Foreword: Don J. Easterbrook sent me this essay on Friday for publication here, but with the dustup over Monckton’s paper and the APS, I decided to hold off publishing it for a bit. For background, see Easterbrook’s web page here. – Anthony
Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.
Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.
Figure 1. Cooling of the Pacific Ocean and setting up of the cool-mode PDO. Sea surface temperature anomaly in the Pacific Ocean from April 14-21, 2008. The anomaly compares the recent temperatures measured by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite with an average of data collected by the NOAA Pathfinder satellites from 1985-1997. Places where the Pacific was cooler than normal are blue, places where temperatures were average are white, and places where the ocean was warmer than normal are red. The cool water anomaly in the center of the image shows the lingering effect of the year-old La Niña. However, the much broader area of cooler-than-average water off the coast of North America from Alaska (top center) to the equator is a classic feature of the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The cool waters wrap in a horseshoe shape around a core of warmer-than-average water. (In the warm phase, the pattern is reversed). Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. (NASA image by Jesse Allen, AMSR-E data processed and provided by Chelle Gentemann and Frank Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems. Caption by Rebecca Lindsey, adapted from a press release from NASA JPL).
Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid.
Figure 2. IPCC predicted warming.
Figure 3. Measured cooling.
As shown by the historic pattern of PDOs over the past century (Fig. 4) and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. Each time the PDO mode has shifted from warm to cool or cool to warm, the global climate has changed accordingly. In 1977, the PDO shifted from cool mode to warm mode (Fig. 4) and set off the global warming from 1977 to 1998, often referred to as the “Great Climate Shift.” The recent shift from PDO warm mode to cool mode is similar to the shift that occurred in the mid-1940’s and resulted in 30 years of global cooling (Fig. 4). The global warming from ~1915 to ~1945 was also brought on by a mode shift in the PDO (Fig. 4). Every indication points continuation of the PDO patterns of the past century and global cooling for the next 30 years (Fig. 4). Thus, the global warming the Earth has experienced since 1977 appears to be over!
Figure 4. PDO indices, 1900-2008 with predictions to 2040.
“indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction”
We’re hearing a lot about that same sort of thing from rational sources in several quarters. Mean while, Prognosticator-in-Chief, Jame Hansen, declares that his 1988 predictions were correct . . . a statement contrary to even his own data set. Then there’s the APS abrupt reaction to an effort to simply open the debate.
Have we reached the point where science based on good data is treated as irrelevant by those who model the future in service of an agenda?
I believe the alarmists are desperately trying to get their Draconian measures in place as soon as possible and before the real cooling sets in so they can claim credit for avoiding unrelenting global warming. The only problem is: will the same people then take personal and professional responsibility for the deleterious effects of global cooing?
Just do not assume that the “prediction” made in the last graphic results from any kind of serious model, statistical or otherwise. Even if the cool phase holds for 30 years, we do not know that it will look like the pattern shown in the graphic.
Looks like game, set and match to me.
Figure 3 is marred by a silly smoothing [blue line]. For a reasonable smoothing one would expect as many data points above the blue line as below it. This is indeed the case until 2005, but breaks down after that. The end-point [2008] should not have such a heavy weight. All Figure 3 shows is that there is no clear upward trend over the interval shown. The Figure does not show significant cooling.
I lived in B’ham in the early 70’s (I worked at Cherry Point; my then-wife was a student at Fairhaven), and I’m amazed that Easterbrook can survive there. I guess the “climate” has shifted considerably — or Fairhaven is an “anomaly”.
His work appears solid. Let’s see what the Warmers will do with it.
I have forwarded the Don Easterbrook article to all my friends. I also discovered this Global Warming Petition Project website and hope a few more who post here will add their names to it.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Regards,
Perry
the predicted portion of the graph is a copy of the period 1945-1977. Looks like a prediction I would make. Seems like a funny way to make a point.
“…alarmists are desperately trying to get their Draconian measures in place…”
Pieter, your post reminded me of a piece I read at EU Referendum this morning entitled, “An economic suicide pact”. You might enjoy it. I did.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/07/economic-suicide-pact.html
Climate models predict warming, climate models predict cooling. Why can’t we take the weather as it is, like people have done for kazillion years?
BTW,
On rankexploits.com, Lucia has completed several statistical comparison’s between observed data and IPCC models. They have been falsified (95% confidence). She continued to try more detailed methods to see if they would not falsify (such as a Monte Carlo simulation) and also to suggestions from Gavin Schmidt, but they all falsify the central trend prediction of 2C/century (I don’t recall the uncertainty band, something like +/-2.2C, as provided by the IPCC report). Over the next couple of years, there would actually have to be significantly more warming than 1F to not falsify the models.
…and this cooling will prove global warming, because once it’s cooled. Global warming will come back with a vengance…. and so on and so fort…
Looks like Al is loosing another recount. Reality sucks.
AGW = Al Gore Wishes
The PDO shift was already anticipated by the AGW crowd. Clear the IPCC is doing undermining cries of global cooling from the PDO shift.
While the PDO shift will be enough to convince much of the herd that AGW has been falsified, the real target of the IPCC and AGWers is is global government and control of the global economy.
We can’t just point the declining temperatures then sit back with our laurels and accolades for having foreseen the cooling. We must relentlessly attack the bad science and propaganda of the AGWers otherwise they may succeed in switching the arguments while keeping the same objectives.
Already Gore is trying to change the debate.
I note with dismay that the prediction for the next cooling period matches exactly the cooling period of 1945 / 1977. Can anyone tell me how such blatant copying can possibly help further the cause of those who wish to defeat global-warming alarmism? This graph will instead, I fear, only give ammunition to the Gore disciples. …Or am I missing something?
“indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction”
If you guys really wanna see how bad the climate models then go read IPCC Working Group 1, chapter 8.4 “Climate Models and their Evaluation”. Please, don’t take my word for it, it’s right there in writing. Then come back and let me know about a single climate model that can accurately replicate even a fracton of the Earth’s atmosphere and ocean processes that impact climate.
On Topic, on the other hand –
The PDO shift to cooling is heralded (at least when using the Hadley dataset) by a spike in global temperature and then a plateau before a plunge in temperature. This is apparent in the shift to cooling in the early 1900s, somewhat muddled in the 40s and very apparent in 1998.
I believe we are now in the sudden plunge part of things. In a couple of years, the cumulative effect of the deep solar minimum will start to show itself as well.
I am still waiting to collect on a few well placed global cooling wagers that are due in 2010.
I believe the “warmists” are in a panic to get as much of their doctrine codified into law as possible before even the news media has to admit that it isn’t warming and their momentum reverses on them.
“Figure 4. PDO indices, 1900-2008 with predictions to 2040.”
The PDO graph in the end can’t be a prediction, it is just a copy and paste of the cold PDO lasting until 1977 to show how a new cold phase could look like if it was the same as the last one.
Does Don J. Easterbrook actually predict the next cold PDO to look exactly the same as last one? It does not look like a prediction to me.
“I believe the alarmists are desperately trying to get their Draconian measures in place as soon as possible and before the real cooling sets in so they can claim credit for avoiding unrelenting global warming.”
Heh, I just read that after posting my own similar conclusion. I believe it is going to take them by surprise how quickly the dynamic can change when it comes to climate.
Anthony: My internet connection died when I tried to upload this the first time. Hopefully, this is not a duplicate. And, sorry about the length of this, but I actually chopped half of it and added the link to my blogspot.
Don Easterling: I am an AGW skeptic. Keep that in mind while you’re reading these comments. It is not my intent to dispute your work, but I’ve spent a considerable amount of time recently with my head in SST data, and the following is the result of those investigations.
The PDO is not a simple SST residual like the AMO. It is a statistically manufactured index that retrieves the ENSO signal from noisy North Pacific anomaly data. According to Nate Mantua of JISAO, the details of how the PDO is calculated are found in the paper “ENSO-like Interdecadal Variability: 1900–93,” Zhang, Wallace, and Battisti, “Journal of Climate” (1997).
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/zwb1997.pdf
The similarities between the two data sets become apparent in a comparison of monthly and smoothed PDO and NINO3.4 data.
http://i25.tinypic.com/14dj904.jpg
One problem with using the PDO as an indicator of global temperature variation is that the recent PDO “switching point” varies per data set. To illustrate that, the following is a graph of the JISAO PDO data (the most commonly used PDO index) versus the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3 PDO data sets. The JISAO PDO goes as far back as 1900, while the two Smith and Reynolds PDOs start in the 1850s. Note that all three data sets fundamentally agree with one another from 1910 to 1980. Prior to and after those years, the two Smith and Reynolds data sets diverge from JISAO. According to the Smith and Reynolds data, the PDO shifted, primarily, to negative around 2000, while the JISAO data changed more recently.
http://i26.tinypic.com/25kn8ef.jpg
(Note: I believe the divergence between of the ERSST PDO data sets results in part from the fact that JISAO uses three SST data sets when calculating its PDO: UKMO Historical SST from 1900 to 1980, Smith and Reynolds Optimally Interpolated SST Version 1 from 1981 to 2001, and Smith and Reynolds Optimally Interpolated SST Version 2 from 2002 to present.)
Standardization also amplifies the PDO, giving it the appearance of a more robust signal. The mid-latitude (20 to 65N) North Pacific SST anomalies vary considerably less than those indicated by the PDO.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2cyg07k.jpg
(Note the 0.9 deg C drop in North Pacific SST anomaly from 1888 to 1910. It’s tough to miss. I’ve never seen that mentioned in any discussion of climate change by the IPCC. Those THC/MOC declines occur in all oceans around the same time.)
Another problem with the PDO is, in every reconstruction I’ve seen, its 50- to 60-year cycle disintegrates prior to 1850 to 1900. Refer to the following graph of MacDonald and Biondi PDO Reconstructions. (The way the cycle falls apart is also visible in the longer term ERSST data above.) I’ve excluded the D’Arrigo et al reconstruction from the graph, since they limit its data to Springtime, and the Mann et al PDO reconstruction, because it was prepared by Michael Mann, who I don’t find credible. Will the cycle that existed in the 20th century continue into the current century? No way to predict it based on long-term data.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2mrzd6c.jpg
We need a new SST anomaly index for the North Pacific. Why hasn’t anyone created one that uses the same simple calculation employed for the AMO? It could be used to indicate the impact of the North Pacific on Northern Hemisphere and global temperatures, something we skeptical climate bloggers enjoy. The Mid-Latitude North Pacific Residual (Mid-Latitude North Pacific SST anomaly minus Global SST anomaly) illustrates that there is an oscillation in the North Pacific SST anomaly data, similar in scale to the AMO. Based on the 3-year smoothed data, it recently peaked in mid-2006. Hopefully, the decline will continue.
http://i28.tinypic.com/jrwjk6.jpg
For illustration purposes, here’s a comparison of the PDO and the North Pacific Residual. Note that the PDO was scaled by a factor of 0.2, illustrating the amplification of standardization.
http://i27.tinypic.com/2n1sv49.jpg
And a comparison of the AMO and the North Pacific Residual. Note how they were fundamentally in synch after 1920, but in opposition prior to that.
http://i30.tinypic.com/11kv7r5.jpg
There are a few PDO posts in my blogspot series on Smith and Reynolds SST data.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/smith-and-reynolds-sst-posts.html
Regards
Meanwhile, Mr. Sun has nary let out a peep now for MONTHS, possibly throwing in a whole new dynamic…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
I made up a cumulative PDO graph that shows these change points very clearly, but cannot seem to post it here. Can anyone tell me how to post a graph?
Alan Mitchell: Post your graph on tinypic or where you normally post them and provide a link to it.
I understand Leif’s concerns about Fig 3. I’m viewing that blue line as an extremely oversimplified smoothing used to make a point. I’m guessing this is more directed towards the layman. However, as a skeptic, I’m a bit perturbed in seeing such oversimplification. Give the layman some credit and present it without such extreme smoothing. This sort of presentation could always come back and bite you ~ usually at a most inopportune moment.
As an example, being the information junkie that I am, I frequently check in at Alexa to see how this blog is doing (rather well). I’ve noticed that, as in Fig 3 above, the Alexa graph, with or without smoothing, has the start and end data points fixed. As the days pass and the end point moves in with the rest of the data, its value gets smoothed up or down. It seems also to be the case in Fig 3; the end point is fixed at the latest (monthly?) value, giving it more weight. I would feel more comfortable if Fig 3 had some sort of explanatory statement that the blue line was for illustrative purposes only.
Other than that, a cool phase PDO & a quiet sun with an ever lengthening solar cycle 23 — sounds like a recipe for some mighty cilly years to come.
It looks as if the IPO is still in a bit of a warm phase. When is that one scheduled to heel over?
(Also, on review, I can’t seem to find out what phase the IPO was in from 1998 to date. Can anyone clue me in?)