UPDATE: Chris de Freitas responds to comments with an addendum below – Anthony
Readers may recall the recent paper that blamed “the pause” in global temperature on ENSO changes in the Pacific Ocean.
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12534
Dr. Judith Curry called the paper “mind blowing”
Now there’s another paper that reaches a similar conclusion:
Update of the Chronology of Natural Signals in the Near-Surface Mean Global Temperature Record and the Southern Oscillation Index
de Freitas and McLean, 2013, p. 237 (Int J Geosciences – open access):
“All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”
ABSTRACT
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index and mean global near surface temperature anomalies are compared for the 1950 to 2012 period using recently released HadCRU4 data. The method avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the El Niño Southern Oscillation is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.
With the potential controversy arising over a particular statistical analysis removed, the findings indicate that El Nino-Southern Oscillation exercises a major influence on mean global temperature. The results show the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for mean global temperature variation, although the extent of the influence is difficult to quantify from among the variability of short-term influences.
Since the paper is open access, and available here: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382
Here is the link to the PDF:
deFreitas_&_McLean_IJG_2013_SOI_&_Mean_Global_Temp
This figure is interesting:
Figure 1. Four-month shifted SOI anomalies with monthly MGT anomalies shown for periods 1950 to1970 (a), 1970 to 1990 (b) and 1990 to June 2012 (c), where the Y-axis scale is identical in each case. The dark line indicates SOI and light line indicates MGT. Periods of volcanic activity are indi-cated (see text).
Discussion and Conclusions
The results show that, by and large, the Southern Oscilla- tion has a consistent influence on mean global tempera- ture. Changes in temperature are consistent with changes in the SOI that occur about four months earlier. The rela- tionship weakens or breaks down at times of major volcanic eruptions. Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of four months earlier; although with the unexplained divergence of NH and SH average temperature anomalies modifying the earlier relationship.
The strength of the SOI-MGT relationship may be indicative of the increased vigor in the meridional dispersal of heat during El Niño conditions and the delay in the temperature response is consistent with the transfer of tropical heat polewards. The mechanism of heat transfer is likely the more vigorous Hadley Cell Circulation on both sides of the Intertropical Convergence Zone distributing warm air from the tropical regions to higher lati- tudes. The process of meridional heat dispersal weakens during La Niña conditions and is accompanied by a lower than normal MGT. Hadley Cell Circulation is weakened when the Southern Oscillation is in a state associated with La Niña conditions (i.e. positive Troup SOI values), but strengthens as the Southern Oscillation moves to a condition consistent with El Niño conditions (that is negative SOI values) [6,7].
The precision of the 4-month lag period is uncertain, but the credibility of a lag of some length is not in dispute. Researchers [31] found that mean tropical temperatures for a 13-year record lagged outgoing longwave anomalies by about three months, while [32] found warming events peak three months after sea surface temperature (SST) in the Niño-3.4 region. On the same theme, [33] found lags between 1 – 3 months with SST in the Niño-3.4 region for the period 1950-1999. Along the same lines [14] determined that the correlation between SST in the Niño-3 region and the MGT anomaly was optimum with a time lag of 3-6 months. The sequence of the lagged relationship indicates that ENSO is driving temperature rather than the reverse. Reliable ENSO prediction is possible only to about 12 months [34], which implies that improved temperature forecasting beyond that period is dependent on advancements in ENSO prediction.
The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI- MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling. An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due to changes in lower-level cloud cover. In an analysis of Australian data, [34] found positive values of SOI anomalies to be associated with increased cloudiness and decreased incoming solar radiation. Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) indicate that, from 1984 to 2005, mid-level cloud cover in the tropics was relatively constant but both lower and upper level cloud cover declined slightly. In the exotropics (latitude > 20 degrees, low-level cloud progressively decreased from 1998 onwards. It is not clear whether the change is a cause or an effect of a parallel temperature change [35]. The post-1995 shift appears unrelated to carbon dioxide increase because it occurred long after atmospheric CO2 was known to be rising. It is important to see the shift as more of discrete (i.e. step) change rather than a divergence, with the relationship reestablished after 2 – 3 years. Another possibility is that there are problems with the HadCRUT4 1.1.0 data. For example, we note that the published monthly average global temperature anomalies are not equal to the mean of the two published corresponding hemispheric values.
The approach used here avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spu- rious correlations, and in part because the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statisti- cal evaluation can be misleading. With the potential con- troversy arising over a particular statistical analysis re- moved, the findings reported here indicate that atmos- pheric processes that are part of the ENSO cycle are col- lectively a major driver of temperature anomalies on a global scale. All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like condi- tions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like condi- tions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and per- haps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.
================================================================
UPDATE: 9/5/13 4:15PM PDT Chris de Freitas asked for this addendum to be posted in response to comments/discussion – Anthony
I understand concerns of the global warming alarmists. I too have been looking high and low for evidence that human-caused carbon dioxide increase is a major driver of mean global temperature. Our current is not part of that quest.
The intention of the work reported in the paper (de Freitas and McLean, 2013) was to stay as far away as possible from statistical massaging of the data. The reason is that, in our earlier 2009 work (McLean, de Freitas and Carter – references below), we were roundly criticised for the statistical methods we used. It detracted from the main finding of the work (i.e. Fig 7), which was free from statistical massaging; namely, that ENSO accounted for a great deal of the variability in mean global temperature; similar to that reported in the more recent paper in Nature (Kosaka and Xie, 2013).
In de Freitas and McLean (2013) we also stayed away from looking for trends. Determining trends and implementing detrending procedures can be important steps in data analysis. However, there is no precise definition of ‘trend’ or any ‘correct’ algorithm for extracting it. Consequently, identification of trend in a time series is subjective because a trend cannot be unequivocally distinguished from low frequency fluctuations. For this reason, a variety of ad hoc methods have been used to determine trends and to facilitate detrending methods (which are also subjective). As regards the correlation routine (Table 2 of our IJG 2013 paper), the idea there was to look for guidance in aligning the X-axis of Figures 1 and 3. It could have (even) been done by eye.
The overriding message is this. Climate is never constant; it is always cooling or warming. Various things cause these trends. Ever since I began studying climate 40 years ago I have been looking for patterns along with possible mechanisms and explanations. I have not had great success; if fact nobody has, and we have all been wrong once or twice. Notwithstanding that, our IJG (2013) paper shows that ENSO correlates well with global temperature. A possible reason (as described) is enhanced (or reduced) Hadley circulation, which increases (or decreases) the effectiveness of meridional heat transfer from the vast tropical zone of surplus towards the poles. It could be that the same process causes vast amounts of stored ocean heat to be fed into the atmosphere over extended periods (or moved back into the ocean over lengthy periods) The result is planet-wide warming (or cooling). If this persists, we get decadal scale global warming (or cooling) trends.
Like the work of Kosaka and Xie (2013), our IJG (2013) and earlier work (2009) shows that the current (or past hiatus), or multi-decadal-scale cooling or warming (‘climate change’), are possibly a reflection of natural climate variability tied specifically to ENSO decadal-scale processes. I assume these are superimposed upon what seems for the moment to be the less potent CO2-caused warming, and likely other less potent mechanisms as well.
Whether the ENSO-caused multi-decadal trends are internal or forced is unknown. My guess is that cooling and warming trends we see, or hiatus, are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. But we don’t know.
Chris de Freitas
de Freitas, C.R. and McLean, J.D., 2013. Update of the chronology of natural signals in the near-surface mean global temperature record and the Southern Oscillation Index. International Journal of Geosciences, 4(1), 234-239.
Open access at:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=27382&
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009b. Correction to ”Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D20101, doi:10.1029/2009JD013006. ISSN 0148-0227
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, 2009a. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. ISSN 0148-0227
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good to see some professional climatologists waking up to what Bob Tisdale and many more of us have been telling them for years. ENSO is cumulative on longer timescales than modelling parameters allow. Which means 50 years of strong solar forcing and it’s amplification by cloud changes in the late C20th are the primary cause of the now ended warming period.
expect lots of scrambling wrt CO2 emissions affecting ENSO…
I haven’t found the obligatory ” the warming will resume 50 fold” at the end. Did I miss it?
Apparently the effort to blame the recent warming on human activities took too long, and natural variability is asserting itself, thus falsifying the AGW dream of the watermelons to use a natural warming period as a route to global socialist domination.
Hmm, natural climate cycles, who would have thought it?
Remember, these are banned by global warming fanatics.
An out of ordinary English (CET) early summer in somwhat less ordinary year
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm
Shouldn’t this have been clarified with the compilers of the data set prior to publication? If the authors are thinking of taking up this issue with the UKMO they might also consider checking for any variability in the relationship of land to ocean in the data, hemispherical and/or global.
Overall very interesting should provoke a few “debates”!
“The mechanism of heat transfer is likely the more vigorous Hadley Cell Circulation on both sides of the Intertropical Convergence Zone distributing warm air from the tropical regions to higher lati- tudes. ”
and
“Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) indicate that, from 1984 to 2005, mid-level cloud cover in the tropics was relatively constant but both lower and upper level cloud cover declined slightly.
According to my New Climate Model high solar activity such as was observed in the late 20th century causes the jets and climate zones to shift poleward and the circulation to become more zonal.
The subtropical high pressure cells widen latitudinally and the enhanced descent within those regions reduces cloud cover as was observed.
Now the opposite is occurring and the changes are correlated to the decline in solar activity from the late 90s onward.
The climate shift of 1995 or thereabouts was the opposite of the late 70s climate shift.
The sun is clearly driving changes in global air circulation and thus global albedo as per my model:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Doesn’t the 1995 shift also fit with our HenryP’s observations?
Anyway, there is now a plethora of recent papers which are consistent with my hypothesis but inconsistent with CO2 having the primary influence.
The fact seems to be that higher solar activity gradually skews ENSO in favour of warm El Ninos due to lower global albedo and more solar energy getting into the oceans.
The opposite when the sun is quiet.
And it operates in accordance with the millennial solar cycle as per the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, MWP, LIA and the Current Warm Period.
It is no coincidence that all those strong El Ninos of the recent warming spell have now faded away at the same time as the sun became less active, the jets became more meridional, global cloudiness increased, the tropospheric warming stalled and the stratosphere stopped cooling.
“All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”
A step in the right direction! Let’s see if The Team jumps all over this as they did with McLean et al (2009). That would be more difficult now since the same thing is implied by Kosaka & Xie (2013) and the two recent Meehl et al papers.
Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and commented:
A step in the right direction! Let’s see if The Team jumps all over this as they did with McLean et al (2009). That would be more difficult now since the same thing is implied by Kosaka & Xie (2013) and the two recent Meehl et al papers.
Thousands of archaeological and other science’s papers showing mass global evidence of all the classic warm and cold periods did NOT dissuade Michael Mann in the SLIGHTEST. But this still might dissuade actual scientists…
Friends:
The paper says:
That is a self-evident truism.
El Niño provides a peak to global temperature and La Niña provides a dip to global temperature.
Hence, the average global temperature over a period will be raised if “dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions”.
And,
similarly, the average global temperature over a period will be lowered if “dominated by a high frequency of La Niña -like conditions”.
Because peaks raise the average while dips lower the average.
Three issues require investigation.
1.
Why has investigation of this self-evident truism been ignored by cliamastrologists so the work of people such as Tisdale has been side-lined?
2.
There is no obvious mechanism which would enable anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG, notably CO2) emissions to alter ENSO effects, so is it possible that the emissions could alter ENSO in the observed manner?
3.
If ENSO has such a large effect on warming and cooling then how much warming can be attributed to atmospheric CO2 concentration when there is no clear mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 concentration can alter ENSO?
These issues should have been addressed years ago and long before the “pause” in global warming forced consideration of the self-evident truism.
Richard
More pressure on the IPCC from “revolutionary” science findings.
I thought Bod Tisdale’s hypothesis was that it was both sides of the Nino/Nina cycle that produced global warming not just more El Ninos, so this is not really saying the same thing. Though, like he says, it’s a step in the right direction.
He may correct me if I’m misrepresenting his ideas but I thought the Tisdale hypothesis was periods of increased El Nino/Nina amplitude or frequency caused more solar to be captured by the oceans and then put out into atmosphere.
As I’ve said many times, that sounds very credible and leads to some further questions:
What frequency of Nino/Nina is climate neutral, above which warming occurs, and then the key question : what is causing / controlling El Nino.
This is the mechanism , not the cause.
Pardon me for being sceptical, but the recent run of “It’s not quite as bad as we thought” papers suggests to me an attempt to construct an escape route. If timed correctly, there should be enough papers predicting an impending cold snap to salvage the shaky credibility of the climate-change industry when it becomes impossible to deny (you need to be careful with that word) that warming has ceased. Somehow, whatever happens will be bad and ALL OUR FAULT.
I suppose I need to work on my faith.
Mr Lefty, I suspect that a sufficient weight of papers will shift the length of the allowable “hiatus” to 30-40 years, and as already implied by Patchauri, this means we cannot say “global warming is finished” until about 2035, by which time most of these scam artists will be retired.
“The relationship weakens or breaks down at times of major volcanic eruptions. Since the mid-1990s, little volcanic activity has been observed in the tropics and global average temperatures have risen and fallen in close accord with the SOI of four months earlier; ”
…. except for the biggest event : Pinatubo when it did not diverage at all but had show a strong divergence just before in 1989-90 , oops. And in 1998 when there was not volcanoes.
As I’ve show in detail before any correlation between climate and volcanism is greatly exaggerated and is more likely due to coincident changes happening at the same time and often just _before_ major eruptions.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=312
Effect of volcanism is restricted to extra-tropical zones and is far less than what is usually attributed.
The approximate coincidence in time of other natural cycles and El Chichon and Mt P events has provided an excuse to exaggerate volcanic impact that thus pump up AGW to compensate.
This idea is so entrenched now that a study including graphs that do not show a consistent correlation still manages to report one.
At least they are broadening the scope of investigation and its getting published. A step in the right direction, as Bob says.
Now we see why Jones was wishing for STRONG El Nino in ClimateGate emails,the team knows what exactly cause’s warming but ideology getting in the way of science!
……the ENSO is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period. In these situations, the results of regression analysis or similar statistical evaluation can be misleading.
Greg Goodman says:
September 3, 2013 at 2:20 am
and then the key question : what is causing / controlling El Nino.
the ENSO is indeed a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period, but it is the cause?
Not exactly known, since there is a strong random component to it, which may not be fully understood, but for time being ignored by the climate ‘scientist’ (with an odd but notable exception).
Simple analysis of the subequatorial tectonics points towards real driver of the ENSO events:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
It is my view that the science of geology will eventually provide the answers.
We start with 12-month running means of the data. This
approach can minimise significant data and give undue
emphasis to insignificant data, so it is used here simply to
establish a contextual record. To allow for the radiative
effects of atmospheric aerosols and particulate matter
from volcanic emissions, data for the period of volcanic
eruptions was removed along with the data for the sub-
sequent 12 months; the latter being required in order that
the 12-month running means do not include data from
periods of volcanic activity. These omissions are made
because we have reservations about the accuracy of
compensatory temperature adjustments for the cooling
influences of emissions of sulphurs and silicates, and the
period of that compensation, which according to [30] can
be for up to 3 years after eruption.
Derivatives of the Troup SOI and MGT are used to
=========
Oh man. When will climate science ever get beyond running means as their sole data processing technique.
They are at least aware that it’s bad (glimmer of hope) but still use it ! 12m running means of monthly running means. Shakes head.
richardscourtney says:
September 3, 2013 at 1:48 am
“Friends:
The paper says:
All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling.
That is a self-evident truism.”
Richard, the “all other things being equal” makes it a truism but don’t jump so high. What I see here is that ENSO is a very strong driver of world temps, even though all things are NEVER equal. “Ceteris parabus” is used so much in economics that it has spilled over into this paper. The authors are being unnecessarily pedantic here. You should be aware of the ceteris parabus fallacy.
“A ceteris paribus fallacy is based on an assumption that all else is equal in a particular analysis or will remain equal if a particular variable is changed. An “all else is equal” reduction is sometimes a useful way to predict the impact of making a particular change, but in the real world, there are many times when it can’t even assume a hint of a shade of a glimmer of validity. There are simply too many variables with inter- and co-dependencies. One example is comparing the events of two different slices of time to come to the conclusion that one person was a better President than another.”
http://boards.fool.com/ceteris-paribus-fallacy-26270295.aspx
Now, good paper, but shame shame on De Freitas and McClean for not referencing Bob Tisdale who has been the lone voice in the wilderness for over a decade on this. Gentleman, drop the pompous and unnecessary “all other things being equal” (your discomfort in NOT using the term ceteris paribus shows by using the awkward wordy substitute) and add Bob Tisdale’s name as a reference (several times)- it is your biggest reference. I’m always suspicious of plagiarism when such a well known player in this game is ignored. I’ve taken to calling the tropical thunderstorm air conditioning that cools hot bands in SST the “Eschenbach Effect” and from now on I will be referring to the ENSO “control knob” as the “Tisdale Effect” and I want all other serious skeptics to do the same. A raspberry also for Judith Curry for being “blown away” without also mentioning the “Tisdale Effect”. Comon’, after all the ugly abuse heaped on skeptics who have been rebuilding a totally corrupted and broken science, are we just going to hand all these fruits over???
“The method avoids a focused statistical analysis of the data, in part because the study deals with smoothed data, which means there is the danger of spurious correlations, and in part because the El Nino Southern Oscillation is a cyclical phenomenon of irregular period.”
So knowing they may be introducing “spurious correlations” they do a study of correlation coefficient to establish the lag and correlation of the two datasets.
Three does appear to be a correlation, it’s unfortunate that they leave it so open by not employing a better method.
The reason for the post-1995 period shift in the SOI- MGT relationship illustrated in Figure 1(c) is puzzling. An explanation may lie in changes in global albedo due to changes in lower-level cloud cover.
Or, heaven forbid, the explanation may lay with someone at the Met having put a thumb on the scales post 1995 in order to keep the meme alive.
Another note. What are the GACS (golden age of Climate Science – the hockey team fantasy, IPCC, etc.) going to do now? Are they going to continue to sit on the sidelines as spectators of the development of real climate science, their grotesque contributions going out in pieces with the tide? Since climategate, followed by realization of the dreaded hiatus and the emergence of real science, these guys have been deafeningly quiet in the field of climate literature (a few painful, hysterical cameo appearances and a lot of gassy speeches with tin badges and awards). I don’t think they have it in them. Science wasn’t their specialty anyway.