some comments ... the recent warming has been much less significant in June than other months. The four months most impacted are January, March, November and October (in that order). 

The warming of 1958-88 over the third quarter interval before that is confined to autumn, most of the other nine months are somewhat colder or within .05, but the three autumn months warmed by 0.30, 0.77 and 0.27 deg. 

The presumably natural warming from q2 to q3 was generally larger in winter than in summer, and in fact June was cooler in q3 (and even in 1958-88) than in 1834-1895. 

Q1 which is an extended version of the Dalton minimum had colder winters than q2 but warmer summers, the two trends more or less balanced out with similar annual means. 

I think that between this analysis and the work offered in the research file, it is safe to say that the details of the recent warmings and in fact all decade to decade scale temperature changes contain many clues as to the actual processes at work. This is not the time or place to speculate on what those might be, even those readers who are inclined to dismiss the research file portion would have a challenge explaining why June has so far avoided the overall trend of recent warming. I suppose one theory might be that due to accelerated outflow of arctic meltwater, Atlantic SST values are subject to a negative forcing in May-June. That would be correlated with increased early summer ice content in the Labrador current possibly. 

I am probably in the camp that says that recent warming must be some complex blend of human influences on the atmosphere, solar forcings over long term, and other natural processes not all identified or understood. But to those who suspect this is some ploy to debunk AGW, actually all options must be considered, one logical possibility is that we have entered a period of natural cooling and the AGW signal is therefore larger than postulated. Imagine that. 

 

[Roger J Smith]

Here are some comments in response to questions or comments from readers. 

(1) There seems to be a general misconception that I think the warming spikes suggested in the research data emanate from Jupiter (or other outer planets where relevant). No, I think the source of the warming is enhanced solar wind within sectors of the rotating solar system magnetic field. So the effects are not coming all that distance from Jupiter, but from much closer, the interface between the SSMF and our magnetosphere, or even in terms of periodic increases of solar flux. But the causes for those increases may extend out into the middle portions of our solar system. If one contributing factor is that incoming cosmic rays (probably a counterbalancing force against solar wind) are reduced by enhanced magnetic activity around Jupiter and Saturn, then that is how the distant source interacts with the process, but the source of any additional warming (over and above the AGW signal which I accept must be part of the overall signal) can only be the Sun or atmospheric processes set into motion by solar particles. 

(2) The field sectors may give some impression of a postulated process of material moving inward from the gas giants to the inner solar system but in reality they are postulated to be sectors of enhanced outflow of solar wind. 

(3) As to the specific questions about the data file and data points, I think you have generally understood how the Jupiter profiles are constructed, as you say, on average the differential is 12 years and 5 days but if you compared columns with late summer and autumn oppositions you would see a larger differential because opposition dates are further apart due to Jupiter's faster motion in that part of its orbit. Also the columns do not keep adding 12 years and 5 days indefinitely, they all jog back at certain intervals to keep the opposition dates within the range specified. Jupiter's orbital positions are similar after 83 years so the iteration is something like this 1, 13, 25, 37, 48, 60, 72, 84 (repeated). The actual data compilation can be handled either by formulae that average out the differentials to within a tolerance of 1-2 days, or just by inputting the actual opposition dates (in the row selected) and working up and down from those. 

As to the 12-year running means and the graph shown, this is a different profile from the J-year (synodic year of 399 days on average) profile whose graph appears in the section starting at row 1051. The 12-year sidereal Jupiter year (11.86 years to be more precise) was analyzed as you said in column KF but with 40-day data averages (not 39, the differentials are 39 as in 1-40, 41-80 etc). The reason why I chose 40 days was to divide the successive segments into ten equal parts. If you dived into that column you might find that the intervals vary slightly near end of each segment to keep the input as ten segments per column.

 Actually at some later point I also generated a more direct version of this signal which simply averages out data at 11.86 year intervals. As I recall that looked almost identical. The smoothing intervals chosen will tend to increase or decrease the scatter but eventually as you likely know from experience the smoothed curves begin to settle into final patterns that can only be blurred by taking too long a smoothing interval.

You could do this 12-year Jupiter analysis with monthly scale CET data and get the same sort of result as by using smoothed daily data. And that particular product of the research file is not really relevant to our discussion anyway, unless it somehow shows that Jupiter's orbital cycle signal (which as you say is rather small) contains clues as to timing of the process that the more relevant segment analysis would tend to show more clearly. So in other words, even if I accepted that it showed nothing, it has no impact on the arguments presented, probably that column should be deleted from the file for these purposes anyway. Also it should be noted that this data and the graph you showed refer to all data and not any particular recent signal. If I took the more recent data in that time scale, we would only have 2.5 orbits of Jupiter around the Sun (the overall analysis takes an average for 21 orbits). Even with that moderate number of data points, I think the sharp decline evident near mid-graph might be an artificial construct of data intervals (the most recent data entered terminating thus losing the most recent warming component). 

My research in general has not been looking for huge blockbuster signals but rather a compilation of all signals of moderate or small amplitude to find out whether, all integrated into one complex model, they form a predictive model. Rather ironically, the main impediment to testing this out is the continual upward drift of the background temperature trend in both of the primary data sets (I have all this sort of research done for 1841-present Toronto data as well). If there were a hundred signals with amplitude 0.1 C, and if it were valid that they could interact in a simple additive algorithm, then as 100 x 0.1 = 10, you would have a resultant predictive equation going forward with a potential amplitude of 10 to -10, roughly the actual range of the CET. The statistical chances of having all one hundred reinforcing at the same point in time would be, well, astronomically low. So perhaps the search should be for 200 components. (I counted up 84 that I had identified at some point -- my LRF offerings are generally based on the output of said assumptions).

What I'm hoping to focus on in this thread is the primary assertion that recent warming somehow clusters around the times when earth moves through field sectors that are more or less located at the alignments with the outer planets (the details are a bit complex but you can see in some of the graphs in the primary research area that the recent warming is stronger near Jupiter alignments than at the other times in our 13-month interactive cycles). I'm hoping the discussion will move into that area because that's what I find significant. 

As with the June question posed in the previous post, why is the warming not more or less evenly distributed in the J-year? 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

A count was undertaken for record maximum CET daily means in each "month" of the J-year.

The results showed that there were more than the random expectation of hits in three months, namely A, E and L. Months A and L are one (L) and two (A) months after Jupiter oppositions. Although month L has a few extra days available because it is the "leap month" in fact only one record fell into that leap period (1st of Aug 1995), with a higher count on either side of this interval which can only extend very far past L-33 when oppositions are in the July to November portion of the 12-year cycle. Month "L" had 41 records, the random expectation is 31 (30.4 for the other eleven). Month "A" had 38. 

The higher peak at month "E" (37 hits) coincides with the other alignment with Jupiter at conjunction. Lower than random expectation hits were found around months B-D and H-J. 

This falls in line with the findings that higher mean temperatures (relative to normal) occur near alignments with Jupiter. 

A significant number of monthly maxima fell into the L/A period which is basically 30-90 days after Jupiter opposition. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Roger J Smith