From the Georgia Institute of Technology
‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming
One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed.
The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.
The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.
Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.
The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the ‘stadium wave.’ The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Previous work done by Wyatt on the ‘wave’ shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models’ inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.
“Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system,” Curry said.
The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse. After temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, hemispheric surface temperatures began to decrease, while the high latitudes of the North Atlantic Ocean continued to warm and Arctic sea ice extent continued to decline. According to the ‘stadium wave’ hypothesis, these trends mark a transition period whereby the future decades will see the North Atlantic Ocean begin to cool and sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic region begin to rebound.
Most interpretations of the recent decline in Arctic sea ice extent have focused on the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, with some allowance for natural variability. Declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal, and the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.
“The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
The stadium wave holds promise in putting into perspective numerous observations of climate behavior, such as regional patterns of decadal variability in drought and hurricane activity, the researchers say, but a complete understanding of past climate variability and projections of future climate change requires integrating the stadium-wave signal with external climate forcing from the sun, volcanoes and anthropogenic forcing.
“How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”
Marcia Wyatt is an independent scientist. Judith Curry’s participation in this research was funded by a Department of Energy STTR grant under award number DE SC007554, awarded jointly to Georgia Tech and the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.
CITATION: M.G. Wyatt, et al., “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1
DaveR says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am
This seems like a stretch. I’m going with the variable Sun.
This is no stretch at all. In fact, the discussion of self-organizing phenomena recovers the fact that a formal definition of climate is “weather over time.” Climate is a “natural system” it is an emergent human perception of our experience of weather. Temperature records merely extend that perception. Even wikipedia accepts that.
Weather is inherently a complex or chaotic system, a fact identified by Lorenz in the 1960s. Wyatt and Curry’s argument brings the “climate” back to weather. One of the problems with climate models is, as Curry points out, how deterministic they are. Many folks have argued that unless we really understand the natural variability of weather, it is impossible to really identifies human influences on climate. Since we still can’t reliable forecast weather in detail beyond a few days, especially around the equinoctial periods, the idea that climate changes can be reliably forecast is logically fallacious. In fact, the mechanistic view of climate employed by many climate scientists in the “warmist” camp is outright 19th Century in its logic and assumptions.
This is probably right. And, when you subtract out the oscillatory effect, you are left with a trend which has had a steady slope since the end of the LIA. When you then take that out, there isn’t much left for CO2 impact.
I still like the CFC postulate.
Meets KISS/Occam requirements.
Looks a lot like what Jeff Patterson was saying here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/digital-signal-processing-analysis-of-global-temperature-data-suggests-global-cooling-ahead/
but without giving any indication of what analysis backs it up, nor gives an estimate of the magnitude nor hints at the future direction. From Jeff’s analysis, the waves are bigger than any trend by any supposed forcing and ultimately its all minor since we still don’t know what caused the ice ages, and whether or not the next one will come on cue in the 120 000 year cycle that the past few have been following.
Janice Moore,
Good post. There is still no verifiable, testable scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to global warming. After so many years of batting that assumption around, you would think that there would be some empirical evidence showing a conclusive link. But there is no evidence. None at all.
The entire climate scare is based on AGW. But there is no evidence that AGW exists. By now, there should be, no? But there is none! AGW is still only a conjecture.
Wake me when someone can provide solid evidence that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Because Planet Earth does not agree.
So if “the pause” were to begin to cool that would falsify this theory????????
Not new.
See here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
“from time to time the other oceanic cycles can operate in the opposite mode to PDO/ENSO thereby offsetting it until any lag is worked through.
It logically follows that, from time to time, the other oceanic cycles can operate in conjunction with PDO/ENSO to emphasise the effect on the global temperature.
Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.
So, to be able to monitor and predict changes in global temperature we need more than information about the past, current and expected future level of solar activity.
We also need to identify all the separate oceanic cycles around the globe and ascertain both the current state of their respective warming or cooling modes and, moreover, the intensity of each, both at the time of measurement and in the future.
Once we have a suitable formula I believe that changes in global temperature will no longer be a confusing phenomenon and we will be able to apportion the proper weight to other influencing factors such as the greenhouse effect of CO2.”
May 21, 2008
The contributions of sea ice, volcanic events and any anthropogenic component are all subsumed into the interaction between the ocean oscillations in each basin so the ‘stadium wave’ concept is just a fancy name for the net interaction between the various oceanic oscillations
Dr. Curry still refuses to identify which political party members or persuasion might be found at an Earth Day rally of someone wearing a Che teeshirt there. Her technical comments are a distraction, she validates consensus science views while avoiding all motivations (directly that is) of the AGW movement itself. That isn’t a rational position but people want to validate the least insane person in the room. Dr. Curry is a poster child for failed skeptics to rally behind. Dr. Curry is completely corrupted by the process regardless of comparative relational appearance of “moderation” to say Jim Hansen or Michael Mann. Until the basics of AGW fanaticism are acknowledged there is no point in reviewing their “science” opinions. She’s just another part of the consensus spectrum with different views and goals but just as statist in the end game. Why trust her science view only because it modestly contradicts AGW extremism to some degree?
Dr. Curry is where skeptics go to die in the debate. As David Brooks is to “conservatism” Dr. Curry is to skeptical arguments. Each side might try to use her but she remains an AGW advocate and the central planning agenda associate. “The Pause” is yet another stupid concept of defining reality within the confines of the AGW total meme, something to be explained and rationalized rather than an obvious total failure of model and bogus claims of AGW advocates for decades. While she might be hated in extreme advocate circles she is serving their interest in the walk-back operations and maintaining the illusion of rational science claim regarding co2 impact and mitigation efforts. So within a week of calling for the “put down” of the IPCC with an entire list of indirect and irrelevant reasoning we can expect to be bombarded with science debate talking points that preserve the function of the IPCC authority and consensus. Usual double talk for the weak minded, add another 20+ years of AGW and collectivist advantages on a global basis with no empirical evidence or observational proof of co2 climate sensitivity. If you but the “stadium wave” you might as well go all the way and buy “deep ocean heat” neither of which have a shred of measurements backing the claims.
The point is to drive a stake in the heart of AGW junk science politics and the first thing is to accept what politics drove us to this point in the first place. The lust to control carbon at many levels including pinhead academia and “experts”. Once you digest Dr. Curry’s worldview (obfuscated at times as it may be) you would question her timing of “science” releases and priority statements as well. This is more climate science magic dust and carefully timed.
Let me get this straight: the hypothesis is for a cycle of ~300 years duration, and the change in one empirical variable (Arctic sea ice minimum) from 2012 to 2013 is supposed to be indicative of a change in the cycle several years in the future? I have more confidence in the use of the purely content-free statistical tool MACD by David Dobrho.
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s.”
But biologist Camilo Mora has just predicted that we are going to experience “unprecedented climate change” starting as early as 2020. I wonder whose prediction will hold true?
You can read about Mora’s prediction here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/uncomfortable-climates-devastate-cities-within-decade-study-says-8C11363468
Janice Moore says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:48 am
Janice, Dr. Curry is a professional hand waver. Skeptics are so beaten down or politically ambivalent they accept it.
Always amazing how they can find possible natural explanations for the lack of warming but cannot think of anything natural to account for any of the warming.
Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt are paradigm breakers. The mainstream paradigm is a radiation-only account of climate phenomena that takes the radiation budget among the Sun, the Earth, and atmospheric CO2 as determining temperature change. Curry and Wyatt break this paradigm by providing evidence that there is a natural process, their “stadium wave,” that grabs hold of some of the energy and feeds on it. The key quotation from the article above is the following:
“The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent.”
Curry and Wyatt postulate an AMO that has a causal role in “the wave.” They take seriously the existence of the AMO apart from radiation-only theory. Their work is the wave of the future in climate science (please forgive me). Of course, their work depends on multivariate analysis but climate science is in its infancy.
Others have backed themselves into a similar position. Trenberth has realized that he must postulate mechanisms that are peculiar to the oceans and that transport heat from upper layers to deeper waters. These mechanisms pre-exist any effects of CO2.
Steven Groeneveld. says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:00 am
IMO science does have a pretty good idea of what causes ice ages, at least the terrestrial as opposed to any possible ET effect.
Taking the Cenozoic glaciations as an example, there were, among other factors, 1) tectonics, as in the collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate, the isolation from other continents of Antarctica over the South Pole, the closure of the Panama Isthmus, & 2) the three orbital mechanical components of the Milankovitch Cycle, which controls or at least influences the timing of glacial/interglacial phases.
The position of the continents also clearly featured in the Ordovician-Silurian & Carboniferous-Permian glaciations as well. It’s now thought that there was minor glaciation at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, too. The quasi-regularity of these intervals might hint at ET contributing factors also.
Predicting when the transition from our present interglacial to the next glacial phase might occur is currently beyond science, but it’s being studied. That’s just one of the many better uses for climate research dollars than the money wasted on worse than worthless, GIGO GCMs based upon worshiping the false Bitch Goddess Carbondioxidia.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:08 am
Very well said. Isn’t it amazing that mainstream climate scientists, the MSM, and some skeptics just cannot get their minds around your main point?
I don’t understand why this is “new”…
Of course there are “stadium waves”…it’s obvious in every ice core
..only in this case they are going in the opposite direction
We’re somewhere around the crest of one of those waves…a short uptic in temps
when the overall trend is in the opposite direction…..down/cooler
Obviously CO2, and the tipping point, is not strong enough to turn it in the opposite direction..up/higher
…The level of CO2 right now is when it would have the most effect…and it didn’t
Temps flatten out, and dropped a little
obvious waves….
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
..and even more obvious waves
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
from here…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Peter Miller says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:26 am
Both are interested in preserving positions in the debate. In both cases the “debate” and policy of some form will go on forever. Dr. Curry is a Fifth columnist to skepticism and science reform in general.
Being, more “honest” than some isn’t the same as being honest. It’s time to move on from Dr. Curry as a climate debate champion, it’s nonsense. Does this mean I’m equalizing her to Al Gore or Michael Mann fanatical? No, but this can’t be the standard.
If it had been a hot decade where would the AGW be today? Would there be an equivalent idiotic phrase like the “Pause” requiring decades l more of thought? Double think double standards are the order of the day.
@cwon14
Fanaticism obscures knowledge. Lighten up.
I believe the Sun’s variations are not being taken into account. UV radiation wild swings and the solar wind Forbush events. Sun cycle 25 will bring bitter cold.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Curry is playing both sides of the debate. Can the “pause” be correlated with pirate population? Are there waves of pirates circling the equator with a 59-62 year period?
The first test for any new climate theory is:
What does it explain better – the past temperature time series of the Earth, or the past as distorted by GISS.
If the latter, the theory is junk.
Note that the article lacks IPCC like 95% hubris. It does not negate the sun as the primary cause of the waves nor does it claim that it is the end all of climate change explanation. The inclusion of modifiers such as “might” or “could” make the article scientific rather than political. I agree with Tisdale. congratulations are in order.
According to this theory, what happens to the temperatures until the 2030s? Is there a chart published with this study?
JDN says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:31 am
The “Pause” can correlated to anything accept the basic science premises of the AGW meme itself. That’s the key reason it exists. It might last thousand years if it helps preserve the climate consensus along the way. It’s life support time for the AGW meme but skeptics throw it a life line by accepting idiotic concept science like the “Pause”.
Curryism, as bad as the disease itself. You’re adaptation global tax could be just as bad as you’re pointless mitigation tax in the Curry world order.
“So are they saying that CO2 is warming the planet measurably, and the wave is currently cancelling these measurable CO2 effects predicted by the AGW crowd, but when the wave is not cancelling these CO2 effects, watch out? Or does this say CO2 has no measurable effect on climate?”
Don’t think they say. Maybe I missed it. However, if there’s a cycle, that implies that a large portion of the recent run-up could have been the “hot” side of the wave, and now we’re getting the cold side. As a LONG TERM AVERAGE it’s probably trending up… I’d wager at close to the historical temperature rise (aka leaving the glacial period.)