Comments on: More on the PDO shift cited by NASA

By: evanjones

evanjones — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:07:17 +0000

Possibly. Or not. Was the underlying rise since 1840 a steady recovery from the LIA or was it due to CO2?

And why were temps flat from 2001-2007? No cycle shifts, but increased CO2 yet no warming. Perhaps the underlying rise is over?

By: Humboldt Character

Humboldt Character — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:32:40 +0000

If we are heading for a cooling phase in the next 30 years, does this means that global warming ultimately stops. Based on Easterbrooks projection, the global average temperatures over the next century still continue to rise. The PDO just appears to play as a negative feedback to global warming– so global warming will occur, right? but just not at such an alarming rate.

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » This may result in some significant extended worldwide effects, notably on agriculture.

Wed, 07 May 2008 00:09:35 +0000

[...] http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/more-on-the-pdo-shift-cited-by-nasa/ [...]

By: cohenite

cohenite — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:13:16 +0000

Very pleased to see this Easterbrook’s post; Stewart Franks of Newcastle University has been saying similar things for some time; that El Nina/La Nina and ENSO fluctuations are merely manifestations of the longer 40 year IPO climate shifts. The consequence for extrapolated upward temp trends then falls into a hole because of the fallacy of basing such trends on temp base periods which straddle, or don’t comprehend the exogenous parameter; the Quirk and McLean paper on the Pacific Event also focused on this discrepancy.

By: Warming or cooling trend? More on that from “Watts Up With That?” « HoodaThunk?

Sun, 04 May 2008 17:34:43 +0000

[...] Up With That?” Posted on 4 May, 2008 by Ric James Excellent commentary with good data points on the climate change debate can be found at Watts Up With That?, another WordPress.com blog. Of particular note is the projection and participation in the comments [...]

By: Paul Clark

Paul Clark — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:11:06 +0000

The Great Ocean
turns in her sleep.
Warmth gone,
we lie shiv’ring in the snow.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Sun, 04 May 2008 05:48:21 +0000

Worse. It’s all the rural stations that got et by CRN4 with the MMTS switchover.

By: lee

lee — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:01:25 +0000

Milankovitch cycles have a problem, glaciation between northern and southern hemispheres should onset out of phase by at least several hundred years b/c the equator is a thermodynamic barrier between hemispheres. The expected outcome of Milankovitch would bias to one hemisphere or the other instantiating glaciation before the other, but this is not what happens.

AAMOF, Don Easterbrook points out that the paleo records show NH & SH glaciation both onset concurrently, completely in step with each other.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:23:14 +0000

I’m surprised nobody seems to think the long term trend is due to the gradual thawing of glacial ice. Each year, as five more miles of permafrost is thawed, the Earth’s albedo is lowered, thus allowing for slightly greater warming. However, the long term paleoclimate records also show that what goes up, eventually comes back down. Why is nobody predicting (due to Milankovitch cycles) the eventual sudden decline in global temperatures? What good is there in teaching cyclic theories if they are not going to be put into practice?

Personally, I think the timing of this anomalously long solar minimum is related to the present cooling trend. The Earth’s climate is dynamic, meaning that it needs energy to run. The only meaningful source of energy for Earth’s climate is the Sun (and cosmic rays to some extent). How can we model the long term climate without taking the long term solar activity into account? This comes back to the Milankovitch cycles, but there is obviously something else going on, as well.

By: Alex Llewelyn

Alex Llewelyn — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:10:42 +0000

Just curious, but why should a positive PDO cause warming? The same goes for ENSO as well, a higher temperature maybe, but surely a warming TREND wouldn’t be expected just a step-shift, so why would temperature continue to rise due to PDO/ENSO, when they themselves are not then rising? Also, why should a positive PDO cause more warming than a negative PDO causes cooling.

Sorry, I’m just living up to the term “sceptic”.

By: bobclive

bobclive — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:01:46 +0000

I don`t know whether I am loosing the plot here but I thought Anthony was surveying the US ground stations because he and others believed the temperature measurements from these stations are contaminated with the urban heat island effect. If this proves to be correct then how much actual warming has occurred since the 1970`s when urban development started to take off.

Has the UHI effect taken from the 1970`s to the present now reached saturation, ie Do rural stations have any impact on the overall present day temperature measurements, the UHI effect relies I believe on continuing large rural development.

One study I mention is by Dr. Daniel Boice The study showed minimum temperatures at the San Antonio International Airport (the location of the National Weather Station) are increasing at an average rate of about 0.5 degrees Farenheit per decade relative to the nearby small towns.
Temperature comparisons indicate that San Antonio has an increasing UHI effect.4 In other words, San Antonio is hot, and it’s getting hotter!
There are many other studies that show similar results.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:06:13 +0000

Wheels within wheels.

By: Cycles Upon Cycles in Climate Change

Cycles Upon Cycles in Climate Change — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:11:26 +0000

[...] example, consider the following chart which appeared at “Watts Up With That?”, taken from a paper on the PDO by Professor Easterbrook, retired from Western Washington [...]

By: OzDoc

OzDoc — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:55:58 +0000

Thanks Anthony, you posting like a ‘bat-outa-hell’ makes it difficult to keep up sometimes. Can’t imagine what your diary looks like!

By: bill-tb

bill-tb — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:20:28 +0000

The PDO ended the 70s ice age hysteria in 1977, will the PDO end the current warming hysteria. It’s funny that the computer models neither predicted the decline nor can they predict the 10-15 year interlude. The computer models have been wrong at every twist and turn, and now they say natural variability — which is what has been going on all along.

It’s time to call BS on the computer models and get back to real science.

Anyone heard of GIGO? It’s an age old term for computer models that are not tested by empirical data.

By: OzDoc

OzDoc — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:42:38 +0000

Anthony, thanks for drawing attention to Don’s response as an update.

However, in your original piece, there was a link (not there anymore?) to a statement made by Josh Willis of the JPL, it was the press release as I recall (I copied a snippet):

“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

I can’t help but think the extremists on both sides of the “debate” should just extract their collective heads from their collective rear quarters. Their often unqualified rant does not constructively address the issues; it more than not confuses it. Distortion and misrepresentation of *climate science* research is usually unintended by the layperson. However, some (not all) people deliberately obfuscate and misrepresent the science based on their ideological perspective, regardless of the science.

The next 5-10 years will be very interesting in climate research and I would have liked to have seen more posts/comments on ocean/atmosphere/land couplings and climate sensitivity studies (rather than the usual ad-homs).

In any event, keep up the great work.

REPLY: The link you refer to (JPL) is in the previous posting, seen here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/nasa-pdo-flip-to-cool-phase-confirmed-cooler-times-ahead/

here is the JPL announcement with that text:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-066

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:21:47 +0000

Dr Easterbrook, I was wondering if you had seen this:
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/
I’ve become very interested in PDO and other teleconnections and their relationship to Global Climate. Your prediction reminds me very much of the prediction of Bill Gray a few years back. I find both quite plausible and see them as having a similar basis. I have a suggestion, also: you could expand your analysis to include other Oscillations, such as the AMO. :)

By: Drew Latta

Drew Latta — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:18:21 +0000

Chris,

The link to the Ramanathan & G. Carmichael ( 2008 ) paper is:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/full/ngeo156.html

I generally post just citations because I figure that people who do have access to online journals that aren’t open access know how to get to the proper source through whatever system they use. I doubt that Nature Geoscience is open access.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:09:51 +0000

As if by magic, a new study is appearing in Nature this week from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, saying that “on top of the warming trend, there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years.” How’s that for timing? I’m surprised the BBC haven’t pounced on this yet.

So… there will be a brief intermission, while we adjust our models…

By: Philip_B

Philip_B — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:50:27 +0000

“The models indicate a low chance of either a stronger warming to El Niño levels or a re-intensification of La Niña conditions during 2008.”

The models referenced by the BoM have been consistently wrong about the current La Nina. They have predicted a weak La Nina which would quickly dissapate.

Similarly, Australia region tropical cyclone models over the same period have also been completely wrong, predicting well above average cyclone activity, when we had the quietest cyclone season in 20 years.

The interesting question is why have the models been so wrong?

The obvious answer is the models don’t take into account the primary climate drivers over the last 12 to 18 months.

However, I’m not optimistic we will see an honest appraisal of the predictive accuracy (or lack thereof) of these models anytime soon. To admit that their predictive accuracy is less than chance would be a serious blow to the credibility of the AGW camp.