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.
Given the latest circumstances, one has to wonder if we’ll ever learn the identities of the IPCC scientists now that they might have more than just a bit of egg on their faces. Is this the reason they didn’t want their names known… because of the fragileness of their arguments?
Just something to ponder….
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Pierre and others
I too would like to urge some caution.
This is a single paper based on a model that is surrounded with caveats. It’s going in the right direction and certainly the comments being made by the scientists involved can come back to haunt them. But if cooling trends don’t continue it won’t amount to much. So lets wait a bit and see
While we have had almost 11 years of no temperature increse this is not as unnormal as you could think. During the last 30 years there have been another 2 periods of ~10 years with 0 trend.
Even though there is no doubt there have been a temperature increase during the last 30 years it is still possible to produce long 0-trends during that period.
I have read quite often that we now have a 10 year period without increase so I decided to check if that argument is valid as a proof that the increase of temperature has stoped.
This diagram shows what I found using RSS satellit data.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2457220479_b2e4994b8d_o.jpg
It shows for each month the longest period that a 0-trend can be produced for.
Current 0-trend
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2457267677_8dffb81a62_o.jpg
This is the 3rd time the last 29 years we can produce a 0-trend for about 10-years even though the temperature has increased over the whole period.
What is interesting now is that we seem to be in middle of a downward trend or no increase period which probably will make this 0-trend grow quite fast as it will be able to “embrace” even older temperature data and still produce a 0-trend.
Yes we should exercise restraint and not get too giddy regarding the paper. However, there has been an amazing side story. Many of the usual supects are saying, yes – we should expect no warming (or even cooling!) for the next 5 to 10 years. Of course it is followed with statements assuring us of phenomenal warming after that.
I can’t ever remember the alarmist camp making statements like this. Their usual M.O. is to belittle or ignore studies that don’t agree with the party line.
I think the flip of the PDO and apparent impending flip of the AMO along with obvious cooling over the last year has them running scared. They have been denying PDO/AMO has *any* connection to global temps. Suddenly, they have changed their tune. I think this is a watershed moment.
No warming until 2015? Their model doesn’t say that. Look at figure 4. There is about 0.2C of warming between 2010 and 2015. There is no net warming in their forecast from 2005 to 2010, but there is a warming of about 0.1C relative to the fixed greenhouse gas hypothesis. By 2035, the temperatures are the same as the IPCC A1B scenario.
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”?
I am sure that you already know that AquaSat has busted the positive feedback equation all to hell. The increase in water vapor does not go to GH vapor, instead it forms low level clouds which increase albedo. So instead of a positive feedback, it’s a negative feedback resulting in homeostasis.
Re modeling: Models, like some wargames can be legit. indicators. But only if you design them simply, from the top down, NOT from the ground up.
For example, you can do a reasonable model for the German invasion of Russia from and Army/Army Group perspective and get crude, but plausible results. But if you “improve” the model so you are trying to do it on a squad-level, you get totally lost in the statistical snow and your results are utterly meaningless and useless.
All too often when modeling a complex system (such as climate) less is more. But it takes a hardbitten sim veteran to realize this; and those amateur climate modelers may have Ph.Ds in their subject, but they are babes and boobs when it comes to the dynamics of practical simulation.
And like the rank amateurs they are (in the simulation arena), they haven’t got a clue as to what makes a good sim and what makes a bad sim.
As for me, yes, I’ve been in the biz for many years.
Remember that Blue Vs Gray game I handed off to you, Rev? If you like, I’ll email you “the war according to the game”. My storyboard. It includes every card pick, every supply point, every step loss, every die roll form 1st Bull run to Appomattox and Durham. All of it. Historical commentary included. When I design a simulation, I really MEAN it. I can achieve that level of accuracy only by top-down design method. (And I’m well aware of its inherent limitations in predictive ability.)
Jeff C said: “I think the flip of the PDO and apparent impending flip of the AMO along with obvious cooling over the last year has them running scared. They have been denying PDO/AMO has *any* connection to global temps. Suddenly, they have changed their tune. I think this is a watershed moment.”
Although I commented about getting to “giddy,” I also agree with you at the same time. In fact, there may be more going on than we are even aware of at this moment!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Atmoz just doesn’t get it.. the goal posts could be moved again come 2015? Thats why its no longer credible… These are just the first few papers that will continue to come out.. Nature (magazine) has in fact decided to take a starting position to cover themselves for the near future when the AGW will be thrown out completely
BTW these are again models.. and as R Pielke Jr implies may not have any meaning (although I admit, this one could, because its based on PREVIOUS sea data). Temperatures could in fact go up until 2015 etc… and so on then down etc..
Does the phrase “Paradigm Shift” ring any bells? What’s happening now reminds me of the shift that occured from the steady-state universe hypothesis to the Big Bang hypothesis, eventually the facts got in the way of the steady-state universe theory and rendered it obsolete. That process took nearly 40 years though. Even now there are people who cling to that theory despite a lack of evidence. The same is happening here – reality is slapping the AGW proponents in the face. I wonder how many more years of data it will take to convince them that their hyptohesis is obsolete.
Firstly, Anthony, this “Bi” guy is doing the same inanity on several other sites such as Lubos’ Reference Frame. I have no idea what he is trying to do, but obviously neither does he given the sites he is posting his stuff on.
Also, I tend to think there is a serious movement towards cooling at hand. I think it is a “Perfect Storm” type scenario with all of these normally independent (or seemingly so) factors all lining up in proximity to one another as they switch to their cool, or low, cycles.
I am not happy at all about the prospect of being able to say “I told you so” to the Warm-mongers. First of all, they will not listen as the cognitive dissonance arising from their religious beliefs will not allow these evidential facts to penetrate their minds. Secondly, if it is indeed cooling we are all in for some difficult times. Despite the platform it provides to the lunatics, I much prefer warming.
Julian has brought up a point about the slowness of change of a scientific paradigm. I like to use Plate Tectonics as another example. Look how long it took for that to be accepted, and go back and read the bad names the proponents were called for years before acceptance. It makes the AGW proponents look friendly by comparison.
One point which has not been discussed in this thread. If CO2 lags temperature instead of leading, as several have proposed, then the downturn in rate of accumulation will even further confound the gorebull warming proponents. And did I not see a curve a couple of weeks back showing Mauna Loa concentration failed to reach expected concentration on the last peak?
REPLY: Yes you did, and of course it was ridiculed over there in Hansenland by his pet bulldog. Here it is again:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/co2-monthly-mean-at-mauna-loa-leveling-off/
It will be interesting to see if CO2 from Mauna Loa changes or continues the short trend in April 2008. The number are due any day now.
Terry is right to sound a note of caution on how the alarmists will spin this. Just this week the ABC (down here in the SH) ran a piece about monitoring of oceans adjacent to the Antarctic ice sheets using sensors carried by seals. Started out quite a cute piece, but we were soon told that this was revealing a trend (yes, a trend) to reduced salinity, caused by increased glacial melt due to you-know-what, which could have grave impacts such as.. There it stopped, but I predict that soon one of these grave impacts will be said to be a flip in the PDO, perhaps leading to a new glacial, and thus we were right about a tipping point.
I concur with Dave Andrews and Rex (and possibly others). We should taken caution and not read too much out of the paper yet. Like Rex said, it is just a model and not the real world.
This model (and paper) is an excellent opportunity to check the model results with the actual data in the next 10 to 20 years. This may be the actual litmus test. If the model itself doesn’t contain any flaws and future data are in line with results the model has predicted, the model might have predictive capabilities. If not, …?
Dave Andrews,
Certainly you’re correct in urging caution.
But I just never expected Dr. Latif, AGW proponent, having to say: “Hold your horses with the warming for 10 years. There are new factors we did not previously understand. It’s going to get cooler.”
This is the kind of message you’d expect from “deniers”, and not from them. It had to have been hard for them to make the admissions they’ve made. I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS HERE IF THEY VIEW THIS LIKE I DO.
Latif & Co. have had to make a U-Turn, at least for the next 10 years (by then he’ll be retired). These folks just don’t make such U-Turns unless there’s some pretty damn convincing serious data. My guess is the data they have is pretty strong, but the Nature report has been watered down. Look for more cooling trends to pop up everywhere. I suspect in a few years they’ll be reluctantly adding the solar factors to their climate equations and models as well.
I’m just speculating, but human behaviours have trends to.
Speaking of predictive capabilities, what about the failure of all of the AGW models to date to predict the cooling we’ve seen since 1998. If the models are so great, then how come they don’t predict anything other than CO2 Apocalypse?
If the graph shown by the bbc is the same as the one in hte nature paper, why has noone noted yet that the ‘old model’ and ‘new model’ are symmetric about the observations, and will be seen by the average reader, providing support for the models. The convenience of this says ‘bluff’ to me, real science is never that convenient. Why has current temperature diverged so much from the new model?
Here’s an interesting comment from Willem de Lange over on CA ‘Ice Ages#2’
One of the reasons I got annoyed with the IPCC when I was involved, was an almost universal dismissal of the contribution of natural forcing to the observed warming – particularly the role of decadal-scale climate variability such as the PDO. In discussions with one of our Nobel Peace Prize winning meteorologists back in the 1990s, their position was that the greenhouse effect had overwhelmed natural variability and it just would not be possible for the PDO to switch.
l
Jim Arndt,
When corn gets more expensive, people shift to eating other things. This increases the demand for other things, and they in turn get more expensive.
Don’t forget that many people are predicting that solar cycle 25 will be very weak.
I agree with the line Pierre, Jeff C., McGrats, Rex, Timo, et. al., see emerging. This paper is a hedge featuring a misdirection: AMO, although wild, shouldn’t even flip before 2015.
What the hedge tacitly acknowledges is this La Nina and minmal solar input are with us thru 2009; cycle 24 max in 2013 will be felt only after about a 4 year lag, QED warming post 2015, thank Gaia!
If AMO then flips, corn belt drought could be enhanced, but will follow in any scenario.
But the Atmoz happy ending in 2035 cannot obtain. Cycle 24 min. circa 2022 will be deeper still and with PDO and AMO negative, Europe will not be a winter vacation destination.
Timo, I agree this is only a model and time will tell whether the cooling continues. But I believe this is a major change from the CO2 is the only reason for the recent warming crowd at RC and Open mind. It is good that moders are looking at local ocean temperatures and ttrying to hindcast using that data. I suspect though that Tamino the cherry picker will be trying to curve fit a warming trend for some time even after it is clear to every one of the cooling trend.
Pierre, I agree that it took much activation energy for some of the strongest warmers to acknowledge natural variability, PDO shift influence, etc. But, this is simply a hedge bet to say, “don’t worry, our catastrophic warming is still happening, you just can’t see it at all currently.” Hopefully the common public is smart enough to see through such nonsense.
Julian,
The term Paradigm Shift rings very loudly here. I’m coming to this party (climate change) somewhat late, after a long career doing some other things. I received my graduate education in environmental economics back in the 1970’s, when the debate between Kuhn and Popper was going strong, and this is much of what we read and discussed in my graduate philosophy of science seminar. While I think Popper had the right idea about how science ought to progress, I think Kuhn had it right in how it often progressed in practice. And I see the marks of it all over modern climate science. Since getting interested in this, I’ve read several hundred papers or abstracts, and I can predict with near certainty that an article on climate science written in the past two decades will always say something about AGW even when it has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion. And especially if the conclusions of the paper might be construed to question AGW, there is almost invariably a qualifier as to how it doesn’t. It is like a litmus test: you don’t get it published unless it fits within the reigning AGW paradigm.
Kuhn called it “normal science” where anomalies to the reigning paradigm are ignored, or explained away. The paradigm shift comes when the anomalies become so great, it is hard to ignore them, and a theory is proposed that does a good job explaining them. The anomalies — there’s an interesting play on words here — are building up, but the theory that could produce a paradigm shift is not here yet. I’m persuaded, from the evidence I see, that the Sun will ultimate be recognized as a substantial “forcing” driving terrestrial climate, but there is still not enough consensus about how it happens to unseat the current paradigm.
A graduate student in the philosophy of science could write a masterful thesis on modern climate science as a perfect example of Kuhnian “normal science.”
Basil
Here is a prediction unrelated to a model: James Hansen’s NASA will have to adjust future temperature data downward. They have worked themselves into a box; by adjusting to make global warming more apparent, in contrast to the other authoritative graphs, they will have to show much cooling during the next few years, so they can once again prove AGW after 2015!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/