Note: Dr. Judith Curry also has an essay on this important paper. She writes:
My mind has been blown by a new paper just published in Nature.
Just when I least expected it, after a busy day when I took a few minutes to respond to a query from a journalist about a new paper just published in Nature [link to abstract]:
This has important implications for IPCC’s upcoming AR5 report, where they will attempt to give attribution to the warming, which now looks more and more like a natural cycle. See updates below. – Anthony
================================================================
Guest essay by Bob Tisdale
The recently published climate model-based paper Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling [Paywalled] by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie has gained a lot of attention around the blogosphere. Like Meehl et al (2012) and Meehl et al (2013), Kosaka and Xie blame the warming stoppage on the recent domination of La Niña events. The last two sentences of Kosaka and Xie (2013) read:
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.
And what about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)? What happens to global surface temperatures when the AMO also peaks and no longer contributes to the warming?
The climate science community skirts the common-sense questions, so no one takes them seriously.
UPDATE
Another two comments:
Kosaka and Xie (2013) appear to believe the correlation between their model and observed temperatures adds to the credibility of their findings. They write in the abstract:
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming).
Kosaka and Xie (2013) used the observed sea surface temperatures of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific as an input to their climate model. By doing so they captured the actual El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal. ENSO is the dominant mode of natural variability on the planet. In layman terms, El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the year-to-year wiggles. It’s therefore not surprising that when they added the source of the wiggles, the models included the wiggles, which raised the correlation coefficient.
Table 1 from Kosaka and Xie (2013) is also revealing. The “HIST” experiment is for the climate model forced by manmade greenhouse gases and other forcings, and the “POGA-H” adds the tropical Pacific sea surface temperature data to the “HIST” forcings. For the modeled period of 1971-1997, adding the ENSO signal increased the linear trend by 34%. Maybe that’s why modeling groups exclude the multidecadal variability of ENSO by skewing ENSO to zero. That way El Niños and La Niñas don’t contribute to or detract from the warming. Unfortunately, by doing so, the models have limited use as tools to project future climate.
UPDATE2 (Anthony): From Dr. Judith Curry’s essay – she writes at her blog:
The results in terms of global-average surface temperature are shown in Fig 1 below:
In Fig 1 a, you can see how well the POGA H global average surface temperature matches the observations particularly since about 1965 (note central Pacific Ocean temperatures have increasing and significant uncertainty prior to 1980).
What is mind blowing is Figure 1b, which gives the POGA C simulations (natural internal variability only). The main ’fingerprint’ of AGW has been the detection of a separation between climate model runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. The detection of AGW has emerged sometime in the late 1970′s , early 1980′s.
Compare the temperature increase between 1975-1998 (main warming period in the latter part of the 20th century) for both POGA H and POGA C:
- POGA H: 0.68C (natural plus anthropogenic)
- POGA C: 0.4C (natural internal variability only)
I’m not sure how good my eyeball estimates are, and you can pick other start/end dates. But no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.
The paper abstract:
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12534
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Richard my assertions are solid.
Your understanding of them?
Needs some work.
Stratospheric warming and cooling, along with expansion and contraction and jet movement is sometimes attributed to solar variations and its various outputs. However, care must be taken when thinking along these lines. Why? Disturbances in the troposphere can propagate up into the stratosphere. So when a solar/climate believer uses stratospheric data, which is poorly studied anyway, to somehow “show” that there is a solar connection, challenge that assumption. The stratosphere can and does echo intrinsic weather pattern variations propogated from the bottom up.
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/isavelyev/GFD-2/Rossby%20waves.pdf
Love the maths. Now that’s what I’m talkin about!
Bob Tisdale says:
Second, years ago, we discussed why ENSO cannot be removed after determining coefficients through regression analysis:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/revised-post-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
This is the post where you made an absolute mess of the statistics. It certainly isn’t a refutation to Foster & Rahmstorf.
Much of what we call micro weather noise has been torn apart, studied and modeled with fairly straightforward maths. And since “climate” data is daily weather averaged, it stands to reason that day after day, month after month, and year after year of the same seasonal weather pattern variation regime can result in a trend that appears when weather is averaged. This trend can be noisily flat, rising, or falling. There are no assumptions here. There are no laws broken. There are decades of meteorology studies that demonstrate the work, passed peer review, and are still cited in college level texts.
Within the broader global view of macro weather pattern variations, these have likewise been studied and can be modeled with fairly straightforward maths. It is also known that these macro systems shift. And when they do, a new regime sets up till they shift again. Again, no assumptions are made. No laws are broken. There are decades of climatological studies that demonstrate the work, passed peer review, and are still cited in college level texts. In fact, some of the “new” stuff we are reading can be found in old text books.
Add to that our oceans and their ability to absorb IR which heats deeply, and send it around the globe via the various surface and below the surface oceanic currents, it is plausible that these systems have worked to bring about any trend we have seen in the modern era. Again, no assumptions are made. No laws are broken. There are decades of oceanic studies that demonstrate the work, passed peer review, and are still cited in college level texts. New things are being discovered all the time about this part of our global weather systems and is very exciting. For example, there are probably more than two areas on the globe where deep water makes it to the surface. Why is this proposed? The observed age of the deep water is younger than it would otherwise be if it only overturned at the poles.
The case for anthropogenic CO2 or solar output being the source of the recent weather pattern variation referred to as global warming, and now the stable period, is a lonnnnggg stretch in the face of such a powerfully variable planet.
Pamela Gray says:
“Add to that our oceans and their ability to absorb IR which heats deeply, and send it around the globe via the various surface and below the surface oceanic currents, it is plausible that these systems have worked to bring about any trend we have seen in the modern era. Again, no assumptions are made.”
That’s a huge assumption and akin to saying that La Nina drives the trade winds. or that SST’s dictate the AO/NAO. Only the changes in the noise at the scale of weather can cause a regime shift. And it is blue light that heats the ocean deeply not IR.
Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 2, 2013 at 3:38 am you quote Pamela Gray having made the acxcurate and factual statements saying:
You reply to that saying in total:
Say what?!
As she says, she made no assumptions and you state none which you think she made. She provided a plausible hypothesis which cannot be refuted by existing data.
Her hypothesis is a possibility and it is NOT an assumption. But your only reply is to claim her statements which you quoted are “a huge assumption” when they are not.
Please make your case and stop making assertions about the views of others which you cannot substantiate. Your assertions are not helping onlookers (e.g. me) to consider your views.
Richard
Sedron L:
Your post at September 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm quotes Bob Tisdale as having said:
and replies saying in total:
Your reply is merely assertion with no substantiation in a blatant attempt to disregard information that you do not want to be considered.
Perhaps you can help me out.
What is it about this thread which is attracting trolls to come and smear information like flies are attracted to despoil good meat?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“She provided a plausible hypothesis which cannot be refuted by existing data.”
There’s no case for Ekman Transport in the East Central Pacific driving the trade winds.
What she is saying is that the sum of weather is climate, and that the trend in climate due to oceanic circulation patterns, is effecting the weather, which the sum of, is climate, thereby effecting the trend. Which is the kind of knot one gets into, with nothing to account for the atmospheric changes that actually lead the oceanic mode phases, or what is driving these atmospheric changes.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 2, 2013 at 6:41 am you say
Aha! Now I understand why you think Pamela Gray is making an unstated assumption!
You are making an assumption so you think she must be, too.
You are assuming there is something “driving these atmospheric changes” but there may not be.
The climate system is never in equilibrium but is constantly adjusting towards a constantly changing equilibrium state. For example, average global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June each year and falls by 3.8°C from June to January during each year because the northern and southern hemispheres have different coverage of land and sea. A chaotic system subjected to such forced oscillation could be expected to exhibit harmonics and other variations.
I think there probably are climate drivers, but there may not be.
If you can provide conclusive evidence of a climate driver then it needs to be considered as to whether or not that driver has sufficient influence to overcome the chaotic and harmonic variations in the climate system. Otherwise, that driver would have no discernible effect.
Your assumption of significant climate drivers may be correct. But you have no right to demand that Pamela Gray must make the same or any other such assumption.
I repeat, argue your case and let her argue hers. Then we onlookers can assess your cases. Your attempts to misrepresent her case inhibits our ability to assess your case.
Richard
I would be asking questions like, why does more warmer sea water get transported north when the AO/NAO are negative? is it the jet or the Ferrel Cell moved south, or both?
The signal is clear enough in the UAH north pole ocean data:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.lt
Ulric, pools of water, warmed or less warmed, move with currents and winds. There are surface, mid, and bottom oceanic “rivers” that meander within the broader restrictions of these fairly well known paths. There are also surface winds that meander within the broader restrictions of their fairly well known paths. Any change in large scale, and even small scale atmospheric pressure systems, such as the Arctic/North Atlantic systems, will change wind directions and speed. We can see this with ice movement quite clearly. It stands to reason that changes in surface wind patterns would be the culprit as well as surface current patterns under the atmospheric pressure system condition you propose.
Anecdotally, I was in New York state during spring break and saw/heard the sea ice off of Lake Ontario being pushed on shore, across expansive yards, and into houses, breaking down doors and picture windows. The relentless wind was the culprit, set up by a pressure system that caused it to move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. This ice was quite solid in the sense that you would be hard pressed to shovel it away from your house. Wind is a very powerful driver and capable of relentlessly moving very heavy objects. I therefore think it capable of moving water.
But you ask what causes this, and then what causes that “this”, and then what causes that this “this”. A system that is steadily charged with energy (which has been observed) at one end and leaks out of the system on the other (which has been observed) with random amounts of the “charge” allowed in and random amounts allowed to leak (which has been observed), combined with random storage and release of that energy within the entire system (which has been observed) will have quite a bit of “noise” and short and long term pattern variations demonstrated (which has been observed).
richardscourtney says:
“You are assuming there is something “driving these atmospheric changes” but there may not be.”
There has to be, as I keep on forecasting them, like this March when the jet was about 1000 miles south of normal, and those nice bump ups in June and July. The pressure changes look like they lead the jet stream shifts:
ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/cwlinks/norm.daily.ao.index.b500101.current.ascii
There’s no way I could call it chaotic.
Ulric Lyons:
I said to you and I EXPLAINED
Your answer to my explanation is at September 2, 2013 at 8:02 am and says in total
Of dear. The fact that you can extrapolate a sequence of events on the basis of past sequences does NOT necessitate a driver: it only indicates that the sequence tends to progress if it is initiated perhaps by chance.
When somebody says, “I interpret X to indicate Y” then I consider their science.
When somebody says, “There has to be Y because I can infer X from it” then I ponder if they are doing science.
I copy something I have very recently written on another thread:
Science is an attempt to seek the closest possible approximation to truth by attempting to find information which falsifies existing understanding(s) so the understanding(s) has to be rejected or amended.
Pseudoscience is an attempt to justify an idea as being true by attempting to find information which supports the idea while ignoring or rejecting information which conflicts with the idea.
Richard
Ulric you are right. It is not chaotic. It is random. I think of it like this: The system contains variously connected randomly working components. Think a set of old discordant school bus windshield wipers each run on separate motors with a not well connected impedance component that allows in various amounts of relatively stable energy. Now add thousands of these windshield wipers and take data on the times any two or more of them run together and the times they don’t.
-I used to be mesmerized by windshield wipers on the old hill bus, equipped with off rode tires and a front snow plow, we rode every morning to catch the big bus to school. I would watch these wipers cycle in and out of tandomness and wonder why-
Put into place a few wipers that connect up but with various time lags and various amounts of connectivity. Take data again. Yep. randomly cordant and randomly discordant with random stretches of time when several are working tandomly.
There’s no way I could call it chaotic.
By the way, I have worked with sound equipment that produces tones and white noise. With gating and impendance controls, I made frequency specific tones with sudden onset volume and made them “click” at regular intervals. I can make it work randomly too. The elegance of pure sound mixing is fun and I love the frequency response readout as it changes from sinewave to harmonic waves randomly moving through dance like changes from one kind of wave to another. To be sure, the energy source is constant. The sound generating equipment impedes, gates, broadens or narrows the frequency, and mixes. So too the elegant dance of Earth in my thought experiment.
richardscourtney says:
” The fact that you can extrapolate a sequence of events on the basis of past sequences does NOT necessitate a driver:”
As the results are consistent, it does. My arbiter is the weather, it is plain to see if a forecast fails or not. I would hardly engage in pseudoscience if I wanted to improve performance.
Pamela Gray says:
“To be sure, the energy source is constant.”
Rubbish, there are always low land temperatures in the temperate zones when the solar wind is slow: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Ulric Lyons:
I am replying to your post at September 2, 2013 at 9:23 am so you know I have not ignored it.
You have evaded every question I put and ignored every point and explanation I made.
I assume my experience is typical of interactions with you, so I will assess all your posts accordingly and I will not waste effort on further interaction with you.
Richard
Ulric you say that the final “this” is solar. Then predict on that parameter alone. You say you cannot? Then what other factors are you using? By the time you have added the other variables, you are may be making the trunk wriggle and wrongly ascribing “driverness” to non-driving variables, especially those with as yet to be explained by you plausible mechanisms. There are LOTS of things that seem to work on the same clock in our Universe but are not connected, as in does not drive the other. Proper technique would be to bleed off your so-called drivers up stream and see if the predictions are still significantly correlated with your “full Monte”. Eventually you will stop wriggling the trunk and discover that just a few variables perform as well as the “full Monte”. Therefore you will be able to say that either a solar factor set (IE less than 4), or an intrinsic set (IE less than 4), predict weather as well as the “full Monte”. I think the error you make is related to statistically over massaging the data to make it sing, when in reality it can’t hold a tune.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Stephen Wilde – your New Climate Model looks very interesting
Please see the following re falling relative humidity in the atmosphere from 300 to 700 mb.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/GLJ_May2010_AGW.pdf
Please see slides 21 and 22.
To my knowledge, Ken Gregory first pointed out this declining RH trend in 2008.
Psuedo-correlation otherwise known as wriggle matching. Noisy data compared to noisy data is fraught with such false positives and drove (still does) mythological religious practices since the beginning of humankind. You prove nothing by referring to the reconstructed solar wind data and reconstructed temperatures. It is driving a myth.
richardscourtney says:
“You have evaded every question I put and ignored every point and explanation I made.
I will not waste effort on further interaction with you.”
I addressed every one, and I bet you carry on anyway.
Pamela Gray says:
“Noisy data compared to noisy data is fraught with such false positives and drove (still does) mythological religious practices since the beginning of humankind. You prove nothing by referring to the reconstructed solar wind data and reconstructed temperatures. It is driving a myth.”
Firstly you no idea whatsoever of the nature of my forecast data, and secondly I forecast the noise, reliably and regularly.
Stephen describes Sun-driven ozone changes in the stratosphere as the driver of everything downstream. The reader is encouraged to look at stratospheric ozone at the poles versus ozone in other atmospheric layers at the poles. The reader is also encouraged to look at how clouds filter out equatorial SWIR (or on cloudless days lets it all in) to determine which route of incoming solar output has a statistically significant affect on incoming energy of the amount necessary to change powerful macro-atmospheric pressure systems. Anything that reflects sunlight (such as ozone) is to be compared based on the angle of that sunlight and what it is hitting. Not just on the fact of removing the reflecting substance alone. My plausible hunch is that changes around the equator are for more powerful in terms of driving changes in global intrinsic macro and micro weather pattern parameters than changes at the poles when considering solar output of whatever parameter of that output you are measuring. Look there for ozone issues. So far, changes in equatorial ozone have not been demonstrated to correlate with cloud changes there.
Stephens argument is similar to Ulric’s. They both are unknowingly making the elephant’s trunk wriggle through the sheer number of tiny and large variables (mistakenly treated equally) and backed up with magical amplifications/connections yet to be plausibly described.
Pamela Gray says:
“..You prove nothing by referring to the reconstructed solar wind data and reconstructed temperatures.”
Not reconstructed temperatures, instrumental measurements, and I stand by what I said, all those lows in solar wind are when the lowest land temperatures for the temperate zones are:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png