For now, we have about 1 year of significant cold phase tendency in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), here is the last 108 years of the PDO index, plotted from monthly values:
Click for larger image – source Steven Hare, University of Washington
Compared to the negative magnitudes seen from 1946 to 1977, our current PDO phase shift magnitude is relatively mild. But that could change. Don J. Easterbrook, a retired professor from the Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, in Bellingham, WA sends this analysis:
la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific (PDF)
The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes.
Global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have not been exceeded since then. Pacific Ocean temperatures began a cooling phase in 1999 that was briefly interrupted by El Nino and dramatic cooling in 2007-2008 appears to be a continuation of a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool phase (Fig. 1) as predicted [shown in the figure below].
Thus, we seem to be headed toward several decades of global cooling, rather than the catastrophic global warming predicted by IPCC.
If we are lucky, this PDO will be a short event. 2-4 years. If we are unlucky, and it is the “full Monty” phase switch at 20-30 years as Easterbrook suggests, we may be in for extended cooler times. This may result in some significant extended worldwide effects, notably on agriculture.
UPDATE! Professor Easterbrook adds in comments:
“The projected warming from ~2040 to ~2070 is NOT driven by CO2, it’s merely a continuation of warm/cool cycles over the past 500 years, long before man-made CO2 could have been a factor. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age at rate of about 1 degree or so per century and the 2040-70 projection is simply a continuation of non-AGW cycles.
An interesting question is the similarity between what we are seeing now with sun spots and global temperature and the drop into the Little Ice Age from the Medieval Warm Period. Could we be about to repeat that? Only time will tell–We might see a more pronounced cool period like the 1880 to 1910 cool cycle (when many temp records were set) or a milder cooling like the 1945-1977 cool cycle. In any case, the setting up of the cool phase of the PDO seems to suggest cooler times ahead, not the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC and Al Gore.”
I think extended cooling from PDO shift in the current situation of political hysteria will be good news. Especially if a weaker sunspot cycle 23 means slightly higher low cloud cover resulting in extra cooling the next decade. If cooling doesn’t stop the CO2 hysteria I can’t figure out what will do that.
We also may learn to not listen to politics and science mixed. Just let’s hope technology and free trade makes development continue, despite cooling.
Sunspot cycke 24 of course.
Hysteria Pays Dividends…
Al Gore has just raked in another $US700m from institutional investors, including the Victoria Super Fund. The monies raised will be dished out in lots of approx $US30m to “renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and bio…
I don’t believe 2 or 3 decades of a cooling mean catastrophe. The previous 30-year coolings have only been a fraction as strong as the warmings. The future also calls for net warming. PDOs I suspect are just lagged reactions to solar activity. The next couple of years will tell us a lot about what the sun will do (sun’s blank today too).
I’m also convinced agriculture will not suffer from some cooling. Cooling could (hopefully) put an end to this CO2 hysteria, thus allowing the huge added agri-capacity to be shifted from agro-fuels to producing food for folks. Already there’s huge mounting pressure to end the agro-fuel folly.
Notice that the linear trend from ~1904 to ~1943 is ~1.4*/C (which was supposedly mostly natural, BTW) while the trend from ~1965-~2008 is ~1.6*/C. That’s remarkably similar, especially considering they lasted about the same length of time. And similarly, if you take the slope from 1943 to 1965, you get -0.2*/C, while taking a visually similar period from 1877-1904, you get a slope of -.7*/C. And again, the duration is about the same.
The point is that the period until ~1940 has features that are nearly identical in both duration and trend to the period since, yet climatologists all concede that the early period is natural while claiming that the latter period is due to (first) aerosols and (second) AGW. Seeing cyclical positive then negative trends like this with an almost perfect 60yr period makes me wonder why we shouldn’t be assuming there isn’t some underlying sinusoid that’s driving much of the temperature swings. If only there was some feature of the earth’s climate that had a roughly 60yr period. Hmm…
Although the fact that the temperature changes seem to precede the PDO shifts by about a decade makes me wonder which is driving which. But the periodicity is undeniable none the less.
Interesting stuff. The true anomaly here appears to be the very cool conditions from the 1940s to 1970s. Perhaps it will never become that cool again(?). Its funny that aerosols are blamed for the mid-20th centry cooling when it is so clearly evident that the pacific was a large driver.
Also: Easterbrook appears to be an AGW believer.
Looking at Don Easterbrook’s projection, I note that temps appear to rise again from 2040 onwards; surely AGW proponents would say that the cooling is just a blip on the warming trend and that the long-term projection is basically upwards? Perhaps they would say that we should be lowering CO2 emissions anyway in the next couple of decades in order to prepare for the warming later this century?
Yeah, interesting … warm, cool, warm, cool, etc.
Anyone notice that the trend is up? Anyone wonder what is causing this upward trend?
Would appreciate dialogue here on ocean/atmosphere/land couplings – even feedback loops).
Off topic (?) but as for catastrophic predictions by the IPCC … doesn’t that depend on how the world ‘develops’ (e.g. SRES scenarios) over the next 100 years?
Don’t get pedantic, the IPCC “projected” sea level rise 59 cm doesn’t seem as dramatic, or catastrophic, as Hansen, Gore et al, … does it?,
I am not an AGW groupie, but I am perplexed by the easterbrook projection. The cooling forcast for the next 30 years does not go lower than the values graphed for the mid 90s, and then projected values continue their relentless climb until 2100. What is the basis for the higher anomaly from 2040 onward?
I am not an AGW groupie, but I am perplexed by the continued warming forcast for the Easterbrook projection beyond 2040. What is the basis for this?
how did Easterbrook come to the conclusion that this is the full monty shift? His document does not indicate how he got there.
I do agree with his conclusion—perhaps the this may give the catastrophists pause.
Funny how the projection tries to keep AGW intact.
Surely a long deep cooling phase would be a good thing
– and return us to the temps of the mid-20th century
Easterbrook’s graphs show a long-term temperatute rise (with PDO superimposed thereupon)
– what is this due to?
– CO2?
REPLY: I don’t wish to speculate, perhaps he’ll join in with comments.
Will man made global warming (AGW) advance in steps? Or ist there a “coupled air-sea response to solar forcing in the Pacific region……” (eg. Harry van Loon)?
It is often said that El Nino and La Nina are responsible for changes in the earth’s temperature but it seems to me that they are more of a symptom then a cause. What heats or cools them?
If I have the flu I don’t blame me being sick on my fever, I blame my fever on the flu.
Professor Don Easterbrook’s defection from the “consensus” is particularly impressive given the stridency of the AGW crowd here in Washington State and even more so at Western Washington in Bellingham where he taught geology.
Such views are more common among geologists than the media reports. Our national and international organizations long ago became co-opted by the the AGW camp, but many of the members are skeptical.
When geologists of Easterbrook’s stature speak out those of us with more to lose (as in employed by government) are heartened.
Any idea of how the second plot is obtained? Is the PDO superposed on the CO2 warming trends?
If one takes the solar predictions the cooling would be most severe, instead of this hiccup on the way to warming.
Just a quick correction, in the last paragraph you say “Easterling”. I think you might mean “Easterbrook” yes?
Very interesting possibilities. Although I don’t want to see it go into a cooling phase due to the potential crop problems in an already difficult period with food, I really do wonder how some of the AGW proponents would react to such an extended cooling period.
REPLY: Fixed, thanks.
[…] would consider emailing, but since he sent his analysis to Anthony, I suspect he’ll pop in at the Easterbrook post at “WattsUpWithThat?”. If so, the conversations over there should be […]
I’m not sure we are switching to a longer-term cool phase and PDO shift.
SST’s have been slowly switching from La Nina to El Nino over the past 3 months.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/anom_anim.html
I look at that chart and to me, it doesn’t look like it’s a chart showing ocean cooling, just a break from warming to a status quo. I am assuming that this is just thought to be part of the normal cycle and doesn’t include much consideration for the less active solar cycles that have been predicted?
Interestingly, this all seems to tie in directly with the Equatorial Pacific Warm Pool and indirectly with the Svensmark Effect.
Somewhere in the late ’90s, several Australian scientists noted a relationship between Warm Pool anomalies and the PDO. What they didn’t tie in was sunspot activity. And then along came Svensmark. If you look at the overall picture, NOAA’s Metha may have hit it on the head: The Warm Pool is the earth’s thermostat (see http://www.epwp.com). I have several great papers on this somewhere, but only God knows where that is!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Bill lllis
I don’t see a switch from La Nina to El Nino over the last three months I see a fadeing of La Nina. What I wonder about is what is happening off the coast of Peru. The anomaly that appeared two weaks ago seems to be expanding. Speculating here, but this could be the lead up to yet another La Nina. If you look at the NOAA site you will notice that the waters off the east coast of Africa are anomalously cool.
Bill Innis,
Like Anthony, I’m cautious about whether this is a temporary cool phase, or a flip to a regime like in the 50’s and 60’s. The PDO has a strong short term cycle of 5-6 years, and we seem to be at the limits of that cycle. If the cooling continues, then that makes it more likely that this is a long term “flip.” It would nice to have some analysis of what is happening to the Aleutian low, and surface winds in the north Pacific, since those are part of what defines the PDO.
As to El Nino/La Nina, you ought to take a look at the current MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index). The last three months don’t show any sign of the La Nina letting up any time soon. Here are two strings of values, representing the last six months (through FEB/MAR):
-1.117 -1.121 -1.121 -.948 -1.34 -1.546
9 9 8 12 4 3
The first row of numbers are the MEI itself. The second row is the rank of the MEI for the indicated month, for 58 years of data. The record high rank (58) was set for months during 1997 and 1998. The record low ranks are scattered, with the values for 1 and 2 in FEB/MAR coming in 1971 and 1974, and 4 and 5 during the 1950’s. This is looking to me like it will go down as one of the strongest La Nina’s on record.
Basil
Bill Illis said: “….The anomaly that appeared two weaks ago seems to be expanding. Speculating here, but this could be the lead up to yet another La Nina.”
There are actually three ENSOs: Warm, Cool, and Neutral. Although it could be shifting to Neutral, I suspect as you do, that it may only be taking a “breather” and will morph back into a full blown ENSO Cool (La Nina).
However, if sunspot activity resumes to any great extent, we may end up with either of the other two ENSOs.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com