Guest essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Dept of Geology, Western Washington University

The absence of global warming for the past 17 years has been well documented. It has become known as “the pause.” and has been characterized as the “biggest mystery in climate science,” but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the causal relationship between global warming/cooling and the PDO and AMO is to recount how these correlations were discovered. In 1999, while studying recent glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker in the North Cascade Range, a pattern of recurring advances and retreats became apparent. In the wee hours one night, I came across a 1997 paper by Mantua, et al., “A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production,” an early recognition of the PDO. The PDO is an index, not a measured value, based on about a dozen or so parameters that are related to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific. The term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) was coined by Steven Hare (1996). It has two modes, warm and cool, and flips back and forth between them every 25 to 30 years.
The Mantua et al. curve looked so similar to my glacial curve that I superimposed the two and was surprised to see that they corresponded almost exactly. I then compared them to global temperature and all three showed a remarkable correlation (Fig. 1).
The significance of this correlation is that it clearly showed that the PDO was the driver of climate and glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker. Each time the PDO mode flipped from one mode to another, global climate and glacier extent also changed. This discovery was significant in itself but was to lead to a lot more. At this point, it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent.
Figure 2. 1945-1977 PDO cold mode and 1977-1998 warm mode. (Easterbrook 2011 modified from D’Aleo)
Figure 3. PDO fluctuations from 1900 to August 2012. Each time the PDO was warm, global climate warmed; each time the PDO was cool, global climate cooled. (modified from http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/)
In 2000, I presented a paper, “Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean” at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA). The following year at the GSA meeting, I presented another paper “The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations.”
Since this recurring pattern of PDO fluctuation and global climate held true for the past century, what might the future hold? If the pattern continued, then might we project the same pattern into the future to see where we are headed, i.e., the past is the key to the future. If we want to know where we are heading, we need to know where we’ve been. Each of the two PDO warm periods (1915-1945 and 1978-1998) and the three cool periods (1880-1915, 1945-1977, 1999-2014) lasted 25-30 years. If the flip of the PDO into its cool mode in 1999 persists, the global climate should cool for the next several decades. Using the past durations of PDO phases, I spliced a cool PDO (similar to the 1945-1977 cool period) onto the end of the curve and presented the data in a paper at the 2001 Geological
Society of America meeting in Boston. In this paper, I proposed that, based on the past recurring pattern of PDO and global climate changes, we could expect 25-30 years of global cooling ahead (Fig. 4). With memories of the 1998 second warmest year of the century, the audience was stunned at such a prediction, especially since it directly contradicted the IPCC predictions of global warming catastrophe.
Figure 4. (Top) PDO fluctuations and projections to 2040 based on past PDO history.
(Bottom) Projected global cooling in coming decades based on extrapolation of past PDO recurring patterns.
My first projection of future global cooling was based on continuation of past recurring PDO fluctuations for the past century. But what about earlier climate changes? Because climate changes recorded in the oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core had such an accurate chronology from annual layering in the ice, it seemed a perfect opportunity to see if similar changes had occurred in previous centuries, so I plotted the oxygen isotope accelerator measurements made by Stuiver and Grootes (1997) for the past 450 years. Oxygen isotope ratios are a function of temperature, so plotting them gives a paleo-temperature curve. This was a real eye-opener because the curve (Fig. 4) showed about 40, regularly-spaced, warm/cool periods with average cycles of 27 years, very similar to the PDO cycle. There was no way to determine what the PDO looked like that far back, but the GISP2 warm/cool cycles were so consistent that correlation with PDO 25-30 year cycles seemed like a good possibility. Historically known warm/cool periods showed up in the GISP2 curve, i.e., the 1945-1977 cool period, the 1915-1945 warm period, the 1880-1915 cool period, the Little Ice Age, Dalton Minimum cooling, the Maunder Minimum cooling, and many others, lending credence to the validity of the GISP2 measurements.
Figure 5. Warm and cool periods to 1480 AD from oxygen isotope measurements from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The average length of a warm or cool cycle is 27 years.
When I presented this data and my climate projections at the 2006 GSA meeting in Philadelphia, Bill Broad of the NY Times was in the audience. He wrote a feature article in the NY Times about my data and predictions and the news media went bonkers. All of the major news networks called for interviews, then curiously all except CNN, MSNBC, and Fox abruptly canceled, apparently because my data posed a threat to IPCC predictions of catastrophic warming.
Nine additional papers expanding the geologic evidence for global cooling were presented from 2007 to 2009 and several longer papers were published from 2011-2014, including
“Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations,” Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010).
“Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes: The Past is the Key to the Future,” in the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 3-51. (2011)
“Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations,” in the Elsevier volume “Evidence-Based Climate Science; p. 161-180. (D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011)
“Observations: The Cryosphere,” in Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science (Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013), p. 645-728.
Reprints of any of these publications may be obtained from http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/ or by emailing dbunny14 “at”yahoo.com.
During these years, important contributions were made by Joe D’Aleo, who showed that during warm periods, warm El Nino phases occurred more frequently and with greater intensity than cooler La Nina phases and vice versa. He also documented the role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is similar to the PDO. The AMO has multi-decadal warm and cool modes with periods of about 30 years, much like the PDO.
So the question now becomes how could my predictions be validated? Certainly not by any computer climate models, which had proven to be essentially worthless. The obvious answer is to check my predictions against what the climate does over several decades. We’ve been within my predicted cooling cycle for more than a decade, so what has happened? We’ve now experienced 17 years with no global warming (in fact, slight cooling) despite the IPCC prediction that we should now be ~1° F warmer (Figs. 6, 7, 8). So far my 1999 prediction seems to be on track and should last for another 20-25 years.
Conclusions
The ‘mysterious pause’ in global warming is really not mysterious at all. It is simply the continuation of climatic cycles that have been going on for hundreds of years. It was predicted in 1999, based on repeated patterns of cyclical warm and cool PDO phases so it is neither mysterious nor surprising. The lack of global warming for the past 17 years is just as predicted. Continued cooling for the next few decades will totally vindicate this prediction. Time and nature will be the final judge of these predictions.
What drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear. More on that later.
Figure 6. Temperature trend (°C/century) since 1996. Red = warming, blue = cooling.
Figure 7. Global cooling since 2000 (Earth Observatory)
Figure 8. Winter temperatures in the U.S. 1998-2013. 46 of the 48 states were significantly colder.
==========================================================
UPDATE 1/24/14, Dr. Easterbrook writes in with this update:
Here is an updated version of my 2000 prediction. My qualitative prediction was that extrapolation of past temperature and PDO patterns indicate global cooling for several decades. Quantifying that prediction has a lot of uncertainty. One approach is to look at the most recent periods of cooling and project those as possibilities (1) the 1945-1975cooling, (2) the 1880-1915 cooling, (3) the Dalton cooling (1790-1820), (4) the Maunder cooling (1650-1700). I appended the temperature record for the 1945-1975 cooling to the temperature curve beginning in 2000 to see what this might look like (see below). If the cooling turns out to be deeper, reconstructions of past temperatures suggest 0.3°C cooler for the 1880-1915 cooling, about 0.7°C for the Dalton cooling (square), and about 1.2°C for the Maunder cooling (circle). We won’t know until we get there which is most likely.
This updated plot really doesn’t change anything significantly from the first one that I did in 2000.
===============================================================
REFERENCES
D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21, p. 436-460.
Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 33, p. 253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 37, p. 41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006a, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006b, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007a, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007b, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations: Implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p. 594.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007c, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 39, p.13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008a, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008b, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p.428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008c, Global warming’ is over: Geologic, oceanographic, and solar evidence for global cooling in the coming decades: 3rd International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, New York.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008d, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009a, The role of the oceans and the sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol. 41, p. 33.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009b, The looming threat of global cooling – Geological evidence for prolonged cooling ahead and its impacts: 4th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011a, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011b, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011c, Climatic implications of the impending grand solar minimum and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation: the past is the key to the future–what we can learn from recurring past climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs
Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay: Chuckanut Editions, 330 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2012, Are forecasts of a 20-year cooling period credible? 7th International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL.
Easterbrook, D.J., Ollier, C.D., and Carter, R.M., 2013, Observations: The Cryosphere: in Idso,C.D., Carter R. M., Singer, F.S. eds, Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science, The Heartland Institute, p. 645-728.
Grootes, P.M., and Stuiver, M., 1997, Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 10-3– to 105-year time resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 102, p. 26455-26470.
Hare, S.R. and R.C. Francis. 1995. Climate Change and Salmon Production in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: in: R.J. Beamish, ed., Ocean climate and northern fish populations. Can. special Publicaton Fish. Aquatic Science, vol. 121, p. 357-372.
Harper, J. T., 1993, Glacier fluctuations on Mount Baker, Washington, U.S.A., 1940-1990, and climatic variations: Arctic and Alpine Research, vol. 4, p. 332‑339.
Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis 1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 78, p. 1069-1079.
RichardLH, see my reply to Werner Brozek above.
RossCO says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:11 am
I wish to return the compliment. As a geologist I have striven to provide engineers the most precise envelope of natural conditions I can ascertain. They have always known exactly what to do with that. In respect of that respect, my geo-mentees have always been advised that the critical data they gather must be useful to the engineers that need it. Otherwise, as geologists, we are just wasting everyone’s time.
The thing is whatever is happening at the half-precession+ old Holocene simply isn’t anomalous, yet. Nothing I have read post 2005 supports greater than half-precession length for the Holocene. The operative quotation being found in the landmark paper by Lisiecki and Raymo (“A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records”, Paleoceanography, Vol. 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071, 2005) being:
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6 o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6 o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a “double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”
The geologist’s perspective as supplied to the engineer is simply this: (1) published final 2007 IPCC AR4 worst case estimate comes in at +0.59 meters amsl by 2099, (2) MIS-5e, the most recent interglacial, comes in at +6.0 M amsl at the bottom of the interval you may need to engineer for. Or an order or magnitude more than AGWs worst case, business as usual, scenario.
The upper envelope limit might be as much as +52 meters amsl (a factor of 88 times the AR4 worst case estimate), reportedly achieved in the Arkhangelsk area, northwest Russia by Lysa et al 2001 (http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf)
Even if we go back to the highest estimate of the MIS-11 highstand, +21.3 meters amsl (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144)(paywalled), the most recent interglacial to also occur at an eccentricity minima, we are still going to have to do 35.5 times more sea level excursion than the AR4 worst case prognosticated +0.6 meters to get to +21.3 meters.
A natural range of possibly 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than the prognosticated anthropogenic “signal” necessarily means that engineers need not engineer for AGW. Not even CAGW.
The synthesis of geology and engineering suggests that AGW/CAGW must be at least 10 times more than that presently predicted to even reach the low-end of normal, natural, repeated end extreme interglacial climate noise.
If anyone here can provide coherent means and methods of separating a “signal” that at the very best is slightly less than 10% of the ambient noise level to slightly more than 1%, you will have an avid audience. Separating signal from noise at the sub-ambient noise level will probably always be considered a feat. Perhaps only the NSA is possessed of the technology to separate a signal ranging from ~10% to ~1% of the background noise. If not, this level remains to be achieved.
Engineers get this. I’m not sure who else does.
Easterbrook’s arguments seem convincing to me but as I am neither a climatologist nor a statistician my opinions don’t count for anything. However, if there is evidence that more heat is disappearing into the oceans, as supporters of the “consensus” maintain, wouldn’t that invalidate Easterbrook’s theory?
Clay Marley says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 6:43 pm
….Precisely. 1945 to 1977 constituted the entirety of the cooling period that led to some fears of “Global Cooling” or another Ice Age….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually it was a heck of a lot more that a cooling period.
Here is the actual story:
Nixon had the CIA look into the situation and a 1974 CIA report was written link
You can read the rest of the actual history of one of the most exciting discovers in geology HERE written by Nigel Calder who as science writer on the original staff of the New Scientist in 1956 and then editor in 1962 wrote about the story as it happened.
Now the warmists are trying to rewrite history and say the Ice Age scare of the 1970s never happened.
Now to confirm my earlier statement about Easterbrook’s Figure 4: The following is a graph of annual HADCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies. As we can see, the dip in response to the 1998-01 La Niña does not come close to the values in the early 1940s as Easterbrook’s magical graph shows. Easterbrook’s Figure 4 is bogus.

Jeff L says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Geologists Rule …. Climatologists drool !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh my, I have to have that as a bumper sticker or as a T-shirt!
pat says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Boy would that blow the lid off the “Big Oil” funding fallacies and bite the warmists in the butt.
No way will it happen though. The puppet masters are not about to have their carefully covered up strings on display. But not to worry the Republicans will be blamed for doing the covering up. (Snicker)
A welcome dose of scientific common sense from Don Easterbrook. The question of what drives the PDO, AMO etc. should receive more attention in climate research.
Figure 5 (incorrectly referred to as fig 4 in the paragraph above it) does not show the regular frequency of warm to cold oscillation that one would expect from a direct astrophysical forcing. My guess is that the multidecadal oscillations are complex nonlinear oscillations driven in a bottom up way starting with the annual periodic forcing and phase-locking of the ENSO. From ENSO the PDO emerges as a nonlinear epiphenomenon, as Bob Tisdale argues. This emergent multidecadal oscillation could represent a Lorenz butterfly attractor.
A pause is not the same as cooling so to my mind the cool phase of the PDO is currently reducing an otherwise upwards trend. It should be possible statistically to remove the PDO influence and quantify the residual trend.
Dr Norman Page says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 8:40 pm…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that was weird.
I copied and pasted the URL and the page was a Jesus Saves /I was a Skeptic type blog with not a bit about climate in the entire blog!
Thought I would mention it in case you were hacked. (Your name gave me an entirely different blog.)
People should remember that temperatures are continually getting adjusted to remove the amplitude of these cycles.
They can’t do it all at once, but a 0.01C here and a 0.01C there every few months, adds up to a big change over a decade. (And they have been doing it for more than 20 years now).
ThinkingScientist says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:14 am
From climategate emails:
Wils:[2007] “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”
I cannot believe ANY true scientist (or even someone with some basic scientific training/background) who has looked at the presented data, including palaeo proxy data, etc, – can look at such data and not immediately raise the question of ‘natural variability’ within the climate system.
So, no, I don’t think this was a possibility of being significant in their minds – I believe it was an absolute certainty that was completely ignored for potential financial/academic gain, etc. Whether this was ‘promoted’ by the politicos, we may never know for sure – but the fact remains that any scientist within the climate field who did not CONSTANTLY raise or caution against the natural variability issue – should be hung, drawn and quartered as being fraudulent or incompetent – take your pick which!
Good science without an agenda is refreshing. This appears to be good science. Although I have sceptical questions about the science and sceptical observations about the agenda, I like the idea that we can look at empirical data and make a best guess of where we are headed without overlaying any preconceptions regards Co2. That is Science and long may it thrive.
Don- I think it needs to be pointed out that you have been extremely close with your predictions starting in the early 200 – none of the IPCC contributors working on predictions or models have come even close to match what is happening with global temperatures. I have been using your work since 2002 and have been updating the slides whenever you had a new document – but presenting this to the students – is often a challenge. In particular students from the US – some of them from very prestigious institutions – have always been questioning my “conviction” of natural influence and cyclical nature of temps following PDO/AMO (etc). trends because they have been taught otherwise (i.e. CO2 and man-made controls). Just wanted to say thank you, Anthony and the other contributors for all your contribution to science over the years on this and some other blogs.
The sad thing is that the global warming crowd (I know – it is not “global warming” any more!) has been so influential in media and journal editorial positions, that promoting the “cause” in for example Science, Nature, etc publications will always be regarded as a top accomplishment and unis will make sure those people will keep getting grants, awards, acknowledgments, and get into those “political” positions! Therefore, it will take a long, long time to bring back real science to this field of climate science and real world data is often regarded sub-prime to computer model outputs!
Bob Tisdale says:
January 18, 2014 at 3:37 am
“RichardLH, see my reply to Werner Brozek above.”
I agree that his wording is poor. I did point out that his observation of ‘trend’ and your observation of ‘value’ are compatible.
Werner Brozek says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 10:34 pm
I figured out what the author did here….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What he is doing is showing a change in the RATE of warming. This is very significant and I wish Dr Easterbrook had made it clearer.
Lubos Motl and Gerald Roe can explain it better than I.
Easterbrook writes: “During these years, important contributions were made by Joe D’Aleo, who showed that during warm periods, warm El Nino phases occurred more frequently and with greater intensity than cooler La Nina phases and vice versa.”
Easterbrook continues to present his misunderstandings of the PDO. The PDO is an aftereffect of the ENSO.
As I’ve presented numerous times before, Zhang et al. (1997) was the first paper to determine and define the PDO. They determined the PDO was a response to ENSO.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/zwb1997.pdf
In Zhang et al (1997), the PDO was identified as “NP”, and they use Cold Tongue Index sea surface temperature anomalies (CT) as an El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index. Zhang et al (1997) note:
“Figure 7 shows the cross-correlation function between CT and each of the other time series in Fig. 5. The lag is barely perceptible for TP and G and it increases to about a season for G – TP and NP, confirming that on the interannual timescale the remote features in the patterns shown in Fig. 6 are occurring in response to the ENSO cycle rather than as an integral part of it…”
Phrased differently, the PDO (NP) is an aftereffect of ENSO. One might conclude that Easterbrook’s assumptions are wrong when the paper that identified the PDO disagrees with Easterbrook.
See also Newman et al (2004):
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/newman2003.pdf
The first sentence of the Conclusions of Newman et al (2004) reads:
“The PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales.”
Both papers confirm that the PDO is an after effect of ENSO.
More recently, there’s Shakun and Shaman (2009) “Tropical origins of North and South Pacific decadal variability”. It also confirms that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. In addition to the PDO, they use the acronym PDV for Pacific Decadal Variability.
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/18654/Shakun_and_Shaman_Geophys_Res_Lett_2009.pdf
The Shakun and Shaman (2009) conclusions read:
“Deriving a Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the PDO index shows that the spatial signature of the PDO can be well explained by the leading mode of SST variability for the South Pacific. Thus, PDV appears to be a basin-wide phenomenon most likely driven from the tropics. Moreover, while it was already known PDV north of the equator could be adequately modeled as a reddened response to ENSO, our results indicate this is true to an even greater extent in the South Pacific.”
These papers confirm my statements from past posts that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. Those papers were also presented in a post from 2 years ago:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/
And Zhang et al and Newman et al were presented in my post from 3 years ago:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
Easterbrook is aware of these papers, yet he insists on misinforming readers here at WUWT.
Easterbrook writes: “He also documented the role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is similar to the PDO.”
There are no similarities between the AMO and PDO. The AMO is represented by detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies. The PDO is not represented by detrended North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies. The PDO is actually inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific.
The PDO is the leading principal component of the North Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies after global surface temperature anomalies have been removed from the North Pacific data in their 5deg latitude X 5deg longitude grids. The PDO data is then standardized (effectively multiplied by a factor of 5.5) which inflates its importance.
Easterbrook is, in effect, comparing apples to the spatial pattern of the bumps on orange rinds.
I also addressed Easterbrook’s bogus-looking global temperature anomaly data in his “prediction” graph (his Figure 4 in this post) in a post from more than 2 years ago, yet he insists on continuing to mislead readers here at WUWT:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/
Mike Jowsey says: “Good science without an agenda is refreshing. This appears to be good science.”
Easterbrook’s post is misleading, it misinforms, it is contrived, it is far from “good science”.
Bob, have you ever considered that Hadcrud 4 might be BOGUS. !!
I understand why the AGW bletheren would use it,
But why are people seeking the truth still using it .???????
Doesn’t make any sense to me !
We KNOW its been massively adjusted to get rid of the peak in the 1940’s and that, pre-satellite, it most probably bears very little resemblance to reality.
RobB says: “A pause is not the same as cooling so to my mind the cool phase of the PDO is currently reducing an otherwise upwards trend. It should be possible statistically to remove the PDO influence and quantify the residual trend.”
The PDO does not have an influence on global surface temperatures so it is impossible to remove. The PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature data of the North Pacific, from which it is derived.
Bob: The data says there is a 60 year cycle to the data. HadCrut4, AMO and PDO.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:180/mean:149/mean:123/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/mean:180/mean:149/mean:123
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:180/mean:149/mean:123
AndyG55 says: “Bob, have you ever considered that Hadcrud 4 might be BOGUS. !!”
Oh, I’ve considered it. But HADCRUT is based on data. Easterbrook’s fantasy version is obviously not. If it had been, he would have cited it’s source.
William McClenney says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 11:33 pm
One can only shudder to think how much longer it will take H. sapiens to glom onto the current age of the Holocene and what that might mean….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look on the bright side William, if you are correct H. sapiens is about to get another large boost in intelligence. :>)
(To explain)
One of Williams Articles: link goes into how major changes in hominid intelligence is linked to major challenges from glaciations. Links to all five parts HERE
Gail Combs says:
January 18, 2014 at 4:48 am
I had a typo in there, modern braincase measures closer to 1,500cc. My bad.
• The IPCC was established in 1988.
• The PDO was discovered in 1996.
• The Vostok ice cores (1998?) showed co2 rise followed temperature rise.
Would we have had this huge global warming scare if the IPCC had been established several years after the discovery of the PDO and the Vostok results? Are they really now so confident that co2 was responsible for most of the warming since mid 1970s? They may have doubts but will never openly come out and say it as it would ruin the game plan.