The reason for 'the pause' in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: 'trade winds'

Hand%2BWaving[1]

Talk to the hand

Recent intensification of hand waving driving heat into hiding.

Well not exactly #37, but it sure seems like it with all the handwaving we’ve seen lately.

So far, we’ve heard from Climate Science that ‘the pause’ was caused by:

Too much aerosols from volcanoes, ENSO patterns, missing heat that went to the deep ocean, ocean cooling, low solar activity, inappropriately dealt with weather stations in the Arctic, and stadium waves,  to name a few. So much for consensus.

Now, it’s trade winds going too fast that are causing abnormal cooling in the Pacific. A new paper from the University of New South Wales  says that once the winds return to normal speed, well, look out, the heat is on.

One thing for certain, even though the media is going predictably berserkers over this paper, the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. So much for control knobs.

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming — for now

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. 

This is a schematic of the trends in temperature and ocean-atmosphere circulation in the Pacific over the past two decades. Color shading shows observed temperature trends (C per decade) during 1992-2011 at the sea surface (Northern Hemisphere only), zonally averaged in the latitude-depth sense (as per Supplementary Fig. 6) and along the equatorial Pacific in the longitude-depth plane (averaged between 5 N S). Peak warming in the western Pacific thermocline is 2.0C per decade in the reanalysis data and 2.2C per decade in the model. The mean and anomalous circulation in the Pacific Ocean is shown by bold and thin arrows, respectively, indicating an overall acceleration of the Pacific Ocean shallow overturning cells, the equatorial surface currents and the Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC). The accelerated atmospheric circulation in the Pacific is indicated by the dashed arrows; including theWalker cell (black dashed) and the Hadley cell (red dashed; Northern Hemisphere only). Anomalously high SLP in the North Pacific is indicated by the symbol “H.” An equivalent accelerated Hadley cell in the Southern Hemisphere is omitted for clarity. Credit: From Nature Climate Change

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.

New research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change indicates that the dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.

“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear” said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

“But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

Observations are shown as annual anomalies relative to the 1980-2012 mean (grey bars) and a five-year running mean (black solid line). Model projections are shown relative to the year 2000 and combine the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model mean (red dashed line) and range (red shaded envelope). The projections branch o the five-year running mean of observed anomalies and include all simulations as evaluated by the IPCC AR4 and AR5. The cyan, blue and purple dashed lines and the blue shading indicate projections adjusted by the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling estimated by the ocean model (OGCM), under three scenarios: the recent trend extends until 2020 before stabilizing (purple dashed line); the trend stabilizes in year 2012 (blue dashed line); and the wind trend reverses in 2012 and returns to climatological mean values by 2030 (cyan dashed line). The black, dark green and light green dashed lines are as per the above three scenarios, respectively, only using the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling derived from the full coupled model (CGCM). Shading denotes the multi-model range throughout. Credit: Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

“The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Prof England said.

This image shows normalized histograms of Pacific trade wind trends (computed over 6 N S and 180W) for all 20-year periods using monthly data in observations (1980-2011) versus available CMIP5 models (1980-2013). The observed trend strength during 1992-2011 is indicated.
Credit: For articles on this paper only. Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

“Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”

The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

“This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

“Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.

“We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

###

The paper:

Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus

Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich& Agus Santoso

Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106

Abstract

Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
markx

Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?

Olavi

Anyway where is the catastrof? When it starts? 2090? I’m dead then and my children too. Sarc= Zombies eat me up before that. You have to believe, This has nothing to do with money, believe me. NO it’s not religion it’s science believe me.

There is no scientific basis for the claim that short term correlations manifest into long term correlations. In other words, its just as likely trade winds weaken because of a lack of warming, rather than the other way around. Why bother?

Stephen Richards

Oh God, this paper is crap. I could dissect it sentence by sentence because there are problems everywhere but Bob Tisdale is the best man for that. Bob, over to you.
You can just imagine the conversation at the start of this work ‘ OK guys, the great one Trenberth has decreed that the heat must have gone into the deep ocean. So we have to find a way of getting there without it being detectable at the surface. Brain storm. I’ve got it. Strong winds. There aren’t any, where? In the Pacific ! Yeh trade winds. But aren’t they part of the Niña/o process. Yeh but no-one will notice. It has to be^part of this ” it will resume again même” Yeh that’ll work.

Steve in Seattle

Ah yes, I think I have it now … once again we introduce a NEW component to the ‘models’, a component conveniently overlooked until now, sort of a fail safe, in case the agenda needs one, and poof, the projections are back on track. Trade winds DATA, we don’t need no stinking data ! Oh, and please ignore SST’s and the reclusive El Nino’s that are supposed to be ravaging the Western Pacific tropics.
Yep, this time, our ‘work’ is finished here …

markx

…. and …. how is it we are usually told there is no hiatus ….. until someone comes up with an explanation for it, then suddenly it does exist…

Rob

Now that`s one way wacky explanation…

OMG, in the last minute I found ten dollars, if this keeps up I’ll be a bazillionaire in no time!
Whooaa!

Ken Hall

So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.

Galvanize

Interesting.
They keep telling us that any up-tick in temperatures must be from CO2 released by mankind — and only by mankind — but that the lack of increase or any decrease in temperatures (God forbid!) must be due to natural causes. Come on guys, the average person will see through this double standard if you keep that sort of thing going.

Stronger winds accelerate evaporation which is a net cooling process.
That is how air dryers work.
How do stronger winds ‘push’ more energy into the water past the evaporating layer ?

Vince Causey

It says that when the trade winds return to normal the heat will come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.
No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature. This is not only a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, but goes against common sense. This heat cannot any longer come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.

Prof England says “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep“. So, is it covered by the Argo floats? The ones that show no ocean warming. Or is it deeper, below the range of the Argo floats, as Kevin Trenberth claimed? That surely does not warrant description as “not very deep”. Let’s face it, Prof England et al don’t know whether the trade winds have had an effect, they don’t know where if anywhere it ‘blew’ the heat, the heat hasn’t shown up on any thermometers, and they haven’t actually looked for it anywhere. What they are saying is that the models have generated a lot of heat which hasn’t shown up anywhere in the real world, so, if the models are correct, the heat must have gone somewhere where there aren’t any thermometers. The only place they can think of where there aren’t any thermometers is the deep ocean, but winds can’t blow heat all the way down there so maybe a vague clause like “not very deep” can fudge them out of their dilemma. They still aren’t ready to concede the obvious – that the models are wrong and the heat doesn’t exist.

Txomin

Warmist acquaintances do not let an opportunity pass to violently scream at me that the world is not only still heating up but that each and every year is hotter than the previous one. According to them, any paper that speaks of a “pause” is financed by Big Oil and written by deniers. I submit to their 95% infallible wisdom.

This is Matthew England at his worst (best).
The man is not an idiot, therefore I’d have to conclude that he is being less than honest,
IF THE TRADE WINDS ARE STRONGER, THERE SHOULD BE MORE RAIN FALLING IN SE AUSTRALIA. Instead the east coast is suffering another drought.
And if the trade winds are stronger, the Southern Oscillation Index should be well into the positive territory. It isn’t and it hasn’t been for some time now.
How on Earth did this piece of crap pass review?

Gary Hladik

AFAIK the ARGO buoys haven’t detected this “missing heat” below the surface of the Eastern Pacific…unless of course the trade winds have somehow converted it into “stealth heat”, or “dark energy”. But if it’s still stealth heat when it “inevitably” surfaces, how will we detect it? 🙂

Joe

I find it interesting that, spurred on by the need to “explain the pause”, people are suddenly finding all these “new” aspects of natural variation with as much, or more, control over temperatures than CO2 has.
Yet, only a few years ago, they were assuring us that “it must be CO2 because we’ve accounted for natural variation”.
Its also a little worrying to see that they’re now looking to extend the possible “pause” indefinitely with words such as “in as little as a decade”. So this paper can be used to square away level, or even dropping, temperatures until the mid 2020’s at least.

Vince Causey Feb 10 1:13am says “It says that when the trade winds return to normal the heat will come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.
No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature …
“.
Actually, Vince, they used to say that, but they have learned from the mauling they got as a result. If you check carefully what they say now, it is “when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere“. Note that they are no longer saying that the heat will come out of the ocean.

Polly

I like how every team cherry-picks a different one of the countless processes the models don’t simulate in an attempt to bend the projections downward by just the right amount. What happens if we include, oh I don’t know, all of the missing processes?

Keith Minto

It seems that the team have discovered ENSO, as I caught an interview about a month ago when a CSIRO spokesman on local television mentioned that the heat will return when El Nino returns, the present pause being a temporary La Nina pattern.
Lo and behold this thought bubble appears in a paper; do they get together to discuss strategy ?
They are desperate to explain the pause, but there is a lot of cold water out there.

Roy

My theory is that the pause in global warming is caused by – global warming! After all, it causes everything else, doesn’t it?

Don’t you just love the title “Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”. Does this mean all other centres where they do climate science are of poor quality? No need to answer the question.

jones

Ahh, so we ARE going to broil after all…..Thank The Good Lord for his sweet mercies…
Phew…..
Was getting worried there for a second….

Joe

Ken Hall says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:03 am
So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.
———————————————————————————————————
yep, that akes a lot of logical sense. Or you can try the Party Line version of the same:
“There are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be exactly offsetting the CO2 warming by pure fluke. There is no regulatory mechanism involved, just all these thousands of processes of things that happen to be occurring by pure random chance at the right time, and the right magnitude, to exactly counteract the expected warming at the moment”
Personally, if they believe in those odds, I’d suggest they should be buying lottery tickets right now.

Konrad

And the simple message for Prof England is this –
“Fortunately, when the hoax ends, the inevitable public floggings look set to be vicious.”
“You should be very clear: this latest tripe offers no comfort – we are just seeing another frantic excuse before the inevitable rise in global rage.”
However, in his desperate attempts to find a “sciencey” sounding excuse for the utter failure of the AGW hypothesis, Prof England has got one thing right – the atmosphere cools the oceans.
– Only SW from the sun heats the oceans, DWLWIR has no effect.
– The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.
– The net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is cooling of the atmosphere.
In the end nothing Prof England and his fellow political activists try to engineer a “soft landing” for global warming is going to work. The role radiative gases play in cooling our atmosphere is double the work they do in heating it. The global warming hypothesis is essentially a claim that the atmosphere warms the oceans and adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

F.A.H.

As an experimental physicist I was surprised and not impressed to see the methods section call the model running/tuning/twerking they did “experiments.” My notion of an experiment has a good bit more involvement of reality.

Old Ranga from Oz

Ah yes, the University of New South Wales. Home not only to Prof Matthew England, but also to Prof Chris Turney from the Ship of Fools.

RESnape

If the ‘lost heat’ has disappeared into the depths of ocean why have the ARGO buoys not detected the heated water as it passes them when descending into the ‘not to deep’ regions of the Eastern Pacific? Has this mythical heat developed stealth techniques to avoid detection by all of the Buoys?
RESnape

Louis Hooffstetter

It’s interesting that Stephan Lewandowski and Chris Turney are also professors at UNSW.
“Birds of a feather” or correlation = causation?

pat

of course, Matthew England is from the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, which also boasts has Chris Turney in their ranks. anyone keeping up with the number of papers being published, involving UNSW in the past couple of months?
Australia may be a small country, population-wise, but when it comes to CAGW, we like to punch way above our weight….more illustrious-in-their-own-minds signatories at the link:
14 June 2011: The Conversation: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate…
Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity…
We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence…
SIGNATORIES:
Signatories
Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA
Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ
Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

George Lawson

“the hiatus in surface warming” “the pause in global warming” ” the stall in global surface warming”
“slowed the rise in global warming” “slowdown in global warming”
Never let it be said that we mentioned no rise in 17 years, or that global warming might have stopped. These people make presumptions based on natural phenomena that are quite beyond the pale.

Neville.

Jo Nova has a good post on this England study. This is from William Kininmonth at Jo’s site.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/do-winds-control-the-climate-or-does-the-ocean-control-the-wind-kininmonth-on-england-2014/#more-33302

climatereason

The trade winds have been known for centuries and were instrumental in the expansion of trade by the Europeans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind
On what basis is this strengthening said to be unprecedented? The winds are consistent in their position but they waxed and waned in strength over the time that ships logs have been used to record sailing conditions.
Unfortunately this article is paywalled. Anyone have access and can confirm if the study has looked at historic ships logs to see if this strengthening is unprecedented or not?
tonyb

Louis Hooffstetter

Correction: Lewandowsky was a professor at the University of Western Australia, not UNSW.

johnmarshall

And what does ARGO data say? NO HIDDEN HEAT.

King of Cool

Actually there is an old Yiddish saying that Professor Matthew England may be aware of and that is when things don’t happen like you said any excuse is as good as another. But I am sure that students from the Uni of NSW probably know not to blame the dog when they haven’t done their homework but rather that the wind blew it away.
But I love these excuses from taxpayers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom for not getting their tax return in on time:
1. My pet goldfish died (self-employed builder);
2. I had a run-in with a cow (Midlands farmer);
3. After seeing a volcanic eruption on the news, I couldn’t concentrate on anything else (London woman);
4. My wife won’t give me my mail (self-employed trader);
5. My husband told me the deadline was 31 March, and I believed him (Leicester hairdresser);
6. I’ve been far too busy touring the country with my one-man play (Coventry writer);
7. My bad back means I can’t go upstairs. That’s where my tax return is (a working taxi driver);
8. I’ve been cruising round the world in my yacht, and only picking up post when I’m on dry land (South East man);
9. Our business doesn’t really do anything (Kent financial services firm); and
10. I’ve been too busy submitting my clients’ tax returns (London accountant).
But how about these excuses from drivers when picked up by the Canadian Highway Patrol:
Ticketed driver – “My dad could buy you.”
Officer – “Get him to buy two of me, I could use the help.”
Driver – “I wasn’t speeding and you didn’t see a phone, it was a hamburger.”
Officer – “That you held to your ear and is gone?”
Driver – “I’m a lawyer.”
Officer – “Excellent, I’m a policeman.” Long silence.
Driver stopped by police exits car and says “I wasn’t driving”. Still seated passenger points at self and says “I was”.
School zone speeder – “You only stopped me because I’m in a Porsche!”
Officer – “No because you are a *&%$ in a Porsche.”
I don’t think Professor England is a *&%$ or drives a Porsche but we WILL be watching the Pacific trade wind speeds with great interest from now on.

gbaikie

“the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. So much for control knobs.”
The reason CO2 can not be a control knob is because ocean absorb most of sun’s energy, and CO2 has no control how much energy the ocean absorbs.

Robertv

If a trace gas can have such a huge impact then what about microseconds .
by year 1973 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0030 sec.
by year 1994 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0025 sec.
by year 2005 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0005 sec.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=343608
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg
It is the surface that collides with the air. It is a rotating Earth that creates ocean currents

Rick Bradford

I can certainly understand why Chris Turney from the Ship of Fools.would be interested to know that winds can suddenly pick up and have important effects on the weather.

Robert Westfall

The people that wrote this are making Celestial Spheres arguments. Every time a flaw is found add another Sphere. The design becomes more and more elaborate until it collapses when a simple and correct explanation is found.

F.A.H.

I am not an expert in this area, but the full article does not seem to go back further than about 1900. As far as I can tell, the trade winds are obtained by “reanalysis” which seems to use model tuning to sea level atmospheric pressures and regression on IPO phases, all of which means very little to me. They do not mention historical log books or actual wind speed measurements as far as I can tell.
The reference they give for the wind trends, L’Heureux, M. L., Lee, S. & Lyon, B. Recent multidecadal strengthening of the Walker circulation across the tropical Pacific. Nature Clim. Change 3, 571–576 (2013), does not seem to support the reanalysis as described in full. The abstract of L’Heureux et al. is as follows:
“The Pacific Walker circulation is a large overturning cell that spans the tropical Pacific Ocean, characterized by rising motion (lower sea-level pressure) over Indonesia and sinking motion (higher sea level-pressure) over the eastern Pacific1, 2. Fluctuations in the Walker circulation reflect changes in the location and strength of tropical heating, so related circulation anomalies have global impacts3, 4. On interannual timescales, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation accounts for much of the variability in the Walker circulation, but there is considerable interest in longer-term trends and their drivers, including anthropogenic climate change5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here, we examine sea-level pressure trends in ten different data sets drawn from reanalysis, reconstructions and in situ measurements for 1900–2011. We show that periods with fewer in situ measurements result in lower signal-to-noise ratios, making assessments of sea-level pressure trends largely unsuitable before about the 1950s. Multidecadal trends evaluated since 1950 reveal statistically significant, negative values over the Indonesian region, with weaker, positive trends over the eastern Pacific. The overall trend towards a stronger, La Niña-like Walker circulation is nearly concurrent with the observed increase in global average temperatures, thereby justifying closer scrutiny of how the Pacific climate system has changed in the historical record.”

Surfer Dave

I just wanted to see if they based this on actual observations, but ’cause the Nature paper costs, I scanned the references. Most are for model based evidence, so not much use but one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract) seemed to be based on actual measurements and it says “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.”
Is that for real? Can our mobile instruments like the Argo buoys really make measurements with such accuracy that we can say 0.09C? Seems small to me but I guess the volume is massive so if true it represents a lot of heat.
It seems to me that this trade wind explanation is more model based evidence rather than based on actual measurements of heat in the ocean.

ColdinOz

A peer reviewed paper on ocean atmospheric relationships, by scientists who don’t even understand the basics of ENSO? Where is genuine peer review?

Sasha

As the carbon dioxide religion carries on its decomposing, the climate hysterics are getting more and more desperate. They are thrashing around for any explanation, no matter how ludicrous, to explain the failures of all their predictions and the failures of every climate model they have ever produced. This is their latest effort to keep the global warming gravy train running.
This is from a report from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/scientists-find-explanation-for-global-warming-pause/5248456
I have added my own comments in order to point out their more ridiculous and absurd assertions, their weasel words (which remove the certainty of their predictions) and to make some points of my own. Any student of mine presenting such a paper would undoubtedly score an F.
*****
Global warming: Australian scientists say strong winds in Pacific behind pause in rising temperatures
By environment and science reporter Jake Sturmer
Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled. Sceptics say the slowdown suggests warming is not as bad as first thought, while most climate scientists say it is just a natural climate variability.
Now an Australian-led team of researchers has found strong winds in the Pacific Ocean are most likely to be behind the hiatus.
The study found that the winds were churning the Pacific like a washing machine, bringing the deeper colder water to the surface and pushing the warmer water below. [The laws of the universe being reversed when convenient to climate hysterics.]
But University of New South Wales (UNSW) researcher Matthew England, part of the team which carried out the research, said he did not expect the effect to last : “The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said. [Strange nobody mentioned it before.]
“We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field. [Which field is this? The field you just made up?]
“It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse back to their normal levels [What are these “normal” levels? You never commit a number by which you can be judged.], we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise.” [Great expectations?]
Professor England rejects the argument from sceptics that the slowdown suggests global warming is not as bad as first thought and that the climate models are not working : “We want the community to have confidence in the climate models,” he said. [Which models would that be? So far, despite the billions spent, all they have ever produced is garbage.]
“They are very good but in this instance the wind acceleration has been that strong and that much stronger than what the models projected.”
Scientists used satellite measurements and an array of floats in the Pacific to observe two-decades worth of temperature and current information. The CSIRO’s Steve Rintoul said understanding the oceans was the key to understanding climate change. [And I thought it was all about carbon dioxide! Isn’t that what you grant junkies have been preaching all along?]
“What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean ocean warming,” Dr Rintoul said. [So it’s nothing to do with atmospheric warming, after all? Does the IPCC know this?]
“Over the last 50 years, 90% of the extra heat that’s been stored by the earth is found in the ocean. [Where, exactly, in the ocean is this massive heat storage to be found? And how did it get there? Describe this mechanism and why it might suddenly reverse itself.]
“So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking in the ocean to understand it.” [Or better still, stop trying to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.]
The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Which should be ashamed of itself.]

Non Nomen

“” Baa Humbug says:

How on Earth did this piece of crap pass review?”
Well, I suppose some call it “Pal Review” while others even think of
“PayPal’d Review”.

jakee308

Everybody! Go outside, face North and wave your hands! We can offset the Polar Vortex and save the planet!!1!!!!!

Alan the Brit

So, err…….what you’re saying is that, err………you don’t know ALL there is to know about the Earth’s Climate System, then?
Amazing how a new discovery is made about the Climate system every now & then, that WASN’T included in the last model print out!!!!

David L

The bottom line is the science isn’t settled. The CAGW model probably contained only what are called main effects and no interaction terms (aka feedback and feed forward effects). What’s an interaction term? Oh something like the combination of increased clouds or aerosols decreasing the effect of CO2. Therefore the model is incapable of prefidicting anything.
They don’t understand what’s causing the pause therefore they don’t know how long the pause will last which could be indefinitely long.

peterg

Unfortunately both verified and unverified computer models are called the same thing. When “model” is mentioned in something like this article, I read “calculation” which does not imply experimental verification. Once “model” is replaced in this way, it becomes a lot more difficult to move onto the usual conclusions.