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)
If anyone is inclined to be deferential to “scientists” because of their Ph.D. credential, please allow me to disabuse of that notion. Like the rest of society, the abilities of scientists in their chosen field vary, often widely. I’ve been acquainted with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences (chemistry, physics) that were reduced to computer support because they were not capable in their professional field of study.
My take on the current situation is that Climatology seems to be infested with a large number of people who were taught incessantly in grade school that mankind is ruining the planet, so much so that it is now part of their inherent “common sense”. They just “know” AGW is true, so they find it (or force it) as need be. IMHO, that’s why you see unsupported statements about “**expected** human influence” and “human-caused signal” and “human-induced warming influence” sprinkled throughout a paper that actually underlines their lack of knowledge and common sense (but makes perfect “sense” from their view point).
Add on top of that the rise of “post-normal” (agenda-driven) scientists, heavy-handed manipulation of the Scientific Method, a fawning press, leftist and greed-driven politicians, and you have a near-perfect storm.
I am sorry, but unless they can pin down a specific range for the natural variation, why would anyone believe this? I may have missed it, but what I found very lacking was this:
1. This is the specific natural variability that caused the cooling.
2. This is the proof.
3. These are the calculations that show the specific contribution of this natural variability to the cooling.
I am about to read it again, more slowly, but does anyone else find it odd that ‘natural variability’ is the dump in which all mis/non-understood effects are piled into?
Yet again, I don’t really see how they used the SST anomalies to prove anything. They say that SST anomalies ‘partly explain’ the cooling, then do not explain the lower SST anomalies at all. Yes, there are pretty red and blue pictures and nice distribution pictures, but in the end the blame falls on the ocean without the slightest pretense of explaining why the ocean did it, nor explaining how the colder SSTs developed in the first place. And if the SSTs ‘partly’ explain the cooling, what explains the other part? Weak explanation, I say, but I am open for discussion as to how this explains it all.
!970… 1970… what is it about that year? Maybe it is when the global cooling scare started on account of it had been cooling since the thirties????
Nah. That sample is definitely not cherry picked. I have it on Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt’s authority.
And another thing, only 4% of models agreed with observations and they are 99% certain?
““North American temperatures would have been considerably colder in 2008 had there been no human-induced warming influence present,” Perlwitz said.””
Well, after all this is the same administration that boasts of “jobs created or saved.”
This it seems to me is a retreat spun as an “advance in retrograde.” So, they’re admitting the lack of warming now? And, better yet, admitting that natural phenomena operate at the same order of magnitude as CO2?
Maybe this is also natural:
“Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.”
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/03_Cosmic/030618.Suns.output.up.html
To me, there is a better correlation between solar sunspot number
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/sunspots_assets/01-Sunspots_1600_to_present.gif
And their graph for the global temperature
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
than with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
http://envstudies.brown.edu/oldsite/Thesis/2001/rowland/Images/global%20co2-2.jpg
“”” Using computer-generated models as well as observations, the team analyzed causes for climate variations in the recent decades. “””
“”” Using computer models “””
“”” Using computer-generated models . “””
I think I got it; the MODELS themselves are now generated by computer.
Would you let a computer GENERATED model drive your car to work in the morning; while you read the NYT (and Andy’s blog) in the back seat ?
Just remember that it was a computer that tried to land Apollo 11’s Eagle lander on top of a pile of rocks (it would have tipped over and never returned), and Neil Armstrong had to override the computer and manually land the thing off that pile of rocks; pretty much the same way as I will continue to drive my own car thank you.
So we not only have computers faking the data; but they also are inventing their own climate models to operate on that phony data.
Simply wunnerful !
Any two year old child can distinguish a tree (any kind of tree) from a telephone pole (the AT&T tree). Try getting your computer to do that; specially some of those cell phone “trees” we have here in California; they look better than some trees I’ve seen.
Has anyone considered that in fact the current unequivocal global cooling that we have had for the last 9, 12, 15 whatever years might in fact be anthropogenic as in man made.
That time frame is about the same period over which Communist Red China has been placing a new Coal fired electric power plant on line every week. Those coal plants look pretty dirty in the ash sense, based on the photographs I have seen, and all that particulate matter getting blown up into the upper atmosphere, must be nucleating clouds like crazy. In fact I believe that China has exhibited cooling even when the rest of the world might have exhibited warming.
So there you go NOAA why don’t you do a study to see if the current period of global cooling is anthropogenic, or man made; whichever you choose.
Cold SST’s are easily explained. Warm SST’s are easily explained. Thus cold temps on land are easily explained. Thus warm temps on land are easily explained. 5th grade science. Where do I get my Nobel prize?
Here it is in a nutshell. The system self-oscillates. It is also somewhat leaky atmospherically. The Sun beats down on the tropics. If the wind is dead or slow (usually when it is blowing West to East) the water is quite still. When the ocean surface is still, SW infrared heats up the surface. This warm water lazily makes its way around the globe. The warm water also increases water vapor so in some places precip (mostly rain but snow also) increases and in other places warm drought occurs. Eventually the system gets full of heat and causes the wind to pick up and blow quite hard East to West in the tropics. This peels back the warmed water (regardless of the Sun trying to continue to warm it) and allows cold water to mix up to the surface. The mixed colder water works its way around the globe rather quickly, lowering temps in some areas and producing snow, while causing cold drought in other areas. Since the air is colder, water vapor decreases and dries the land out which blows dust out to the ocean. This dust fertilizes the ocean and causes a resurgence in fisheries. Eventually enough energy leaks out into space and things calm down again, letting the Sun warm the lazy surface once again. The oscillation probably has a long one as well as short ones. The steady Sun has about the same amount of influence as CO2 does. Its the leaky Earth and its spin that creates the oscillation.
2009 is the year when the scariest 10 words in the English language went from…
I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you.
to….
I’m a Climate Scientist and I’m here to help you.
Pamela Gray (18:59:27) :
While I appreciate that, I was aware of that before hand. It just seemed to be somewhat of a lazy offhand explanation, as though cooling were something to just blame on the ocean, whereas warming is clearly and unequivocally the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. There may also be mixing from biological life as well, just to add on, but what I was looking for was more along the lines of an explanation that had a more solid attribution.
CO2 increases can be calculated, but to just say “The cooling was because of SSTs” without actually showing any kind of attribution, say a figure like “0.5K was from SSTs” makes me feel that it is not as well understood as the title of the paper would lead me to believe.
Um…
If natural climate variability (I take it they’re referring to the cold PDO/La Nina signal) can cause a trend to flip by 1-2 C in Canada in a single year…couldn’t natural variability also cause the warming?
Sorry Pamela, I mean the paper when I say it seems lazy and offhanded.
This NOAA paper says human activity is the dominant cause of global warming … except when it’s not. And even when GHG forcing steadily increases, the dominant cause of global warming can still be dominated by other natural forces. But natural forces strong enough to dominate the dominant cause of global warming could not be the cause of the warming.
All of which illustrates Trenberth’s Travesty.
We are currently in our long term weather like in the fall season is in our typical year , If the leaves are turning their color and there is a nip in the air and birds are gathering in flocks you can bet that winter is not far of f. Any one who cannot read the longer term planetary signs that a more extended period of cooler weather is ahead is blind to the natural cycles of this planet. Yes warming will resume again but more probably in 2-3 decades.
Ocean SST’s are declining
The ocean heat content rise has leveled off and is dropping
AMO has peaked and is likely to go again negative or cool by January 2010 for an extended cool period now [typically 20 -35 years but it can fluctuate considerably
WINTER NAO is headed for more negative periods like the 1960’s to 1980’s where 17 out 30 winters had negative NAO. In the 1060’s, 8 out of 10 winters had a negative NAO,
PDO is heading for 30 year cool cycle and will go negative by early 2010
A La Nina is possible in 2010 and more frequently during the next few decades
Lunar- solar tidal forcing clustering is predicted to grow as in past cool periods [more mixing of ocean surface levels due to more significant tidal forcing]
Solar minimum continues and next 2 cycles are likely to be low in terms of sunspots
Solar wind is at a 50 year low level
So, cooling can come from natural causes, yet warming only comes from human activity? I fear I have just suffered a divide by zero error in my organic computer. Now I have a headache, and it’s man-made!
I can’t believe NOAA put out a graphic that has “Degrees Kelvin” on it. Doesn’t every scientist know that you don’t put “degrees” in front of kelvin? Isn’t that taught in high school?
You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn’t changed.
“The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don’t cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.
[REPLY – That’s adjusted data. NOAA and NASA apply strong warming adjustments to the raw data. Besides, even if CRU, NOAA, etc., are right (which I do not concede), +0.7C per century is no threat, whatever. But, yes, we all need to think about it. ~ Evan]