![Hand%2BWaving[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hand2bwaving1.jpg?w=206)
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
@Mod
[2100 vs 3000? Mod]
To my above post
The “3000” was a pure brain fart, lol. The IPCC shows a 2-3 increase between now and 2100. 3000 should say 2100.
The image I attached,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1916/to:1945/detrend:-3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1976/offset:3
Is roughly what that would look in a prediction for 2000-2100, based off the PDO patterns they are waking up to now
The 3000s I put there were almost certainly because I kept thinking (and laughing about) what their 3000 temps would have to look like based off their 2100 trend, and how asinine the above WFT graph would look spread over a full thousand years to get there. Tempted to make such an image, lol.
“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.”
—
Can anyone post a link to the “step-shaped” hockey stick that scientists published long ago? Michael Mann’s version looked pretty smooth to me. I didn’t see “abrupt steps” in his graph. Before the hiatus, I remember alarmists using phrases like “we have reached a tipping point,” “irreversible warming,” “runaway global warming,” “irreversible death spiral.” But I don’t remember them talking about “step-wise” warming, and I’m pretty sure they never mentioned “long periods of steady temperatures.” That would not be alarmist enough for them. Does anyone else remember this happening before the hiatus began, or is this another example of trying to rewrite history?
These guys (clowns) do not realize that the insensible “heat” or energy carried away from the oceans is as latent heat of water and that this lower density air will rise and condense at altitude, with the resulting released heat going to IR radiation that is lost to space.
The massive water vapor convective heat engine is responsible for perhaps 85% of energy transfer from the surface to altitude. IR radiation from the surface is only 15% and is the only energy the warmest models recognize.
It’s no wonder Trenberth has problems locating the missing heat; it has already left the planet.
So there are all these compelling theories being published about various natural processes that are strong enough and prolonged enough to halt the increase in global warming for well over a decade…but there is no possibility that the alternate side of these same natural processes could possible be strong enough to have caused the global warming in the 80s and 90s in the first place? Somebody wants to have their cake and eat it too. If the process is strong enough to stop global warming, then it has to have been strong enough to start it too.
“So, is it covered by the Argo floats?” Dang. It’s just below them. Now that it’s been published, they can start validating the model today. If they keep adding independent variables and keep validating, they may have a decent model in about 150 years.
“Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century”
hmm. Well, lets see.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/trend
Stupidity annoys me.
First off there are no observations without uncertainty and there is no uncertainty without a propose model of the underlying process. In other words, observations always come wrapped up with theory. One cannot say there has been “no warming” without qualifying the claim in an defensible manner ( many approaches are defensible, data never speaks for itself)
Ulrich Elkmann says:
February 10, 2014 at 4:19 am
“- 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!”…….By that analogy, climate science is a branch of theology.
But we knew that already, didn`t we?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Matthew England is a physical oceanographer and climate scientist. England completed a B.Sc. (Honours) and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the University of Sydney, Australia. In 2005 he became a Professor at the University of New South Wales, and was awarded an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship[1] that same year.
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_England
“Trade winds”. How 19th Century. Perhaps these maroons should explain to the winds that global trade is down so the extra speed is really not necessary and would it please slow down.
Of course the real problem is that there isn’t anything in the way of these winds, so they just merrily blow along. The UN should mandate that every nation must put thousands of sailing ships to sea immediately in order to block and slow down these winds. Land locked nations must pay maritime nations for their fair share of ships. If enough billions of dollars are intelligently
wastedused to build these ships, the winds will slow and global warming can once again return to its proper place in political fear mongering.Can I make a very silly suggestion here. The models are wrong and the theory they purport to support is also wrong. There is no “missing heat”, it is only “missing” if you consider the models to be correct and they are not.
Sometimes the answer is just obvious.
Man! This one is well hidden!!! Not only shalt we hide our decline, we shalt hide our papers.
What precisely do the authors imagine to be “normal” trade wind velocities?
Proxies exist for tropical Pacific wind speeds, but maybe not at the resolution needed to compare the past decade with prior decades during the recovery from the LIA, or earlier in the Holocene.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMEP52A..02W
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25580/0000124.pdf;jsessionid=1C2709AF676D64129988C3159F422B50?sequence=1
WOW, I have not had so much fun reading responces to an artical in years! So, perhaps all the hot air blowing from the mouth’s of “global warmists” has articulated into unprescedented increase in trade wind speeds. What a debt of gratitude we owe! The more they shout the sky is warming the colder it will get!
Another possible past trade wind proxy: how about transit times for Spanish galleons from Baja California to Manila, allowing for ship design improvements?
Umm, I hate to say this but 10N to 10S is not where the ‘Trade Winds’ are located. The Trades are mostly centered from 20 to 30 South. Anyone who sails across the equator knows the variable winds found between 5N and 5S, regardless of whether ENSO is Neutral, El Nino or La Nina. In addition to this remember that there is an equatorial counter current than runs West to East just north of the equator, roughly 2 to 4 degrees north.
“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.”
This statement is true, minus the warmist mind set. Temperatures will rise again even if the planet has now begun a decent into a new Glacial Period. Hard to say when it will happen or how long rising temperatures will continue, but it will happen…guaranteed. And you can be sure that CAGW climate scientists are busily preparing for that happy day. I predict you will see a “We told you so!” media campaign unparalleled in history. Skeptics will be publicly raked over the coals of global warming, utterly marginalized and bombarded into silence. At that time their goal will be to so damage the skeptics cause that when temperatures level off or drop, as they eventually must, it will have no effect on the mind of the public. (gloom/off)
“… rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”
—
How do they know trade wind strength will return to “normal” after not letting up for more that a decade? If CO2 is capable of causing irreversible warming and irreversible ice loss, why can’t it cause an irreversible increase in trade winds? Perhaps, this is a natural negative feedback to increases in CO2 and will continue as long as CO2 is elevated. If that’s the case, then CO2 is its own cure, and we have nothing to worry about. But don’t expect these activist scientists to ever admit the possibility of long-lasting negative feedbacks because the “cause” is more important to them than the truth.
It has been done:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/spotlight/2004/manila-galleon.html
What is a normal speed for the trade winds anyway?
So, the increased trade wind speed is unprecedentedly “too fast”, excessively cooling the Pacific through evaporation?
Where does that increased moisture end up, it has to go somewhere? Clouds w/ increased albedo? Clouds that release the heat of H2O condensation during formation into the upper atmosphere where it radiates as LWIR into space, but NOT magically transferred through “immaculate convection” to the not so deep ocean? Clouds that form cold rain?
I just don’t understand how is CO2 controlling all this?
More examples of faith based science?
More wind power generators can help slow those trade winds back down again.
Temperatures will then rise, not only in spite of our switching to “green” energy, but even because of it.
“Cheshirered says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:03 am
So where does this latest offering of the ’cause of the pause’ leave all those oh-so superior claims that natural forces were nothing compared to human influences? ”
huh. the IPCC claim is that Most ( more than 50%) of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to
anthro sources. Not all.. more than half.
Arno Arrak says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:20 am
“Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what …”
———————
I liked your commentary …… so much that I just might quote it, …. if you don’t mind.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:42 am
“The idea that the missing heat is going into the oceans is ridiculous!”
You fool! Ice floats, therefore warm water sinks. Easy. Where’s my grant?
milodonharlani says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:40 am
It has been done:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/spotlight/2004/manila-galleon.html
“…
Confident that changes in the length of each journey would be mostly influenced by climatic conditions, the team then looked at how voyage length changed with time. They found a revealing pattern of change in voyage length, with voyages during the 30-year period of 1640 to 1670 lasting substantially longer than voyages before or after this period. From 1640 to 1670, voyages were around 123 days long, compared to a length of 79 days for voyages taken from 1590 to 1620.
…”
Um maybe the type of Spanish Galleon changed over time along with the weight and the sail configuration and….