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.
Chad,
Indeed the original definition by Langmuir in 1953 was prescient of CAGW…
Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect, and cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:
– The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
– The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
– There are claims of great accuracy.
– Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
– Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
– The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Langmuir never intended the term to be rigorously defined; it was simply the title of his talk on some examples of “weird science”. As with any attempt to define the scientific endeavor, examples and counterexamples can always be found.
I’ll try adding it to wikipedia….watch the sparks fly!
Ad hoc simulation rehashing the very tenet of AGW yet introducing some twist in order to fit the HadCRUt curve which magical formulae is well kept, and suddenly this study is mind blowing? Woaw, science has left the building…
Go, Niff, go! #(:))
*******************
Eliza, I was so glad to see you’ve posted here. After your remark a few days ago about CAGW being over (which, indeed, it is) and not coming round to WUWT (or so I took your remarks) anymore for now pointless discussion, I was sad. You would be missed. To me, “Eliza” is a straight-talking, witty, well-informed, commenter (with such a unique historical perspective, too, given your dad’s remarkable career) whose absence would leave an irreplaceable gap at WUWT. Hope all is well in South America (or wherever you are these days).
I wonder how long the comments in wikipedia will last…any guesses?
“eyeball Mk.1 estimates”
I’ll guess they last a long time on ‘ol rickety-wikity (okay, more precisely, 3 months) because you are writing at an intelligence level far above most of the toadies who would rip them down. GOOD LUCK!
Authors Kosaka and Xie have an article summarising their paper at The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/warming-slowed-by-cooling-pacific-ocean-17534).
It doesn’t resolve any of the contradictions in their findings but includes some terminology that makes me question their objectivity re AGW: “In May 2013, carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million in the atmosphere for the first time in human history.” and “In summer, the equatorial Pacific’s grip on the northern hemisphere loosens, and the increased greenhouse gases continue to warm temperatures, causing record heat waves and unprecedented Arctic sea ice retreat.”
Objectively, those sentences should finish ” … for the first time since Mauna Lao records began in 1958.” and “… causing heat waves and Arctic sea ice retreat greater than records began.”
They point out the last cooling PDO phase lasted from around 1940 to the early 1970s, cooling again since 1998, and conclude: “We do not know if the current cooling phase will last as long as the last one. Predicting equatorial Pacific conditions more than a year in advance is beyond the reach of current science. But we know that over the timescale of several decades, climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
So the academics haven’t got a clue but greenhouse gases explain everything, leaving unanswered the question of whether anything needs explaining in the first place.
It all reminds me of the adding of epicycles to the Ptolomaiv model of the Universe to keep it going for a few more decades//centuries. Sadly Ptolomaic Science lasted quite a long while, 140 AD to about 1551 AD. I hope that we can all speed up this one’s collapse to under 1,400 years.
Looks like natural variations have finally gobsmacked some of the Warmistas aside the head.
We’ll see how long the impact lasts.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 28, 2013 at 9:34 pm
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
All thumbs up!
Study co-author Shang-Ping Xie told Climate Central that by running computer models with observed ocean temperatures from the 1940s onward, with a particular emphasis on the recent 15-year period, “We got very good agreement with the observed record, including the current hiatus that started in the late 1990s.” In fact, not only did the models reproduce the overall warming plateau, but they also showed continued warming during the summer months, and a lack of warming during the winter, which has also been shown by observations.
“This was a remarkable result telling us that we are on the right track,” Xie said in an interview. ..
Xie said that for now, Pacific Ocean temperatures are dampening the increase in global temperatures, but that will change soon, perhaps even in the next several years. “Now it is swinging down, eventually it is going to swing up, and when it swings up we are going to see much, much stronger warming” on par with the accelerated warming seen during the period from the 1970s to 1990s, “if not bigger,” Xie said. “When it swings up we’re going to be in big trouble.”
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-ties-global-warming-hiatus-to-a-pacific-cooldown-16405
Whah, ain’t been non’o dem ninos lately. Bin messin’ wid ahr predilictions,
Your basic NATURE climate abstract these days.
Mind-blowing paper of the day for me was David Deming 2002. It postulates a thermochemical ocean circulation through the oceanic crust larger than the thermohaline circulation that cools the midocean ridges. This cooling would cause us to underestimate the actual heat output at the ridges. It would also warm the oceans.
David Sanger (@davidsanger) says: August 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm
‘Xie said, “When it swings up we’re going to be in big trouble.”’
“When it DOES NOT swing up we’re going to be in big trouble.”
……….Corected for Dr. Xie.
With sufficient variables in the model, any set of data can be matched. So matching what has happened provides no skill for predicting what will happen. They really need to get down to understanding the mechanisms and stop trying to predict from models and stats. Anything can happen in an open system but they’d prefer to pretend it’s closed.
Henry Clark says:
August 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Henry,
You beat me to the punch. Solar activity drives ENSO or some other factor drives both solar activity and ENSO.
Nice post.
Pamela Gray says: “We are still with the Solar stuff. And absolutely no mechanism. The Earth itself allows/blocks a relatively steady state Sun to shine on us. The cool waters of wind-blown La Nina/La Nada keeps clouds at bay allowing deep penetration of full strength shortwave IR radiation. The warm still waters of El Nino/El Nado builds clouds to block some of the radiation. It is the Earth that varies the input of the relatively stable sunshine.
My pet theory is this, Pamela: Although TSI is essentially constant, solar UV content varies over a range of several percent. At its peak, solar UV raises the temperature and thickness of the thermosphere significantly. I believe this raises the effective black body temperature of the sky enough to affect the heat balance of the Earth. Although Leif has assured me this is not possible due to the tenuous nature of that layer, note that the thermosphere is so thick that a photon can’t pass through it without hitting at least one gas molecule.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 28, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Thank you. Link bookmarked.
Interesting that you feel strongly enough to actually make “predictions” based on “conclusions” using information and evidence from your work. See, the IPCC and K. Trenberth have declared that their billions of dollars and hundreds of employees in dozens of high-priced secretive labs can’t yield anything so obvious as even a simple “prediction”.
Though they demand 1.3 trillion in deadly taxes to prevent what they aren’t concluding.
jorgekafkazar says:
August 28, 2013 at 11:28 pm
So, how much of an increase in height of the atmosphere? What would be that effect of the increase on atmosphere “height” on air mass?
Satellites get dragged out of orbit by an atmosphere doing things we can’t predict, and fools say the science is settled.
It is a lack of data, not to mention the chaotic nature of the “fluids” and their interactions.
The only reason we have so much weather data, is because we’ve been trying to find patterns, it is in our genes.
There is no pattern, it is chaos.
Wars need to be won.
JC: ” I have long argued that the pause was associated with the climate shift in the Pacific Ocean circulation, characterized by the change to the cool phase of the PDO. I have further argued that if this is the case, then the warming since 1976 was heavily juiced by the warm phase of the PDO.”
I’ve been saying that for over 11 years now.
There USED TO BE a thing called “the Great 1976-77 Climate Shift.” That was when the PDO shifted regimes THE PREVIOUS TIME. It seems that at about 1998-99 it shifted back, although that wasn’t obvious at all for at least five years. Most of the warming of the 1970-1997 period happened in that one step (which was covered here long, long ago, I believe).
In math’s Catastrophe Theory (which I am not any expert on, so if I am wrong someone please correct me), “catastrophe” doesn’t mean a disaster; it means a change of sign of the slope of the curve, either in sign or to zero. The climate does THAT kind of catastrophe when the PDO shifts its sign. If they have definitively determined what causes that PDO regime shift (catastrophe) I have not heard about it. It might be a resonance thing whose feedback throws it all out of whack. But if so what is it that is resonating and feeding back? I think oscillating systems have to have such a resonating that builds to a peak and then releases from feedback overload.
This is quite a cool development. Between this and Steve McIntyre’s running the Callendar formula from 1938, (which also trended well, even with antiquated maths and low sensitivity), the modelers and Trenberths of the world should be red-faced over their code and their missing heat.
“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)”
Natural warming is 0.40C.
Anthropogenic warming is maximum 0,28C
IPCC in leaks are claiming with “95%” certainty that most of the “climate change” is anthropogenic but this report finds that 59% is natural and up to 41% could be anthropogenic?
If this stands the test it means the models are more worse than we have ever thought?
Notice the bone they throw to CAGW at the end:
“Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
As far as what we see in their abstract and JC’s post and Anthony’s comments, it doesn’t sound like there is any BASIS established in the paper for them to make that statement.
This is the very kind of bone commonly thrown to warming. It is also what Cook 2013 was counting in order to get his 97%. But he missed the point. The point is that no matter what they put in their paper, they want to be able to get next year’s grant moneys, so they HAVE to do homage to the warming meme. Yes, it’s pretty much gag me with a spoon when they do this, but one can easily see why they do it. For Cook to count them as supporting the anthropogenic warming disaster on the horizon is ridiculous and pathetic, however.
@Steve from Rockwood:
“So the world’s largest ocean may have an effect on global temperatures? Wow, that seemed rather obvious.”
It is the elephant in the room. Please, PLEASE, don’t anyone mention its presence… Oops!
I am involved with 3D (CAD) modelling, but in the process plant design world. One of my recent hand sketches (let’s call it, “X”) was modified by the design team in Beijing because the software was not able to reproduce my intent. I know, from experience, that “X” can be done, but because this possibility was not pre-programmed into the software we all of a sudden had a lot of extra expenses trying to “fix” a non-problem. Now corrected, hopefully.
“Janice Moore says:
August 28, 2013 at 8:54 pm”
It’s more than a LOL moment, it’s *remarkably* side splitting funny! Sadly however, people will read this as a true measure of a global mean.