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.
Any speculation is OK…………
unless they rob us of our hard-earned money.
Winds depend on Earth rotation and on the air pressure gradient between the equator and the poles. Ocean currents depend on earth rotation and winds. Currents follow the winds, winds do not follow ocean currents. Wind speed is at least an order of magnitude larger than the streams so there is no mechanism for why winds should follow currents.
ENSO and other phenomena which affect air pressure do have influence on winds, and hence on currents. So also other often seasonally based local and regional air pressure anomalies.
An explanation of atmospheric circulation by Ole Humlum can be found here
http://climate4you.com/
go to Climate+History and scroll down a bit.
Ole Humlum has some reflections, citation from the site:
“When the thermal contrast across the mid-latitude zone is high, many strong storms develop, and less so in periods where the thermal contrast is smaller. The thermal contrast is high when the planet is relatively cold, and smaller when the planet is relatively warm” .
When planet is relatively warm trade winds and westerlies should decrease because equator-pole pressure gradient (and thermal contrast) is smaller.
UCAR explanation (disregard the AGW stuff) seems consistent with established atmospheric physics. The UNSW variant does not.
The trade winds are the resultant of the thermal force and the Coriolis force. They are relatively constant. That is why they were called “trade” winds. Duh. Do these people really think that the variation can actually be significant? Eg the earth fluctuates in its rotation enough to affect the slippage? Or the thermal force fluctuates? I suppose they might subscribe to the latter, but if the warming jumps out of the ocean and says boo it is going to be picked up by the thermal force isn’t it? I think England and Vecchi are in danger of disappearing up their own ….
According to the diagram about trade winds in this thread
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/do-winds-control-the-climate-or-does-the-ocean-control-the-wind-kininmonth-on-england-2014/
trade winds did increase during the relatively cool period 50 to late 70:s, increased during the warming period 80:s up to mid 90:s. From mid 90:s up to now trade winds have decrased somewhat. Could imply we are in a slight cooling trend.
My post 4:21
Correction: Trade winds are fairly constant from 80:s and up to now. Swapped between screens so did eyeball the wrong diagram.
Apologies if this has been posted already. Michael Mann has a piece in HP that reduces the hiatus to a speed bump and writes if off even if the Earth doesn’t warm again soon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/global-warming-speed-bump_b_4756711.html
Professor Mathew England:
“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.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
Professor Judith Curry:
“All in all, I don’t see a very convincing case for deep ocean sequestration of heat. And even if the heat from surface heating of the ocean did make it into the deep ocean, presumably the only way for this to happen involves mixing (rather than adiabatic processes), so it is very difficult to imagine how this heat could reappear at the surface in light of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
A]. It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
This is sometimes called the “first form” of the second law, and is referred to as the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law.
B]. It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.
This is the “second form” or Clausius statement of the second law.
C]. In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
This is earth shattering news indeed – AGW “scientists” have discovered AGW hot ocean water sinks to the bottom and then hides. Why this will revolutionize physics.
Andrew:
Kenny T called – that missing heat you found, yeah – he wants it back.
This (and other) proposed mechanisms for variation in the response of the average global temperature to CO2 levels seems (at least to me) to confuse the issue of exactly what global warming constitutes. I thought the basic hypothesis of global warming was that an increase in C02 levels causes a more or less linear increase in global average temperature. (I think there is some wiggle room here since there are other greenhouse gasses than CO2 but the notion seems to be that CO2 dominates.) This proposal (trade wind modulation causing ocean heat eating) seems to modify that.
Climate is not my field, but when I try to figure out what is going on I tend to look at data for myself. So I downloaded the HADCRUT4 decadal averaged global temperature anomalies from the Met Office (here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html#regional_series ) . I also downloaded the spline fit combined Law Dome and Cape Grim historical CO2 record from the Oak Ridge CDIAC site (here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html ). Then I simply plotted the HADCRUT4 global decadal averaged temperature anomalies versus the CDIAC CO2 levels for the time period from 1880 to 2004.
The plot seems curiouser and curiouser the more I look. From 1880 to about 1910 the temperature anomaly decreases sharply (large negative slope) with increasing CO2 levels. Between about 1910 and 1940 the temperature anomalies increase sharply (large positive slope) with increasing C02. Then from 1940 to about 1974 temperatures decrease less sharply with increasing CO2. Finally from about 1975 to around 2000 or so temperatures increase with increasing CO2 but much less steeply than the 1910 to 1940 period. (There is yet wiggle room for CAGW. I did not look at methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, or the like.)
Previously I had blithely assumed (based on seeing endless papers and articles dealing with the time since 1975) that CO2 levels were correlated with temperatures but that causation had not been established to my satisfaction. But it seems to me now that any correlation as discussed typically is peculiar to the period from 1975 to 2000. It does not seem possible to plausibly argue that there is any significant correlation between the two at all over the past century or so. The data just does not support that unless some modulating mechanisms can be established. It seems the argument of a CAGW advocate must be that 1) CO2 levels increase the heat content of the earth system in a strongly forced manner, such as linear ,2) the heat may or may not go into actual warming, as in increased temperatures in the atmosphere, but it does somehow flow into the global climate system, such as the oceans, and 3) the CO2-forced heat that has become “hidden” will inexorably return to the atmosphere and cause warming (or extremes, floods, or something new and bad). Perhaps someone more versed in the climate science can give me the traditional arguments used by CAGW to explain away the past variations.
It looks to me that the CAGW hypothesis must be moving into a new state due to the pause, namely that CO2 traps heat, but the inexorable catastrophic effects may be delayed but not avoided. It strikes me that the only reason that argument needs to be made now is that the natural variability in the relationship between CO2 and temperatures in the historical record had been swept under the rug and conveniently ignored. The pause no longer allows that. CAGW seems to be devolving to a modern version of the boogeyman who lurks out there somewhere, just waiting to jump out, and one had better do whatever is said by the “consensus” to be able to keep the boogeyman away.
Yet another “Oh the Pain” moment in time. In fact 2 of them if my basic calulations are correct. Mr.England may have set an anomolous record of the 37th most painful moment in climate science history twice.
Anthony, we have had a statistically significant rise in painful moments in climate science history in the last few years.
I really think there needs to be an award, yearly, for such blatent incompetance in a field that simply does not get challenged enough. Hummm, at this rate, weekly may be in order?
I offer the “Dr. Smith award” opportunity for such!
I should have added in my previous post that Dr. Smith had a habit of stating ” Never fear Smith is here”. Seemed fitting considering the currend status of this topic ..
I’m actually not upset that there are two studies coming to different conclusions about the same phenomenon, at least not in the abstract. Isn’t this competition of ideas and hypotheses the way science should work, as so many readers of this blog have said?
Rather, it is the sureness — especially in the second, M England study PR — that the heat really is hidden and really will come back up. They didn’t come up with that until they had to stop saying that there wasn’t a pause, until reality outran their smugness. Only then did then start looking for an explanation. It smacks of “political science,” not of the real stuff.
Science actually SHOULD be the product of different views, different hypotheses, testing them, and finally seeing which ones work. So let them fight it out, that’s OK. Just don’t tell us you KNOW the answer, you might remind people of Michael Mann.
People want “explanation” and “sin” in their lives, without traditional religion they needed to invent one that had reputation: Science. Was more at hand to fill that void.
These climate “scientists” make phrenologists look intelligent.
Let a hundred schools of thought contend.
Thanks to Alec aka Daffy Duck.
If anyone can predict the ENSO and also predict how the Trade Winds will change and how they will influence the ENSO, …
… then there is a $billion worth of profits to be made if one can be accurate.
But I don’t think anyone has been able to raise forecast accuracy above the 50% level. A few months ahead (1 or 2) is all that can be relied on.
There is just a huge degree of randomness and uncertainty here.
I make predictions on this all the time and have been doing so for longer than you have had access to the Internet. The status of the ENSO was the second thing I looked up when I got access to the Internet in the very, very, very early days of its pubic access (more than 20 years ago) having become interested in it after the 1982-83 Super El-Nino.
I change my mind about the predictions every time the next set of observations becomes available every few days. I haven’t put a dime on it because history tells me that one will just simply be wrong.
It is only the most important weather phenomenon on the planet, influencing global temperatures by +/-0.25C and changing rainfall patterns by +/-50% in specific areas. Yet, it is still a mystery and climate science should not pretend they have a handle on it until someone starts producing reliable predictions in advance.
The ENSO is a naturally occurring phenomenon that will appear in any large, deep ocean at the equator. It is the result of a rotating planet with an ocean and an atmosphere on a planet of Earth size. It is just the way, the oceans and atmosphere will organize itself.
The Atlantic is a relatively new ocean that has not become wide enough yet. If it keeps spreading for about another 30 million years, it will then become large enough to develop a full-fledged ENSO. It already has a mini-ENSO, but it needs to have a longer width to have one like we are used to in the Pacific.
The Indian Ocean, as well, is not long enough. And it has had two continents traversing it over the past 60 million years – the Indian sub-continent and Australia. No ENSO here.
But the Pacific (and its predecessors) have been long enough and deep enough to have an ENSO for at least 450 million years.
Think of Pangea, 250 million years ago, when the Pacific-predecessor equatorial ocean covered more than 75% of the planet. The ENSO region literally covered 75% of the planet. The eastern side of Pangea, which was mostly a shallow, partly land-enclosed sea would have been subject to periodic ENSO warming oscillations of let’s say +/- 4.0C and this shallow inland-type ocean was already up to 40.0C. It would have, every few years, got to 44.0C which is too hot for complex life. The Anaerobic extinction events described by climate science as being caused by CO2 warming in this period were simply the result of a +9.0C climate combined by the ENSO oscillation.
The ENSO has always existed on the planet because there has always been at least one long, deep ocean at the equator.
mpcraig: “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.”
____________________________________________________________________________
The only way this is consistent is to accept that the Earth has been not warming (since 2001 or even earlier). Let me explain :
According to these two studies there can’t be warming and increasing trade winds. Hence, either there is warming causing weaker trade winds, or there is no warming due to stronger trade winds. A combination of both (warming and stronger trade winds) is not possible according to both studies, otherwise both studies would be wrong.
Hence, logically the only consistency between both papers is that there has been no warming. If you say there has been warming than the trade winds must have decreased, but according to England they have increased… Accept there has been no warming -since early 2000- and both papers make sense. Insist there has been warming -since early 2000- and both papers are wrong.
You see now where the fallacy lies? This falls in the department of “yes we can have it both ways”
In addition, NCAR suggests that warming influences the trade winds, whereas England et al suggests that trade winds influence the warming…. so which way is it? it can’t be both ways. a cause can’t cause the cause.
Col Mosby says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm
magically avoiding both air and water temp sensors.
——————————————————————
The renowned scientist, Houdini, predicted that very same effect. Amazing!
Warm water — being less dense — rises to the top. Wouldn’t that blow the hypothesis out of the water, so to speak?
And now someone think they can predict a coming El Niño – and Mann is already hoping for record heat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/10/el-nino-prediction/5368631/
Amusing though this fine mess is from a sceptical perspective, the most depressing thing for me is that all this talk of trade winds is making me really, really miss sailing the deep oceans. It’s over a decade since I last did some blue water sailing and I can just hear the Pacific calling me.
One day I’ll be out there again…
I wonder about the accuracy of the instruments used between 90 and 130 years ago. What was the sampling rate compared to today?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/seven-years-ago-we-were-told-the-opposite-of-what-the-new-matthew-england-paper-says-slower-not-faster-trade-winds-caused-the-pause/#more-102984
just another reference point in case others get “mislaid”.