Note: Above graph comes from this source and not the paper below. Only the abstract is available. (Note from 2016: The link to the graph died, the image was recovered from the Wayback Machine and an edit made to restore it on Oct 31, 2016)
A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. (Link to Abstract)
Full Press Release and Abstract to Study:
July 23, 2009
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.
“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
“When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall,” says McLean.
“The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It’s no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful.”
Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
—
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
Excerpted Abstract of the Paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research:
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July 2009.
UPDATE: Kenneth Trenberth of NCAR has posted a rebuttal to this paper. Which you can read here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf
Thanks to WUWT reader “Bob” for the email notice. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I broadly agree with this paper apart, that is, with the assumption that this leaves very little room for CO2. There is still an underlying trend – even allowing for ENSO/PDO fluctuations. If there weren’t then the temperatures in the early 1940s would be similar to what they are to-day. Though, John Goetz’s “GISS Step 1” post a few days ago could mean the 2000s-1940s difference is reduced a bit.
The other point worth noting is that this paper also leave little room for a solar effect.
KEY PARAGRAPH: “The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958”
This ties in with the satellite data.
Importantly, now we know why there is no HOT-SPOT (that is the lack of radiative forcing in the tropical troposphere – the dreaded AGW).
Just think $ trillions are now going to be spent in trying to fix something that us humans cannot fix – this planet’s climate.
This paper can be summed up quite neatly, “IT’S THE OCEANS STUPID”
Anthony
do you think that there is or there could be an anti-AGW statement, paper, posting that is too stupid for you to put it on your web side?
Tamino pulled this paper to pieces even faster than you could post it.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
You guys seem to have serious problems with addition and subtraction either of trends or of constants and what that means for certain analysis.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
REPLY: If the paper is “stupid”, and having been published in JGR, then this of course says much about the state of peer review, and that works both ways. There have been plenty of “stupid” pro AGW papers as well. Tamino is entitled to his opinion, I don’t necessarily agree with it. While Tamino is a clever mathematician, and could probably write a convincing proof that 2+2 does not equal 4, that doesn’t equate to reality. When Tamino starts complaining about the “stupidity” of some of Al Gore’s claims, Jim Hansen’s obvious bias, or perhaps other papers other than what are posted on WUWT, then he’ll truly be a balanced scientist. For now, he’s just a nameless Internet coward with an agenda like so may others. – Anthony
So, Is it possible that the pattern of El Niño has changed due to an increase of atmospheric CO2 levels? Like more Niños and less Niñas are “conceived” due to the CO2 increase?
The warmists can still say that Gaia is delivering more baby boys than baby girls because we consume too much oil. And many will believe it just because it has the words “Gaia” and “consume” on it.
The last sentence of the pub – my emphasis added in bold:
“Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature, a relationship that is not included in current global climate models.” (McLean, de Freitas, & Carter 2009)
Is the part in bold really true? (I’m not an expert on computer fantasies.)
Nick Stokes says:
1. “What this analysis doesn’t tell you much about is trends.”
2. “They actually do the correlation on year-to-year differences.”
OK, I’ll bite; what is your understanding of this thing called “trend”
I’ve just studied the graphs in the publication. It should be possible to use cross-wavelet methods to determine the timescale of the volcanic interference. I would throw AAM, LOD, & CO2 into such a study — it is child’s play to show that they fit into this T & SOI picture.
Serious question: Can someone get me a new source of funding? I’m dead serious. You can’t get funded in my area unless you want to prove global warming and it’s catastrophic consequences. Please consider this an SOS from a comrade armed with an arsenal of cross-wavelet methods.
re: Jeff Alberts 22:33:51,
“I don’t see ENSO events adding or removing energy from the system…”
how about that picture?
ENSO vs pacific warm water volume:
http://i32.tinypic.com/r7vbzs.jpg
There is a confusion here between variability and long-term trend. No great surprise that ENSO events can explain a lot of the short-term fluctuations in global temperature, but how can they explain a rise over 50+ years? This study is actually designed in such a way that any long-term near-linear change in temperature is excluded from consideration.
This is not the first time that I have seen this rather fundamental confusion displayed on this site. Imagine a car being driven along a hilly stretch of road, the driver of which is slowly and steadily pressing the gas pedal further down. Measurements of the speed of the car would show it slowing down and speeding up from time to time as it goes up and down the hills. But the long-term average speed is seen to increase across the record. An analysis of the relationship between the speed of the car and the gradient of the road would undoubtedly show that almost 100% of the variability in the speed of the car can be explained by changes in gradient, with a suitable lag. Does that mean that the faster average speed of the car at the end of the record is nearly 100% explained by changes in gradient, or could it possibly have something to do with the position of the gas pedal?
Jeff Alberts: You wrote, “Do ENSO events really affect global temperature? Or do they just shift heat around so that it ends up in places where it gets noticed? I don’t see ENSO events adding or removing energy from the system.”
ENSO events impact global surface temperature, which is the variable that most people are familiar with. During ENSO-neutral periods, there is a significant volume of warm water below the surface of the western tropical Pacific in the Pacific Warm Pool, where it is not included in the surface temperature readings. An El Nino shifts the warm water to the east along the equator of the Pacific. It rises to the surface in the process and becomes part of the temperature record. Much of the warm water returns to the Pacific Warm Pool during the subsequent La Nina. But during significant El Nino events such as those in 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, some of the warm water stays on the surface. This causes upward step changes in the SST of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. This was discussed and illustrated in my two-part post “Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Warming Since 1976?”
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
El Nino events also cause tropical heat to be redistributed to mid-to-high latitudes of the lower troposphere where it can be radiated into space more readily (and where it can help melt ice).
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Nick
It is the official IPCC position that only in the last half-century can man’s influence be teased out of natural variation. Anyone who now asserts that the century long trend is unnatural is merely pushing a point of view. The case rests entirely on whether that trend may be something other than GHG’s and the IPCC has already conceded that most of it may have been natural. And here is the argument that the last bit may have been natural too.
And when climate researchers tell us why they hold the conviction (contrary to the IPCC) that the entire century trend is man-made, they cite either Mann’s very flawed paleo reconstructions or the Vostok ice-core record. Both arguments have massive holes in them. But what is wrong with the “natural recovery from the little ice-age” argument? Obviously the drop into the little ice-age was natural.
Davidc,
The greenhouse theory says that due to GHG, there’s a radiative imbalance of about 1.6 W/m2 This is a continuous addition of heat to our environment, which would be expected to be reflected in gradually rising temperatures. Overlaid on that are all sorts of natural fluctuations, of which ENSO is a big one.
Now in the best of circunstances, if you try to resolve that with correlation with ENSO and volcanoes, you’ll mostly get an answer reflecting the fluctuations. The trend would make a small contribution to the correlation measure. But in this paper, it’s evcen worse. They have done a correlation, not with temperature, but with year-to-year temperature differences. The differences of a steady trend are constant, and just can’t show up in a correlation.
Stephen Richards – this answers your point. They haven’t taken out ENSO and found nothing left. They don’t say that anyway, in the paper. What they have done, is taken out, by differencing, any trend, before they even start.
I wonder if it will take another 33 years before someone writes a paper titled, “Drop in global temperatures since 2008 can be attributed to a 2007 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean” — John M Reynolds
Bob,
On this issue of ENSO events causing warming – if they do warm the surface and atmosphere, which in turn increases outgoing IR, then wouldn’t the oceans have to correspondingly lose heat? And did they over that period since 1976?
JamesG,
I don’t agree with various things that you are saying, but it’s moot – the analysis of this paper is from 1950 to 2008, and I haven’t spoken of any other period.
Assuming Chris de Freitas, John McLean and/or Bob Carter are monitoring this thread, I have a comment about a statement made in the paper. In Paragraph 22, you wrote, “The transfer of tropical heat to the Arctic increases as SOI trends toward El Nino conditions. This transfer of heat, estimated by Trenberth and Caron [2001] to be about 5 petawatts at mid latitudes during El Nino events, can account for local warming in the Arctic and the consequent decrease in sea ice extent, although the latter is probably also influenced by water temperature which in turn is driven by the transport of heat by ocean currents that operate on a longer time constant (~1000 years) than does the atmosphere.”
I assume the oceanic time constant of ~1,000 years you’re referring to is the approximate time required for waters to make a “complete circuit” of the oceans as part of Thermohaline Circulation, the Conveyor Belt. However, surface and subsurface currents work on much shorter time spans. These are measured in months and years. Included in the following linked post is a video called the “Lingering Effects of the 1997/98 El Nino”. About 1:15 minutes into the video, note how the Northern Equatorial Current shifts warm water from the eastern equatorial Pacific to the Western Pacific. It only takes a few months. Also note how quickly that warm water is distributed around the Western Pacific and the Eastern Indian Oceans and how long that warm water lingers. It lasts until the El Nino of 2002/03, which elevates SST anomalies in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans once again.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/lingering-effects-of-199798-el-nino.html
Your statement also excludes warming of the ocean surface by the atmosphere, which can be seen in the following video, especially in the North Atlantic. I set the “sensitivity” of the SST anomalies in those maps so that the interactions between the atmosphere and SST would show.
Regards
Paul Biggs: You wrote, “Anthony – If you haven’t got a copy of the paper – I have it.”
Hmmm. I should have asked you last night, Paul, before I spent the $9.00.
Regards
“no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation”
I love it. ENSO, Volcanic emissions and the sun control our climate, not Anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
A single report that presents an almost complete picture.
This is a peer reviewed report so it can’t be ignored by the IPCC.
AGW is dead, dead, dead.
From now on, any reference to AGW/Climate Change and any political quest to introduce climate legislation must be categorized as plain deception.
Thank you Chris Freitag, thank you Bob Carter, thank you John McLean.
It would be nice to have the complete report at hand.
Is it available? Anyone?
Mac: You wrote, “Importantly, now we know why there is no HOT-SPOT (that is the lack of radiative forcing in the tropical troposphere – the dreaded AGW).”
If there was a Hotspot, it would likely result from El Nino events. El Nino events, CO2, and increases in solar irradiance have the same signature in GCMs. Refer to the RealClimate post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends
In it, they write, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”
Refer also to;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-look-at-polar-amplification.html
This data sounds strong for the TROPICS.
Clearly we hear that arctic temperature changes are far more radical – ten degrees or so.
So the question needing to be asked right now is: any linkages of ENSO, PDO, AMO or ICP or combinations of them to tropospheric temperatures in the subtropics, mid-latitudes and polar regions?
And most importantly: what triggered the 1976 shift and others before it and is there any reason to suppose that those triggers are materially affected by human beings as we currently exist?
At least this is SCIENCE. Analysing DATA.
Lots more of that, please!
Bob Tisdale (04:15:29) :
Your remarks in regard to the posted report, significant as always, could be send to Bob Carter directly Email: bob.carter@jcu.edu.au
This way he will know his report is posted at WUWT.
The paper authors said
“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century.
AMO/PDO/ENSO/SOI cycles not only account for the climate variability for the last 50 year but the previous 50 years as well.
1900-1926 COOL [AMO –VE, PDO –VE &+VE]
1926-1944 WARM [AMO & PDO POSITIVE]
1964-1976 COOL [AMO& PDO NEGATIVE]
1994 -2008 WARM [AMO & PDO POSITIVE]
Nick Stokes: You asked, “Bob, On this issue of ENSO events causing warming – if they do warm the surface and atmosphere, which in turn increases outgoing IR, then wouldn’t the oceans have to correspondingly lose heat? And did they over that period since 1976?”
Nick, 70% of the surface of the globe being warmed by El Nino events is the ocean. The El Ninos are simply transferring subsurface waters to the surface, so there’s no net change there in OHC. There is exchange between the tropical Pacific and the atmosphere, which causes a dip and rebound in OHC during El Nino events.
http://i44.tinypic.com/5uizit.png
Tamino has already (http://tamino.wordpress.com/) published a thorouh debunking of the math and data manipulation used in this paper. Basically the authors uses a statistical analysis to eliminate the trend and then show that CO2 does not account for variability in the trend. The authors seem confused about trend versus variability in a trend. Tamino shows that even if one adds a very strong linear trend of increasing temperature to the data, the methods used in this paper would not detect it.
Since there is much concern about data manipulation on this blog, checking Tamino’s analysis is worthwhile. In addition to using higher math, he uses a simple graphical approach to point out the basic flaws in this paper.
There was a similar period of rising global temperatures between 1911 and 1944. together with a series of EL Ninos and warming AMO/PDO/ENSO/SOI like the period 1976 -2008. The 1976 Pacific warming event was just the latest of such events.
1904-1905 El Nino
1905-1906 EL Nino
1911-1912 EL Nino
1914-1915 El Nino
1918-1919 El Nino
1925-1926 El Nino
1940-1941 El Nino
1941-1942 El Nino
Global Air Temperature anomalies Per HADCRUT3
1911 -0.581C
1944 +0.120 C
NET CHANGE 0.701C
1976 -0.254C
2005 +0.482C
NET CHANGE 0. 736C
So global warming periods existed well before IPCC was born