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.
Given the strong correlation, any chance ENSO influence can be removed to show the true impact of man made green house gas emissions? Or are they claiming some sort of feedback loop between the two?
pworam says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:48 am
Given the strong correlation, any chance ENSO influence can be removed to show the true impact of man made green house gas emissions? Or are they claiming some sort of feedback loop between the two?
That is what Judy Curry did to come up with the .28C value. Or, around .05C/decade. Note this very close to the basic physics of Co2 without feedbacks.
Oh – Okay, thanks! So it’s pretty much nothing, or something that would get lost within the noise anyway?
@ur momisugly Dr Norman Page
“PeterB The key is your statement about the models being well designed.They could be designed much better than the current IPCC Met Office set- but I don’t think the current crop of modellers are psychologically and professionally able to acknowledge their gross errors of judgement and start over .Therefore for the next 5 years or so other approaches are the better way ahead.”
Ok, I get that, but the point of my original post was to try to cajole someone here that had a modeling background into designing their own model – thereby avoiding the gross errors in judgement and effectively starting over. Rather than wait for the next 5 years or so, I would certainly think that someone reading this blog would have the willingness and expertise to completely design a new climate model and attempt to do so properly 🙂
@Colin Aug 28, 2013 at 6:40 pm:
“Wow, ENSO has a massive influence on global temperature? Thank you, Captain Obvious! You can be paid for telling people this? This is getting more and more like the ‘battle’ against Heliocentrisim centuries ago; the proponents of AGW are pouring forth increasingly ludicrous reasons and theories…”
You can tell how wrong someone’s premise is by the size of the crowbar used to keep their paradigm in the game. In a formal debate it would be measured by how bizarre their logic gets.
Janice Moore says: @ur momisugly August 28, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Ulric Lyons (not joking at 8:40pm),
Would you please provide some Leif Svalgaard-proof data proving your assertion that there is a “Sun signal”?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about Dr. Richard Feynman’s sister, Dr. Joan Feynman’s paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research?
NASA even had that paper as a pop article NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
Or how about another physicist, Niv Shaviv?
Actual paper: Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
( Journal of Geophysical Research)
Articles at his website:
The oceans as a calorimeter
His articles on Cosmic Rays: link
His articles on solar ‘Forcing’ link
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?
There are plenty of other papers too: look at Pop Techs 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm under the catagories of:
Solar
Cosmic Rays
Clouds
…….
Just because Svalgaard controls the conversation here at WUWT does not mean there is no other research or scientific opinions out there.
PeterB in Indianapolis:
In your post at August 29, 2013 at 10:10 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1402944
you say
Models are essential to the conduct of science so every scientist has “a modeling background”.
The model you suggest requires a supercomputer.
Do you have a supercomputer that can be used?
And can you fund the work?
If your answer to those questions is, yes, then many – including me – would do it.
Richard
@Theo Goodwin Aug 28, 2013 at 9:09 pm:
To be honest, this is the very first paper (or blog post even) I’ve seen that has attempted to determine the proportions of natural vs anthropogenic. Pardon the emphasis, but: This sort of determination should have been done way back in the late 1980s.
It is utterly pathetic – for their side – that this has never been done before. Almost everybody on the skeptics’ side has understood this from the first pitch of the top of the first inning:
YES, humans have contributed – but you dolts over there imagining that natural variation wasn’t part of it – what were you THINKING?
Anthony –
Not being able to read the paper, I have to ask:
How the authors were able to separate human CO2 from natural CO2 increases/variations?
The Mona Loa CO2 curve is essentially a straight line (allowing for its zigzags), while human CO2 is NOT. With global temps weaving up and down, the overall CO2 increase cannot be read as solely anthropogenic within what this paper seems to be looking at.
“ Janice Moore says:
August 28, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Ulric Lyons (not joking at 8:40pm),
Would you please provide some Leif Svalgaard-proof data proving your assertion that there is a “Sun signal”? What data shows it was “strong” and over what time period(s)? What data shows it was “weak” and over what time period(s)?
Until you do, most of us (I think) will not highly value your assertion much as we might want to. Dr. Svalgaard (and Pamela Gray and many others, here) have done a fine job of convincing many of us that there is no meaningful mechanism that shows that the Sun drives global temperature. We (I, anyway) would be very interested to see your data and proofs of a Sun-driver mechanism.
Thanks for responding. I won’t, BTW, be responding to you, for I am not a scientist, but, Pamela Gray and Dr. Svalgaard and others will if you present your case clearly and completely. Then, people like me can learn!
Waiting for your evidence.
Janice
Janice, I would refer you (and Pamela and Leif et al) to Nir Shaviv’s paper:
“Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing
“Abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as
a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.
This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux
into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over
the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can
be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative
forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just
those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an
amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.”
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Denying something exists due to ignorance of a mechanism is as bad as blaming changes in atmospheric temperature on CO2 due to ignorance of any other mechanism.
@richardscourtney,
Well, I am an environmental chemist, but my background is more analytical and less theoretical, so modeling is definitely not my thing, although I do have an understanding of modeling in the sciences, of course.
As to the supercomputer and the funding – alas, no, I have none of these things, and as I said in my original post from this morning, I strongly suspect that funding for the research and a “reputable” outlet to publish the results would be difficult to come by given the current state of “climate science”, which is, of course, a shame.
jorgekafkazar says: @ur momisugly August 28, 2013 at 11:28 pm
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do not forget that UV changes are linked to ozone changes too. I went through the information in two comments to Pamela on August 18th. link 1 and link 2 However Svalgaard’s (and Pamela’s) reply was This shows your failure to communicate effectively. Oneself is the poorest judge of such things. If your audience does not get it, it is your fault, not theirs…. so I hope you can follow the linked information.
Oh and just to put the cat among the pigeons, this paper was mentioned further down the comments:
That rug is really really getting lumpy and the lumps just refuse to stay under the rug too. (Here kitty, kitty, kitty…)
Thank you Bob and Richard for your comments,
I concede that this paper may be socially important because it appeared in Nature, which has credibility with the global warming alarmist camp but, I submit, the paper has limited scientific credibility with those who bring a moderate degree of objectivity to the global warming debate.
I suggest that previous papers in Nature on CAGW science have been almost completely wrong, and this paper is only about half-wrong. 🙂
Specifically, I submit that the evidence indicates that CO2 is responsible for much less than 50% of the observed global warming from about 1975 to about 2000.
So I remain unimpressed by this paper – it is significant only as a political event, a change in Nature’s political position, and is not of scientific significance.
Best personal regards, Allan
Stephen Wilde says: August 29, 2013 at 1:18 am
Thank you Stephen for your reply.
How to you explain the following lack of congruity between the Gleissberg and the PDO?
I wrote above:
The PDO cycle is irregular but is approximately 60 years in duration – say 30 years of warming dominated by El Nino’s and 30 years of cooling dominated by La Nina’s. And that not in phase with the solar Gleissberg Cycle which is approximately 90 years in duration.
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae:
I am replying to your post at August 29, 2013 at 11:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1402998
I admit that I am using this reply to your post as an excuse to emphasise why I think the paper of Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie is important both for understanding climate change and – importantly – for the forthcoming IPCC Report (AR5).
Your post begins saying
Actually, my post you are replying agrees with both your opinions I have here quoted.
My post you have replied was at August 29, 2013 at 2:45 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1402693
It made and explained these two statements which – in my opinion – AGW-skeptics need to consider.
And
Richard
Steve Garcia,
Apparently, Alarmists believed that they could produce enough seemingly relevant research to persuade the public to tax air and they believed they could do it without first doing the science.
On the other hand, maybe they have been truly obsessed with radiation. They seem to think that the only natural processes that matter are those involving radiation among the sun, the earth, and CO2 in earth’s atmosphere.
Yes, the recognition of natural processes such as ENSO by climate modelers is a game changer.
Hmmmmmmn.
So, Dr Svallgaard:
You state above – very firmly I might add – that
But the pdf file you linked supporting this argument doesn’t know the values of ANY constants they assign in their model within little more than an entire order of magnitude!
Worse, they “blindly accept” the IPCC’s assigned feedbacks and CO2_warming forcing as a basic in their calculation. Now, who were the pal-reviewers in this chain of assumptions? Is this paper worth more than the CAGW-induced, inflation-reduced value of the 4×4 squares of paper in my other room?
Gail Combs The Shaviv paper you linked to in your 10.16 post above should be required reading for Leif and Pamela and all who doubt the sun climate connection.
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
Sedron L says: “Of course, they have, in work such as
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022”
You’ve presented the much-flawed Foster and Rahmstorf as proof of something? First, the above paper contradicts Foster and Rahmstorf. Obviously, you didn’t understand that. 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/
Even your beloved SkepticalScience now argues against Foster and Rahmstof (2011):
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/skepticalscience-now-argues-against-foster-rahmsorf-2011/
Have a nice day.
James Cross says: “I want to when we will see temperatures back to something like 1910 levels if we want to use the Bob Tisdale graph linked above. If there is no AGW, then I would expect it in 5-10 years, wouldn’t you say?”
How would the oceans release that much heat in 5-10 years, James Cross? It took them more than 100 years to store it and the oceans primarily release heat through evaporation. Are you expecting a lot of rain over the next 5-10 years?
Waclimate …the ABC (Australia) clearly states “point two degrees” …..the ABC clearly can’t help itself ……
cd says: “I guess the take home message is that the models suggest that more 50% of the late 20th century warming was due to natural variability is good news. But surely, these models have all the same limitations set out by Prof. C Essex. Therefore, unless we actually test these models outside their training sets they have no real value – they’re just a hypothesis. Why should there be any excitement whatsoever.”
The reason for the excitement is that, as far as I know, this is the first paper that has reported (indirectly) that ENSO may have contributed a large portion to global warming. The two Meehl et al papers only noted that it can retard it. I haven’t read Kosaka and Xie (2013) because of the paywall, so I don’t know how, or of, they addressed the AMO as well.
Granted, all climate models are flawed, but this is a step in the right direction.
James Cross says: … August 29, 2013 at 6:35 am
Right now I agree we are paused and this paper points to why; however, shouldn’t we really be cooling if there no AGW?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How the heck would we know if we have started cooling with the historical data mucked-up?
There are some other indications of possible cooling:
Koppen Climate Boundaryfor Midwest USA
Recovery of Arctic Ice:
DMI Temp
DMI Sea Ice
Long term Glaciation (articles about papers)
Himalaya Glaciers Growing
Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1000 years
Volume changes on Pio XI glacier, Patagonia: 1975–1995… During the period 1945–1995 it experienced a net advance of ca. 10 km
Partial list of the specific glaciers that are growing
Greenland Snow Accumulation (Graph)
Northern Hemisphere Snow (graphs 1965 till last winter)
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
USA Record Temperatures:
2899 record cold vs 667 record high in USA from 7/24 to 8/21/2013
2/3 of USA below normal temperature 1/01/2013 to 8/04/2013
Mildest US Summer In A Century
This is why the
Propaganda OutletsNews Media had to finally own-up to ‘The Pause’ If they did not they would have lost all credibility especilly given the internet can tell you that the cold at home is not a one off because this is the coldest July on record in Anchorage, Alaska and More than 250,000 alpacas die of cold and snow (Peru) and 24,142 animals and 50 people killed due to excessive rain and snow (India) and Rare summer snowfall in Xinjiang, China and Tasmania – Coldest August day in 41 years and New Zealand – Heaviest snowfall in years closes main road thru central North Island Not to mention the UK has had the Coldest Spring in 50 years, according to the Met Office. Ireland – 43,000 carcasses found in snowBob Tisdale says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“How would the oceans release that much heat in 5-10 years, James Cross? It took them more than 100 years to store it and the oceans primarily release heat through evaporation. Are you expecting a lot of rain over the next 5-10 years?”
Virginia and the region have had that much rain this year. I swear it has rained every day. Our bumper crop is mold. (I am not trying to offer actual evidence.)
@Theo Goodwin – I can show you some awesome mushrooms! 😉
Roy Spencer beat them to it by a year or so. Of course, he’s persona non grata, so he was ignored:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008YWJMPA/ref=oh_d__o08_details_o08__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
They are saying a natural event such as ENSO has been responsible for almost all of the temperature variations, which proves (sorry AGW theory) AGW theory is invalid.
According to AGW theory not only are natural causes not to be the prime movers of the climate but actually the man made co2 /watervapor positive feedbacks would create a condition that would favor more El Ninos going forward adding to the warmth.
So this study shows natural forces not man made co2 drives the climate and further it proves AGW theory wrong once again, which said one of the results from man made global warming would be a siginificant increase in El Ninos, due to the positive co2/water vapor feedback which they contended was tied into their missing lower troposheric hot spot near the equator, which is also missing in action.
Wrong again as usual.