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.
Gary Pearse:
Well, it may be you but it certainly is me today.
One friend being scanned for cancer, misinformed that another friend had died and needing – yes, needing – to urgently answer something on WUWT while trying to find out when and how (but he had not), and … Well, you don’t need to know.
I am a grumpy old man. Sometimes more than I should be. Sorry.
Richard
RERT,
My E & E paper addresses the very points you raise:
Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Are Global Mean Temperatures
Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric
Tides? Energy & Environment, Vol 24,
No. 3 & 4, pp. 497 – 508
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/?p=e4bc1fd3b6e14fd8ab83a6df24c8a72d&pi=11
However, it must be said that the paper is not intended to be a rigorous scientific proof of the claims about the SOI/MEI that are proposed. The paper is aimed at making a scientific literate audience aware of the fact that the ENSO could play a pivotal role in determining inter-decadal to centennial changes in the World’s mean temperature.
Stephen, I think the reasons why the temperature decline has yet to begin in earnest are due to the current weak maximum of solar cycle 24, the limited years of prolonged sub-solar activity
(started in 2005) in contrast to mostly high solar activity from end of Dalton(1830) -2005, ocean heat content up in response to high solar activity up to 2005,and very quiet volcanic activity.
I think once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by a more meridional atmospheric circulation which has been the rule of late will become even further entrenched, ocean heat content which is high has slowed during the past few years and will likely subside going forward, and volcanic activity should rise in response to the soon to be very quiet solar conditions.
The maximum of solar cycle 24 has to pass followed by a sustained period of very quiet solar conditions such as a solar flux value of at least sub 90 sustained,solar wind value of at at least sub 350 km/sec. sustained, ap index value of sub 5.0 (98+%of time) sustained(spikes other 1%), UV light off upwards of 50%, solar irradiance off .015% or more, sustained.
Cosmic rays will be on the increase(in response to a reduced solar wind) and that should equate to more clouds, and that along with the more meridional atmospheric circulation should cause an increase in clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H. which in turn should increase the overall albedo, promoting lower temperatures.
Earth’s magnetic field in a weakening trend will compound all solar effects.
The PDO ,and soon the AMO will also make their mark on promoting global cooling. Infact the recent string of La Ninas, has been one of the reasons why the temperature rise is no longer occurring despite moderate solar activity of late, and still high ocean heat content, and very low volcanic activity.
Anotherwords the high ocean heat content ,the moderate solar activity , and lack of any significant volcanic activity ,and the lack of strong La Nina’s despite La Nina’s of late are the reasons why the temperatures have been holding up to steady readings of late, rather then showing a more definitive fall.
This should be changing as the decade proceeds and the prolonged solar minimum becomes more entrenched with all of it’s associated secondary effects.
.
The main secondary factors needed for global cooling to start are PDO/AMO in a cold phase, ENSO in La Nina phase, volcanic activity to increase, and a more meridional atmospheirc circulation.
Ocean heat content will subside once visible light from quiet solar conditions declines.
Thresholds are out there and the degree of magnitude /duration of time of quiet solar conditions has to be severe/long enough to at least over come the inherent neg. feedbacks in the climatic system of the earth, if not bring the climate to a possible threshold in order to set the temperature trend response more definitively downwards
Time will tell and the answers should be soon as the prolonged solar quiet condtions become much more entrenched as soon as this weak maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by.
Which is not far off.
Here’s to you, Gary Pearse and Richard Courtney,
two gentlemen, in the best sense of the word:
You think meeting here is bad, you could work in the same office or
YOU COULD BE NEIGHBORS!
#(:))
(Warning: typical “Grumpy Old Men” language)
.
.
.
.
*********************
I just prayed for your friend, Richard. Hope all turns out well.
OOOoops!
Wrong clip above (aaarrgh) — sorry for the dirty jokes (cringe)
The 15 year old animation is very pretty.
Are they arrogant… so confident that they had the right result they dismissed what most skeptics know, or ignorant, they simply did not look? Either way, they must have some chutzpah to put out papers ( I supposed were funded by taxpayer money) to tell us what we all know.
The sun, the oceans, stochastic events run the climate, not co2
Congrats to Bob Tisdale. Vindication is a lovely feeling. Enjoy!
Don Easterbrook’s work related to this, got me really tuned into the oceans a decade ago.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/aleo-easterbrook_ch5Relationship-multidecadal-global-temps-to-oceanic-oscillations.pdf
Stephen Wilde says: “I’ve lost count of the number of times I have expressed appreciation of your work but been rebuffed by what is known in the psychiatric profession as passive aggression.”
While I thank you for your expressed appreciation, I take exception when you claim I’m avoiding something, especially when we’ve had this discussion numerous times already.
Stephen Wilde says: “My use of the term ‘avoidance’ was intended to be neutral and respectful but you have taken unnecessary offence.”
I disagree. You are a trained and practicing lawyer. You understand precisely the implications of your words. You’ve suggested to readers here that my research is incomplete, solely because it does not extent back in time beyond the satellite era of sea surface temperature data—a time period in which you have interest, not me.
Again, I’ll thank you for expressing your appreciation of my work. I will also ask you once again to stop portraying it as being incomplete because it does not support the time period of your research interests.
Regards
Joe Bastardi says:
September 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm
The sun, the oceans, stochastic events run the climate, not co2
===
shhhh….one of these days they will discover that we have more than one ocean
“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.”
But where is the hysteresis on the upper ocean heat content in all of this? A higher frequency of El Nino conditions and episodes has to also result in global cooling over periods that are used to describe climate, because of less upper ocean heat recharging.
With ENSO, the (fairly) immediate effects on global temperature, are the inverse of the long term effects on upper OHC. So by definition, short term warming equals long term cooling.
Now as cooling from major stratospheric volcanic aerosol events causes El Nino episodes, it really does beg the question, what type of cooling is triggering the other Nino episodes?
I think the evidence is overwhelming: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
It does though require some adjustment of preconceived ideas of global temperature, such that when the heat is on, you get a La Nina and global ave temp’ goes down, and when the heat is off, bam you get an El Nino and the world suddenly looks warmer. Such the overshoot that ENO has.
Stephen Wilde says:
“However there is lots of paleological data showing climate zone shifts common to both hemispheres and it is clear to me at least that Pacific SSTs will be implicated in such shifts.”
Yes they all show more El Nino during cold periods and less El Nino through the warm periods. It’s the same at the inter-annual scale relative to solar activity, with El Nino’s at times of lower activity.
Joe Bastardi – That works. TSI does not vary enough but the sunspot number time integral (reduced by radiation leaving the planet) with appropriate proxy factor, combined with a derived net contribution from all ocean oscillations, calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9. The equation that does this and a graph to show it are at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html .
I put up this article over 4.5 years ago dealing with this same issue.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/
Not much has really changed in the numbers or the methodology (I added in volcanoes and a statistically insignificant solar cycle) but here’s the update. None of the other reconstructions are close to this on a monthly basis going back to 1856.
http://s24.postimg.org/gtm9yie85/Hadcrut4_Model_July_2013.png
Is warming less than the models? Uhmm yes, in terms of being way off that is. The satellite/lower troposphere trends are pointing to just 1.2C of warming by 2100 (and only 0.75C more to go in the next 87 years) while the IPCC has 2.5C more of warming in the pipeline.
http://s24.postimg.org/4ae47h8xx/Zoom_in_Logarithmic_Warming_July_2013.png
The IPCC Forecasts starting at the time they were made versus the actual observations. Obviously, something has gone wrong with the earlier forecasts being the farthest off but even the newest IPCC AR5 forecasts from just over a year ago can’t even get the starting point right – they are already 0.3C too high. Hansen’s 1988 forecasts are off by 0.7C. Start over boys.
http://s7.postimg.org/kb8xaanob/IPCC_Forecasts_July2013.png
Ulric Lyons says: “But where is the hysteresis on the upper ocean heat content in all of this? A higher frequency of El Nino conditions and episodes has to also result in global cooling over periods that are used to describe climate, because of less upper ocean heat recharging.”
The ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific reveals:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-9-3.png
The 1973-76 La Niña created the initial warm water for the El Niño events from 1976 through 1995, with the La Niña events trailing those El Niños replenishing part of the heat released by the El Niños. The 1986/87/88 El Niño released and redistributed enough warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific to cause an upward shift in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-9-8a.png
The 1995/96 La Niña, a super La Niña in terms of ocean heat content in the tropical Pacific, created the ocean heat for the 1997/98 El Niño. The 1997/98 El Niño released and redistributed that heat from the tropical Pacific in the form of warm water and that warm water resulted in another upward step in the sea surface temperatures of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The1998-01 La Niña replenished the warm water released by the 1997/98 El Niño.
Regards
The sloshing, wind blown, current driven oceans have plenty of power to hold onto or belch out heat in whatever steps you want, big, small, sequenced, etc. There is no need for variable solar input. Its variance is insignificant compared to the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections so why bother?
Bailiff: All rise.
Judge: In the case of Wilde v. Tisdale, verdict for the Defendant with attorney’s fees, costs, AND treble damages. Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa! #(:))
“passive aggression,” lol. If you had exhibited that, Bob Tisdale, you would have simply ignored him, not dignifying his insults with your thoughtful responses, or pretended not to understand him and answered questions he never posed. Attorney (if you are correct, Mr. Tisdale) Wilde could take a lesson or two from you.
*******************************************************
Science is about truth. Lack of conventional credentials may be an excuse, but is NEVER a reason to ignore excellent science such as yours, Mr. Tisdale.
Re: the false assumption that science must be (MUST BE, lol) a “blood sport,” I have seen far too much data that contradicts that notion to believe it. Over the years, I have personally observed, or read the accounts of reliable eyewitnesses who also observed, numerous brilliant minds in the most rigorous academic disciplines who were ruthless with the facts while, at the same time, civil and courteous to their opponents. Only the truly great can do this. It takes, in addition to a fine mind, a humble, loving, heart.
Gentleness is not, as some might think, a weak trait. On the contrary, it requires strength of character. Unjustified anger and bluster and YELLING and insults are signs of:
1) lack of humility and of disregard for one’s opponent; and or
2) lack of self-restraint.
Only the extraordinary can do this, but, every day, it is done. Such extraordinary people are out there fighting tenaciously yet courteously in many arenas, including law, physics, finance, and climate science. As to climate science, I know this from first hand observation. I know this because of watching — you.
You are one of Science’s finest, Bob Tisdale. You are a scientist par excellence. You leave the “blood sport” blusterers in the dust.
Well done.
Janice
Tell that to the mothers who had to scream down the idiots who kept telling them in oh so dignified language that Autism was their fault.
Congratulations to Bob Tisdale (“the Tisdale effect”) and Willis Eschenbach (“the Eschenbach paradigm”). Imagine, all those things going on in the central strip of the Pacific Ocean, where the potential insolation is far and away bigger than anywhere else, and where the magical ingredient, water, is involved, having ANYTHING to do with the climate of the earth. It’s shocking, I tell you.
As to why the temperatures around the globe haven’t fallen (at least much), here’s the “JimF conjecture”: the key thermometers (some of which control small empires in area) are sitting on blacktop, many in the back blast of jet engines, many of the rest near the air conditioning unit and all the hot cars. The only way these will show “cooling” is when icicles are hanging off your nose as you take a brisk summer walk to the office. Sounds like I’m writing some thriller novels. Maybe I have another career as a “climate scientist” in my future.
Pamela Gray says:
“Its variance is insignificant compared to the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections so why bother?”
A factor of two and more variance is significant, and it is the path to understanding and predicting it.
Bob Tisdale says:
“The 1973-76 La Niña created the initial warm water for the El Niño events from 1976 through 1995, with the La Niña events trailing those El Niños replenishing part of the heat released by the El Niños.”
So that may seem to invalidate comparison of El Niño to La Niña strictly by frequency alone as they don’t necessarily each have the same value. So who is to say where the balance is until the effective magnitude of each in terms of OHC alteration, is defined.
No Ulric, the variance, be it significant compared to its own control, is insignificant up against the variance of the oceans. Mechanism Ulric, mechanism. Hell, I vary! That does not make me significant.
The solar theorists have congregated again. And they espouse the same thing they have done on countless threads all without using standard scientific method and a refusal to outline the mechanism. I tire of it. Look folks, total solar irradiance varies surface temperature by less than the length of a gnats a** hair and follows the 11 year solar cycle up and down. Every other “thing” that ol’sol puts out has FAR less energy, yet these folks think that something magical happens to these sub-parts of TSI (solar wind, UV, etc), to make the Earth dance to their tune. Don’t buy it. It is the exact same argument espoused by CO2 folks. Something infinitesimally small gets amplified to the degree that Earth notices it. And what is the mechanism? Some yet to be determined entity. Bull apples.