![Hand%2BWaving[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hand2bwaving1.jpg?w=206&resize=206%2C300)
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.

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.”

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.

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
so basically a smidgeon of warming leads to 17+ years of static temps, so when the smidgeon of warming returns we go back to 17 +years of static temps.
haha what’s the worry.
Nature Climate change is not a Scientific Journal of any standing. Its run by the team, they review their own stuff it should not be allowed in University Libraries etc….
Perhaps the heat is holding hands with Higgs Bosons or perhaps it is hiding in another dimension? One day we will find it with the help of a particle accelerator?
The answer is blowing in the wind! (Thanks to that great climatologist, Bob Dylan.)
“Blowin’ In The Wind”
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Yes, how many times must a man look up
Before he can really see the sky?
Yes, how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Ira Glickstein
Sometimes, hand waving is very effective. Late Boris Yeltsin, as everybody knows, hand waved the USSR out of existence. Amazing feat for a man who barely could speak (when sober), leave alone write! Today, President B. Hussein Obama is hand-waving the USA out of existence, and has already almost succeeded. How could a mere “global warming hiatus” survive a well-coordinated, public grant-driven hand waving?
The chart is an interesting manipulation, the cognitive dissonance these people exhibit is astonishing. Why the need to present the observed anomoly as a 5 year rolling average? Are the models also presented on 5 year rolling averages? And why is 1980-2012 chosen as the datum? Why are the annual observed anomolies presented as bars whereas the other series are presented as lines? And don’t we have temperature anomoly data going back decades before 1980? Why is this not presented on the chart?
P.S. Bob Dylan’s “poetry” is a poorly rhymed attempt to push socialist buttons. If there would be any music to speak of, accompanying this jabber… but there ain’t.
I want to know how warm water sinks. Someone please explain this to me.
The Trade Winds have strengthened some lately.
I once wrote a post here called the “The Trade Winds Drive the ENSO”. Today, I would rename it to “The Eastern/Central Pacific Ocean Temperatures Drive the Trade Winds which Acts as an Amplifier to the ENSO”. The ENSO amplifies itself through the Trade Winds.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-trade-winds-drive-the-enso/
Well, what have the Trades and the ENSO been doing lately. Same correlation continues, up to January 2014.
http://s10.postimg.org/dmx91hlbd/Trade_Winds_Nino_Jan2014.png
And there is NO discernible trend in the Pacific Trade Winds going back to 1871. (Not surprising since there is no trend in the ENSO going back to 1871 and given the tight correlation between these two, there should be no trend in the Pacific Trade Winds either).
http://s16.postimg.org/vtt28xi6t/Trade_Winds_1871_to_2014.png
But they have strengthened some lately on average, probably because of the extent of cool water in the Eastern/Central Pacific for the past 8 years, on average.
But this is Natural Variability. The Pacific Winds and the ENSO have doing this for at least 400 million years.
Since, according to the true believers there is in fact no pause, what you are actually exposing is the growing list of anti-science traitors posing as scientists./sarc off.
It is not so much that AGW believers rely on post hoc excuse making. It is that they seem to sincerely offer these sad excuses, and that so many in the public square still take those excuses as credible.
I wonder what the next reason is – meteorites falling from the sky?
– Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
– Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
– Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”
Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a switch. The light will reveal a cat… if there is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat_analogy
By that analogy, climate science is a branch of theology.
But we knew that already, didn`t we?
No climate model predicted this “strengthening” of the trade winds. Therefore the models are wrong. Or the models are right and the professor is clueless. Or both.
Ask him: why now? Why suddenly this so-called strengthening in the early 21-st century? Why did it not happen (did it?) in the eighties? And if he doesn’t understand why, how can he make any statement about it?
“Clutching at straws” comes to mind.
ColdinOz says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
A peer reviewed paper on ocean atmospheric relationships, by scientists who don’t even understand the basics of ENSO? Where is genuine peer review?
No, it is better…
“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.
How about ‘scientist’ who do not have a grasp on thermodynamics.
I ought to put the above quote on a the basic thermodynamics course that all Mech Engineers take.
I can ask them if hte statement is wrong and if so why. Pretzel time since most have been indoctrinated n AGW.
The plethora of “reasons” for the pause all comes down to a simple explanation:
They (alarmists) rolled a string of 7s in a row, and declared a new normal of all 7s. But the string had to stop sometime.
I thought there was no pauze….
jakee308 says:
Everybody! Go outside, face North and wave your hands! We can offset the Polar Vortex and save the planet!!1!!!!!
Thread Winner!
Stephen Richards says: “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.”
Hot off the press:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/quick-comments-on-england-et-al-2014/
Robert Westfall said:
February 10, 2014 at 2:34 am
“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.”
You are so, so correct. Once again they demonstrate there is no deep, underlying understanding of how the climate works, just a stapled-together mess of what they are familiar with and what they can model. Nothing more.
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans;
Could read no more, the above doesn’t happen.
They can’t predict what the trade winds are going to do, but everything else they have down to an exact science.
The problem of course is that even if this is a reasonable explanation, the fact that they didn’t understand the climate well enough to see it coming gives us little to no confidence that they can also see whatever other factors may affect their unreliable predictions for the next fifteen years… or thirty… or fifty… or a hundred…
Welcome to the negative PDO. The -PDO is described by changes in pressure systems and, yes, this does increase the trade winds. What they are ignoring, intentionally I suspect, is the weaker trade winds of the +PDO were the biggest factor behind the warming from 1975-2005.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
The reason they looked at data starting in 1980 is because most of that period was a +PDO so the winds would be lower. This paper is basically a complete and total LIE. These people should be stripped of their academic degrees as an example to anyone else who would intentionally lie. Throw in the reviewers and the editor for good measure. Wouldn’t that make a difference in the crap we’re seeing out of climate science peer review.
Incredulity aside, think of the prizes that await!
The paper admits to the “hiatus” AND to the fact the models are wrong (do not take into account trade winds). And yet it still adds to the consensus.