Seven years ago, we were told the opposite of what the new Matthew England paper says: slower (not faster) trade winds caused 'the pause'

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.

Walker circulation

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.”

Walker circulation

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
114 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt G
February 10, 2014 2:04 pm

“which means that, on average, and over the last 130 years, the trade-winds in the pacific have decreased by 3.5%.”
Surely this supports that warming during this period has been caused by solar energy been able to surface more in the tropics. It also supports that the data from ERSSTv3b is likely correct,comment image
than compared with HADSST.comment image
If you have an overall decline by 3.5% you would expect to see a rise in long term nino3.4 SSTs.

Robert W Turner
February 10, 2014 2:08 pm

So, we say what we want! Respect our authorita!

mpaul
February 10, 2014 2:09 pm

Hey, go easy, a guy’s got to earn a living. You’ve got to sell what the dogs are eating.

timetochooseagain
February 10, 2014 2:13 pm

@jai mitchell-
Except there is no long term trend to return to. This site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
Has the Southern Oscillation Index going back to 1876. At the time of the paper they claimed that the trend (1876-2005, or 130 years) was significantly negative, indicating a weakening of the Walker circulation. Well, easy enough, we can see if there is a significant trend now over about 138 years. As it turns out, the answer is that the slope is about -0.004±0.006 units per year-and given that the lag-1 autocorrelation is about 0.63, this probably underestimates the uncertainty there should be about that trend value-but it’s a moot point, the trend is not statistically significantly different from zero. There is no long term trend towards a weaker Walker Circulation. There is no trend at all, in fact.

david dohbro
February 10, 2014 2:13 pm

Thanks for bringing this golden oldie to our attention again.
So we first had that global warming was causing weaker trade winds and now we have actually stronger trade winds causing global pause. Fantastic. This is BS (Bad Science). Sorry guys, it can’t go both ways. It can’t.
btw, I just have to add this in case you wonder how AGW-scientists can think, and may find such contradicting results completely normal : “[global] warming from greenhouse gases is driving la nina like conditions … helping to suppress global warming.” Mark Cane in J. Tollefson. 2014, Nature. 505, 276-278. There you have it: global warming suppresses global warming. Unbelievable. With such a state of mind one can come up with anything, including BS papers like this one by England et al.

Box of Rocks
February 10, 2014 2:19 pm

What about the Hadley cell thingie?

February 10, 2014 2:22 pm

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.

=======================================================================
I don’t think they forgot what they said. They hope we forgot what they said.

Richard G
February 10, 2014 2:25 pm

mpcraig says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:49 pm
The NCAR report claims that in a warming world, trade winds will weaken. England’s study says that recent warming has not happened because of increased trade winds. That’s consistent.
Maybe I’m missing something here.
_________________________
The UCAR report attributes the weakening trade winds to human influence and predicts increased weakening of the trade winds… predicting 20% decline. This is a double fail: 1) according to England, winds have strengthened. 2) temperatures have not gone up.
Question: Where is the human signature in all of this?

wws
February 10, 2014 2:26 pm

With all that wind speeding up and slowing down over the ocean, it’s apt to start swirling, and before you know it, it’s a SHARKNADO!!!

February 10, 2014 2:30 pm

Given the obvious contradiction with earlier research, either the author didn’t bother to look at what had been previously published or deliberately chose to ignore it because it didn’t fit the work he had done.
Either, way, as a penalty, he should be stripped of all his funding (and perhaps should refund funding already received) – for either shoddy research or for fraud, depending on which situation above applies. Furthermore, whoever did the peer review for it should have the same penalty likewise applied to their research funding. If all researchers which could influence public policy operated with this kind of framework, we might see a lot more honest work being done.
Clearly, we are crowd-sourcing better peer review than the publisher did.

February 10, 2014 2:31 pm

Oh. And speaking of “Global Warming Causing Everything”, check out this letter to the editor.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/02/09/algal-blooms-grow-with-global-warming.html
I happen to know that the average temperature of the reservoir in question was lower this year than last year.

Man Bearpig
February 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Jai Mitchell says:
….
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.
Why have the trade winds increased? What temperature rise would start the change again?
What is the correlation between the Trade winds and temp ?

Jimbo
February 10, 2014 2:33 pm

Will Nitschke says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm
On the plus side, whatever does happen climate scientists predicted it.

I discovered some time back here that contradictory nonsense was their game. No matter what happens they will say that climate scientists predicted it.
I predict that tomorrow London will be cloudy with plenty of rain. I also predict that tomorrow London will be sunny all day long. Heads I win, tails you lose. THIS IS THE KEY TO THE CAGW CON and it’s what keeps these scammers feeding in public funds. Outrageous!

Admad
February 10, 2014 2:34 pm

“Based on observations since the mid-1800s…” you mean they actually used data, not models for this? Now THAT’s unprecedented.

richard
February 10, 2014 2:35 pm

oh lordy, the climate change fanatics are becoming the funniest show in town, just when you think you cannot laugh anymore, another belly laugh is just around the corner,

AH
February 10, 2014 2:37 pm

Don’t be confused. It depends on the period you’re looking at. Compared to the previous decades, the last 2 decades see stronger trade winds, on average. Vecchi’s paper is about what to expect from global warming, weaker trade winds. England’s paper is about the more recent stronger trade wind trend, acting against global warming.

Matt G
February 10, 2014 2:39 pm

The UCAR report blamed instead of the positive PDO, weakening trade winds to human influence. Weakening trade winds have always been associated with stronger and more frequent El NInos. So it was like they blamed El NInos on human influence, which is awful science of course. With the unarguable avoidance of the PDO now influencing stronger trade winds they blame this on to pause. The facts shows because the expected further decline in trade winds disappeared since the PDO become negative, this provides sound scientific evidence that the PDO contributed to both weak and strong trade winds during its positive and negative phases. Human CO2 had not a detectable influence on the trade winds because the PDO is behaving exactly how it would be expected.

Editor
February 10, 2014 2:45 pm

No wonder Julia gets so confused.
Last year she told us global warming would bring us cold, dry winters in the UK.
This year, she says it will bring wet, mild ones!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/can-slingo-get-anything-right-2/

February 10, 2014 2:47 pm

mpcraig says :
“The NCAR report claims that in a warming world, trade winds will weaken. England’s study says that recent warming has not happened because of increased trade winds. That’s consistent.”
NCAR’s report does NOT say that trade winds will strengthen in a stable world, and England’s study does NOT say the planet is not warming, only that the warmth goes underwater, apparently
magically avoiding both air and water temp sensors.

RS
February 10, 2014 2:53 pm

With global warming, it’s the solution that counts, a vast world wide psuedo government with unlimited powers to control behavior and commerce, setting up toll booths to redistribute wealth from those who don’t deserve it to those deemed worthy of it.
So you can believe BOTH studies, simultaneously, as long as the solution doesn’t change.

richard
February 10, 2014 2:56 pm

I just have to quote Blackadder, just exchange he’s for they’re .
Blackadder: He’s mad! He’s mad. He’s madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of this year’s Mr Madman competition.

DR
February 10, 2014 2:56 pm

They just make it up as they go along; classic pseudoscience.

February 10, 2014 2:57 pm

Regarding the whole ‘carbon dioxide driven climate change causes everything’ meme. I came across a quotation of George Orwells from his ‘Notes on Nationalism’ essay (1945) today that seems to fit the bill.
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

February 10, 2014 3:29 pm

John Kerry wants his flip-flops back.

DCA
February 10, 2014 3:44 pm

I was reading the sks blog (a whopping 19 comments) about the paper and I read a couple of assertions from Dunkerson and dana.
1. “by measuring incoming and outgoing total radiation (via sattelites) we know that there is currently an imbalance”.
What is the uncertainty in that? And another one that I found suspect because the way dana says it.
2. deep ocean is usually defined as below 700m (that’s the definition I use).