Cool sea surface temperatures overrode warming
December 4, 2009
Left side: 1970-2007 trend in annual surface air temperature. Right sid: 2008 annual surface air temperature, shown as a departure from the 1971-2000 climatology.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
Cooler North American temperatures in 2008 resulted from a strong natural effect, and the overall warming trend that has been observed since 1970 is likely to resume, according to university and NOAA scientists.
“Our work shows that there can be cold periods, but that does not mean the end of global warming. The recent coolness was caused by transitory natural factors that temporarily masked the human-caused signal,” said Judith Perlwitz, lead author of the study and a researcher with the Cooperative Institute for Research Environmental Sciences, and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, both in Boulder, Colo. The paper will be published Dec. 8 in Geophysical Research Letters.
[NOTE: We have it here – see link below]
Using computer-generated models as well as observations, the team analyzed causes for climate variations in the recent decades. Special emphasis was given to the reasons for North American coolness in 2008. The research is an exercise in climate attribution, a scientific process for identifying the sources of observed climate and weather patterns. Climate attribution is a vital part of NOAA’s climate services.
“We found that North American coolness resulted from a strong bout of naturally caused cooling in the tropical and northeastern Pacific sea surface temperatures,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA meteorologist and co-author. “This illustrates how regional patterns can vary independent of the overall global average. In 2008, global land temperatures were the sixth warmest on record, whereas it was the coldest year in North America since 1996.”
The analysis included historical data and climate model simulations that were conducted in the U.S. and internationally. The science team discerned both natural and human-caused influences for 2008.
“North American temperatures would have been considerably colder in 2008 had there been no human-induced warming influence present,” Perlwitz said.
The scientists conclude that the North American temperatures are likely to resume increasing again, and do not see the recent coolness as an emerging downward trend.
“Our work shows the importance of the role of natural climate variability in temporarily masking or enhancing human-induced climate change. Through diagnosis, we ensure that natural changes, when occurring, are not misunderstood to mean that climate change is either not happening or is happening more intensely than the expected human influence,” said Arun Kumar, a NOAA meteorologist and co-author.
Authors of A strong bout of natural cooling in 2008 are Judith Perlwitz, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colo., and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colo.; Martin Hoerling, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colo.; Jon Eischeid and Taiyi Xu, both of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colo., and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colo.; and Arun Kumar, NOAA Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Md.
The work was funded by the NOAA Climate Program Office.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
==================
Link to GRL Paper is here
(Thanks to Leif Svalgaard)
They left off the following…”Further research is needed. Send more money.”
Richard111:
The Romans went down because of lead in their drinking water. What is it that is causing the current intellectual collapse of so called world leaders?
Too much Prozac. They are not human any more.
E.M.Smith (22:06:37) :
(I also left this message on his website)
Wow … this is another piece of the puzzle
What is now needed, is a compilation of the various issues found with the temps and measuring devices. Something that an average Media guy could read, and have links to sources.
We have been piecemealing the stuff, and learning as we go, but in the wake of Climategate, we really need a 30,000 foot synopsis of the problem and errors. Maybe one of the professors on the Nature side of the AGW could write it up. Or if we have a group of climate historian types ? …. hmm
Grad School project anyone?
The three points of the paper:
1) We want to make sure that natural variations are not misunderstood to be a part of the climate cycle.
2)That darned cold surface water is pesky stuff, but luckily it is not part of the climate system.
3)The trend we have seen since 1970 will continue until it doesn’t.
“Cooler North American temperatures in 2008 resulted from a strong natural effect, and the overall warming trend that has been observed since 1970 is likely to resume, according to university and NOAA scientists.”
I don’t see a quantitative definition of “likely” anywhere in this press release. Does “likely” mean 70%? 99%? 51%? 50.0000001%? What? Nice try, NOAA.
The article at least explains why there were cooler North American temperatures, and as we have been told, this is important to understanding why there has been no warming.
Trenbeth has wondered whether this is due to clouds, extra (unexplained) radiation going into space, deep ocean sequestering, or whatever. We just didn’t know – until now. So here it is, at last:-
“Cooler North American temperatures in 2008 resulted from . . .”
A pause here for dramatic effect, in best game show fashion. . .
“Resulted from – a strong natural effect.”
A strong natural effect! Its like a doctor explaining to his patient that his blindness is due to him not being able to see. And then asking for a $50 consultation fee.
Let’s see…The natural cooling overwhelmed (i’m sorry, masked) the man-made warming, but it would have been even cooler without the man-made warming. So we can have natural cooling of a magnitude that can ‘mask’ man-made warming, but we can’t have natural warming of a similar magnitude? Makes sense to me. Not.
“The recent coolness was caused by transitory natural factors that temporarily masked the human-caused signal,”
Run that by me again! So “warmness” is caused by the “unassailable” physics of CO2 in the atmosphere, black body radiation equations and such, but “coolness” is down to “natural factors”.
Sooo.. every now and again (like err … for 3 decades or so at a time) CO2 physics take some much needed time off and Gaia hires someone like H2O to stand in but he always makes a mess of things in the office and CO2 always has to clean the place up when he returns. think I’ve got that now…
Had to laugh at this one yesterday. They were doing so well too, interesting research, probably well worth reading the full paper. Part way through the press release they just can’t keep up the good news any more ….. there must be a catch somewhere, we must be responsible for something.
Listen as the sound of self flagellation grows in the background … crack… good news… crack … it just can’t be true… crack… there must be a catch… crack..crack.. Aspens to destroy biosphere … crack … our fault … crack … arggg, what have we created … crack… drowning in leaves …
OK So, if cooling is due to natural effects, why isn’t warming? …yes, yes, yes, I have heard their specious argument: “It can’t be due to anything else”
“North American temperatures would have been considerably colder in 2008 had there been no human-induced warming influence present,” Perlwitz said.
Mr. Perlwitz, How many people would you estimate did not die in 2008 because the temperature was not “considerably colder”?
In other words, how many children did not freeze to death, or die due to “considerably colder” conditions during 2008?
How many senior citizens are alive today because 2008 was not “considerably colder”?
Surely there is data out there.
Looks like good old Mother Nature has conspired to “hide the incline” 😉
Naturally, you never see any reference to the fact that the IPCC claimed no natural climate factors could account for the warming so it *had* to be CO2. OTOH, it appears there are natural climate factors that can mask the warming. Hmmmmmm …
oh, I understand. It probably is hard to get funded for that kind of study, much less get the paper through peer review.
This all gets back to Trenberth’s “travesty” quotes. They can’t balance the energy budget and they can’t explain the lack of warming. For most of us this would not be a “travesty”, it would be natural variations. However, if you are an IPCC lead author and responsible for claiming with 95% confidence that you completely understand the energy budget and can predict future warming for 100 years, then I suspect this is a “travesty”.
I believe the “travesty” quotes are the most significant part of ClimateGate. They almost single handedly tell us that the IPCC reports are worthless.
Back on the “MO to let us see some selected data” thread earlier I was looking for something “straight from the horses mouth” (MO announcement wise) and accidentally came across this piece.
More interesting though is relating that story to HMG (UK) stats on “fuel poverty” (page 9) and then comparing it all to the start of the ETS and The European Carbon Exchange (growth in absolute $ terms). I’m sure it is all just coincidence though because as we know correlation is only causation when it suits the agenda.
Sue the bastards.
I’ve been considering all the different options suggested by commentators for dealing with CAGW Hoax, such as “vote them out” and “armed revolution”. But in the end, my delicate sensibilities tell me that SUING THE BASTARDS is probably the best course of action, the most fun, and the most likely to have an effect.
First FOIA the pants off them. Then enjoin their operations. Then bust the gummit perps for malfeasance, obstruction, and orchestrating fraud.
We need show trials, perp walking, jumpsuits, balls and chains, fat cops in shades, TV info babes with shock on their painted faces, the whole nine yards.
Sue the bastards.
I’ve been wondering about something I read where the warmists claim that they’re sure it’s human-induced because the natural processes cancel out. So my question then is, if nature can cancel out the effects of a Pinatubo or Vesuvius or Mount St Helens, why is nature unable to absorb and account for the human element? Our contributions to the mix are quite a bit smaller than a huge volcanic eruption, right?
So their models didn’t predict the cooling, but now that it’s here their models tell them it is ‘natural.’ These NOAA guys aren’t exactly rocket scientists, are they? Well, neither are the climate scientist at NASA, so I guess this isn’t exaclty a shock.
“Our work shows the importance of the role of natural climate variability in temporarily masking or enhancing human-induced climate change. Through diagnosis, we ensure that natural changes, when occurring, are not misunderstood to mean that climate change is either not happening or is happening more intensely than the expected human influence,”
In a very cumbersome way, you just said that natural variability far overpowers any human caused warming.
Your models did not predict the current cooling, ergo, the models inadequately model the real world. End of story. No amount of ifs and buts make them reliable enough to bet the future on.
Please check out “A Cherry Picker’s Guide to Global Temperature Trends”:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/cherry-pickers-guide-to-global.html
It is great!
Bill S (09:52:58) :
“…if nature can cancel out the effects of a Pinatubo or Vesuvius or Mount St Helens, why is nature unable to absorb and account for the human element?”
Your question gets to the heart of the matter. The numbskulls who do not understand feedback systems think the dynamics can be decoupled; that since the natural forces balance and cancel each other at the given equilibrium point, anything else we add is independent of the equilibrium dynamics. I have described the thinking elsewhere as follows:
Wait a minute. I thought warming sea temperatures was why the Arctic and Antarctic ice was melting at an “alarming rate?” Now we’re told that cooler sea temperatures are keeping the sky from falling?
I give these people props for having big brass ones, that’s for sure. It’s a sad day when science is all about the headline and not the information.
NOAA is really setting themselves up to look like a bunch of baffoons, and I think Joe Bastardi will be happy to do it.
I find it very curious that the only place experiencing a cooling trend in the whole wide world is right here in North America, where Anthony has audited the surface stations extensively. The rest of the planet, where weather stations have not been audited extensively, and are increasingly few and far between, show warming, after ‘homogenization adjustments’ using other stations that may be hundreds or thousands of kilometers distant.
The surface stations are the basis for calibration of all the other measurements — satellites, tree rings, ice cores, the works — if they are wrong, the rest of the temperature ‘estimations’ fall with them like dominoes.
Manipulation isn’t a strong enough word for what’s been going on. Purposeful distortion might be a better description.
Incidentally, slightly OT, the mention of the story of Mohammed and the mountain is extremely apropos:
The legend goes that when the founder of Islam was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered Mount Safa to come to him. When the mountain did not comply, Mohammed raised his hands toward heaven and said, ‘God is merciful. Had it obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain and thank God that he has had mercy on a stiff-necked generation.’
Perhaps Allah is merciful that he will not allow us to move his CO2 mountains.
Thanks, 3X2