You may recall the previous post where Basil Copeland and I looked at correlations between HadCRUT global temperature anomaly and sunspot numbers. This is similar, but looks at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and uses the same Hodrick-Prescott (HPT) filter as before on the HadCRUT global temperature anomaly data and the PDO Index.
click for a larger image –
NOTE: the purple line is a monthly warming rate, to get decadal values, multiply by 120
This graphic provides some context to what may be happening with the PDO. In the upper panel we’ve plotted the PDO (in red), a smoothed PDO (in light blue), and our analysis of the bidecadal variation in warming rates.
From the PDO data itself, it is just too soon to be able to tell whether the current cool phase is just one of the shorter cycles, or whether it is the beginning of a longer term cycle like we saw back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It is tempting, when looking at the warming rate cycles, to believe that we’ve just come out of a 60-66 year “Kerr” climate cycle, and are on the cusp of a cool phase like we see for the 1950’s and 1960’s.
But if you look closely at the end of the purple curve for our warming rate cycle, it seems to be about ready to turn back up. Now we do not want to put too much stock in the end values of a series that has been smoothed with HP filtering. So it could still be on a downward trend.
Then, to make it all the more interesting, we have solar cycle 23 lingering on. Considering that also, confidence is higher that we will continue to see a relative respite in the rate of warming and that we’re not likely to see our warming rate cycle jump back to where it was during solar cycles 22-23. But whether we see a full blown interlude between two strong warming trends, like we saw during the 1950’s and 1960’s, remains to be seen.
In other words, as we saw with Easterbrook’s analysis, we can be reasonably confident in projecting at least no further warming for a while. For that to happen, the purple warming rate curve must not only turn back upwards, it must rise into the region of positive values, and continue to rise for several years. If solar cycle 24 turns out to be a weak solar cycle, and there are historical precedents for cycle length suggesting it is likely to be weak, that probably isn’t happening.
I’ll have more on solar cycles 23 and 24 coming up in the next day or so.
So, in summary; probably no net warming for awhile, and maybe a period of extended cooling as in the mid 20th century. It all depends on whether this current PDO shift is a short term or longer term event such as we saw in the mid 20th century.
This is inline with the article in today’s UK Telegraph, saying:
“Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”
There’s a similar article in Yahoo News.
The paper by Keenlyside et al entitled “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector” from the Nature website
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Warming Antarctic waters begin to cool”
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453015c.html
I have read a number of the links provided where AGW proponents are being forced to explain the anticipated cooling of the next decade or two. Have a missed, in their explanatory reference to the natural variation dampening the impact of AGW, any acknowledgment that the warming of the past 20-30 years has been exacerbated by the warm cycle of the PDO, and therefore it is likely that the assumed trend line for AGW has been overstated?
I seem to have missed that. It seems so obvious and logical that I can’t see how they can get around that question. And it seems somewhat disingenuous to not address that point if you’re going to be arguing about natural variation on the cooling side of things.
All this just further points to my contention that the real trend line is just the long-term half-degree per century warming that we see when we slap a trend line on the data that goes back into the 1800s. And even that is likely a longer term natural and cyclic variation. But I’m sure that idea would be dismissed as well.
Oh, Ye of little faith! The hockeystick crowd will simply keep revising older temperature records downward, then say: See! It’s still warming.
Meanwhile, the media will faithfully type this up and print it while wearing parkas and mukluks.
Wow. There has been a tremendous amount of articles in the last week that must have the AWG-crowd absolutely reeling…
Diatribical,
If you read the Leibnitz press release linked by Pierre above, you will see the following from Dr Jungclaus
“In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”
Of course he is only referring to events in the future – the past is a closed book!
Really, this Nature report is a huge watershed event!
It stems from one of the world’s most prestigious institutes, a big believer in AGW. Something must have spooked them into saying something that is, in essence, contrary to what they’ve previously believed.
Nature, Latif and the Leibnitz Institute now admit for the first time that even natural ocean oscillations alone are indeed strong enough to cancel out and drown the much ballyhooed AGW. Who knows, the cooling situation may be worse than we think.
And they now have left the door open for the other even more powerful factors like the sun, clouds or Lindzen’s iris effect. These doors are all open now.
Again Latif’s statement here says a lot.
“…Of course, always with the assumption that no other unforeseen effects such as volcanic eruptions occur, which can have a substantial effect on our climate as well”. See:
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=4192&L=1
Could this be the start of the domino effect? Are we about to see other scientists change their tunes as well?
I must say I’m a little bit in disbelief that these folks have put something out that will surely upset the AGW activists.
Think about it!
They’re saying:
“Sorry activists – you’ll have to wait 10 years for any new warming. But we promise it’ll be back!”
Just a few months ago they were telling us it was all settled, that warming was here to stay!
“This isn’t Ms. Marohasy’s blog, I think maybe you are confused as to who runs this one?”
You see, she’s coercively suppressing my comments, so I have to find a different venue.
REPLY: Sorry, I’m not buying that excuse, you didn’t even edit her name out of your post here. I know Jennifer personally. If your coments aren’t getting through there are two possible reasons:
1) Your comments are gettign caught in the SPAM filter, given the size of the one above, not surprising. Looks a lot like SPAM to some systems.
2) You are in some way violating site policy.
In this case, the comment you posted was off-topic. OT comments routinely get deleted by moderators. I do it myself. I genuinely thought you were simply confused, now I see you have an agenda.
Funny stuff: I’m listening to NPR yesterday and they are interviewing two guys from “Deadliest Catch”. NPR, of course, just HAD to ask the question “how is global warming affecting your catches?” Their response was basically “What global warming? We’re not seeing it. It’s 40 below out there on that sea…” Which mirrors virtually word-for-word what the guys on Ice Road Truckers stated last year: “Need to get Al Gore up here to show me the global warming. It’s minus 40…..”
the activists simply see this as validation of what happens when minor melt from Greenland occurs, along with the arctic sea ice (nevermind that the melting sea ice’s contribution to the ocean is small.)
meaning, in AGW Activist World, No More Warming until 2015=Global warming is accelerating and it’s Just Like the Day After Tomorrow! (A movie so bad I walked out on it. Couldn’t get my 6 bucks back though.)
@Dave Andrews
I like a reader O.K Manuel’s reaction to the report you cite:
” Yes indeed, God has a sense of humor! Why else would He tweak solar cycle #24 and expose the fraudulent committee of climate fortune-tellers that predicted global warming? Too bad.” Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com
For those who haven’t seen the relationship between NINO 3.4 and PDO data using monthly data:
http://i28.tinypic.com/9s4bgl.jpg
They correlate quite well.
HOWEVER
Keep in mind that PDO DATA IS STANDARDIZED, which might amplify the PDO signal significantly. Without raw North Pacific SST data, it’s impossible to tell. For illustrations of the effects of Standardization, here’s a comparison of the raw AMO versus Standardized AMO…
http://i32.tinypic.com/ka4sgp.jpg
…and raw global temperature anomaly (HADCRUT3GL) versus the same data Standardized:
http://i28.tinypic.com/x282nn.jpg
Super DBA you are right on the money! The AGW industry will not go quietly but will be kicking and screaming the whole way. This morning I tried to set up a chart for an evaluation of the latest NOAA temperature outlook for Bangor, Maine. Their prediction for Summer (JJA) is for a 60% probability to exceed the “norm” with the “norm” being 1/2 degree F above average, that is – their average.
Seems our local climate has undergone some serious cooling in the past decade since the “new” figures have adjusted our summer temps downward 1.7F or greater than a standard deviation. It’s going to be hard for them to miss their forecast unless the next ice age arrives real soon. It appears that NOAA will be forecasting above normal temperatures and verifying them with regularity… and they’ll have the data to prove it!
In all the excitement over the Nature article suggesting that the AMO will stop global warming (at least for a while), is it unreasonable to ask what has stopped it already?
I don’t want to rouse the Tamino crowd from their current slumber, but there has been no “net warming” now for the past ~6 years. These changes — first in the PDO, and now possibly in the AMO — will merely perpetuate, or intensify, something that has been going on already for several years now.
What could that something be? Could it be the Sun?
Sorry for all of you Cubs fans out there. (I actually am one as well.) The current AGW state reminds me of Cubs fans (or choose another sports team if it makes you feel better.)
“The cubs have the best team in baseball this year. If it weren’t for so-and-so having a slump, or all of those darned losses, we would be in the world series!!”
The theory sure looks pretty. Too bad the actual results don’t.
This all points back to the “positive feedback”, that was supposed to amplify the effects of increased CO2 and other GHGs. They knew that, by themselves, the increasing GHGs did not create much of a problem, and on net, it may be beneficial. So they had to increase the effects, by approx. 300%, of the initial forcing, and say it would happen, due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. What evidence is there for “positive feedback”? The same amount of evidence that AlGore is saving the planet, by selling carbon credits.
It looks like we will have at least another decade, until the “tipping point” that roasts us with fire and brimstone occurs 😉
A few quotes from the Telegraph article, but the Global Cooling Deniers:
“However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.”
“Writing in Nature, the scientists said: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming.”
So they are already in the Nature journal article and this article, trying to spin it as a temporary cooling or offset.
But the major falacy in that logic is that if the current cooling phase of the PDO, which is part of normal natural cycles, is creating a “temporory cooling trend”, then conversly wouldn’t that mean that the 30 year warm phase of the PDO that occurred between the mid 70’s till 1998, would account for a “temporary warming trend” during that time?
Basil,
Looking at all them sunspots…I’d say you’re on the right track.
Looking forward to your next solar post. Don’t keep us waiting too long.
Russ,
Positive feedback was the only way that the modelers could get the models to match the temperature rise in the latter half of the 20th century. Did they ever consider that their models were wrong? No way, that would be too scientific. Did they consider the impact of the sun, ocean currents, lower emissions of man-made aerosols, etc.? I think we all know the answer to the last question. As soon as these non-CO2 phenomena are properly introduced into the models, you will see the role of CO2 reduced by an order of magnitude. Mark my words!
“I genuinely thought you were simply confused, now I see you have an agenda.”
Actually, I’ve already admitted in my very first post that I do have an agenda: to promote freedom and democracy and to bring down the freedom-destroying forces of Al Gore.
By the way, why are you trying so hard not to talk about the “Heartland 500” list as well? Are you in Al Gore’s pocket too?
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
REPLY: “why are you trying so hard not to talk about the “Heartland 500″ ” well I mostly deal with weather stations and weather/climate data here, and the list just hasn’t been as interesting as what’s been happening in the real world lately.
I’ve got a .pdf of the Nature paper. Drop me an email if you’d like a copy.
Before all get too giddy, please remember we need quite a few more data points before we can feel more confident in a cooldown. And like I said yesterday, this may be a small burp in the recovery from the MWP. If so, GW could resume in later years as it inches back to where it was during the MWP.
Regardless which way it falls, I’ll have plenty of fodder for the “Mysterious Climate Project!” Now if I can only figure out how I can get paid….
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Novoburgo,
If I was a guessin’ man, I’d say that they are validating their models against a short and recent time frame (1~5 years?). Then they apply a constant fudge factor to make the model match current temperatures. That doesn’t help because it’s the slope that’s wrong. This forces the model’s temps for older periods to be way lower than the measured temps.
They can’t change the current temps to match their models because they would be caught, but since they are the record keepers, they can certainly “correct” the older records to match their models. This can go on for a long time since the temps get moved a little at a time, but it will eventually get absurd.
This is sheer speculation, I’ll leave the math to CA since it’s waaaaay over my head.
Is the red ‘Observations’ curve on Figure 4 of the Nature paper correct? They claim it’s HadCRUv3 although it’s clearly been smoothed. They also don’t show any error bars on the ‘Observations’ curve. It’s not the same Global Temperature plot the Nature paper team gave to the BBC Science website which has a similarly odd ‘Observations’ curve extending out to 2008.
REPLY: It looks correct but yes, HEAVILY smoothed
None of the models work…. heating or cooling. Just drop’em I say
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001413global_cooling_consi.html