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.
PJF says: “It would be helpful if all writers of articles were to make themselves available to discuss their work in the accompanying comments thread.”
Bingo. Sure would be nice for Easterbrook to provide a source for that global surface temperature dataset he provided in his Figure 4.
RichardLH says: “So you are just observing that the phase of the two signals is out of step? I am not sure that it refutes his conclusions.”
No. I’m observing that they are anti-correlated. You’re making an assumption that they’re out of phase. If memory serves, I believe you’ll find that the anti-correlation remains intact as you extend the time lag, until the point where the correlation no long has any significance.
Gail Combs says: “ERRrrr, Bob didn’t Frank Lansner in his essay on The Original Temperatures Project show that oceans do influence the temperatures of the coastal areas?”
After the nonsense that Lansner was pumping out a few years ago, I don’t pay attention to him. He’d argue until the post came off the front page of WUWT and then almost admit his mistake.
Gail Combs says: “I also think all three of you have done very good work which is more than I can say for the Climastrologists.”
Lansner’s posts were fatally flawed a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they still are, since I don’t pay attention to him. Easterbrook does more to mislead and misinform than to teach and inform. So where does that leave me, Gail?
provoter says:
January 17, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Ha! That BBC video ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510 )
————–
I did read the text on the BBC website re the “low solar activity” earlier today but I hadn’t seen the video. I didn’t find the reference to “more cold” but I’m glad I looked at the link. It’s a classic propaganda piece – from the masters of the art.
I was really with the video for the first 80%, thinking “wow, this is really good – even the BBC is reporting it” but then, of course, at the end – once you’re psychologically softened up – they deliver their real message (which is always designed to leave you in a state of confusion and fear – for more on this see the excellent documentary http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/ ).
I took the trouble to transcribe what the so-called expert (I was going to give her name here but the video doesn’t appear to show it – have they stopped doing that?) said from the grounds of her North Downs home and it follows. But my point is that by this point in the video you’ve been sucked in: everything seemed so reasonable and made sense. So you trust the video and its actors. This is the point (5:25) where the real message is delivered, with reference to “global warming”:
“The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder minimum, so we have human activity, we’ve had the industrial revolution, ehmm, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand you’ve got perhaps a cooling of the sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that.”
So you’re left kind of confused and afraid: “Oh no! Global warming sounded bad but cooling sounds pretty bad too…. Oh what to do…. Sounds like what ever I do I’m f*’d – even the experts agree… er….. or not. But global warming is real, yeah? Ok, I think I’ve got it”.
Anyway, I’ve seen this format (reasonableness and emotion followed by message) with BBC propaganda many times before. They are, really, masters of the art.
I think the message is “The warming is still there. I has not gone away. It is hiding, lurking in the shadows. It is going to GET you!”.
Dr. Easterbrook,
North Pacific (PDO), Central Pacific (ENSO) and the North Atlantic (AMO) are area of fundamental importance to climate change, while Arctic and Antarctic mainly respond to the ocean currents N. Atlantic inflow and circumpolalar current’s oscillations respectively. It should be of some interest to the climate science (if not currently, then sometime in future), that tectonic activity in the three key areas and corresponding climate indices show close correlation as shown
HERE
Bob Tisdale says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:27 am
“No. I’m observing that they are anti-correlated.”
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
Looks like a phase offset to me.
The only online data that I have is from WFT. Can you point me to a longer series?
Sorry the link to the above doc does not work – it used to. Here’s one that appears to, so far:
https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-Episode1BabyItsColdOutside
RichardLH: The JISAO PDO data only exists back to 1900 because they’re so little source data. There are longer PDO datasets, but they’re based on infilled data. So you’d be doing a statistical analysis of the infilled not source data.
Bob: Do you agree that there is a periodic signal to the various data sets? At around 60 years?
In his long comment @ur momisugly 4:30 am, Bob Tisdale says
The PDO is the leading principal component of . . .
Many people might read that and not realize the very specific mathematical meaning of “principal component.” Courses (or equivalent study) in algebra and statistics are needed and if you don’t have that background you likely are not going to understand from reading blog posts and comments.
Years ago one of the main folks doing PDO work (Bob, I don’t have the link now or the name) explained this issue visually. He wrote something like this: **Look at a Rugby ball from one end and the silhouette will have a round shape. Look at it from the the side and the silhouette becomes egg-shaped. Call the circular shape +1 and the oval shape -1. Numbers in between represent the spatial shape of the silhouette as the observer moves from end to side. The pattern is represented by a number. **
Note the use of the concepts of pattern and spatial. In the case of the PDO, the index is for a small part of the great Pacific Ocean and it is not an index of sea surface temperatures.
In the search for the cause of the pause (the OP) we learned from the author that the PDO was the culprit but what causes the PDO is “equivocal”.
PDO -> Pause/Not Pause
Then Tisdale boils to the top to say the PDO is a consequence of ENSO. So the gear that turns the wheel of PDO is connected to the ENSO gear, ending the equivocation. What then is in the shadows of the Earth/Sol energy system that turns the gear that drives ENSO?
(Shadowy stuff) -> ENSO -> PDO -> Pause/Not Pause
To cut to the chase, we are seeking the root cause of the pause – the engine that makes it happen, bonus points for identifying the drive chain that stands between the engine and the pause.
Earth/Sol Energy System -> Engine -> Shadowy stuff -> ENSO -> PDO -> Pause/Not Pause
A reasonable answer is “we don’t know”. I think too it is the only reasonable answer and that is why we don’t all agree on why the climate has done what it has and what it will do next.
Enso, PDO, AMO whatever blah, blah blah
is still controlled by whatever is coming through the atmosphere
Never mind Don, who it seems, does not even read this blog
Here is my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
where I determined that the climate is controlled by external factors, e.g.
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
So, during global cooling, at the higher latitudes it will become cooler
Would some of you guys perhaps want to give a comment on my latest results for Alaska?
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ql5zq8&s=5#.UtqXa9L8I2w
Bob Tisdale says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:24 am
——————————————
Thanks Bob, for both the comments and the links. Regarding the charging and discharging effect of El Nino, La Nina this would not explain the net effect of warming since 1850. It is almost as though the El Nino warms and the La Nina pauses.
Don – you have written twenty papers, apparently exploiting the idea of PDO influence on climate. Good way to handle that publish or perish situation but in my opinion a dead end. It has no explanatory power except perhaps for salmon fishery. And I am not too sure of that either because Alaska salmon just went up to 16 dollars per pound in my supermarket. Lets go back to basics. The hiatus exists, you can’t deny it because official temperature curves all show it. It has lasted for the entire length of this century, and if you include the super El Nino, back to 1997. Atmospheric carbon dioxide just kept on going up but there was no warming. Greenhouse theory from IPCC tells us that addition of carbon dioxide to the air will cause greenhouse warming because Svante Arrhenius says so. Since theory predicts warming and there is no warming, that particular theory is wrong, case closed. True believers are now looking for the lost heat, especially Trenberth, who at one time lost 80 percent of global heat. If I had been the reviewer for that paper I would have sent him back to learn about Argo floats that reported the loss. But buddy reviewers have to be nice to big shots and can’t order them to fix their erroneous work. There are now two questions that need to be answered. The first is an explanation of why the theory failed. The second is an explanation of how is it possible for this failure to happen so suddenly if global warming was on course at least since 1988 when Hansen reported it. The answer to the second question is that the underlying assumption of warming through the years is false. So-called “climate” scientists reporting this were not just incompetent but at times criminal with their temperature reports. I became aware of this doing research for my book “What Warming?” Satellite temperature record for the eighties and nineties showed an eighteen year stretch of The ENSO oscillation where global temperature stayed the same. Ground based curves showed a “late twentieth century warming” in that same time slot. It was obviously phony and I put a warming about it into the preface of the book. Nothing happened for two years but then I found out that GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC had suddenly decided not to show this warming again. What they did was to line up their data for this time period with satellites that never showed the fake warming. It was done secretly and no explanation was given. We can now add these eighteen years to the current hiatus of 17 years and find that the total no-warming period is 35 years. 17 years is enough to convince me that the greenhouse effect does not exist. 35 years is a bonus that puts the icing on the cake. It is extremely improbable from this that any of the earlier warming can be greenhouse warming. It is actually easy to prove this by using the Keeling curve and its extension from the Law Dome in Antarctica. The combined curve for the entire twentieth century is smooth except for the yearly wiggle from falling leaves. Now it happens that in order to start a greenhouse warming you must increase the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the same time. In the twentieth century there were three known instances where warming suddenly started. These happened in 1910, in 1976, and in 1999. From the Keeling curve and its extension we see that there was no corresponding increase of carbon dioxide at these dates. We can therefore say with extreme confidence that there was no greenhouse warming at all during the entire twentieth century. That takes care of history but what about the IPCC theory that went KAPUT? It turns out that the Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi published the correct theory of greenhouse gases in 2007. His theory encompasses the more general case of several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorbing in the infrared that Arrhenius cannot handle. In such a case, an optimum absorption window exists that the gases involved jointly control. In the earth atmosphere the two gases that count are carbon dioxide and water vapor. The IR optical thickness of their optimum absorption window is 1.87. It corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or an absorbance of 85 percent. If we now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it starts to absorb as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase optical thickness and as soon as this happens water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the optimum optical thickness is restored. That is what is causing the hiatus now and what also happened in the eighties and nineties, and before that. The addition of carbon dioxide simply does not cause global warming and money spent on “mitigation” is a total waste. Time to cancel out the laws designed to fight an imaginary warming and return the economy to normalcy.
Bob Tisdale on January 18, 2014 at 6:24 am
Steve from Rockwood says: “Could ENSO be a giant heat pump?”
There are webpages that describe it as one. And a paper:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/dezheng.sun/dspapers/ENSO-AGU/ENSO-AGU-final.pdf
Better (easier?) described as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, naturally occurring, recharge-discharge oscillator, where El Ninos represent the discharge phase and La Nina represents the recharge phase (there is also redistribution of the leftover warm water that takes place during the La Nina).
I’m happy to hear you describe the ENSO as a chaotic oscillator, I agree of course. In addressing Don Easterbrook you assert repeatedly that the PDO is an “aftereffect” of the ENSO. This in no way contradicts anything that Don said, he left the cause of the PDO as unknown. He just accepted it as a fact. Do you accept it as a fact?
Have you any suggestions for a mechanism by which the ENSO nonlinear oscillator can generate as an aftereffect a multidecadal cycle switching between two phases? Could it be the two wings of a Lorenz butterfly attractor for example?
I have posted the theories of Dr. Willam Gray more than once. His thoughts, as I understand them, are that ENSO variability is driven by the MOC. Hence, we have MOC -> ENSO -> PDO. The MOC also drives the AMO.
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
The MOC is the giant circulation within the global oceans. It speeds and slows down due to density differences (and other possible factors) across the entire planet. When the MOC speeds up you get more cold water upwelling and flowing up the west coast of S. America. This cold water enhances the trade winds which reduces the probability of seeing El Nino events. It also means that warm surface water spends less time giving up heat before it is driven to the poles, cools and submerges.
This circulation could also be behind the longer term changes like the MWP and LIA.
As some have indicated the most recent PDO probably ended around 2005-7. Here’s a graphic that ties the phases of the PDO to hadrut4:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/mean:10/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend
As one can see the trends match perfectly. Remove the adjustments made to the data and we are left with a very minor warming trend with variations due to the oceans.
From Dr. Gray’s paper:
So now we have:
Equivocal stuff -> MOC -> Climate Change
where “Climate Change” seems to enfold ENSO and all things to the right of it. But we’re still left with that secret sauce on the left side. Maybe it’s time to bring in James Burk.
Equivocal stuff -> MOC -> Climate Change
Here’s one possibility. During a melt-water pulse at the end of any glacial period we get a surge of lower density cold water into a small part of the MOC. Generally the water flows into the North Atlantic or Arctic Oceans. We then have this difference in density taken around the world over hundreds of years. When it tends to be located on the top of the oceans the MOC slows down (and vice versa). This could explain the MWP, LIA, etc.
The other question would be what drives the 60 year cycle within the larger much-century cycle. I lean towards a gravity driven model. Lunar tides possibly or maybe some variation within the Earth’s core.
Yeah, this is all speculative but rather than a wiggle matching approach this proposes a reasonable mechanism that could be tested.
RichardLH says: “Bob: Do you agree that there is a periodic signal to the various data sets? At around 60 years?”
Considering that I wrote this post…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/
…and this post…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/
….it would be easy for anyone to observe that I have prepared posts that show multidecadal variations in surface temperature data with “cycles” of about 50 to 80 years.
But you’ll note that I did not present the PDO in them. When discussing the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific, I used the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific or the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies there. I used the right tool for those discussions.
Bob Tisdale’s tirade against my posting distorts and misrepresents my work. His demagoguery and personal insults do nothing to advance science. Nothing he has said disproves my predictions, which so far seem to be right on track. My 1999 predictions have so far proven to be correct–what happens in the next few decades will show whether I’m right or Tisdale is right. In the meantime, I prefer to let nature and time judge my work.
I’m heading out the door to the airport so won’t be able to respond further.
Doln
phlogiston says: “In addressing Don Easterbrook you assert repeatedly that the PDO is an “aftereffect” of the ENSO. This in no way contradicts anything that Don said, he left the cause of the PDO as unknown.”
Easterbrook presents the correlation between the PDO and global surface temperature. This suggests that the PDO drives global surface temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism through which the PDO (as defined by JISAO) can drive global surface temperatures, so the premise is flawed.
phlogiston says: “Do you accept it as a fact?”
I accept that ENSO creates the spatial pattern in the North Pacific, which many call the PDO pattern (warm in the east and cool in the central and western North Pacific during El Nino, etc.). I’ve presented it numerous times. But I also understand that there are other variables that influence the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Pacific, and that that those variables are sea level pressure and winds.
Dr Norman Page says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:26 am
You do not have to calculate or even understand the physical processes involved in order to make quite useful predictions.
==============
This point is all too often overlooked. Look at history. Successful prediction comes first, following from observation. This tells us we are on the right track. From this we determine the mechanism. As we learn more, we find that almost universally there is another mechanism underneath what we thought was the mechanism, on to infinity. Thus, the modern insistence on mechanism as a condition of prediction is largely a nonsense. Such a requirement assumes that the unknown is finite in size, and rather small. Pretty much limited to the thing we are investigating.
ferdberple You say ” this point is all too often overlooked” – actually it is almost always overlooked by the establishment and the skeptics, both of whom prefer arguing mechanics and process rather than using simple common sense. Humanity’s capacity for ignoring the obvious is practically limitless especially when ones professional reputation and income depend on it.
Bob
“AndyG55, something else to consider. I’m sure most skeptics would appreciate a global surface temperature dataset that appeared as Don Easterbrook has presented in his Figure 4. Maybe if everyone asked Don to post its source, then we could all examine it and use it again in the future. But I suspect it does not exist. I suspect it’s a fantasy dataset.”
Long ago I suggested to Anthony that he require posts to have data and code.
Willis does it and EVERYONE benefits it opens the door to others who may have special talents. It hastens corrections. It builds confidence.
easterbrook and his pals ( scafetta ) and others refuse to follow the most basic requirements. show your work. It makes their work utterly reliable.