Coralline Algae and the Case for Natural Climate Change

Guest post by Jim Steele

Director Sierra Nevada Field Campus, emeritus, San Francisco State University

There was a very revealing 2012 paper demonstrating the power and interconnections of natural ocean oscillations, “Marine proxy evidence linking decadal North Pacific and Atlantic Climate”. If you have ever played in the tide pools, you may have noticed the coralline algae: a pinkish‑red algae with holdfasts that encrust the rocks, as shown in the picture. Just as tropical coral allow scientists to reconstruct tropical ocean temperatures, a chemical analysis of the thick crusts of some coralline algae provides a record of temperatures in sub‑arctic oceans. Statistical correlations of the cyclic nature and connections between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO), the Aleutian Low and North Atlantic Oscillation(NAO) have been based on tree rings and other land proxies that fail to fully capture subsurface changes, so this is the first ocean proxy to provide a very coherent picture of recent climate change.

clip_image002A quick review of the PDO illustrates the value of this new re‑construction. From a biological point of view the PDO is a “regime shift” that totally alters currents, winds and marine life approximately every 20 years. Salmon abundance alternates between Oregon and Alaska, abundant sardines alternate with abundant anchovies, and a host of other related changes that would require a book to properly address(see Chavez 2003, 2011).

The PDO is driven in part by El Nino cycles and internal climate feedbacks.

In the PDO’s warm phase, ocean temperatures in the Pacific resemble an El Nino year with warmer temperatures in the eastern Pacific and cooler temperatures to the north and west. In the cool phase, the PDO resembles a La Nina. Not only does the PDO’s regime shift totally reorganize marine ecosystems, the changing currents redistribute the ocean’s heat. Because the upper 10 feet of the ocean contains more heat than the entire atmosphere, the PDO, like an EL Nino, can dramatically alter the climate.

As the PDO entered its warm phase beginning in the early 1900’s to the late 1940’s, global temperatures rose. The unadjusted maximum temperatures for the overwhelming majority of USHCN weather stations show a corresponding 1940’s warm peak that has yet to be surpassed. During that time the Arctic Ocean warmed similar to today(see Bengstonn, 2004), and ice cores on the Antarctic peninsula show a similar 1940’s warm peak that remains the warmest for the 20th century(see Schneider 2008). Between 1946 and 1976 the PDO reversed to its cool phase and global temperatures dropped. Then in 1976 the PDO reversed again to its warm phase and global temperatures rose igniting the global warming debate. In 1976, the temperature of the California Current suddenly jumped by 1 degree and there was a northward shift in warm water species that CO2 advocates argued was evidence of global warming. However there were alternative correlations.

The Aleutian Low strengthens during a PDO warm phase, which causes a circulation pattern that pumps more warm air and warm water northward. This caused Bering Sea Ice to retreat and Alaska and the Bering Sea were noted by the IPCC as one of the 3 fastest warming places on earth. Some climate scientist wrote that Alaska’s rapid warming could be explained completely by the warm phase of the PDO (see Hartman 2005) while others working in southern California predicted the warmer temperatures in the California Current would soon revert back to the 1970’s level(see Holbrook 1997). Thus there was a natural experiment to test the competing hypotheses. Natural variation predicted a reversal and CO2 predicted a continued and accelerating warming.

When the PDO began to enter its cool phase again in 1998, temperatures in the California Current from Washington to southern California dropped to the cooler 1970’s level as predicted by Holbrook (Peterson 2003). However, although the Aleutian Low began to weaken as expected during a cool phase of the PDO, temperatures in Alaska did not immediately change and the Bering Sea ice continued to retreat. Some advocates argued that this was proof that CO2 warming and not the PDO were driving those temperatures. They predicted the Bering Sea ice would continue to retreat with March ice extent dropping 25% by mid century.(Douglas 2010) However the PDO prediction has been vindicated again. After a 5 year lag, Alaska has become one of the most rapidly cooling regions on earth, as temperatures have been steadily cooling by 2.3°F over the past 10 years (see Wendler 2012) and beginning in 2003 Bering Sea ice began to recover reaching record extent in 2012. If we ignore that natural cycles and extend that trend into the future as advocates like to do, that means that Alaska will cool 23°F by the end of the century. But such futuristic trends, warm or cold, are just silly projections.

Ocean currents are much slower to respond to changing air currents due to their greater mass and greater inertia. Although the ocean temperatures had switched in the tropics and the Aleutian Low was weakening it was reasonable to expect ocean temperatures further north in the Bering Sea would lag by a few years, which is exactly what the coralline algae studied shows. Furthermore this studies shows that over the past centuries the algae in the North Atlantic will follow natural climate change in the Bering Sea with a ~5 year lag. This again corresponds to recent observations. In 2010 the Arctic Oscillation/NAO dropped into it negative phase and is continuing to parallel the PDO’s descent into a cool phase. As predicted a negative oscillation is hammering Great Britain and much of Europe with record cold and snow. However this new cooling trend contradicted CO2 predictions. Advocate scientist had not only predicted that snow would soon disappear from Great Britain, but that CO2 could control natural oscillations, and they predicted the Arctic Oscillation/NAO would continue to rise into its warm phase causing warmer European winters.

RealClimate’s moderator Gavin Schmidt co‑authored that prediction in 1999 writing although the warming appears through a naturally occurring mode of atmospheric variability, it may be anthropogenically induced and may continue to rise.”(Shindell 199) In 2001 scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote, “The proposed response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations through forcing from warmer tropical SSTs or a strengthened stratospheric vortex implies, however, that the positive index phase might continue”. (see Visbeck 2001)

Clearly their CO2‑driven models failed to capture the earth’s natural variations such as the PDO and NAO and their theories were forced to adapt. When a blocking High formed in the north Atlantic, it forced a weak category 2 hurricane to turn inland, which then morphed into Superstorm Sandy as the warmer ocean winds collided with colder continental air. This blocking High was generated by cold Arctic winds that had pushed further south than in previous decades because the Arctic Oscillation was now in its cool phase.

So to capitalize on Sandy’s tragedy, within 5 days of Sandy’s peak damage, Mark Fischetti wrote for Scientific American on October 30, 2012 “Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy?” He interviewed the standard perpetrators of climate doom Jim Hansen and Kevin Trenberth. And to implicate global warming, the advocates flipped‑flopped on the Arctic Oscillation/NAO. Now they argue that the cool phase of that oscillation is also due to global warming and referenced another model to “prove” it. Fischetti goes onto say the Trenberth had predicted this megastorm and referenced Trenberth’s “Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes”. However in that paper Trenberth had argued that the lack of hurricanes that followed Katrina was due to the cooling effects of La Nina years. Sandy, on the other hand occurred after a La Nina year had brought drought to America. Other than predicting the given that the future will bring a big storm, Trenberth got everything else wrong.

As for predictions of accelerated warming even Jim Hansen recently admitted, “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”. With such failed predictions, the CO2 advocates are now relegated to arguing CO2 has caused the climate to “go crazy”. There is no longer a testable hypothesis to disprove CO2 climate change, because omnipotent and omnipresent CO2 moves in strange and mysterious ways. Warm or cold, floods or droughts, rain or snow, its always CO2. Such arguments of crazy weather, appear more like excuses for their failed predictions. And their blatant flip‑flops expose their crass eagerness to hijack every human tragedy to implicate CO2.

On the other hand, climate theories based on natural variations show that the climate is behaving as has been predicted. A cool PDO phase is reversing the trends of the warm phase and as predicted global temperatures stopped rising. A cool NAO is now following a warm phase. The growing cold and ice in the Bering Sea has been followed by growing cold in the North Atlantic. The graph from the study shows how ocean temperatures, algae and the Aleutian Low are all related. Although the author made no such predictions the graph also suggests a trend toward colder weather as the natural oscillations trend deeper into their cool phase. This certainly seems to be the case as China has also suffered its coldest winters since the last PDO cool phase. If history repeats itself, we should also expect CO2 advocates to continue to flip‑flop as they repeatedly try to convince their faithful believers that global warming causes global cooling.

From Hetzinger abstract, “Here we present an annually-resolved record (1818–1967) of Mg/Ca variations from a North Pacific/ Bering Sea coralline alga that extends our knowledge in this region beyond available data. It shows for the first time a statistically significant link between decadal fluctuations in sea-level pressure in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. The record is a lagged proxy for decadal-scale variations of the Aleutian Low. It is significantly related to regional sea surface temperature and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index in late boreal winter on these time scales. Our data show that on decadal time scales a weaker Aleutian Low precedes a negative NAO by several years. This atmospheric link can explain the coherence of decadal North Pacific and Atlantic Multidecadal Variability, as suggested by earlier studies using climate models and limited instrumental data.”

clip_image004

References:

  1. Chavez,F.P., et al.(2003) From Anchovies to Sardines and Back: Multidecadal Change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299, 217.
  2. Chavez,. F., et al., (2011) Marine Primary Production in Relation to Climate Variability and Change. Annual Revie of Marine Science, vol. 3, p. 227–260.
  3. Douglas,(2010) Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Projected Changes in Timing and Extent of Sea Ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. USGS Open-File Report 2010–1176
  4. Fischetti, M. (2012) Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy? Scientific American, October 30,2012.
  5. Hartman, B., & Wendler, G., (2005) The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska. Journal of Climate, vol. 18, p. 4821-4838.
  6. Holbrook, S., et al., (1997) Changes in an Assemblage of Temperate Reef Fishes associated with a Climate Shift. Ecological Applications, vol. 7, pp. 1299-1310.
  7. Hetzinger, S., et al. (2012) Marine proxy evidence linking decadal North Pacific and Atlantic Climate. Climate Dynamics, vol. 39, p.1447–1455, DOI 10.1007/s00382-011-1229-4.
  8. Peterson, W., and Schwing, F., (2003) A new climate regime in northeast pacific ecosystems. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017528.
  9. Schneider, D., and Steig, E., (2008) Ice cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12154–12158.
  10. Shindell,D., and Schmidt,G., (1999) Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing. Nature, vol. 399, p.452-455.
  11. Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116
  12. Visbeck, M., et al., (2001) The North Atlantic Oscillation: Past, present, and future. PNAS, vol. 98, p.12876–12877.
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 28, 2013 6:23 pm

Roger L. says:
January 28, 2013 at 5:16 pm
For now, let´s take the results of this study as they are
Since the data presented stops in 1967, it has little bearing on the CO2 problem, and is therefore irrelevant, hence my wish to see newer data.
there are more and more signs that our modelers have got it wrong.
But the data presented here is not one of those signs.
what do you think if they use an inappropriate statistics procedure
The problem is more with the data than with the procedure. Personally, I dislike Bayesian analyses because of the priors injecting opinion into the analysis.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2013 7:49 pm

@Leif / lsvalgaard:
I think it depends on how you ‘logged in’… as lsvlagard.wordpress or leaf.org…

TomRude
January 28, 2013 8:58 pm

Leif wrote: “Since the data presented stops in 1967, it has little bearing on the CO2 problem, and is therefore irrelevant, hence my wish to see newer data.”
I concur that recent data should be presented.
However, are you suggesting the the CO2 “problem” is post 1967? Really, because at first we heard from the CAGW proponents that GHG global warming was from the start of the industrial revolution… then it shifted to post 1950 and now it would be post 1967? Talking about shifting goal posts…

January 29, 2013 4:47 am

TomRude says:
January 28, 2013 at 8:58 pm
However, are you suggesting the the CO2 “problem” is post 1967?
It is a matter of degree [no pun intended], but we often hear that the warming really took off in the 1970s.

Gail Combs
January 29, 2013 6:09 am

mosomoso says:
January 28, 2013 at 2:09 pm
….In 2007, the climate really did change. It is written in the winds. I find it astounding that the climatariat, those who preach climate change, do not notice climate change when it actually happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone who has paid attention to the daily weather should have noticed the change in the wind. In N.C. it used to be from the west (Zonal jets) and now it is from every direction even from the east (Meridional) The Climastrologists know this and that is why the party line changed to ‘Weather Weirding’

January 29, 2013 10:11 am

lsvalgaard says: It is a matter of degree [no pun intended], but we often hear that the warming really took off in the 1970s.
Indeed warming took off in the 1970’s. The PDO ocean regime shift happened in 1976. It was reorganized ocean temperatures, pressure systems and marine ecosystems from the Arctic to the Antarctic. The PDO is is a natural oscillation, that intensifies during eras of high solar activity and weakens under low activity. The trend towards a negative PDO and low solar output predicts that warming will stop and should cool over the next decade. CO2 theory predicts warming should accelerate. The current warming plateau suggests the PDO is a better predictor of climate change, but it will take the net decade to determine who the real deniers are.

TomRude
January 29, 2013 10:19 am

Gail every serious climatologist was aware of the 1970s climatic shift -cf. Leroux. I find now hilarious that the CAGW advocates are hooking up on this one because analysis of the weather events related to this shift are pointing toward anything but the CO2 induced global warming… hence the “warm creates cold” funny papers that try to justify after the fact the cold waves, snow and record wintry conditions they claimed would be “things of the past” 10 or 15 years ago.
The warming “take off” in the 1970s reflects simply the weighting and distribution of land based stations, highlighting if necessary the scientific blinders and blunder that consists in deducting climatological understanding mostly from temperatures.

January 29, 2013 10:23 am

jim Steele says:
January 29, 2013 at 10:11 am
The trend towards a negative PDO and low solar output predicts that warming will stop and should cool over the next decade.
The solar part will not exceed 0.03 degrees so is negligible…

phlogiston
January 29, 2013 1:28 pm

A well written and powerful evidence based article. The corraline algal data shows that the PDO, NAO and AMO, far from being mere hand-waving abstractions, are real phenomena grounded in solid experimental proxy data.
The “hypothesis” that CO2 dominates climate and would crush “natural” variation (if such a thing indeed existed) – has been tested and has utterly failed.
lsvalgaard says:
January 29, 2013 at 4:47 am
TomRude says:
January 28, 2013 at 8:58 pm
However, are you suggesting the the CO2 “problem” is post 1967?
It is a matter of degree [no pun intended], but we often hear that the warming really took off in the 1970s.
What “took off” in the 1970s was the warm phase of the PDO. Looks like now it has come back down to earth.

phlogiston
January 29, 2013 1:32 pm

Steve McIntyre says:
January 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm

My guess is that they are trying to get more papers from the coralline algae data and therefore spinning it out into multiple papers – a fairly common practice in the field.
A common practice in every field. In biological sciences they call it “salami-slicing”.

phlogiston
January 29, 2013 1:36 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
January 28, 2013 at 6:55 am
As I said back in May 2008:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1302&linkbox=true&position=9
[…]
“Global temperature is controlled quite precisely (although it is difficult to calculate) by solar energy modulated by a number of overlapping and interlinked oceanic cycles …

I would reverse that particular causal sentence:
Global temperature is controlled … by a number of overlapping and interlinked oceanic cycles, which (in turn) are modulated and driven via weak nonlinear periodic forcing by oscillations in solar output.

peterg
January 29, 2013 1:47 pm

Exceedingly interesting post.
I found the period of the oscillation a bit confusing. From a biological point of view the PDO is a “regime shift” that totally alters currents, winds and marine life approximately every 20 years.
and As the PDO entered its warm phase beginning in the early 1900’s to the late 1940’s, global temperatures rose. So is the period of the PDO 2×20 = 40 years or 2×50 = 100 years?

January 29, 2013 4:08 pm

I found the period of the oscillation a bit confusing. As the PDO entered its warm phase beginning in the early 1900’s to the late 1940’s, global temperatures rose. So is the period of the PDO 2×20 = 40 years or 2×50 = 100 years?
Sorry about that. It was a typo on my part. The PDO shifted to a warm mode beginning in the 1920’s.

January 29, 2013 4:49 pm

lsvalgaard says: The solar part will not exceed 0.03 degrees so is negligible…
You are such a curmudgeon. I am not sure how you calculated 0.03 degrees or why you would argue any solar effect is negligible.C14 and Be 10 studies show clear correlations between solar activity and the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Periods, (ie. Asmerom, Y., et al. (2007) Solar forcing of Holocene climate: New insights from a speleothem record, southwestern United States. Geology, vol.35, p.1-4.)
Your speculative effect on average temperature, ignores the impact of ocean and atmospheric circulation that redistributes heat. Outside the tropics the average temperature is determined by how much heat is exported from the tropics. A change in average temperature does not simply equate to a change in the amount of heat added to the system. Solar output controls the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles which greatly affects the circulation patterns and the redistribution of heat. For example during an equinox, a .1% increase in solar output increases tropical heat input by nearly the full percentage, but the change in solar output approaches zero at the poles.Using any average obscures that dynamic.
Several studies can detect the solar impact between sunspot cycles.They wrote “These differences between the extremes of the solar cycle suggest that an increase in solar forcing intensifies the Hadley and Walker circulations, with greater solar forcing resulting in strengthened regional climatological tropical precipitation regimes.”( van Loon, et al. (2004) A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August.Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 1767–1778).
Likewise recent colder winters are correlated with sunspot minimum (Lockwood, M.et al. (20110The solar influence on the probability of relatively cold UK winters in the future. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 034004 11pp).
So what does your 0.03 degrees have do with anything?