Excuse #31 for 'the pause' – El Niño and longer solar cycles

From ETH Zurich –Why global warming is taking a break

The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

Sun
The number of sunspots (white area here) varies in multi-year cycles. As a result, solar irradiance, which influences the Earth’s climate, also fluctuates. The photo shows a UV image of the sun. (Image: Trace Project / NASA)

Global warming is currently taking a break: whereas global temperatures rose drastically into the late 1990s, the global average temperature has risen only slightly since 1998 – surprising, considering scientific climate models predicted considerable warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se – or at least the harm potential caused by greenhouse gases – as well as the validity of the climate models. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers continued to emphasise that the short-term ‘warming hiatus’ could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding and did not contradict longer term warming.

Researchers have been looking into the possible causes of the warming hiatus over the past few years. For the first time, Reto Knutti, Professor of Climate Physics at ETH Zurich, has systematically examined all current hypotheses together with a colleague. In a study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers conclude that two important factors are equally responsible for the hiatus.

El Niño warmed the Earth

One of the important reasons is natural climate fluctuations, of which the weather phenomena El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific are the most important and well known. “1998 was a strong El Niño year, which is why it was so warm that year,” says Knutti. In contrast, the counter-phenomenon La Niña has made the past few years cooler than they would otherwise have been.

Although climate models generally take such fluctuations into account, it is impossible to predict the year in which these phenomena will emerge, says the climate physicist. To clarify, he uses the stock market as an analogy: “When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term.” At the same time, they are aware that their investments are exposed to price fluctuations and that performance can also be negative in the short term. However, what finance specialists and climate scientists and their models are not able to predict is when exactly a short-term economic downturn or a La Niña year will occur.

Longer solar cycles

According to the study, the second important reason for the warming hiatus is that solar irradiance has been weaker than predicted in the past few years. This is because the identified fluctuations in the intensity of solar irradiance are unusual at present: whereas the so-called sunspot cycles each lasted eleven years in the past, for unknown reasons the last period of weak solar irradiance lasted 13 years. Furthermore, several volcanic eruptions, such as Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in 2010, have increased the concentration of floating particles (aerosol) in the atmosphere, which has further weakened the solar irradiance arriving at the Earth’s surface.

The scientists drew their conclusions from corrective calculations of climate models. In all climate simulations, they looked for periods in which the El Niño/La Niña patterns corresponded to the measured data from the years 1997 to 2012. With a combination of over 20 periods found, they were able to arrive at a realistic estimate of the influence of El Niño and La Niña. They also retroactively applied in the model calculations the actual measured values for solar activity and aerosol concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. Model calculations corrected in this way match the measured temperature data much more closely.

Incomplete measured data

The discrepancy between the climate models and measured data over the past 16 years cannot solely be attributed to the fact that these models predict too much warming, says Knutti. The interpretation of the official measured data should also be critically scrutinised. According to Knutti, measured data is likely to be too low, since the global average temperature is only estimated using values obtained from weather stations on the ground, and these do not exist everywhere on Earth. From satellite data, for example, scientists know that the Arctic region in particular has become warmer over the past years, but because there are no weather stations in that area, there are measurements that show strong upward fluctuations. As a result, the specified average temperature is too low.

Last year, British and Canadian researchers proposed an alternative temperature curve with higher values, in which they incorporated estimated temperatures from satellite data for regions with no weather stations. If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.

Warming to recommence

Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models. “Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the climate will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of greenhouse gas emissions,” says Knutti. He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.

Literature reference

Huber M, Knutti R: Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nature Geoscience, online publication 17 August 2014, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2228

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
155 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CC Squid
August 19, 2014 11:55 am

His name says it all, Knutti is pronounced “nutty”. “He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.”
He agrees with the skeptics that CC is caused by solar activity. If you had paid over $100000 for a PHD and your advisor states that your thesis needs to emphasize AGW before it is accepted, what would you do?
What did you do?

August 19, 2014 11:58 am

This article is saying natural causes are currently trumping man made causes.
This article is not worth the paper it is wrote on.

CC Squid
August 19, 2014 12:01 pm

After thinking a little more, I have to ask myself, are the current crop of “scientists” any better that the current crop of politicians? The currency of these two groups is just a different type of paper.

rogerknights
August 19, 2014 12:08 pm

AnonyMoose says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:11 am
Is there a list of these 31 excuses, with pointers to their WUWT articles? Maybe a “Lists” page should be added under “Resources”.

Here:
——————–
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-now-up-to-29/
“If you can’t explain the Pause, you can’t explain the Cause.”
An updated list of at least 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

Resourceguy
August 19, 2014 12:13 pm

Well, there is one useful side of climate science in education. It provides a unique learning lab for model construction pitfalls and the impact of included and excluded variables in modeling.

ren
August 19, 2014 12:25 pm

Sorry for the mistake. Now it will be cooler in the north.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

John Francis
August 19, 2014 12:29 pm

Bob Carter has it right. Skeptics should talk about the halt, not the pause. The latter implies we know it will resume, which is far from certain. It could easily, and more probably, start cooling again.

george e. smith
August 19, 2014 12:35 pm

“””””…..Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se – or at least the harm potential caused by greenhouse gases – as well as the validity of the climate models. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers continued to emphasize that the short-term ‘warming hiatus’ could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding and did not contradict longer term warming……”””””
Hey dummies; your wonderful models predict none of this. So what snake oil, are you hanging your sorry reputations on now.
Aren’t your climate models, the very essence of the totality of YOUR climate knowledge ??
You ought to be ashamed to show your faces, in any science situation.
“””””……could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding …..”””””
So put THAT explanation, into YOUR climate models, and then come and tell us how it explains, what the real world facts, actually are.

August 19, 2014 12:40 pm

John Francis says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/19/excuse-31-for-the-pause-el-nino-and-longer-solar-cycles/#comment-1712582
Henry says
There is no pause. There is no halt.
In nature it is either warming or cooling.
As my results show
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
it is cooling.

Bill Marsh
Editor
August 19, 2014 1:12 pm

So wait, AGW is dependent on natural causes of warming? Okay then.

Resourceguy
August 19, 2014 1:24 pm

No, I get it. It’s the old shell game with variables. You put in a few variables and shake the model, being careful not to put in too many variables like AMO to knock out AGW in the process.

catweazle666
August 19, 2014 1:35 pm

If the model data is corrected downwards … and the measurement data is corrected upwards … then the model and actual observations are very similar.
I really don’t know what there is to say about that.
Climate science at its best, I suppose.

Alexej Buergin
August 19, 2014 1:35 pm

The climate part of ETHZ was never a great institution (that was the physics part were Einstein worked, and the several engineering parts), and the K in Herr Professors name is pronounced (something like Gnutti).

August 19, 2014 1:42 pm

dp:
I am answering your post at August 19, 2014 at 10:22 am which is here.
You assert to me

You are describing an after-affect of moving ocean energy out of the ocean. We agree on what happens next. But that does not equate to the OP’s claim that El Niño events warm the earth. It warms the atmosphere but at the expense of cooling the ocean and of itself is a net zero change. To warm the earth there has to be a change in energy exchanged between the sun, the earth, and the universe.

NO! That is warmunist ‘goalpost moving’.
Global warming is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
Global warming is NOT “a change in energy exchanged between” anything.
Richard

Admad
August 19, 2014 1:54 pm

“When pension funds invest the pension capital in shares, they expect to generate a profit in the long term.”
So if I understand the point he is trying to illustrate, the totality of climate models are ultimately expected to produce a warming (i.e. “profit”) result, irrespective of any other inputs “in the long term”. In other words the entire edifice of CAGW climate models is built around the presumption of warming.
So that’s all right then.

Jonathan
August 19, 2014 1:55 pm

To paraphrase Laurence J. Peter, “A climate scientist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.”

Beta Blocker
August 19, 2014 1:56 pm

Mike from Carson Valley a particularly cold place that could benefit from some warming says: August 19, 2014 at 11:36 am
First it was settled, then it settled some more, then over the last 18 years it continuing settling so now it is finally settled. So from this new settled base it will surely rise as expected, that is settled.

Since Mr. Climate Science Prediction is now divorcing from Mrs. Mother Nature Reality, the two must divide up their CO2 warming assets and their natural warming assets; with their respective portions being subject to negotiation before a final divorce agreement can be settled.

TimTheToolMan
August 19, 2014 2:04 pm

So it would be warmer if not for all the natural cooling. OK got it.

LT
August 19, 2014 2:07 pm

Try Mt. Redoubt Alaska in 2009, there was no significant change in optical transparency in 2010 associated with any Icelandic volcanoes that could have had a global effect on temperatures.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif

phlogiston
August 19, 2014 2:11 pm

dp says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:36 am
How can El Niño warm the earth? Any energy released from an El Niño event is energy that is already here, not new energy trapped by hellish republican sweat shops churning out SUV’s by the billions. Like moving cash from one pocket to the other has no affect on your wealth, moving energy from one place to another in the Earth system does not change the energy balance between the planet and the universe.
Spot on. Consider how many orders of magnitude more heat is in the oceans compared to the atmosphere. Eventually folks will realise the profound error of into thinking that climate warming must mean gain of energy by the earth as a whole. Why? With near freezing water at the bottom of all the world’s oceans, all it takes for climate cooling is an increase in deep vertical mixing in the oceans, integrated globally. All it takes for climate warming is a decrease in the same deep mixing. Yes – its just moving money from one pocket to another. But it changes climate as experienced by people living on land surfaces.
Climate can move upward and downward in temperature just from changes in ocean deep vertical mixing, with zero change in global energy budget. (There is evidence that Arctic bottom water is warmer during ice ages for instance.) Again, considering the ocean’s heat budget, climate on at least decadal timescales should be considered adiabatic.

TRG
August 19, 2014 2:15 pm

I find myself wishing for global cooling to begin even though I know this is bad for us humans, but we really need this episode of warmmongering to come to an end.

August 19, 2014 2:32 pm

17years+, so over 1/6 of a century of no warming with the latter showing cooling is no problem for the models! They just need to be adjusted a bit downward and the temperature record adjusted upwards. They’ve already well and truly taken care of the temperature adjustments upward over the past 18 years since Hansen deep sixed the the 1930s records downward and raised the more recent ones.

Latitude
August 19, 2014 2:50 pm

the researchers conclude that two important factors are equally responsible for the hiatus…..
..and the skeptics conclude those same two factors can explain all of the measured global warming without CO2

August 19, 2014 3:08 pm

“According to Knutti, measured data is likely to be too low, since the global average temperature is only estimated using values obtained from weather stations on the ground”
Ummmm…whyzat? How do we know it’s “likely to be too low”? How do we know that it’s not too high?
The other thing that cracks me up about this…if you step back and look at the history of dialogue:
Warmers: The planet is warming up due to GHGs, particularly C02, produced by mankind.
Skeptics: How do you know it’s not natural variations in climate?
Warmers: Because the temperature tracks with the climbing C02 levels, so that’s the reason, period.
Skeptics: But wait…we had a really warm El-Nino in 98, and that’s skewing your data…
Warmers: No…it isn’t, it’s the C02!
years later…
Warmers: Ok…we figured out why it isn’t warming right now.
Skeptics: Oh?
Warmers: Yes…you see…we had a really big El-Nino year, followed by some La-Nina years, so it makes it’s cooled down.
Skeptics: Wait…wha?….so those two phenomemon can’t contribute to warming, which is all caused by C02, but they CAN contribute to COOLING?
Warmers: EXACTLY!!!
Do these people ever even read what they’re writing?
Jim

michael hammer
August 19, 2014 3:11 pm

So all the warmists that have been systematically and repeatedly adjusting the temperature records ever upwards have been too conservative and should have been adjusting them upwards even more. Of course the warming in the 80’s and 90’s could not be due to a more active sun? Of course not, solar output has not changed, warmists have ben claiming that for decades! Meanwhile ice in the rapidly warming arctic is increasing again – gee did they forgot to inform mother nature of their findings?/sarc
More to the point the AGW theory can be most succinctly stated as “rising atmospheric CO2 reduces Earths energy loss to space (measured as outging long wave radiation OLR) and the resulting energy imbalance causes warming”. Trouble is that NOAA’s data shows that on average for the last 40 years OLR has been rising not falling. Rising OLR means more energy loss to space not less so any observed warming cannot be due to rising CO2. This all by itself is utterly fatal to the AGW theory R.I.P. AGW. Suggests warmists have something else they need to start adjust to keep the myth alive. Stay tuned for the next instalment of ADJUSTMENTS.