A few days ago, the Georgia Tech press release for Wyatt and Curry (2013) included a quote from Marcia Wyatt, who said the stoppage in global warming “could extend into the 2030s”. (See the WattsUpWithThat post here and Judith Curry’s post here. The paper is here. Also see the SpringerLink-ClimateDynamics webpage.)
Now, there’s another paper predicting the cessation of global warming will last for more than another decade, with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation-induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere through 2027 (prompted by the North Atlantic Oscillation).
See TheHockeySchtick post New paper finds natural North Atlantic Oscillation controls Northern Hemisphere temperatures 15-20 years in advance. The paper is Li et al (2013) NAO implicated as a predictor of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability. (Full paper is here.) The Li et al. (2013) abstract reads (my boldface):
The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming–cooling–warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). Here we demonstrate that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. Observational analysis shows that the NAO leads both the detrended NHT and oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by 15–20 years. Theoretical analysis illuminates that the NAO precedes NHT multidecadal variability through its delayed effect on the AMO due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes. A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT [Northern Hemisphere Temperature], which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971–2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted. NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a sea level pressure-based index. Sea level pressures are related to wind patterns. And wind patterns impact how, where and when warm waters from the tropical Atlantic migrate north…which, in turn, impacts the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic as a whole. Li et al (2013) are basically saying that multidecadal changes in the sea level pressure and wind patterns in the North Atlantic are a useful predictor of multidecadal periods of warming and cooling in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.
It’s time for the IPCC to start thinking about cutting back on their predictions of future global warming by at least 50%. The public is catching on to the fact that if natural variability can stop global warming for 2 to 3 decades, then it also contributed to the warming from 1975 to the turn of the century—something the IPCC failed to account for in its projections.
shenanigans24: First, a correction: sorry to inform you, there’s no Dr. in front of my name.
You prefaced your question, “If ENSO, or AMO or PDO don’t increase the earths energy budget…”
Let’s discuss the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures and the AMO for an example, because that was one of the topics of Li et al (2013). Wind patterns (reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)) impact the surface temperature of the North Atlantic. For example, let’s say the wind patterns are such that they change how water is transferred from the surface to the deep ocean (convection at the Labrador Sea per Li et al) and this causes a general warming of the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.
Because North Atlantic sea surface temperatures have warmed, outgoing longwave radiation increases. Didn’t that just change the Earth’s energy budget—without any extra heat input?
shenanigans24 says: “If we were measuring all the heat correctly then wouldn’t an EL Niño be shown as an increase in temperature in one place and a decrease in another place with no trend change in a year.”
The way your sentence is phrased I’m not sure if you’re confusing heat and temperature. They’re two different things.
Realistically, since Nov 1981, NOAA has done a good job of measuring sea surface temperatures globally with their satellite-based (or if you’d prefer, satellite-enhanced) Reynolds OI.v2 dataset. And ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific has been based on the TAO project buoys since the early 1990s, so since then, it’s reasonably accurate.
But back to your statement: An El Niño is a little more complex than you’ve described, but in some respects you’re correct about the El Niño simply relocating warm water.
An El Niño takes a vast amount of warm water from the surface and (very important) BELOW THE SURFACE of the western tropical Pacific and relocates it to the eastern tropical Pacific, increasing the amount of warm water on the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific (and the surface of the tropical Pacific as a whole). The volume of warm water in western tropical Pacific decreases. The SURFACE temperature there doesn’t decrease significantly, but the subsurface temperatures decrease in the western tropical Pacific. And the volume of warm water and surface temperatures both increase in the eastern tropical Pacific. So far you are correct.
However, with more warm water on the surface of the tropical Pacific during the El Niño, there is much more evaporation, so the tropical Pacific loses heat during the El Niño and the atmosphere gains it when all of that evaporated water condenses and turns into rain. Lower troposphere temperatures rise in response. Also, because all of that evaporation is taking place in the central and eastern tropical Pacific (instead of its normal place in the western tropical Pacific) the jet streams change location and that causes surface temperatures in some places around the globe to warm and others cool (with more places warming than cooling), and that surface warming takes place without a direct exchange of heat from the tropical Pacific.
shenanigans24 says: “If we were measuring all the heat correctly then wouldn’t an EL Niño be shown as an increase in temperature in one place and a decrease in another place with no trend change in a year.”
Again, you seem to be mixing heat and temperature. “Global surface temperature records” are a combination of sea surface temperatures and land surface air temperatures, not heat. For heat, we have ocean heat content data. But the key word in global surface temperature records is “surface”.
Back to the El Niño: An El Niño takes a huge volume of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific (where it is not included in surface temperature records) and relocates it to the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific (where it’s now included in the surface temperature record). For example, the 1997/98 El Niño released so much warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific, that the sea surface temperatures for the entire East Pacific ocean temporarily warmed more than 0.5 deg C (0.9 deg F). That’s a huge volume of water, when you consider that the East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) covers about 33% of the surface of the global oceans.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-9-38.png
The El Niño does not “consume” all of the warm water. After the El Niño, wind-driven ocean currents redistribute the left over warm water to the West Pacific, Indian and eventually the Atlantic Oceans, so the surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans simply shifted up about 0.2 deg C and remained there until the next big El Niño in 2009/10:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-9-39.png
Strong El Niño events, in effect, provide a sunlight-fueled source of long-term global warming.
shenanigans24 says: “The heat didn’t just appear did it?”
Depends on how you want to define “just”. All of the warm water for the 1997/98 El Niño was created in about 12 months by the 1995/96 La Niña. And to show that, we’ll switch datasets to the ocean heat content for the tropical Pacific, which represents the heat stored there to depths of 700 meters. The 1995/96 La Niña caused the sharp rise that’s shown as the leading edge of the large spike in the mid-1990s. The 1997/98 shows the drop which is the trailing edge of the spike, and the 1998-01 La Niña is the rebound after it. So, in effect, the 1995/96 La Niña (with the help of the 1998-01 La Niña) caused an upward shift in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-9-31.png
shenanigans24 says: “It just circulated enough that we can measure it.”
Actually, we can measure it at the surface and below the surface, but at the surface it is included in the surface temperature record, and below the surface it’s included in the ocean heat content records.
This can’t be casually dismissed:
The authors are saying clearly that there is an anthropogenically induced warming, and it is only temporarily being offset. Which is why the opening sentence of the paper says
and a few lines further they repeat that the decadal variability is
which later you can see because
which is why instead of saying “stop”, like Bob Tisdale, they say (my bold)
and
and one more time in the conclusion, in case there was any doubt
Bob Tisdale can believe what he wants about natural processes. What the authors of this paper have actually said, though, is entirely consistent with mainstream climate science and never suggests that there is now or will be any “stop” in anthropogenically — not naturally — induced warming. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent their work.
” temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming”
—-
That’s point blank admitting they were wrong. They’re trying to spin it, but it doesn’t work. If natural causes can offset it, then humans are no longer the primary cause of climate change (not that they ever were). It’s not catastrophic. Crisis averted.
“Stoppage of GW could extend into the 2030s” !?!? Well, may I pound on my chest -for once- and say that the MACD analyses of GSTAs already suggests that…: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/if-climate-data-were-a-stock-now-would-be-the-time-to-sell/
Wonder if that’s the de riguer Pledge of Consensual Allegiance required to get future funding, or a preview of the new Alarmist CYA excuse and talking position.
An interesting paper, but I find the Wyatt paper much more in agreement with the understanding that you have presented to me Bob. This paper agrees with an internal variability that nets to zero over decadal time scales, rather than a natural variability that does not necessarily net to zero in decadal or even centennial time scale.
What Li et al. (2013) paper says is almost correct, but it is surely not novel or new.
The paper repeats almost exactly (but in a poorer way) the analysis and the demonstration about the NAO index and its quasi 60-year oscillation that matches the 60-year temperature oscillation with a lag-shift of about 15 year (that is a 90 degree lag-phase shift) already demonstrated in
Mazzarella A. and N. Scafetta, 2012. Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 107, 599-609.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-011-0499-4
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf
see figures 5 and 8 of our paper.
The demonstration is repeated with a different methodology in
Scafetta N., 2013. Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. in press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3
and re-discussed in
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
So, as extensively demonstrated in my papers (since 2010), it is evident that if a 60-year oscillation exists, then the plateau until 2030s is a dynamical necessity demonstrated by me since 2009.
However, here there is a problem that is addressed in my paper with Mazzarella that Li et al. did not get.
Li would like to use NAO as a “predictor” for temperature changes. The ability to predict is however a consequence of the 60-year oscillation, not of the fact that NAO is a true “predictor”.
The predictor is “apparent” in the sense that Li did not realize that for physical reasons NAO (which is a pressure signal) is indirectly linked to the temperature anomaly via an integration algorithm.
In some way it is like the speed and the position of an oscillating signal that are described by a sin and a cos function with a 90 degree phase lag (= 15 year in a 60 year oscillation). So, if one would like to have an observable that can be directly compared with the temperature, NAO needs to be integrated first, as we did in our paper.
So, a priori it is not possible to use NAO as a “predictor” of the temperture after 15 years unless we already know that NAO is oscillating with a 60 year cycle which is something that Li does not demonstrate because they analyze data since 1900.
Fortunately in Mazzarella & Scafetta (2012) and Scafetta (2013) we analyze NAO since 1700 and the quasi 60 -year oscillation is pretty well evident. So, in our argument (based on a 300-year analysis) the projection is more plausible while in Li et al argument (based on a 110-year data) is more fortuitous.
In any case, the credibility of the future projection is based on the understanding of the physical origin of the 60-year oscillation, and the only proposed theory is in the 60-year solar/astronomical oscillation I proposed in my papers.
More on this can be found on my web-site
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
And in my papers.
A recent summary is here:
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
Bob Tisdale says:
October 12, 2013 at 7:01 pm
shenanigans24: First, a correction: sorry to inform you, there’s no Dr. in front of my name.
>>>>>>
Well, maybe the “Dr.” should apply.
Seriously folks, who knows more about ENSO–Bob Tisdale, or a sycophant groupie from Cornell?
Dr. Bob Tisdale, Ph,D., WUTU University
Sounds good to me….
WUWT. rather than WUTU, or course. (Lamp on wrong side….)
Leo Geiger: Are you new here?
You seem to be getting all excited about my use of the word “stoppage” and “cessation” instead of hiatus. But, the reality is, the warming of global surface temperatures slowed to a crawl since 1998:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/comparison-1998-start.png
And they haven’t warmed since 2001:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/comparison-2001-start.png
The above graphs are from the following monthly update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/august-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/
If global surface temperatures have not warmed since 2001, that means global warming stopped, it ceased. So my use of “stoppage” and “cessation” is correct. You may not like them, but they are correct.
Additionally, there is nothing in the ocean heat content records or the satellite-era sea surface temperature records to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases had anything to do with their warming. That is, the data indicate they warmed naturally. You must’ve missed my first comment on this thread. So here’s the link again:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
Leo, are you aware that the only support for the hypothesis of human-induced global warming are climate models? Without climate models, we only know that surface temperatures have warmed. Are you aware that climate models can’t simulate surface temperatures? That they have to double the rate of sea surface temperature warming over the past 30 years in order to get land surface air temperatures close to where they’re supposed to be? Are you aware they can’t simulate precipitation? Are you aware that climate models can’t simulate sea ice in either hemisphere? I presented those failings in a bunch of posts over the past six months. Where have you been? You appear to be behind the times. I even wrote a book about how poorly climate models perform: “Climate Models Fail”:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/
It’s selling quite well, thank you.
Regards
Bob Tisdale:
No, I’m not new here. I am well aware of your opinions. I am more concerned with the how the opinions expressed in published research are presented or misrepresented. You are free to use phrases like “stoppage” or “cessation”. The authors of the paper clearly did not, and they say things throughout the paper at odds with your beliefs. Do not bootstrap your opinions onto their work.
It is interesting Leo, that you will take umbrage with Bob’s use of the word “cessation” of warming when the consensus has denied its existence for nearly as long.
It is interesting Leo, that you will take umbrage with Bob’s use of the word “cessation” of warming for 15 years when the consensus has denied its existence for nearly as long.
mods please delete my 8:05 post
About the Leo-Bob debate, just a comment.
The authors of the paper say what Leo says. However that is based on several physical misconceptions due to their failure of understanding that the existence of a 60-year oscillation would fit the anthropogenic warming as it is now presented by the IPCC. This is not possible.
Because of the 60 year oscillation the anthropogenic warming needs to be reduced drastically (by about half) and additional natural cycles (e.g. the millennium oscillation) need to be added.
I do not want to be monotonous but all these issues are already discussed in my papers, e.g.
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
Scafetta N., 2013. Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment 24(3-4), 455–496.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/p7n531161076t3p6/?p=c84512f97a5845ec995057c3818fb1d2&pi=0
Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 124-137.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385
Loehle C. and N. Scafetta, 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86.
http://benthamscience.com/open/openaccess.php?toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.htm
and others.
I would say take a bow Bob Tisdale, Dr. Scaffeta, and many others for long ago describing these important climate features. I have learned much from you, rather than these Johnny come lately’s to this undeniable observation discussion.
Bob, excellent post, but one teensy weensy nitpick: I’d want to see the IPCC go away and not issue any more predictions, whether down 50 percent or up minus 50 percent (sarc). But anyway, keep up the good work – you’re one of WUWT’s most valuable contributors in my book.
And to our Canadian friends – we’re pulling for you, including doing what we can to get this reptile in the White House to let the Keystone go forward, so you can get our petrodollars instead of those hatemongers in the Middle East.
Leo Geiger says: “You are free to use phrases like “stoppage” or “cessation”. The authors of the paper clearly did not, and they say things throughout the paper at odds with your beliefs. Do not bootstrap your opinions onto their work.”
Leo, you continue to be a little over-anxious about this.
My post in a nutshell: I quoted their abstract. Then I stated:
Li et al (2013) are basically saying that multidecadal changes in the sea level pressure and wind patterns in the North Atlantic are a useful predictor of multidecadal periods of warming and cooling in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.
Which brought me to the closing, which is basically: With the Marcia Wyatt’s statement and with the Li et al prediction, and with more papers past and surely to be coming with the same message, the IPCC needs to reconsider its projections.
I haven’t misrepresented Li et al, nor have I imposed my beliefs on their paper.
You’re reading way to much into my simple post.
Have a nice day.
So, if NAO is a leading indicator of NHT, then the key question is: ‘what drives the oscillations of the NAO?’
Something solar? Something oceanic?? Something atmospheric?? A combination of two or all three?? Something else????
At best this is post hoc covering of asses here. While bob can say that indeed the warming has stopped something all sane people can agree…. along with AGW is BS from start to finish…
The reality is that this paper and the media that will spin it are simply running an excuse as to why they are wrong. The fact they are wrong is meaningless as that fact will be quickly buried and explained away by the propaganda friendly media and such.
I think bob has gotten a little excited over this paper thinking the media or anyone from the cultist camp will take 5 seconds and think about the reality of this paper instead of the spin of this paper.
When a cultists reads it they will see only that doom has been forestalled buy a few years giving us a lucky break to push through massive taxes to save the world.
These papers are designed to say anything to anyone so they can be spin effectively to any group.
I give you the money shot quote
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.
We can and have said the IPCC is wrong but cultists don’t care… they are hooked on the latest doomsday claim… it matters not that every past claim has been proving wrong. This paper will have no meaning in the long run other then to be used as an excuse as to why past claims were wrong and now the NEW and IMPROVED claims MUST be true.
Climate science, as it is practised, comes down to the question of why the chicken crossed the road.
For some fowl reason is their answer.
“. . .this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”
The only campaign promise kept by Barak Obama, June 3, 2008.
Re rtj1211 says: October 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm
“So, if NAO is a leading indicator of NHT, then the key question is: ‘what drives the oscillations of the NAO?’”
I might suggest an interplay between Atlantic oceanic cycle(s) and Pacific oceanic cycle(s), particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Oceanic cycles in the context of fisheries have been studied for some time. Japanese fishery records, for example, go back to the late 1600s. In particular, the following Russian document published by UN FAO investigates correlation between many oceanic cycles and fishery catch. The document can be obtained from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
or
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/1_dett.asp?calling=simple_s_result&lang=en&pub_id=61004
or
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e00.htm
Cycles investigated included length of day index, North Pacific Index, Aleutian Low Pressure Index, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Southern Oscillation Index, global air surface temperature anomaly, and Atmospheric Circulation Index. Regarding the linkage between the Atlantic and Pacific, Klyashtorin (2001) states:
“If anchovy is withdrawn from the total Pacific catch, then the “out of phase” character of the catch dynamics in both oceans becomes clear (Figure 11.4). This “out of phase” character of the catch dynamics in the Atlantic and Pacific may be explained by the effect of the same global climatic process affecting both regions. In this system, the meridional-dependent commercial species dominate in the North Atlantic whereas zonal-dependent species dominate in the North Pacific.”
[begin quote]
Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.
ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study was to develop a predictive model based on the observable correlation between well-known climate indices and fish production, and forecast the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks for 5–15 years ahead.
[…]
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct
observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis of the
reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years suggested the similar (55-60 year) periodicity. Analysis of 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy biomass in Californian upwelling also revealed a regular 50-70 years fluctuation. Spectral analysis of the catch statistics of main commercial species for the last 50-100 years also showed cyclical fluctuations of about 55-years.
[end quote]
The following reference supports Klyashtorin (2001), tying oceanic cycles to fisheries:
http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Climate_Change_and_the_Commercial_Fishery_A_Note_from_Walter_Starck_AIGnews_May08_ClimateChangeandFishery.pdf
[begin quote]
AIG NEWS No 92, May 2008
CLIMATE
Climate Change and the Commercial Fishery:
A Note from Walter Starck
I have never seen a more succinct and telling argument to refute carbon dioxide-governed climate change than the following graph from a study by L.B. Klyashtorin published as a technical paper by the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organisation.
[end quote]
Starck refers to FAO 410 Figure 4.1.
But Bob. A pause in warming proves nothing. According to the best climate science, global temperatures ought to be plummeting right now! With the associated alarming consequences:
“Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
What’s going on?
From their paper, the first sentence: “[2]It is well-known that the Earth’s climate is warming, which has major global implications for human well-being.”
If that kind of inspiration is the key to getting a GRL paper accepted…
As for “The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a sea level pressure-based index. Sea level pressures are related to wind patterns.” … circa Walker 1924. So much for XXI century climatology!
LOL, Tom Rude (10:51pm) — sure am glad they aren’t in charge of viral immunology — we’d be another 30 years away from having the polio vaccine and who knows WHEN they’d stop believing stomach ulcers are caused by distress and eating spicy foods… . (head shake)
Yo! Fantasy Science Club, listen up.
WE MADE IT TO THE MOON!
(just FYI)