The journal Nature embraces 'the pause' and ocean cycles as the cause, Trenberth still betting his heat will show up

From the “settled science” department. It seems even Dr. Kevin Trenberth is now admitting to the cyclic influences of the AMO and PDO on global climate. Neither “carbon” nor “carbon dioxide” is mentioned in this article that cites Trenberth as saying: “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,”

This is significant, as it represents a coming to terms with “the pause” not only by Nature, but by Trenberth too.

nature_the_pause

Excerpts from the article by Jeff Tollefson:

The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.

For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

…none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

One important finding came in 2011, when a team of researchers at NCAR led by Gerald Meehl reported that inserting a PDO pattern into global climate models causes decade-scale breaks in global warming3. Ocean-temperature data from the recent hiatus reveal why: in a subsequent study, the NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming6. In a third paper, the group used computer models to document the flip side of the process: when the PDO switches to its positive phase, it heats up the surface ocean and atmosphere, helping to drive decades of rapid warming7.

IPCC-AMO-PDO-Warming

Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

Read the full article here:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
418 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
January 17, 2014 2:39 am
phlogiston
January 17, 2014 2:50 am

unbeknownst !?
Since when was that a word?? Ugly or what?

Ben D
January 17, 2014 2:52 am

markstoval says: January 17, 2014 at 2:20 am
If anyone gets this far in the thread, I could use a little help please. A friend asked me if any scientist has ever said that something like “we need to exaggerate” to convince the people (or the government). I know Al Gore is supposed to have said something like that and so have SOME activists, but a real scientist?
Can anyone answer this? Thanks in advance.
——————————————————————-
Actually the scientists are singing for their tucker, the tune comes from the masters…check these quotes… http://www.green-agenda.com/

phlogiston
January 17, 2014 2:53 am

Talking about words, the copyright on the word “slosh” belongs to Bob Tisdale.

Angech
January 17, 2014 3:00 am

Agree with a previous comment of N Z Willie on the pause being due to the inability to fake changes in current temp measurements easily ( think of the truth coming out on tour de Frances after years of cover ups). Now we only need PIOMAS and Grace to cooperate and global warming will be over as if it never began.

Bob F
January 17, 2014 3:04 am

Slightly Off Topic: But did anyone see BBC Newsnight last night? This is a mainstream current affairs/news program on BBC2 in the UK, shown at about 10.30pm. It featured a 10-15 minute piece about the effect of solar changes on the climate. Sunspots, Maunder minimum, cooling implications.I sat and watched it open mouthed – it was presented from the ‘climate science’ point of view, but it was the most skeptical piece i can recall seeing on mainstream media.

Annyong
January 17, 2014 3:09 am

“but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly.″
you sure you are looking at the correct [snip] anomaly [snip]?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1942/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1982/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1982/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend
In the backwards world of Climate Change Land maybe you see the current trend as odd. In the real world the two time periods creating merely 25 years of rise on a 163 year graph would be the anomalies.
And that is being generous, giving you the ’97 El Nino and blindly accepting your data source. You’re welcome!
By the way, I am confident I can solve those real anomalies for you. But first thing’s first; where’s my government grant?

Bob F
January 17, 2014 3:15 am

On the off chance that anyone is interested, and you have access to BBC iPlayer, you can see the piece here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03qdqf1/hd/Newsnight_16_01_2014/
Starts at about 38m30s

David L
January 17, 2014 3:43 am

Rick Adkison on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm
I’m a dumb history major, but heat being trapped in the deep ocean? I know warm air rises.
—//—-
Sounds like you’re a smart history major…. Well at least smarter than Trenberth.
Old automobiles didn’t use a water pump to circulate the hot water from the engine block to the radiator, they used “thermosiphon” effect where the hot water from the block naturally moved to the top of the radiator as the cooler water in the radiator dropped and flowed into the engine block creating a natural circulation without a mechanical pump.
In Trenberth’s car the water would heat up in the radiator due to the CO2 emitted from the car in front and then flow backwards and hide in the hot engine block.

NotTheAussiePhilM
January 17, 2014 3:49 am

I don’t know if you can see the video for this globally, but it’s an interesting article from the BBC’s Newsnight, which is generally the serious end of the BBC’s news output
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
Echoes very much what WUWT has been saying for years…
– it will be interesting to see if we do actually enter a 2nd Maunder Miniumum
– and if we do we’ll be thanking lovely CO2 for taking some of the sting out of it!

milodonharlani
January 17, 2014 3:52 am

phlogiston says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:50 am
unbeknownst !?
Since when was that a word?? Ugly or what?
————————————————————–
It’s a fine English word, with first use reported in 1636. Ugly, maybe, although of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

milodonharlani
January 17, 2014 4:17 am

NotTheAussiePhilM says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:49 am
Thanks. It worked in Chile.
It’s a step forward for the Beeb to admit that climate is complicated, I guess.
It is annoying that so much evidence of the global impact of solar variation on climate gets ignored. Cooling during the Maunder Minimum occurred in Asia as well as North America & Europe, & has been attributed to cosmic ray flux:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996431/
If not for the MM itself, then for the Little Ice Age in general, the Southern Hemisphere has also been amply shown affected as well.

Gareth
January 17, 2014 4:21 am

@DirkH
“That’s like celebrating the 100,000th Lancaster bomber built and shipped over the Atlantic while not one of them ever made it through the Kammhuber line.”
Dirk, this is way off topic, I am just intrigued to know what strange alternative version of WWII history you have been reading to lead you to such an analogy. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster there were 7,377 Lancasters built during WWII. Of those 430 were built in Canada, and the rest in England. Many certainly made it through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammhuber_Line .

Mindert Eiting
January 17, 2014 4:26 am

Ben D: Probably this one by late Stephen Schneider (Laboratory Earth, 1997, p. 67): ‘To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have’.

Alan Robertson
January 17, 2014 4:40 am

Ben D says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:52 am
markstoval says: January 17, 2014 at 2:20 am
If anyone gets this far in the thread, I could use a little help please. A friend asked me if any scientist has ever said that something like “we need to exaggerate” to convince the people (or the government). I know Al Gore is supposed to have said something like that and so have SOME activists, but a real scientist?
Can anyone answer this? Thanks in advance.
——————————————————————-
Actually the scientists are singing for their tucker, the tune comes from the masters…check these quotes… http://www.green-agenda.com/
____________—————————_____________
Mark, et al,
Here’s another extensive list of quotes:
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

Gail Combs
January 17, 2014 4:43 am

Mišo Alkalaj says: January 17, 2014 at 1:09 am
…..Kevin realizes – and misses the big one: PDO and many other oscillations/energy transfers affect climate AS WE MEASURE IT. These mechanisms cannot input thermal energy directly from the Sun into the Earth’s climate system, nor can they output it into space, much less create or destroy it…..
You might want to take a look at what RACookPE1978 says because changes in oscillations/energy transfers CAN output energy into space at a faster rate.
Do not forget that thanks to the Milankovitch cycles the ..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic… and the earth is near the possible end of the Holocene interglacial. Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? – 2012 “..We propose that the interval between the “terminal” oscillation of the bipolar seesaw, preceding an interglacial, and its first major reactivation represents a period of minimum extension of ice sheets away from coastlines… …thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place….”
In light of the Milankovitch theory and the 2012 paper, here is his explanation:

Actually, right now, just look at real figures from today’s date for NSIDC’s sea ice plots: you “might” just find that 1.500 million km^2 “positive” above normal IS present around the Antarctic, while the Arctic is about 0.550 million km^2 below normal for this date. The sea ice deficit so often claimed by the CAGW theory (required by the CAGW theories!) is a POSITIVE at this date.
For the past two years, Antarctic sea ice has been consistently two std deviations ABOVE normal levels for sea ice, AND that sea ice extends around the continent to latitude 60 south at maximum extents in September. Arctic sea ice (through this year) been right at 1.5 to 2 std deviations low from normal. BUT! The Antarctic sea ice extents maximum is just under 20 Mkm^2, but the entire Arctic ocean is only 14 Mkm^2: There is much more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic. At minimum extents, the difference is more impressive: Antarctic continental ice (14 Mkm^2) is as large as the entire Arctic itself, but that rock-based icecap is in turn surrounded by 3.5 Mkm^2 of permanent ice shelves, and then by the ever-changing Antarctic sea ice. So even at today’s minimum Antarctic sea ice extents 2-3 Mkm^2 (and increasing!) the total southern ice is 14 + 3.5 + 2.5 = 20 Mkm^2. At maximum southern extents, those become 14.0 + 3.5 + 19.5 = 35 Mkm^2 is frozen. 2-1/2 times the maximum of what sea water is available up north.
On the other hand, Arctic sea ice lately (last 12 years) is only 3.5 – 4.0 million sq km AT ITS MINIMUM in September. We can lose AT MOST only another 3.5 million sq km2. That is it.
How much larger can Antarctic sea ice get? There is no limit. At today’s rate of Antarctic sea ice increase, Cape Horn itself could be closed to ship traffic due to sea ice within 8-10 years for months at a time every September and October. It probably won’t happen, but the trend is there: we have been seeing just under 1.0 Mkm^2 more sea ice each year for several years now.
To the specific point of open Arctic waters being a heat loss area from the earth. Notice that we are assuming far-north openings here, not a theoretical physics textbook ice mass of theoretical albedo = .95 floating off the ice-filled (Equatorial) waters of Polynesia where the sun is directly overhead (Air Mass = 1.0) with perfectly clear skies and no humidity. 8<)
But this little bit of remaining 3.5 Mkm^2 Arctic sea ice is actually in the water up between latitude 78 north to 83 north. At that latitude, in mid and late September when arctic sea ice is at its minimum extents, there is MORE heat lost from open waters due to more evaporation losses, more conduction losses, more convective losses, and more radiation losses from open sea water than can be gained from that exposed water getting heated by the ever-lower sun angles! At those latitudes, at that time of year, the HIGHEST the sun can get is 8 – 12 degrees above the horizon, air masses are 18 to 34. There simply is no solar heat penetrating the atmosphere at those low solar angles to be gained if the Arctic ice continues to melt.
The more the Arctic sea ice melts from today’s minimum extents in August and September, the more the planet loses heat energy to space and cools down ever more. Your CAGW’s religiously amplified but majestically feared “arctic amplification” due to sea ice meltdown is totally, completely backwards.
But it is worse than you think!
At today’s levels of BOTH minimum AND maximum extent in the Antarctic seas, today’s (and last year’s!) record breaking sea ice extents DO reflect much more solar energy than the exposed waters! At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice at 60 – 70 south latitude, ALL YEAR, every day, the record-breaking Antarctic sea ice extents IS reflecting MORE solar energy and IS cooling the planet down even more.
And thus we slide quickly into the next major ice age.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/polynyas-are-very-important-for-marine-life-and-cooling-the-oceans/#comment-1518956

Drake Passage is hardly ever mentioned but it may be a key to earth’s climate.

Effect of Drake Passage on the global thermohaline circulation
Abstract-
The Ekman divergence around Antarctica raises a large amount of deep water to the ocean’s surface. The regional Ekman transport moves the upwelled deep water northward out of the circumpolar zone. The divergence and northward surface drift combine, in effect, to remove deep water from the interior of the ocean. This wind-driven removal process is facilitated by a unique dynamic constraint operating in the latitude band containing Drake Passage. Through a simple model sensitivity experiment WC show that the upwelling and removal of deep water in the circumpolar belt may be quantitatively related to the formation of new deep water in the northern North Atlantic. These results show that stronger winds in the south can induct more deep water formation in the north and more deep outflow through the South Atlantic. The fact that winds in the southern hemisphere might influence the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic brings into question long-standing notions about the forces that drive the ocean’ thermohaline circulation….

Maheshwari et al, 2013, concluded that “… in general, the Southern Ocean as a whole is showing a weak interannual cooling trend in SST.” http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/392632/
One also has to consider what a continuing increase in Antarctic sea I could mean.

RACookPE1978 says: October 2, 2013 at 8:51 am
Antarctic Sea Ice Extents is now setting new record high levels at 19,000,000 sq km’s.
It is Antarctic Sea Ice Area that is greater than 16,000,000 km’s, but as you point out, all of the recent Antarctic sea ice areas over 16,000,000 have occurred in the most recent years.
Equally alarming, the 40 year trend of ALL Antarctic Sea Ice measurements (maximum, average, and minimum extents) continues their steady increases since 1979. At today’s rates of increase in southern sea ice extents, Cape Horn could be closed to ship traffic as soon as 8 to 12 years.

Drake Passage is the body of water between the southern tip of South America at Cape Horn, Chile and the South Shetland Islands of Antarctica. It connects the southwestern part of the Atlantic Ocean (Scotia Sea) with the southeastern part of the Pacific Ocean and extends into the Southern Ocean. WIKI

phlogiston
January 17, 2014 4:44 am

milodonharlani says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:52 am
phlogiston says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:50 am
unbeknownst !?
Since when was that a word?? Ugly or what?
————————————————————–
It’s a fine English word, with first use reported in 1636. Ugly, maybe, although of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It sounds better than it looks.
But the “st” at the end serves no purpose, the same as in “whilst” whose meaning is identical to “while”. Just “unbeknown” would be better, in fact “unknown” would also suffice.
Now I will wait (or is that “await”) for Willis to swoop by and call me a grammar Nazi (again).

phlogiston
January 17, 2014 4:49 am

Dr. Strangelove says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Prof. Easterbrook
I agree with your prediction of cooling in 2000-2025. If not for greenhouse effect, we should have seen cooling in the past 15 years instead of warming pause. Still PDO dominates global climate. Solar astronomers are also forecasting cooler climate up to 2020s. The unusually cold winter in US is not a fluke.

I think the AMO would have something to say about that statement.

Scott
January 17, 2014 4:53 am

NZ Willy says
January 16 at 10:06pm
“The whole idea that trade winds are making any effect whatsoever on Pacific surface profiles is ridiculous”
On the Great Lakes the effect of wind on water level is obvious. When the wind blows offshore (a west wind here on the Wisconsin side of Lake Michigan), the water levels drop, and on a strong wind water levels drop precipitously, up to a foot or two, exposing normally underwater rocks. Opposite for onshore winds, the levels rise.
WE get the El Niño and La Niña effects too on a smaller scale … Wisconsin is like the west pacific … If we get an east onshore wind for days the warm water will “pile up” on our shores sometimes being warm down to 100 feet deep a few miles offshore as indicated by our temperature probes. There seems to be a limit on how much heat will pile up, I imagine either the bouyancy of warm water has something to do with that or it eventually spreads out up or down the shoreline with the strong onshore currents that come with strong winds.

kramer
January 17, 2014 5:03 am

Speaking of the pause, I noticed in Dessler’s paper to the recent Senate hearing on climate change, he chopped up the 17 year pause into 3 smaller ones. See figure 5:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06
I bet he did this because showing the long 17 year line on that graph would diminish this graph’s political usefulness.

Robertv
January 17, 2014 5:04 am

No problem for Big Government or The New World Order. They’ll find something else to scare the public. Maybe they just start WW III. Would be a good way to eliminate a lot of the opposition.

jbird
January 17, 2014 6:22 am

“The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.”
The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is that the models have failed and aren’t worth the millions (billions?) we have spent on them.
I think I would have prefered to see the second statement above.

Robuk
January 17, 2014 6:30 am

Average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998,
Now that most weather stations are situated in urban areas or at airports there will be little rise in temperature after 2014, they can`t use their 0.01C UHI effect no more.

richard verney
January 17, 2014 7:22 am

What does the satellite sea height measurements show?
If we can dedect mm rises in sea level, surely we should be able to able to track the claimed 20cm of ocean sloshing both in time and in position.

Box of Rocks
January 17, 2014 7:51 am

Keith Minto says:
January 16, 2014 at 7:20 pm
The western Pacific is not a dam wall, the shallow Indonesian Throughflow provides a resistance to flow but not a cessation, so there must be constant recharge of the system to maintain a difference in height between west and east Pacific. This height difference between east and west Pacific maintained by the trade winds sounds like the potential difference (voltage) in a circuit, the amperage being the resultant volume of this warm water through the resistive IT to the Indian Ocean.
But for a small current coming up Western Australia from the South, this Throughflow, to me, is the major injection of water from anywhere into the Indian Ocean, so, the volume must be substantial.
***************************************************************************************************************************
So, on a average day, how many watts/m2 from the sum is used to sustain this potential differnce?