![Hand%2BWaving[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hand2bwaving1.jpg?quality=83)
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
Yet another “explanation” in a string of explanations. Stripped of all the convoluted rationalizations, this tells me that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Anecdotally, could an increase in trade wind velocity have contributed to the demise of Amelia Earhart in 1937? In her flight planning she probably would have calculated a best guess for anticipated head wind at low altitude coming across the Pacific, (she flew low because you can’t spot little islands from above a lot of clouds), based upon average data likely collected from the prior 2 or 3 years before which could have by 1937 have dramatically increased unbeknownst to her?
Such an increase would be consistent with this study explaining a “hiatus” from ~1938 to ~1946. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1938/to:1946./trend
I would suspect that Japanese Navy weather reports for that region from that era (early 1930’s through 1945), along with battle group and supply ship time enroute forecasts ought to confirm whether or not there was any dramatic change in tradewind velocity that would have occurred during the years leading up to and during WW2?
If they are convinced that the sneeze is due to the Pacific trade winds, then perhaps they should complain to the World Trade Organization, and not blame carbon dioxide.
So, to make sure I understand, they are claiming that 1, evaporative cooling is the cause of the pause, and 2, this wasnt in the models. Evaporative cooling is a well known and well understood phenomenon. This was not in the models in the past? And the are still claiming their models land surface temperature are valid? And people still claim these climate scientists have basic scientific competency?
F.A.H. says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 1:45 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Welcome to post normal science, where methods and data are not only not needed but jealously guarded, computer runs produce “Experimental Data” and the get out of peer-review free card. “Mankind is to blame” is mandatory for publication.
{:>)
Reading further into the report, I see the author states that the models “are still better at predicting what might happen by the end of the century than at the end of the decade.”
Without even going into the logical fallacies of claiming that the prediction can be completely wrong at the 10 year point and reasonable correct at 100 years, you have to wonder why he is using short term models that he knows are wrong to produce his claim.
markx says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:49 am
Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?
============================================================
Al Gore took a trip to the EU and was speaking while facing west. 🙂
My head hurts from all this nonsense coming out of the mouths of people intent on destroying the credibility of ALL scientists.
Let’s clear this up right now.
Has anything the AGW people have predicted 10 years ago come true?
Pat Feb 10, 2:03 am publishes a veritable rogues gallery of NSW climate miscreants. Heavy burden indeed.
Box of Rocks says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 4:27 am
….“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….
I ought to put the above quote on a the basic thermodynamics course that all Mech Engineers take.
I can ask them if the statement is wrong and if so why. Pretzel time since most have been indoctrinated n AGW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even better put that quote on an exam with the addition: “Please explain the thermodynamics involved.”
Then watch the heads explode.
If you are real nasty, like my thermo teacher was, you make it a 25 point question.
I can’t help but notice, despite being willing to convolute the explanations and the models beyond anything that resembles reality, no one has theorized that some heretofore unknown process is allowing heat to escape the Earth’s atmosphere into space. Funny that.
More wibbly wobbly, climey wimey…stuff.
Let’s hear from Bob Tisdale and learn what really is going on.
Richard M says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 4:58 am
Like the Defenestration of Prague or real <a href="http://janetnewenham.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/444.jpg"<pier review. Josh on the subject link
It is getting bad when the only reaction you can have to “peer – reviewed” climate science is a good belly laugh.
Brilliant. Wish I had thought of this one. Forget glaciers and polar ice and poles warming faster. That only leads to discomfort, embarassing rescues and such. I want money to follow the tropical trade winds around the Pacific. And while it is important research it can also be a public statement. No diesel steel hulled behemoths. No, my grant money will go to a sustainable sailing yacht and to save money will be crewed by coeds that just happen to be my grad class students.
Taking their research at face value:
1) There’s no evidence that human CO2 plays any role in changing trade wind velocity thus it introduces a new totally natural factor that they have in general up to now, always DENIED as being possible to exist in any explanation of late 20th century warming.
2) It suggests a possible parallel reason for the similarity of warming from 1910 to 1945 to that of 1965 to 2000, thus introducing more doubt as to the role of CO2 given that the latter warming period was less in magnitude despite a higher concentration of CO2. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend
I see no reason to get worked up about this study – it may turn out to be a bullet that goes through their foot.
Strong winds have intensified ocean currents, disturbing settled science.
And if this new factor helps explain the cooling from ~1945 to ~1960 their attribution to aerosols takes a serious hit too.
This paper brings up a point I have pondered recently. Much effort is given to examining El Nino and La Nina events in terms of their effects on air temperatures. Little attention is paid to El Nado and La Nada conditions. However, I wonder if gold lies in them thar hills. It is understood that El Nino, with its quiet waters and cloudy skies, layers warm water to the surface where it can be evaporated away (hence even more clouds). These clouds prevent the full strength of SW infrared from getting into the oceans. Under La Nina, clouds and that warm layer are blown away, allowing full strength SW infrared into the oceans. It can be deduced that these conditions are not opposites of each other just as Bob has said many, many times. And much is known about their immediate effects. What I ponder are the inbetweens (La Nada’s and El Nado’s plus neutral) in terms of their ability to forecast impending decades long trends. Might these conditions tell us more about impending long term trends than the shorter oscillations on either side?
Rob Dawg says: “No, my grant money will go to a sustainable sailing yacht and to save money will be crewed by coeds that just happen to be my grad class students.”
Oh do I have the perfect craft for you!
http://www.pdracer.com/sailboat-games/water-world-race/waterworld-trimaran-sailboat-2.jpg
In the IPCC’s latest report they admit that they don’t know why Antarctica’s sea ice extent has been trending up since 1979.
It looks like today we have “incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of” the surface temperature standstill. Their models are hopeless.
Trrenberth says the heat is hiding deep, below the Argo depths. But this paper says the heat is hidingin shallow water, just waiting on the winds to subside and then re-emerge.
It cannot be both. The answer is very likely that it is neither.
“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.”
By the time the hyperactive trades winds tire we’ll be so freezing cold that the hidden heat will be blazing in comparison.
nutso fasst says: “Strong winds have intensified ocean currents, disturbing settled science.”
– stirring up the bottom, reducing visibility and thus making their predictions …. very murky.
Col Mosby says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 7:24 am
Let’s hear from Bob Tisdale and learn what really is going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob already commented and pointed to his website:
They admit that previously the models did not include the trade winds, but trust us, they were still completely accurate.