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.
Dr Burns says: “Some models are quite good at forecasts:”
Yes, I particularly admired her warm front.
Tectonic records in the N. Atlantic suggest SST cooling for at least 7 years ahead
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
since any recovery in the SST can be gradual it may take as long as two decades; no further warming is envisaged before mid 2030s
I told you long ago the AMO is the integral of the NAO so no surprise. (the integral of a signal lags the signal by 1/4 period, 15-20 yrs in this case) http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4NH-NAOintegral.png
And it makes perfectly sense because positive NAO probably puts more sunlight into the North Atlantic. http://virakkraft.com/Sunshine-duration.pptx
The important question is what drove the NAO more and more positive after 1900? The sun or man? (same with the NPI, which is even more important globally)
And why should not the temperatures fall a bit after the AMO has peaked:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx6b8cfJ0k49T1RLcnhOa0VVdEU/edit?usp=drive_web
Friends:
I write to say that Leo Geiger (at October 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm) and Bob Tisdale’s response (at October 12, 2013 at 7:33 pm) are both right, and the difference in language of “pause” and “cessation” is important.
We are in a time of change and understanding the importance of the different language is important to understanding both the Li et al paper under discussion and the recent Wyatt & Curry paper.
I explained the importance of this language change on the thread about the Wyatt & Curry paper so, to avoid people needing to find it, I copy that post to here.
Richard
===================
richardscourtney
October 11, 2013 at 5:58 am
Solomon Green:
Your post at October 11, 2013 at 4:46 am asks
The literal answer to your question is that there has been no discernible trend in global temperature at 95% confidence for at least the last 17 years but there was a discernible trend of global warming at 95% confidence for the previous 17 years.
However, the word “pause” implies an interruption to the global warming when the evidence only indicates that discernible global warming has stopped.
I am interpreting your question to be a query of the implication provided by the word “pause”, and I address that interpretation as follows.
The word “pause” implies that global warming will resume. However, that implication is not justified by the empirical evidence because a discernible trend of either global warming or global cooling can be expected to occur in future. Hence, the word “pause” implies knowledge of the future which does not exist. And that implied knowledge can be claimed to be inappropriate in a scientific discussion of the cause(s) of the existing lack of a discernible trend.
This brings us to the issue of paradigms. Scientists have a prevailing view of the appropriate theory (or theories) to adopt when conducting an analysis. Their choice of theory (or theories) is their paradigm. In hindsight it can be apparent that scientists may adhere strongly to a paradigm long after it has been surpassed by new understandings. For example, after the oxidation theory of combustion was experimentally demonstrated it did not supplant the phlogiston theory of combustion until a generation of scientists had passed away.
The prevailing paradigm in ‘climate science’ is that global temperature change is driven by radiative forcing changes induced by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) notably CO2 in the atmosphere. And GHG concentrations have continued to rise so according to that paradigm the global temperature will rise. Clearly, according to that paradigm the cessation of discernible global warming must be an interruption to the warming; i.e. it is a “pause”.
However, many people – including me – have never accepted that paradigm so we object to the word “pause” because it accepts that paradigm as a given.
This goes to the crux of the paper under discussion. The so-called “pause” is not explicable according to the radiative forcing paradigm alone and, therefore, the paper applies a modification to the paradigm; i.e. natural variations in the climate system can oscillate to add to or negate the warming. According to this modification the “stadium wave” has negated the warming for the last 17 years and will continue to negate it for decades in the future.
It follows from the above that the paper has two serious implications.
Firstly, and most importantly, the paper is a fall-back from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. This is typical of how paradigm shifts usually occur: the old paradigm is repeatedly modified to include unavoidable realities until the paradigm is replaced by another theory. In this case, those of us who always rejected the radiative forcing paradigm have consistently argued that natural variations in the climate were a more plausible explanation of the global warming that happened in the twentieth century (some GHG warming probably happened but was too small for it to be discernible).
So, the paper is a move from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. It incorporates some of the natural variation which those who refute that paradigm claim is responsible for discernible variations in global temperature.
Secondly, the “stadium wave” removes the suggestion of dangerous AGW. Assuming the modified radiative forcing paradigm is correct, it follows that the present “pause” was preceded by a period of warming which was enhanced by the “stadium wave”. Hence, the warming effect of GHGs over that warming period must be at most only half of the warming which occurred.
I hope this answer is clear and what you wanted.
Richard
May I enter the debate about ‘stopping’ or ‘pausing’. I’m a heating engineer. You CAN say heating has stopped increasing as you don’t know if it is to continue. The factual statement you make at the time can prove to be incorrect long-term, but still accurate at the time. It’s all about present and future. Temperature hasn’t increased, it has therefore STOPPED WARMING, as ‘warming’ is a condition that must rise – if something is ‘warming’ then it’s rising in temperature. If warming picks up again then that cessation was indeed a pause in the warming period, a hiatus. If temperatures now fall (over the next decade or so) then it will be shown that warming did in fact stop. If you take your body temperature over the course of a day, your body warms up in bed in the dead of night, but as the morning approaches, the warming will stop. It then falls as you wake up – so the warming did indeed stop. If that pause actually turns around and you start to warm again then you have a fever…or you have left your car seat heating on again.
Ah, I see Richard was typing the same time as me, above. Indeed, a ‘pause’ cannot be known – as it is a future-based term. Something will either resume or stop. It is quite simply wrong AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME to say warming has ‘paused’, as it does indeed imply that you know the future.
Couple of years ago I looked into the Arctic-Equator negative atmospheric feedback. It appears that it could give a good indication for future AMO changes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-F.htm
Vuk,
And the forecast is based on what?
Bob
“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’s the proof?
Good Morning All
I am a newbie here.
I discovered this site whilst arguing on Facebook with a person who I thought wanted a genuine debate on the subject. He wasn’t. He only wanted to preach AGW, and alarmism.
I am approaching fifty, and in my time I have seen a number of alarmists marking scary statements. in the 1970’s we had an ice age coming. We had predictions that oil would run out in thirty years, we also had M.A.D. It struck me that “those in power” understand that if you keep a population in a state on constant threat and/or in fear then they are easy to control. Hence there is normally only “bad” news in the news.
For my mind the real issue is not the global temperature, but who controls the money behind the propaganda? The fact is oil & coal are a finite resource. I am willing to bet that the people ultimately behind the IPCC aren’t the politicians, but the power magnates. By driving up the scare tactics of global warming, through their many subsidiaries they get government money to develop renewable energy resources. Put bluntly they get the governments to pay them to develop ways to keep them in the power industry. They do not have to spend their own money finding a replacement for finite energy reserves.
Just my tuppence worth. And here is a link to a page that I wrote in response the SF author David Brin on the subject of Global Warming.
http://www.seanpchatterton.co.uk/globalwarming.htm
Sean
there is no argument,scientific or otherwise,that the warming has STOPPED. bob tisdale is correct in that assertion,and once again richard s courtney gets to the point.
“The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a sea level pressure-based index.”
Is it?:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
lgl says, with respect to warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool coming to the surface during an El Nino: “Where’s the proof?”
ENSO basics, lgl. ENSO 101. Been showing it for years.
First, to confirm that the equatorial counter current strengthens during an El Niño and carries warm water from west to east.
From Chapter “3.5 The Transition from ENSO-Neutral to El Niño” of “Who Turned on the Heat?”
# # #
Figure 3-11 presents maps that show the direction of the currents in the central portion of the tropical Pacific. The eastward-flowing Equatorial Countercurrent is shown in dark blue. The westward-flowing North and South Equatorial Currents are shown in the off-color green. The top map shows the relatively small Equatorial Countercurrent in December 1996, which was an ENSO-neutral month. The bottom map shows that it’s much larger near the peak of the 1997/98 El Niño in December 1997. The maps are available through the NASA Ocean Motion website, at their OSCAR webpage.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-3-11.png
# # #
Second, lgl, now let’s confirm that warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific flooded east and appeared on the surface:
From Chapter “3.6 – El Niño Phase” of “Who Turned on the Heat?”
# # #
We can also show that the sea surface temperatures warmed more in the eastern equatorial Pacific than they cooled in the west using a graph of sea surface temperature anomalies on a meridional-mean basis. See Figure 3-15. This implies that the surface waters in the western equatorial Pacific were responsible for only a small part of the warming of sea surface temperature anomalies in the east. The warm water had to come from somewhere, and if it wasn’t all supplied from the surface of the western tropical Pacific, it must have come from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool. Let’s confirm that.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-3-15.png
Sea level anomalies represent, in part, the temperature of the column of water from the surface to the floor of the ocean. Figure 3-16 compares December 1996 (ENSO-neutral) and December 1997 (peak of the 1997/98 El Niño) sea level anomalies for the equatorial Pacific on a meridional-mean basis. As shown, the decrease in western equatorial sea level is comparable to the rise in sea level in the east. Because we’ve already established that the warm water in the east didn’t all come from the surface in the west, the change in sea level strongly suggests that the warm water that supplies the El Niño comes from the surface AND below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool. Also note how much sea level anomalies changed along the eastern equatorial Pacific between Decembers 1996 and 1997. At 85W longitude, the change was about 39 cm or 15 inches. A colossal volume of warm water changed location during the 1997/98 El Niño.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-3-16.png
The sea level anomaly maps in Figure 3-17 help to show the effect of the 1997/98 El Niño had on the amount of warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool. Prior to the El Niño in December 1996, the sea level anomalies were slightly elevated north of Australia and along the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) that extends to the southeast from the Pacific Warm Pool. Then, a year later, the Pacific Warm Pool anomalies dropped significantly, because the warm water was carried to the east, where it raised sea level anomalies. The maps also show that much more than the equatorial Pacific can be directly impacted by an El Niño.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-3-17.png
# # #
lgl, I also created a bunch of animations for “Who Turned on the Heat?” You can watch all sorts of ENSO processes take place:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/animations-discussed-in-who-turned-on-the-heat/
If you don’t already have a copy of “Who Turned on the Heat”, lgl, maybe you should buy one. It’s only U.S. $8.00.
http://transactions.sendowl.com/products/6574/purchase
Regards
For those who think that Marcia Wyatt’s claim that the standstill in the World’s mean temperature will last to 2030 is somehow new. Here is what I and my co-authors said in 2008.
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85–93
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
“Interestingly, the Sun’s solar cycle has been in the phase
locked mode for the last 105 yr (1900–2005) and the
indications are that it is about to suffer another phase catastrophe
in the later part of cycle 24 (i.e. the solar cycle
that will peak in ∼2011–2012). If this is the case, then
we should expect that in the two decades following the
phase catastrophe, the world’s mean temperature should
be noticeably cooler i.e. the cooling should start in the late
2010s [i.e. it will last until at least 2030]. This claim is based on
the precedent that there were noticeable decreases in the
world’s mean temperature following the last two phase
catastrophes. The cool period know as the Dalton Minimum
(1800–1820) that followed the phase catastrophe in the
early 1790s and a similar cool period called the Victorian
Minimum (1880–1900) that followed the phase catastrophe
in the late 1870s.”
Have any of these people predicted a temperature fall? I don’t want to hear any retrospective predictions/projections after the event, not this time.
mwhite,
I am not sure whether you are referring to my post so apologies if I have misunderstood.
We stuck our collective necks out in 2006 and made the PREDICTION made in the above post despite it being almost totally ignored at the time.
It took two years and multiple rejections before we got it published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Our claim was not some retrospective prediction or projection. It was made when virtually no one in the main stream journals were predicting a cooling period [Of course, we were by means alone in making this prediction. there were others but they were few and far between].
We have not retracted our prediction [which is on the public record] that is based upon research done in 2005-2006 and we still standby what we have said.
Ian Wilson says:
October 13, 2013 at 3:24 am
I was referring to the main post “Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade”
They all seem to be predicting the “Cessation” after the fact.
Have any of the true believers predicted a fall in global temperatures.
Ian Wilson says:
“The cool period know as the Dalton Minimum (1800–1820) that followed the phase catastrophe in the early 1790s”
The phase catastrophe was both of the two weak solar cycles though the cold period. It is not possible to model that with Jupiter-Saturn functions.
I’ve been running temperature reconstructions using the AMO for many years now. The AMO is as critical these reconstructions as is the ENSO. Leave the AMO out, and all you get is a 60 year oscillation. I think it is driven by the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation system which will then exhibit various long, medium and short-term cycles in the AMO, most recently a prevalent 60 year cycle, but I imagine this varies some.
I’ve played around with North Atlantic Oscillation (and there are only about 10 different methods of measuring this) and I have not found any correlation nor predictability. For the most part, the NAO is just a random set of numbers that goes up and down with no patterns.
Bob
I’ve looked at all your links except the last one 🙂
Thanks but still this does not prove your claim. One of the problems is all you need is a deepening of the thermocline starting in the west. Apparently a “huge volume of warm water” is moving to the east when in fact there is only a small vertical motion of warm water.
Ulrich,
Please read the paper. You will see that the phase catastrophe occurred in the 1790’s.
@ur momisugly mwhite October 13, 2013 at 3:38 am
If I’m wrong I stand corrected , but I think Easterbrook is left with most egg on his face/beard :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here
His prophecies of Imminent Catastrophic Global Cooling (ICGC) appear to be a little exaggerated/overdue
Though there are others in the running:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
lgl says:
October 13, 2013 at 4:35 am
Bob
… Apparently a “huge volume of warm water” is moving to the east when in fact there is only a small vertical motion of warm water.
————————–
Its called the Pacific Equatorial UnderCurrent or Cromwell Current. At 100 to 300 metres depth, it is moving to the East at 5 kms/hour in places which makes it the fastest moving ocean current at this depth.
Animation of the last 30 days from the US Navy’s Hycom model. In this animation, Blue is to the West and Red/Yellow is to the East.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/paceucsec_nowcast_anim30d.gif
@Ian Wilson
It wasn’t that hard to spell my name correctly. I did read the paper, the Jupiter-Saturn syzygy in late 1791 was after the maximum of SC4, so I don’t actually see one your phase catastrophe’s there.