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
RE: Europe will not be a winter vacation destination.
It will be for me … I keep my skis waxed constantly. LOL!
Evan,
“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.”
This reminds me of what Milton Friedman maintained about economic models: the validity of a theory or model is not in how “realistic” it is, but in whether or not it produces reliable predictions. I imagine that this philosophy is probably more acceptable in a “social” science, where it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain behavior with anything more than rudimentary heuristics. It flies in the face, though, of how “physical” sciences view themselves. I.e., they are all about understanding “reality.”
What I think you are calling attention to is how little we know about the “reality” of complex systems. In this sense, climate is not much different than a human being — both are complex systems which exhibit behavior that may better be modeled by heuristics even if the heuristics lack “realism.” This doesn’t mean that we do not try to understand the “reality” as best we can, but when it comes to prediction you are right on: less is more.
I think this explains why I look at all the evidence for Hale cycle periodicity in climate parameters and think “you know, there’s got to be something there, and even if I cannot explain the physical basis of it, I can still make use of it.” The climate scientist, on the other hand, says “well, there may be lots of evidence of bidecadal periodicities in nature, but we are not going to use them to predict future climate because we do not understand what physical mechanism could produce them.” In climate science, ignorance trumps practicality every time.
Basil
This recent prediction is very interesting in that it is completely opposite the one made by Smith, et al and published in Science on Aug 10, 2007 under the title Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model.
This bad-boy of a paper got an incredible amount of play in the press and blogosphere.
The abstract reads:
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
It will be interesting to see how much attention beyond the NYT the Nature paper draws. A quick Google search indicated it has had a fair bit of press in the UK and Australia, but not in the US. CNN has not mentioned it in their “Science” category, now have they added it to their “Planet in Peril” website.
At any rate, we will know in a very short period of time just which set of scientists were correct!
The Salmon run has cratered. This matches what one would expect due to a negative PDO.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/02/BABT10F7PE.DTL&tsp=1
All salmon fishing banned on West Coast
Salmon fishing was banned along the West Coast for the first time in 160 years Thursday, a decision that is expected to have a devastating economic impact on fishermen, dozens of businesses, tourism and boating.
It followed the recommendation last month of the Pacific Fishery Management Council after the catastrophic disappearance of California’s fabled fall run of the pink fish popularly known as king salmon
So, Lazlo, when the seals are eaten by a polar bear, does it show the water temperatures as being 37 C, 98.6F?
Basil:
I’m imagine the recent period of stagnant temperatures is influenced by the trough of the solar cycle, declining PDO since 1998, and perhaps other factors. No self-respecting climate scientist will deny that natural factors are the significant drivers of year-to-year and even decadal variation. The long term trend in natural forcings vis a vis anthropogenic forcings is to some extent a separate question.
Basil said: “This reminds me of what Milton Friedman maintained about economic models: the validity of a theory or model is not in how “realistic” it is, but in whether or not it produces reliable predictions.”
I guess one could respond to that in several different ways, but it seems to me that what is getting lost in the discussion is why the discussion itself is deemed important. It seems to me its importance lies in developing an energy policy for the future — because, after all, GHG emissions are not only intimately tied, but almost exclusively so to the generation of energy. So the bottom line question is… are predictions of whether or not the earth will heat or cool in the near term, medium term, or long term both necessary and sufficient to address our future energy needs? Certainly some consider them necessary, but they sure as heck aren’t sufficient. And in fact, I think that when you concentrate on the sufficiency issue, the necessity argument begins to significantly diminish in importance.
This site says the cold PDO is good for salmon. I can believe it, since I think many of these type of fish do poorly in El Nino years. They could be suffering from too many years of warmer weather, and will start to recover now.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
Swampie,
No polar bears in the Antarctic.
Where is Tamino the cherry picker on this?
Nice one swampie. But just to re-emphasise my original point, here is a quote from a blog posted to The Australian within the last two hours from a known AGWer: “Changes to the average global temperature and increasing flows of fresh water into the oceans from melting ice are believed to be disrupting the natural thermo-haline circulation patterns which give rise to the El Nino and La Nina weather cycles. Climatologists believe this is leading to longer and more frequent El Nino events than were previously known-and that this will get even worse.”
Swampie: i forgot to say that it is more likely the seal would eat the bear, because the bear would be exhausted after the long swim.
Rico,
I think we all, or surely most of us, agree on the need for a more coherent energy policy. I just as sure that we will have disagreements about what that policy should be, and especially what its goals should be. A simple, but probably telling example, would be to ask whether we should — or whether we want to — reduce our dependence upon oil for geopolitical reasons, or for environmental reasons. Now maybe one, such as myself, would think we ought to take both into consideration, but one reason is more vital or urgent than the other. Depending on which one comes first, this can alter how what we view as a more coherent energy policy.
As for temperature predictions for the future being necessary or sufficient for a good energy policy, I’m not sure I see where you are going with that. Do you care to elaborate?
Loved Basil’s discursis into Epistemology, Kuhn & Popper.
Our energy problems would be greatly diminished if we allowed drilling again. The Bakken formation has 3Gbbl recoverable w/current technology.
Feed the bears locally available eco-fascists, not SH seals!
That sound you hear is the slow trickle of Kyoto UNFCCC confederate money getting unloaded quicker than you can say “carbon credits.” Brings new meaning to the phrase “Tilting at windmills….”
Gary – I’m imagining someone rolling up in a bearskin rug the great algorean profit hisself & droppin’ him off on an ice floe full of drowning, starving Ursi Maritime. As a public service, of course, it’d be in keeping with befriending charismatic megafauna. They’d become (break)fast friends.
rico says
“It seems to me its importance lies in developing an energy policy for the future — because, after all, GHG emissions are not only intimately tied, but almost exclusively so to the generation of energy. So the bottom line question is… ” As I have said CO2 induce globel nothing has little to do with science and more to do with money.
We stopped using wood for lighting when candles proved to be less costly and more efficient than wood. No government mandate.
Micosoft gave us the ability to have personal computers that were cheaper than IBM and Apple. no government mandate.
But now we are into Government mandated tech which maybe less efficient and always more costly than what we have on the market. This happens in the building trade each year. (Not all building codes are improvements.)
The only people who will make money on CO2 induced global warming are the guy operating the hedge funds at the expence of the consumer. (Then again the government had to bail out bears & strean.)
No good can come from something built on a lie.
Basil, thanks for replying. I think this might be a first. With regard to your question, As for temperature predictions for the future being necessary or sufficient for a good energy policy, I’m not sure I see where you are going with that. Do you care to elaborate?
My point is that most of the energy the world over is currently generated with fossil fuels: oil, gas or coal. In terms of traditional pollutants (sulfates, nitrogen compouds, particulates, etc.) gas is cleanest, coal the dirtiest. They rate that way as far as GHGs emitted per unit energy as well, but for the sake of argument let’s concentrate on only the health and environmental effects, the economic impacts, and the national security impacts they generate. Oil is a problem because most of it has to be imported. And even if drilling were allowed to proceed in ANWR and offshore the effect on prices and imports wouldn’t be very great. Neither would it significantly impact the global geopolitical situation. Unconventional sources of oil (e.g., tar sands, oil shale, or coal to liquid conversion) are problematic because they are difficult, energy intensive, and expensive to extract and/or produce. They also increase the health and/or enviromental impacts over conventional sources. So, regardless of what their effects on climate are, continued reliance on fossil fuels will continue to drive prices of all three higher, increase the energy intensity of their generation, and accelerate traditional pollution.
You say, “I think we all, or surely most of us, agree on the need for a more coherent energy policy.” I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism. Rather, at least among participants of this blog, it seems to me the more pervasive opinion is that we don’t need an energy policy. My impression is that the predominant opinion is… Let the market take care of it. As if it were that simple. The fact is, the market forms around policy, not the other way around. Thus, unless the policy is changed, it stands to reason that it will be difficult for alternative energy sources to compete effectively unless they: (1) exactly duplicate the consumption patterns of existing sources, (2) exactly duplicate the capitalization/cost structure of existing sources, and (3) be cheaper than them even within those constraints. And that’s close to impossible. It’s difficult to summarize in a short sound bite (you’re the economist, so I assume you appreciate that). But let me ask: if all farm subsidies were eliminated, and all subsidies for corn ethanol were eliminated, what do you suppose would happen? My guess is bioethanol would get even more competitive while food prices would skyrocket. Needless to say, that experiment isn’t likely to happen, because no one would allow it for a variety of reasons. So much for letting the market take care of itself, huh?
Perhaps a more realistic example is this: the way policy is currently set up in many localities promotes the construction of power plants that are relatively inexpensive to build but cost more to operate — in other words, they favor gas or coal plants rather than something else. The reason is that utilities aren’t required to (or even allowed if they wanted to) levelize their costs over the lifetime of the plant. They can pass on increases in the cost of operation to their customers, but not the cost of construction. The cost of operation of a gas or coal plant is much higher than a wind farm, a solar farm, a geothermal plant, or even a nuclear plant, because the fuel prices of the former are considerable whereas the “fuel” prices of the latter are negligible. Thus, there is no incentive to build a relatively expensive plant even when its levelized cost over its lifetime is likely to be cheaper. On top of that, it is also the case that in most localities the more energy a utility produces the more money it makes. Thus, there is no incentive to economize or conserve.
You mentioned Friedman’s comment that “the validity of a theory or model is not in how “realistic” it is, but in whether or not it produces reliable predictions.” That sounds good in theory, but in practice the reasoning gets a little circular. In other words, how do you know whether the predictions are reliable until the model is put into practice so you can generate some data? And how do you put them into practice without making the necessary policy? You can’t. By the same token, why on earth would you implement a set of policy decisions (in order to put a model in place) if it/they had no apparent reality status? You can’t do that either. The examples I mentioned above bear directly on this point. I don’t really know what the outcome of eliminating farm subsidies or ethanol subsidies would be on the cost of food or corn ethanol. But as Friedman implies, we’ll never know until we try it. So what do you think… should we give it a shot? If so, why? If not, why not? My guess is however you answer those questions they very much depend on how “realistic” you feel your assumptions are in the face of little evidence. After all, it may be that the food crises that are developing around the world simply represent a temporary supply shock which can be easily resolved by redistributions in the supply chain — kinda like the response to the Arab oil embargo in the 70s. Then again, maybe not. How lucky do you feel? And no matter how you answer THAT question, the fact of the matter is, we’ll never know for sure until Monday morning.
On the other examples I think I stand on firmer ground (as firm as it gets, anyway). I think so because there is more evidence. California, for example, now has a decades long history of tinkering with energy policy. It hasn’t been completely stellar (they’ve made some mistakes), but in balance it’s been pretty good. CA is number 1 among all states in terms of energy efficiency per capita GDP. And that’s in spite of the fact that CA is generally considered the traffic capital of the nation, if not the world, and produces more oil and has more refineries than all but a handful of other states. They did it largely because they implemented policies that emphasize energy efficiency rather than production. And until very recently they did THAT not in the name of reducing GHGs, but in the name of reducing traditional pollutants. I think it’s important to stress the fact that CA did not do what they did in an attempt to address global warming, they did it for another reason — wasteful use of fossil fuels were killing people. I’ve lived in CA now for the better part of 25 years. And I have to say, the air quality is a whole lot better than it was, even though the population is a whole lot higher than it was. In the mean time the economy has grown.
Brevity, the ‘soul of Wit’.
California’s achievement:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977344875064131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Warming pushed out to 2020 now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm#map
5 years in as many days.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html
29 april 2008
Ten-year forecasts produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre capture this levelling of global temperatures in the middle of the decade; effectively La Niña has been masking the underlying trend in rising temperatures. These same forecasts also predict we will experience continued and increased warming into the next decade, with half the years between 2009 and 2014 being warmer than the current warmest on record, 1998.
my god do these people get paid for looking in there glass sphere and flipping tarrot cards or what?
Gary Gulrud (14:58:58), I think the article you cited left a few germane facts out. For example, although the article you cited correctly stated that the price of electricity is higher in CA than the rest of the country, but not nearly twice the national average (according to the EIA, CA residents paid 12.82 cents/kWh in 2006, the national average was 8.90 cents), it’s also true that the average American burns 12,000 kWh a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000. In the interest of brevity, I’ll let you do the math. But I don’t think the result is what you would expect by reading the article you cited.
I realize it’s hard to get an accurate read on the true state of affairs — even government agencies are likely to have their biases. But I don’t think solely relying on you favorite think tank (or any single think tank) is the best way to go. So, in the interest of a more balanced view, I suggest you read this as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html
[…] Keenlyside Paper and HP filtering of HadCRUT […]
is it true that global warming is making hurricanes more storonger??!??!??!?