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.”
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 the trend is only up when looking at surface temps. How about Sat?
Esterbrooks chart seems to indicate that, roughly, between the year 2000 and 2100 there will be a .3C temperature increase in global mean temperature.
Yawn! Can I go back to sleep now? Global warming is not worth worrying about anymore.
My ,I hope, future grandchildren would be in their eighties by then. I would assume with the enormous inventiveness of humankind that we would have both a greater understanding of nature, and a substantial technological advancement by then. After all our descendants will stand on our shoulders, as they have done for the last several hundred years and reach out to new horizons, that we could never imagine.
General warming trend over the past 100 years is due to less aerosols in the atmosphere, in my opinion (i.e., the air is cleaner today). Apparently, climate models use the cooling effect of aerosols to help “inflate” the role of CO2 to get the results to match the observed temperature rise (particularly the rise in temperautre between 1990 and the present). If, instead, the role of aerosols has actually decreased (i.e., they are doing less cooling), then the climate modelers would have to shift more of the observed warming from CO2-driven climate change onto to “less aerosols” in the atmosphere. Please see the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
where aerosols emissions have been assumed to INCREASE over the past century. Given the extensive amount of pollution control equipment installed in N. America and Europe, the demise of the Former Soviet Union, the modernization of China, and less burning of ag waste in general around the world, I do not why people insist that air quality is worse today than 50 or 100 years ago. For example, 30 years ago, Chinese burned coal and ag waste in their homes to stay warm and to cook. Today, modern power plants have replaced this dirty practice. The combination of a more active sun and less aerosols in the atmosphere is the best explanation for higher surface temperatures and cooler stratospheric temperatures since 1990. Assuming the sun isn’t as active as it has been over the last 2 decades, and the air doesn’t get measurably cleaner, I doubt we will see temperatures exceed that of 1998 in a very long time. But, temperature will not go back to the lower temperatures of the early 20th century.
Aerosols can go either way. Carbon black is a supposed green house agent, and SO2/H2SO4 aerosols are supposedly cooling agents. The question is whether greater economic activity and generally poorer particulate controls on Asian coal fired power plants has increased or decreased the emissions of carbon black and SO2 relative to a non-industrializing Asia.
See:
V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael (2008) “Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon” Nature Geoscience:1(4) pp221 – 227
Don Easterbrook said: 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.
Don thanks for your great work!
With respect to the last sentence in the above quote, I believe this is exactly what the Pogies (anthropogenics) realized when they started this fearmongering. How can they go wrong with their assertions? All they have to do is ride the wave until the temperature hits about where it was during the MWP!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Mr. Easterbrook, thanks for clearing some things up for me!
Chris said: “General warming trend over the past 100 years is due to less aerosols in the atmosphere, in my opinion (I.e., the air is cleaner today). :
I think you’re absolutely on target with that… except for China where it seems it’s an “Anything goes” environment.
Chris also said: “Years ago, Chinese burned coal and ag waste in their homes to stay warm and to cook. Today, modern power plants have replaced this dirty practice.
I’d like to see some citations on that one. From what I read in various reports, it’s generally the “same ole, same ole” but with additional pollution from the myriad of coal powered generating plants… plants I might add, that were primarily built to serve industry rather than the peasants.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.c
Mr. Easterbrook said:
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.
Oh I can hear it now:
“Easterbrook isn’t qualified to make this kind of statement. He is not a REAL scientist, not a Climatologist! He doesn’t have the proper training that only WE Climatologists have spent YEARS acquiring to be able to interpret the complexities of the climate correctly. He is only a lowly geologist after all… Big Oil…. blah, blah, blah…”
Just checked the Australian BoM’s ENSO site for today’s update:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
They conclude with:
“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.”
How meaningless is that for a prediction – we might get an El Niño or we might get another La Niña. I could do as well reading my tealeaves!
I agree that our CO2 emissions will push the temperature up a tick or 2 in the next 100 years. But no one can say what the other factors will do. We have to be patient. The next year or two will tell us what the SUN will do.
If we get suddenly a robust cycle 24, then we’re back to the AGWs running the show. But if cycle 24 continues to elude us, then cooling will most very likely have its day (decades!). The cycles certainly point to cooling.
I’m skeptical of Easterbrook’s projections. I’m sure Mr Easterbrook is skeptical of his own projections too…like any good scientist would be.
“I don’t believe 2 or 3 decades of a cooling mean catastrophe.”
All it takes is one day of cooling to bring catastrophe if that one day results in the loss of the midwestern grain crop due to an unseasonal frost. The loss of a significant portion of the US grain crop would be catastrophic for many people in this world.
It has been suggested that such a climate change was responsible for failed harvests in Europe and the common people being short of grain and when informed that the people had no bread, a certain European leader of the time said “Well, then let them eat cake!”. She lost her head soon after that comment.
Drew and Jack,
I posted this hypothesis over at Atmoz’s site a month ago. In response, Atmoz cited a paper that indicated atmospheric aerosols had decreased over the past decade based on satellite-derived data. On this site, Anthony cited a paper where the author claimed lunar eclipses are brighter today than in anyone’s recent memory. This was supposedly due to a cleaner and clearer atmosphere. Drew, there was no link provided with the paper you recommended. Jack, modern power plants (regardless if they don’t have post-combustion pollution control equipment) are still cleaner today than power plants built 50 years ago. Also, they are cleaner than the alternative: a billion Chinese cooking food over coal-fired stoves. Just because China is emitting more CO2 doesn’t automatically mean that they are emitting more aerosols. This is a perfect example of the lazy thinking that permeates the entire climate modeling community! EVERYONE assumes China is emitting more aerosols. Where’s the proof? If particulate matter have fallen in places like the US, Europe, Eastern Europe/Russia, why not China which has modernized faster than any country in history? Finally, I have not found answers to following questions: How is it that one-time events like volcanic eruptions can send aerosols into the stratosphere, but long-term, steady (albeit lower) emissions of man-made aerosols are assumed only to exist in the troposhere for a few weeks’ duration? Also, why is there no distinguishment between sulfate aerosols (sulfur species bound to water) and solid particulate matter like carbon black and fly ash that are dry and carry an electric charge (which means they are likely be carried higher and further into the atmosphere)? According to Atmoz, an aerosol is an aerosol. I postulate that large volcanic eruptions overwhelm the available moisture in the local troposhere, thus allowing more particles to reach the stratosphere. If so, I would expect some man-made aerosols reaching the stratosphere as well. Are any of these factors considered in climate models? Of course not, that would be too scientific. If one ran the climate models assuming NO cooling due to aerosols, how much CO2-driven climate change has to be pulled back to match temperature trends? In essence, I would bet that the background amount of aerosols (i.e., man-made) assumed in the climate models is much too high. Climate models are deficient in two major areas: the role of the sun and aerosols. Until this is nailed down with a better degree of certainty, the predictive capability of the models are crap.
“It is a popular opinion that the temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern times, than it was in ancient times. This opinion has been adopted and maintained by many writers of reputation… indeed, I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.”
How little things have changed in 200-plus years!
Source: David Ludlum’s great book “Early American Winters 1604-1820”, page 239.
I forgot to mention that the quotation from Ludlum’s book was read by Noah Webster before the Connecticut Academy of Science in 1799.
I predict:
It will warm until the next ice age starts. Then it will get cool again.
The next ice age is inevitable.
I admire Easterbrook for presenting hypotheses that are falsifiable. That is the opposite of what NASA Goddard and the IPCC choose to do.
Humans have only been studying climate cycles with modern scientific and computational instruments for a limited number of years. We need a lot more patience and humility from the “climate gods” of the orthodoxy (IPCC).
As others have commented, the PDO is just part of the climate mix. Solar effects are important. Land use and distribution of agriculture, forest, and urban areas are important. Soot and aerosols play a role. Greenhouse gases also play a minor role still being worked out.
[…] “Watts Up With That?” wurde die PDO-Thematik mal wieder […]
Looks like Nature (science mag) is starting to get the picture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
We will start seeing a lot more of these type of articles soon as they (AGW crowd) try to extricate themselves. AGW now delayed for 10-15 years by then of there may be another shift. On the other hand it could just be more nonsense.. its only a “model” once again but this time going against AGW LOL. Poor ol Hansen Schmidt Mann… etc. LOL Basically… global warming has stopped its now official LOL
2008 = year AGW was “stopped” (new wikipedia entry) LOL
Let us not forget our eliptical orbit, the precession of equinoxes (or is it oxi?), our axis tilt and a host of other astronomical variations which we may not know of (positon in the galaxy for one). Each one on it’s own may not have any effect but may accumulate into something that plays a role. 700 years ago the Earth was the center of the Universe, 600 years ago the Earth was flat, 30 years ago the Earth was in danger of an Ice Age. 10 years ago Algore was thought to have a brain. Who knows what we will know tomorrow.
Gonna be a rough year.
http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/
Al Fin
Amen to patience and humility. Remember most of the warmers are only figuratively 20 years old. As a young calling they are naturally robust in their belief that they know the truth.
Moreover they have been propelled to the forefront by the IPCC process far faster than they could have ever believed possible.
They are full of certainty but have yet to learn the pateince and humility that life eventually teaches you.
I think the key to everything can be found in these numbers: 4 8 15 16 23 42.
My latest blog entry (http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/global-warming-and-the-maligning-of-joy/) describes what I consider to be the “maligning of joy” as it relates to Global Warming. Seriously. It’s reached the point where I notice that half the people around me can’t even enjoy a nice, warm day outside because they are so worried about global catastrophe. Before we will see a reversal in attitude on the AGW issue, we need some major countrywide therapy to correct this damaged psyche and ongoing dysfunction so that people can move on to issues that actually matter. Like feeding their families, for instance.
Rex,
Last year Hadley said AGW will return with a vengence by 2009; now some are putting it off until 2015. This could very well be a short negative PDO. But, all things considered (net cooling since 1998;oceanic cooling since 2005, and a strong La Nina which followed a weak-moderate El Nino) I think people should look at a loss of perhaps 25% of the warming since 1976, maybe more. That is, I would place my bet on a 30 year negative PDO.
Also, I’ve seen some people attempt to coorelate the PDO/ENSO cycles with solar activity. There may very well be a link; however, no one has yet proven other than with ancedotal evidence. The oceans stores such more heat energy, and thier processes and circulations are very complex. Also, long term multidecadal solar cycles (other than the 11 year Schwabe Cycle) only oscillate once every 200 years (Gliessberg Cycle). We are at the tail end of the positive or active Gliessberg Cycle. The ending of the Dalton Minimum in 1810-1820 started the current high solar activity the globe now enjoys. It appears only the Russians seem interested in this area of study. If another solar minimum does begin within the decade, the PDO won’t be the only thing we have to worry about