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
Gail Combs
January 16, 2014 8:56 am

RichardLH says: January 16, 2014 at 5:10 am
…On the verge of another La Nina currently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I noticed a few day ago Anthony’s meter dipped into La Nina territory and now its back to La Nada. (I guess La Ninja jumped out and assassinated La Nina)

milodonharlani
January 16, 2014 8:57 am

DirkH says:
January 16, 2014 at 4:10 am
I appreciate your point, but Lancs didn’t need to be shipped across the Atlantic, having been built in Britain, most at Avro’s Chadderton factory in the Manchester area.

Hmmm
January 16, 2014 8:59 am

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full
Trenberth made a simple testable claim (and then didn’t test it). He said that the warming due to heat flux imbalance is manifesting itself differently under this new cool-PDO regime 1999 on. Less heating of the atmosphere 1999 on, more heating in the deep oceans 1999 on. This would show up in the ocean heat content record and the sea level record (especially added onto increased glacial melt rates), their RATE OF INCREASE should have increased from 1999 on. We don’t really have deep ocean data, and the heat has to first pass through the upper ocean and it didn’t show up there. So this is now more of a matter of faith in an unaccounted transport of heat through a place where we can monitor (upper ocean) to a place where we can’t currently monitor. Basically based on upholding the theory, clearly not based on observation. Which has long been the entire problem with this field.

Peter Plail
January 16, 2014 9:00 am

There is not long to go before the heating period might legitimately be referred to as the hiatus and the current climate considered the norm.

Gail Combs
January 16, 2014 9:02 am

Harold Ambler says: January 16, 2014 at 5:23 am
…The realists will have to, eventually, argue the warmists down on this one, in the popular media. As long as New York Times readers, USA Today readers, and NBC Nightly News watchers believe that they’re seeing a roller coaster rather than a wiggle, the war will never be won.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As long as skeptics are denied access to the MSM we are stuck with blogs. The fact we are being actively censored is not going to go over well if those suggesting we are looking at major cooling are correct.
We then become the ‘Davids’ who fought the Goliath of government. This is the greatest fear of those in government.

January 16, 2014 9:02 am

I’m sure Gavin will be disappointed with Kevin.
I see that the warm-mongers are quiet so far…

Hmmm
January 16, 2014 9:02 am

Thank goodness none of these natural cycling variations, which are apparently on par with global warming in order to cancel it’s effects (so far for almost two decades) never pushed us over a tipping point, which apparently only CAGW can do.

Henry Galt.
January 16, 2014 9:04 am

Please people, the words sloshes, sloshing and sloshed have been used by the WMO and others for many years (including posts and commentary on WUWT).
For example:http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/significant_natural_climate_fluctuations.php
This has been a public service announcement 😉

chris y
January 16, 2014 9:06 am

The Yale Forum on Climate last May had many bombshell proclamations from Trenberth, Santer and Pierrehumbert. My favorite was this-
“Any estimate of sensitivity requires all of the record and not just the last 20 years of it,” Pierrehumbert says. “The smaller the piece of it you take, the less certainty you have in your result.” Nonetheless, he agrees that earlier warming may have been deceiving.
“I think it’s true that some rather sloppy discussion of the rapid warming from the 20th century has given people unrealistic expectations about the future course of warming.”
Ray Pierrehumbert, May 2013
“Early warming may have been deceiving”
translation- Hansen was dead wrong when he stated with dead certainty that AGW had overwhelmed all natural forcings.
“…given people unrealistic expectations…”
translation- Me and my climate activist buddies wildly oversold the whole shambolic mess, tarnishing all of science in the process.

Jeff
January 16, 2014 9:10 am

Wait — Dana says the hiatus has been “debunked.” And I read that all the increasing heat that’s missing around the globe has been hiding up in the Arctic. Now Trenberth tells me all of the heat has been piling up in the Western Pacific and will soon “slosh” back into the atmosphere. Who am I to believe?

troe
January 16, 2014 9:11 am

US Senate hearing testimony now with many of the points made here being used. Understand that Judith Curry will testify. Science behind epa rulemaking is being questioned. Wonder if a Senator will ask epa chief if recently confessed fraudster had any role in the air quality work. Would like to hear that.

DR
January 16, 2014 9:13 am

I thought we were just told a few weeks ago the heat was hiding in the atmosphere.

Henry Galt.
January 16, 2014 9:21 am

Lloyd Martin Hendaye says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:47 am “”””
Don’t beat around the bush, say what you really mean?
herkimer says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:35 am “”””
Yes. Global rate of sea level rise should be accelerating as a result of all that heat entering the oceans since The Clause first occurred, surely?

Editor
January 16, 2014 9:22 am

John Peter says: “There are 111 replies, but not a single one from Bob Tisdale. I wonder if he is celebrating that his thinking has hit mainstream or commiserating because the mainstream is not acknowledging his sterling work, or perhaps he is working on a reply to appear here shortly.”
I’m on my lunch break right now. And tonight I’ll be finishing a post I will be publishing tomorrow morning.
I’ll try to work up something over the weekend about this, but there’s nothing really new to this so the post will include lots of links to past posts.
Regards

Gail Combs
January 16, 2014 9:25 am

ponysboy says: January 16, 2014 at 6:46 am
.. It can’t take long now for some of the open-minded ones among them to step back and take a fresh look at the claims of skeptical scientists during the past 15 years. Or can it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not have the pointer, but the number of scientists still part of the IPCC has dropped off quite a bit. Maybe another commenter has that information.

Radical Rodent
January 16, 2014 9:27 am

I might not have the qualifications for this, but let’s examine a few of these arguments:

…the warm water sloshed back…

This is a scientist speaking? Oceans don’t “slosh”; the waters pushed westwards (in what have been known for several centuries as “The Equatorial Currents” in all oceans) by the trade winds (so named for their reliability) feed the Pacific gyres – of which the Kuro Shio off Japan plays an important part for the North Pacific; in the North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream plays a similar role. (I know that it is a lot more complex than that, but we have to keep it simple for these idiots.)

…scientists wrote off the stall as […] the natural variations …

Which is in direct opposition from the other thing these “scientists” claim: that CO2 is THE driving force behind global warming. Is it or isn’t it?

…El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans…

Now, you expect us to believe that a sea surface temperature of approximately 25~26°C “pumped” heat into the air (temperature probably 27°C or more)? How can this be done?

January 16, 2014 9:28 am

“It doesn’t add up… says:
January 16, 2014 at 4:19 am
Changes in the earth’s albedo and emissivity and the mechanisms that drive them are of course not up for discussion.”
Ignorant.
albedo measured since the early 80s.
The dataset you want is here
http://www.landcover.org/data/abd/
emmisivity
http://www.landcover.org/data/bbe/
you’ll note that they come in CMG projections. you know why?
If you thnk that changes in albedo and emissivity are related to the changes in temperature,
I’ve pointed you at the data to make your case rather than speculate. Do science and make your case.
If you think these are not up for discussion, then you have no clue why they are provided in a CMG projection do you?

Joe Chang
January 16, 2014 9:30 am

It is just astonishing that the GW alarmist have not realized that just by admitting natural variability sinks the entire CAGW argument. A doubling of CO2 by itself was always known to be only have a moderate impact, not enough to be large (which in turn was assumed to be catastrophic). So everything hinged on amplification. The amplification argument required natural variability to be very low. This was the critical reason that AR4 (or was it AR3) had to make the MWP disappear. It is not necessary for the 20th century warming to be unprecedented for the magnitude to be large. It is necessary to make the amplification argument. And now this argument is dead.

January 16, 2014 9:31 am

John Peter says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:52 am
“There are 111 replies, but not a single one from Bob Tisdale.”
I was thinking the same thing, but Bob has a new job now and he is probably at work.
I am anxiously awaiting for his comments.

Richard M
January 16, 2014 9:31 am

This is but another crack in the dam. There are now several of them. At some point the dam will burst and that will be the end. All we can do is continue to attack alarmism everywhere possible with the real facts. We are an army of ants but the combined effect is being seen. Keep up the good work.

DirkH
January 16, 2014 9:36 am

milodonharlani says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:57 am
“DirkH says:
January 16, 2014 at 4:10 am
I appreciate your point, but Lancs didn’t need to be shipped across the Atlantic, having been built in Britain, most at Avro’s Chadderton factory in the Manchester area.”
Noticed my mistake right after posting; so make it Liberators. 😉

Typhoon
January 16, 2014 9:37 am

The “Nature” article studiously avoids the simplest explanation: that the climate models are wrong and the “missing heat” is nothing more than an systematic artifact of these incorrect models.

michael hart
January 16, 2014 9:41 am

Chris Marlowe says:
January 16, 2014 at 4:29 am
“The smartest of these guys will be looking for an exit strategy…”

There is theory that many did, Chris, probably before 1990.

Rob aka Flatlander
January 16, 2014 9:48 am

DirkH says:
January 16, 2014 at 4:10 am
“The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.”
No, that’s nonsense.
Actually it’s not, although I know what you are saying, BUT, the natural variability of the climate over 1000’s of years, as opposed to the relatively short earth data we have IS the simplest explanation. Human beings do not have enough data nor understanding to be able to model and then predict future climate. We know what we have been through in the last 150 years and 34 years of satellite data is well within the normal past variations of this planet. The system we are attempting to model is exponentially more complicated than the information we have now. And the ability to even begin to process this information is many years away in computation. The methodology for processing the satellite data is currently still in its infancy. We only have one satellite (Aqua) that so far has proven to be the most accurate. All other satellite info is analyzed and adjusted according to Aqua. Averaging 34 years of world wide data (which is sort of insane in it’s own right) has proven to be ZERO increase within the majority global temperature range of -65°C to +45°C. The data shows a 0.8°C variation in a 110°C range.
THAT’S 0.73% of the entire range. [0.00727]

brians356
January 16, 2014 9:48 am

>> “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.
Ah, yes. Got it. Whew! Was worried about the 16-year flatline in the trend. Now three thousand more Climate Scientists can finish their careers and retire before the models they make a living from will be dusted off and given a second look. So let’s all just relax and get together again in, say, 50 years?
BTW Wouldn’t a real Climate Scientist, by definition, be a climate “skeptic”? Didn’t I learn in high school and college that true scientists are nothing if not skeptical? I recall first hearing the word “rigor” used in this context.
“Where has all the rigor gone? Long time passing.”

1 4 5 6 7 8 17