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.
Joel Shore (17:35:19):
I have a better idea. Much better:
Rather than demanding that Anthony must change his posting to suit you, why don’t YOU write an article? You can then say anything you like. You can make your case about anthropogenic global warming. I can’t speak for Anthony, but I’m sure he would post it. If for no other reason than to see how you handle real peer review, not that namby-pamby excuse for climate peer review, where if you mention ‘global warming’ enough times, you’re hand-waved though by the clique in charge, and if you’re a skeptic, well, good luck getting published at all.
I’ve suggested this to you many times now. But your response [and non-response] reminds me of a terrified dog, tucking his tail between his legs and yelping off into the distance. What are you so scared of? It’s an opportunity to state your case, such as it is.
You write endless posts across the threads on this site, day in and day out, and you claim to be a peer-reviewed, published author. So, Joel, what are you so afraid of? Taking constant pot shots at the submissions of others is fun, isn’t it, even when you’re wrong. That’s easy to do, but it’s put up or shut up time for the AGW peanut gallery.
Let’s see a pro-AGW article of your own, Joel. If you’ve got the balls.
REPLY: I welcome an essay from Joel – Anthony
So Smokey, I gather from you last comment that you aren’t bothered by the fact that the paper is being misrepresented far and wide across the internet, in a manner that makes it seams that it disproves AGW, when it does no such thing. And even though one of the paper’s authors has posted to this very thread to confirm that this is the case, your response to other posters discussing the situation is through taunts and name calling. Very big of you.
Chris de Freitas: Would you care to explain this statement from your press release?
According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
Where was that shown? Or this, which Anthony bolded:
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.
especially when your analysis takes out the trend.
Or indeed, the statement he used in the title. None of these correspond to anything in your abstract. And I can’t find anything in the paper that justifies them.
Iren – Miskolczi? Yes, at WUWT here
Woohoo, gather round boys and gals, the duel is on.
Check out the comment by John McClean’s (one of the paper’s authors) on the post over at the Open Mind blog where Tamino pulls apart the paper. And note Tamino’s response, including his asserted intent that they “duke it out” in the peer-reviewed literature, starting with a response to the paper by Tamino in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Thank you, Craig Allen, for admitting that the paper is being misrepresented [and it’s “seem”, not ‘seams’]. An alarmist author acknowledging an error is something you will rarely if ever see, even though they’re much more error prone than skeptics… who simply ask questions.
You may be unaware of the fact that I’ve been calling out Joel Shore for some time now, urging him to write his own article. The reason he’s afraid to do that is clear: his AGW beliefs would be thoroughly shredded by people here who know the actual facts. [And who are you, anyway, Joel’s momma? Why is he hiding behind your skirts? Can’t he speak for himself?]
Joel nitpicks everything he possibly can when a skeptic writes an article — not that there’s anything wrong with that. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The plain fact is that the purveyors of the debunked AGW scam routinely hide out from any neutral, moderated debate [ever since Schmidt got spanked hard by Monckton].
Instead, the AGW true believers here take easy pot shots from the sidelines at skeptics with impunity — while any similar criticism by skeptics is censored from their own globaloney websites.
What are you alarmists afraid of? The truth?? Just answer that question. I look forward to your explanation of why the rules are so different for skeptics and AGW True Believers.
I don’t think Smokey’s response (19:35:41) is justified. Joel is of course entitled to discuss and criticize the paper, and Anthony Watts is opened minded enough to allow dissentient comments to post on his blog. Shouting down contrary voices is a tactic used by those who don’t get a good handle of facts that support their stances. Which I just ran into an example in CP:
JR: how has anyone “demonstrated” anything about temperature change to atmospheric CO2? That means that the models have some provability in them — that they have predictors that are correlate with the temperature trends we’ve actually seen in the last 30 years. Who has done that? If nobody has, I strongly recommend you avoid the use of that particular word.
Which models out there predict the trend towards global cooling that we have actually measured over the past 10 years?
[JR: Ahh, you’re been duped by the ~SNIP~ and their long-debunked talking points. Why didn’t you say so in the first place!!!]
All that from a physics PHD from MIT. Are advanced degrees overrated?
michel (00:18:35) :
Good stuff Michel. I like your descriptions of the trolls (the one that calls himself ‘dhogaza’ is my personal favourite):
“One rapidly comes to the conclusion that many (some of whom post here) are only being saved from wandering up and down Third Ave shouting incoherent abuse at passers by their ability to do the same thing every day on Tamino.”
They are quite often found (s)trolling along Real Climate way as well.
Err Smoky,
It’s the anti-AGW side that is misrepresenting the paper as somehow disproving AGW. Doesn’t that bother you?
However, I note that the authors themselves are misrepresenting their findings, both by drawing conclusions that their analysis do not support, and by subsequently claiming that they have not drawn those conclusions even though they are written in the paper.
gt: “All that from a physics PHD from MIT. Are advanced degrees overrated?”
A pure ad hominem attack. The head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at M.I.T. deconstructs AGW. But you say degrees are overrated. Tell us, do you have a degree? And in what?
Smokey, You don’t understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’.
michel (12:38:03) :
“Perhaps we should demand this as a step in the peer review process for climate trend papers? The authors should be obliged to run their algorithms across various different sorts of data, and publish the results.”
Now – that would be a very good thing. But I don’t think that it has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening!
Smokey (20:36:54) :
Yes I do have an (advanced) degree in engineering, but I have no interest in disclosing what it is on. All I want to say is that a scholar should show humility and honesty. I have no problem acknowledging Dr Romm’s accomplishment and intellectual competence, but his ad hominem (using the “d” word that was snipped by moderator) attack on posters has left a lot to be desired.
Your comment on Joel is not appreciated neither. Even though I have read many of your previous posts and agree with most of them.
Off topic I guess, but I have heard some in this forum said that this paper “does not disprove AGW”. My question is, what will qualify as a legitimate disproof of AGW? Lab experiments? More sophisticated computer models? More understanding on how climate works (isn’t the science “settled”)? Cooling/reduced warming in the last 10 years despite consistent atmospheric CO2 increase?
It seems that disproving AGW is as impossible as disproving creationism/evolutionism, and the big bang theory.
Joel Shore (17:57:50) :
If climate sensitivity were to stay the same constant value over time, surely it could have been proven by now. Instead the best effort we have is not even from those purporting to have our best interests in mind, it is from the ‘bad guys’ like Lindzen. The ‘good guys’ guess, and then tell everyone that it is a settled matter. Why would climate sensitivity be the same for two different things? Perhaps feedbacks exist for one and not the other? So many questions, so little answers. That is science.
After reading and studying the paper, its conclusions appear not only obvious but unassailable:
“[34] We have shown that the Southern Oscillation is a dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperature. Shifts in temperature are consistent with shifts in the SOI that occur about 7 months earlier. The relationship weakens or breaks down at times of volcanic eruption in the tropics, and meridional heat dispersal likely accounts for this.”
“[35] The slight fall in temperatures prior to the Great Pacific Climate Shift can be attributed to the increasing dominance of positive SOI values (i.e., toward La Nin˜a) leading up to that event and the rise in temperatures following the shift can be attributed to the dominance of negative SOI values since (i.e., a period of extended El Nin˜o tendencies).”
“[36] Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of 7 months earlier. 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.”
It needs to be said that the researchers using 12-month moving averages (and their derivatives) for plotting the SOI was a brilliant, excellent way to smooth-out the complex SOI data set (with its many inherent and affecting variables). Termino may opine about losing “trends”, but this needs to be looked at on a higher level. Searching for trends is well and good, but this was not the focal point of the paper, which was to show the existence of the preceding, dominant, and consistent influence of the Southern Oscillation (with a lag of approximately 7 months) on mean global temperature. This the authors have done most satisfactorily, exhibiting evidence of a strong correlation. Bearing the above in mind, it is simply not a consideration that GHGs affect the SOI in any material way, and this salient point strikes at the very heart of the theory of AGW.
May all bogus and erroneous presumptions die a quick death.
As one earlier in the thread emphasized the relevance of the paper’s Figure 6, I too would like to add that, yes, Figure 6 is most compelling; indeed, it is a work of art. It is like beholding a breathtaking Mona Lisa (of climate change), a most beautiful picture.
Congratulations and thanks to John McLean, Chris de Freitas, and Bob Carter!
Joel Shore (17:35:19)
“As for the Compo and Sardeshmukh paper, it is important to note that it does not show that CO2 is not responsible for the warming. It merely claims to show that if you force the models with the observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) then you get much the same temperature distribution as is seen, which hardly seems surprising given that oceans are about 70% of the earth’s surface and contain most of the heat content of the ocean-atmosphere system. It begs the question of where that heat seen in the rising ocean SST’s is coming from.”
Takmeng Wong
Comparison of interannual variability of net flux anomalies between ocean heat storage data and the broadband ERB data sets shows remarkable
agreement in both phase and magnitude of these two very different types of data sets. The ocean heat storage data agree with the level of interannual
variability found in the radiation data. This variation is larger than known variations in aerosol or other radiative forcings in the late 1990s, and suggests a closely linked variation in global ocean heat storage and global cloud net radiative forcing.
Because phase lag is not expected between these two variables, it remains unclear if slight changes in ocean surface temperature and surface heat fluxes are changing clouds, or if clouds are changing ocean heat storage.
Joel Shore (17:35:19)
Thanks for the clarification, Dr. de Freitas. However, would you then ask Anthony to correct the title of this post which says “Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean?” And, what about the last 3 paragraphs of the press release quoting your co-author Bob Carter? And, for that matter, your co-author John McLean’s statement certainly seems to imply that you have shown something that is directly relevant to the IPCC’s attribution of the overall trend to greenhouse gases. And, there are even some admittedly highly-qualified but still questionably-justified statements in the paper itself in regards to the trend.
You might also take that up with Swanson and Tsonis 2009
The subject of decadal to inter-decadal climate variability is of intrinsic importance
not only scientifically but also for society as a whole. Interpreting past such variability
and making informed projections about potential future variability requires (i) identifying
the dynamical processes internal to the climate system that underlie such variability (see
e.g. Mantua et al. [1997]; Zhang et al. [1997]; Zhang et al. [2007]; Knight et al. [2005];
Dima and Lohmann [2007]), and (ii) recognizing the chain of events that mark the onset
of large amplitude variability events, i.e., shifts in the climate state. Such shifts mark
changes in the qualitative behavior of climate modes of variability, as well as breaks in
trends of hemispheric and global mean temperature. The most celebrated of these shifts
in the instrumental record occurred in 1976/77. That particular winter ushered in an
extended period in which the tropical Pacific Ocean was warmer than normal, with strong
El Nin˜o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events occurring after that time, contrasting with
the weaker ENSO variability in the decades before (Hoerling et al. [2004]; Huang et al.
[2005]). Global mean surface temperature also experienced a trend break, transitioning
from cooling in the decades prior to 1976/77 to the strong warming that characterized
the remainder of the century.
Global mean temperature decreased prior to World War I, increased during the 1920s and 1930s, decreased from the 1940s to 1976/77, and as noted above increased from that point to the end of the century. Insofar as the global mean temperature is controlled by the net top-of-the-atmosphere radiative budget [IPCC 2007], such breaks in temperature trends imply discontinuities in that budget. Such discontinuities are difficult to reconcile with the presumed smooth evolution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol radiative forcing with respect to time [Hansen et al. 2005]. This suggests that an internal reorganization of the climate system may underlie such shifts [Zhang et al. 2007].
.
Re: michel (12:38:03)
Thanks for the link to Tamino’s PCA Part 4.
I found this illuminating:
“If we use centered PCA, it turns out to be in the 2nd PC, but with non-centered PCA it ends up in the 1st PC. That’s the reason for the choice of non-centered PCA: to make the relevant, i.e. temperature-related, variation end up higher in the PC list. And: it worked.”
… and yet nowhere in any of the 4 parts of the series is there any mention of factor analysis. Variants of the word “rotation” barely even came up.
gt (21:09:18) :
This is a constant source of irritation. Why are skeptics always put into the position of having to ‘disprove AGW’? Must skeptics disprove every new hypothesis that comes along? No. It is up to the purveyors of the CO2=AGW hypothesis to falsify the current theory. The have failed to do so.
The long accepted theory of natural climate variability predicts that the climate will continue to follow a gradually increasing trend line of rising temperature going back to the LIA, and before that, to the last great Ice Age. The planet’s temperature fluctuates above and below that trend line on a decadal time scale.
The current climate is well within historical norms, therefore Occam’s Razor says that adding another extraneous parameter [such as CO2] to the explanation is completely unnecessary, and does nothing but muddy the waters.
In order to replace the long accepted theory of natural climate variability, the proposed AGW hypothesis must be able to explain reality better than the current theory. It fails. It is unable to make simple predictions, despite the use of super computers and the billions of dollars expended to study global warming.
The Scientific Method doesn’t require the AGW hypothesis to be “disproved.” Rather, it requires that those promoting their AGW hypothesis must falsify the accepted theory of natural climate variability. They have been unable to do so. Despite the advantages of computing power and $billions, AGW can not predict the climate.
The problem for the AGW folks is that they have been unable to falsify the theory of natural climate variability. Unless/until they are able to do so, the current theory stands, and CO2=AGW is just another failed hypothesis.
Smokey, regarding this “the long accepted theory of natural climate variability” that you speak of; can you explain the mechanism that, as you say, “causes climate will continue to follow a gradually increasing trend line of rising temperature going back to the LIA, and before that, to the last great Ice Age”. Who has long accepted this theory, and where is is written down so we can read all about it?
Paul Vaughan (19:26:12) :
Please go to my talk at the Natural Cliamte Change Coneference at:
http://www.naturalclimatechange.info/?q=node/10
and click on session 5 by Ian Wilson – It will explain what you are after.
The timing between proxygian spring tides is ~ 206 days (or about 7 months),
however, extreme proxygean spring tides come along about every 10.15 years
(it is actually a 20.3 year cycle from New Moon to New Moon).
What we are seeing with the El Nino is most likely a consequence of the six year varaitions in the Earth’s rotation rate that are being driven by assymetries in the Lunar forcing caused by a combination of Lunar Evection and Lunar variation.
The six year oscillations in the Earth’s rotation drive 2.4 year (QBO) , 3.6 year (ENSO), 4.8 year (ENSO) and 6 year (ENSO) resonaces in the atmosphere/ocean system. These closely match the sub-multiples of the 18.6 year LNC cycle (i.e 6.2 years, 3.7 years, and 2.3 years) which may reinforce these natural resonances.
Look at Siderenkov (2000) Astronomy Reports Vol 44, No 6 p. 414, tranlasted from Astronomicheskii Zhurnal 2000, 77 , No 6, p. 474
For those who think that I have a abondoned the Sun as a natural cause of Climate Change – nothing could be further from the truth.
I am just saying that the order of influence is most likley:
1. Lunar/Solar Tides 2. Sun and a (very) distance 3. Anthropogenic CO2
The world’s mean temperatures are probably set by a combination of 1) and 2) , with one having more influence than other at vary times depending on the strength of their respective forcing signals on the Earth/atmosphere/ocean climate system.
Ninderthana,
How do you arive at your estimate of the relative importance of these factors?
Has there been any analysis that has found a correlation between “oscillations in the Earth’s rotation” and El Nino. What are the resonances you speak of, and how do they connect the Earth’s rotation to the climate?
A test to ascertain whether there is a break in the data producing the step in 1976 associated with the Great Pacific Climate Shift would go some way to clarifying and substantiating the thesis of the McLean paper and its abrogation of a possible AGW trend and indeed whether there is any such AGW trend; in fact such a test has been done in the context of the PDO phase shifts;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
The paper establishes a regional break in 1978 with marked absences of trends pre and post break and global breaks in 1978 and 1998 with a slight increasing residual trend from 1978 to 1998 and a decreasing trend post 1998.
This paper specifically compares the possibility of trends with a break in the data and correlates the statistically preferred break with empirically well-established oceanographic events. This paper draws inspiration from an old paper by John McLean on the GPCS which was later published in a data truncated form by Tom Quirk. I got kicked off Tamino’s blog about a year ago for having the temerity of raising the point. Small world.
Craig Allen (04:10:11),
Dr. Roy Spencer has said that no one has falsified the theory that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability. In other words, warmists need to falsify natural climate change; skeptics are under no obligation to falsify every wacked out conjecture that comes along. At least, not according to the Scientific Method.
As for a mechanism, there are several related hypotheses proposed. You can search for them as well as I can. But to get you started on the right track, this article is worth reading.
If I said I had a computer model that could look at a bonfire and predict how it would look an hour later down to the shape of the flames and which logs are burnt by how much there would be scepticism. If I then admitted it wasn’t perfect so could I have another $100, 000, 000 I would expect gales of laughter.
Why is it obvious that a bonfire can’t be predictively modelled yet people still think the climate can be?