While Matthew England claims in a new paper that fast trade winds caused cooling:
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
Another paper from 2006 says the exact opposite. This oldie but goodie, that preceded WUWT by a few months, escaped my attention until reader “Alec aka Daffy Duck” pointed me to a news article, and from that I found this original press release which says:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.
So, who to believe? Representatives of The University of the Ship of Fools New South Wales, who seems capable of saying anything to the press depending on the month or year or NCAR/UCAR? Do any of these folks really know with any certainty what is really going on when their excuses for ‘the pause’ don’t even agree?
From NCAR/UCAR:
Slowdown in Tropical Pacific Flow Pinned on Climate Change
May 3, 2006
BOULDER, Colorado—The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.
The Walker circulation, which spans almost half the circumference of Earth, pushes the Pacific Ocean’s trade winds from east to west, generates massive rains near Indonesia, and nourishes marine life across the equatorial Pacific and off the South American coast. Changes in the circulation, which varies in tandem with El Niño and La Niña events, can have far–reaching effects.
“The Walker circulation is fundamental to climate across the globe,” says Vecchi.
In their paper, “Weakening of Tropical Pacific Atmospheric Circulation Due to Anthropogenic Forcing,” the authors used observations as well as state-of-the-art computer climate model simulations to verify the slowdown and determine whether the cause is human-induced climate change. The work was performed at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), where Vecchi is stationed through the UCAR Visiting Scientist Programs. His coauthors include Brian Soden (University of Miami) and the GFDL team of Andrew Wittenberg, Isaac Held, Ants Leetmaa, and Matthew Harrison.
This diagram shows the Walker Circulation, a vast loop of air above the equatorial Pacific Ocean. See below for an alternate depiction. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Illustration by Gabriel Vecchi, UCAR.) |
The Walker circulation takes the shape of a loop with rising air in the western tropical Pacific, sinking air in the eastern tropical Pacific, west-to-east winds a few miles high, and east-to-west trade winds at the surface. The trade winds also steer ocean currents. Any drop in winds produces an even larger reduction in wind-forced ocean flow—roughly twice as much in percentage terms for both the observed and projected changes, says Vecchi.
“This could have important effects on ocean ecosystems,” Vecchi says. “The ocean currents driven by the trade winds supply vital nutrients to the near-surface ocean ecosystems across the equatorial Pacific, which is a major fishing region.”
Matching theory and observations
Several theoretical studies have shown that an increase in greenhouse gases should produce a weakening of the Walker circulation. As temperatures rise and more water evaporates from the ocean, water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases rapidly. But physical processes prevent precipitation from increasing as quickly as water vapor. Since the amount of water vapor brought to the upper atmosphere must remain in balance with precipitation, the rate at which moist air is brought from the lower to the upper atmosphere slows down to compensate. This leads to a slowing of the atmospheric circulation.
Based on observations since the mid-1800s, the paper reports a 3.5% slowdown in the Walker circulation, which corresponds closely to the number predicted by theory. To establish whether human-induced climate change is at work, Vecchi and colleagues analyzed 11 simulations using the latest version of the GFDL climate model spanning the period 1861 to 2000. Some of the simulations included the observed increase in greenhouse gases; others included just the natural climate-altering factors of volcanic eruptions and solar variations. Only the simulations that included an increase in greenhouse gases showed the Walker circulation slowing, and they did so at a rate consistent with the observations.
Based on the theoretical considerations, and extrapolating from their 1861–2000 analysis as well as from other simulations for the 21st century, the authors conclude that by 2100 the Walker circulation could slow by an additional 10%. This means the steering of ocean flow by trade winds could decrease by close to 20%.
Simulation results depend on the assumptions and conditions within different models. However, the agreement of theory, observations, and models for the past 150 years lends support to this outlook, say the authors.
What about El Niño?
The study sends mixed signals on the future of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation—the system of ocean-atmosphere linkages that produces the worldwide weather of El Niño and its counterpart, La Niña.
“The circulation has been tending to a more El Niño-like state since the 1860s,” says Vecchi. “However, the dynamics involved here are distinct from those of El Niño.”
This diagram and the one at top show two different views of the Walker Circulation, a vast loop of air above the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Illustration by Gabriel Vecchi, UCAR.)
Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who to believe? Neither of them – at least, certainly not in full. Stronger Pacific trade winds are coincident with La Nina, with weaker or reversed trade winds coincident with El Nino. What both papers utterly fail to demonstrate is that human GG emissions play any role in driving this process.
To add to and clarify my prior comment, while trade winds are not unrelated to temperature particularly at the short annual scale, key aspects include:
(1) contrasting decadal averages, like how treating them as the prime factor wouldn’t explain the rising NH/global temperatures in the 1920s-1930s
(2) and how still more important is the matter of root cause, as trade winds are not something isolated from Earth where the direction of causation can only go one way, as rather the next step is to get into what causes the trade winds.
When I am wet in a warm damp environment, If there is no wind I stay wet and warm for a long time, but if the wind blows I dry quite quickly and become cooler at the same time.
Any relevance?
Or is that too simplistic?
Hey no problemo. What’s important is that it gets a fresh post all by itself. Keep up the good work.
The first thing I do when I hear a new claim is to got directly to Google Scholar. You almost always find an opposite claim because that is the nature of Climastrology.
England’s paper does not even reference the previous work of Vecchi, Oh my! Peer review askew once more.
All I can say is that the last two wet seasons here in the Eastern Tropical Pacific have not been up to much. Both very late, and not giving enough rain. I am not sure if that represents a slowing of the jet stream or not.
My son has just been accepted to the University of NSW. I have encouraged him not to get involved in any discussions with these bozos and their faithful followers should he ever come across them. Life is far to short, and there are far to many better things to do at uni!
From the warmlist
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12612965/
And my personal favorite
Great tits cope well with warming
“Do any of these folks really know with any certainty what is really going on when their excuses for ‘the pause’ don’t even agree?”
I would vote that Trenberth’s cat is to blame.
Oh Oh! This just in from NCAR: “Trenberth’s cat has been captured by Trenberth’s can-of-tomato-soup and holding the poor dear as hostage. SWAT Teams consisting of both mechanized infantry with heavy canons and airborne assault units consisting of C-130 gunships and Apache Helicopters from Denver and Boulder are converging on NCAR as we speak. The Governor has declared a state of emergency and Boulder a war zone. The Obama Administration is responding by dispatching two Predator Drones armed with “Big-Sucker” Hellfire missiles and issued a Secret Executive Order for the extra-judiciary killing of Trenberth’s can-of-tomato-soup. Obama was quoted at the White House responding to reporter’s questions, “To never fear, is fear it self.” Film at 11.”
Ha ha. ;-D
Why are you shooting the messenger? Professor England is merely a messenger; if his scientific prediction is wrong, it is clearly the science’s fault.
“The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.” (Matthew England)
Funny, that is about the same time that the solar slowdown-low sunspot peak phase has been going…it appears that it will be a long time till that finishes, and goes upwards once more…so it may be a long, long wait Matthew!
“Do any of these folks really know with any certainty what is really going on when their excuses for ‘the pause’ don’t even agree?”
Don’t agree? They are exactly OPPOSITE!
But that’s fitting with the whole rest of the fetid mess of climate “research” where cooling is also caused by warming! Is there a 3rd grader anywhere dumb enough to buy that story? I don’t think so!
Weakening for 60 years caused by global warming then suddenly he is strong before weakening again.
The first line of the post shows why you are confusing the subject.
the first line says,
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100
which means that, on average, and over the last 130 years, the tradewinds in the pacific have decreased by 3.5%.
The paper showing the short term increase in trade winds doesn’t address that this is caused by global warming, only that the short term variability (in the last 15 years) has increased the trade winds and caused more mixing of warm surface water. They also say that they expect this short term increase to go away in the near future (decade or so) and return to the long term trend
Man Bearpig says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Isn’t it wonderful.. Alarmists say one thing but forget what they said only a few years ago. As soon as they say ‘global warming causes one thing’ just search for ‘global warming causes exactly the opposite’ and they will get had almost every time.
=============================================================================
Haven’t you hear, Man made Global Warming causes Everything ™!
It causes the sun to rise and it causes the sun to set. Why it’s even responsible for the very origin of the universe! 😉
But physical processes prevent precipitation from increasing as quickly as water vapor…
why yes it does….But the amount of time difference is so small it’s immeasurable
Combine incomplete, imprecise data with post hoc ergo propter hoc and you got nuthin. Such is climate science.
Jimbo: the last paper you referenced, seems awfully similar to this one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11576.html
The lead author is the same for both, the title is similar, dates are close, but the authors are slightly different, as is the publisher.
Double dipping when publishing?
Ah, I remember that weakening of the Walker Circulation business. I believe that at the time, it rested on there being a negative trend in the Southern Oscillation Index-SOI being inversely correlated with ENSO sea surface temperatures.
As of the present, there really isn’t any trend, going all the way back to the 1870’s. Conditions have tended to be more persistently La Nina like in the time since many of these studies claiming weakening were published (around 2006-2007).
Interestingly, the implication of all this seems to be that blaming “the pause” on a stronger walker circulation is *exactly equivalent* to blaming “the pause” on ENSO. It’s all more than a little handwavy!
At any rate, it’s worth recognizing that if ENSO stopped warming from about 1998-present, logically it should have contributed to warming from 1976-1998. The latter is usually taken to be, essentially, entirely due to anthropogenic forcing. But evidently, climate can vary, on timescales of 10-20 years at least, on the same order of magnitude as anthropogenic forcing-since it can cancel such forcing out for such a length of time-and entirely of it’s own according, too. This casts serious doubt on the notion of “attribution” of warming mostly to man.
Desperation causes carelessness, such a pity.:]
If a climate scientist penned it, it does not matter if it is contradictory because it is peer-review and, consequently, infallible. To the point, more and more funding is going to modeling and hypothesizing and away from measuring.
Cotton sheets are the cause of Globall warming! Alarmist Scientists just don’t get enough sleep.
How do these folks have any credibility anymore? How can anyone listen to these fools?
On the plus side, whatever does happen climate scientists predicted it.
Are these people nuts ?
While we know that in a closed system with air/water vapor over a water supply, there will be some equilibrium partial pressure of water vapor depending on Temperature, that condition varies widely, with wind added.
Every chemist (I’m not one) knows that reversible reactions can be speeded up (in either direction, by simply removing the reaction products from the reaction site / interface.
The water / vapor reaction, is easily driven in the direction of more evaporation, by simply moving the water vapor away from the surface. That’s what winds do, and simple kitchen experiments with a fan will show the accelerated evaporation.
Evaporation transports huge amounts of latent heat (circa 590 cal / gm) from the liquid into the atmosphere. The cold tracks left behind by hurricanes are proof of that. I don’t see how winds heat the ocean depths; they certainly cool the surface.
And no I don’t think these people are crazy. Just ignorant (lacking in knowledge)
That’s ok; we are all born with ignorance.