A Shower Of Papers, New Climate Models, Show Natural Oceanic Cycles The Recent Major Climate Factor!

Finally there’s agreement: Ocean cycles are responsible for the missing warming since 2000

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated, edited by P Gosselin)

It was stated in our 2012 climate science skeptical book “Die kalte Sonne” and was massively criticized. Today it is accepted: the systematic impact of ocean cycles on climate events.

The latest example: Meehl et al. from August 2016 in Nature Climate Change:

Contribution of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation to twentieth-century global surface temperature trends
Longer-term externally forced trends in global mean surface temperatures (GMSTs) are embedded in the background noise of internally generated multidecadal variability1. A key mode of internal variability is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which contributed to a reduced GMST trend during the early 2000s1, 2, 3. We use a novel, physical phenomenon-based approach to quantify the contribution from a source of internally generated multidecadal variability—the IPO—to multidecadal GMST trends. Here we show that the largest IPO contributions occurred in its positive phase during the rapid warming periods from 1910–1941 and 1971–1995, with the IPO contributing 71% and 75%, respectively, to the difference between the median values of the externally forced trends and observed trends. The IPO transition from positive to negative in the late-1990s contributed 27% of the discrepancy between model median estimates of the forced part of the GMST trend and the observed trend from 1995 to 2013, with additional contributions that are probably due to internal variability outside of the Pacific4 and an externally forced response from small volcanic eruptions5. Understanding and quantifying the contribution of a specific source of internally generated variability—the IPO—to GMST trends is necessary to improve decadal climate prediction skill.”

The cycles always pop up with new names, but in the end they are all relatives of the PDO and AMO, which are also coupled with one another with a time lag.

Now that this factual basis has become accepted, suddenly there have been a shower of publications. For example Chikamoto et al. from the Geophysical Research Letters in July 2016:

Potential tropical Atlantic impacts on Pacific decadal climate trends
The tropical Pacific cooling from the early 1990s to 2013 has contributed to the slowdown of globally averaged sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The origin of this regional cooling trend still remains elusive. Here we demonstrate that the remote impact of Atlantic SST anomalies, as well as local atmosphere-ocean interactions, contributed to the eastern Pacific cooling during this period. By assimilating observed three-dimensional Atlantic temperature and salinity anomalies into a coupled general circulation model, we are able to qualitatively reproduce the observed Pacific decadal trends of SST and sea level pressure (SLP), albeit with reduced amplitude. Although a major part of the Pacific SLP trend can be explained by equatorial Pacific SST forcing only, the origin of this low-frequency variability can be traced back further to the remote impacts of equatorial Atlantic and South Atlantic SST trends. Atlantic SST impacts on the atmospheric circulation can also be detected for the Northeastern Pacific, thus providing a linkage between Atlantic climate and Western North American drought conditions.”

Incorporating ocean cycles in the climate models has now taken on top priority as the earlier models have failed miserably, just as has been shown by Peings et al. in March 2016 in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Let’s ignore the past for now and direct our focus instead on the new, improved models.

Also a team led by Monika Barcikowska succeeded in integrating the ocean cycles in model simulations as explained on 20 October 2016 in the Journal of Climate. And suddenly, lo and behold, the warming hiatus made sense and cooling looks likely for the future:

Observed and simulated fingerprints of multidecadal climate variability, and their contributions to periods of global SST stagnation

This study investigates spatio-temporal features of multidecadal climate variability, using observations and climate model simulation. Aside from a long-term warming trend, observational SST and atmospheric circulation records are dominated by a ~65yr variability component. Though its center of action is over the North Atlantic, but it manifests also over the Pacific and Indian Oceans, suggesting a tropical inter-basin teleconnection maintained through an atmospheric bridge.

Our analysis shows that simulated internal climate variability in a coupled climate model (CSIRO-Mk3.6.0) reproduces the main spatio-temporal features of the observed component. Model-based multidecadal variability comprises a coupled ocean-atmosphere teleconnection, established through a zonally oriented atmospheric overturning circulation between the tropical North Atlantic and eastern tropical Pacific. During the warm SST phase in the North Atlantic, increasing SSTs over the tropical North Atlantic strengthen locally ascending air motion and intensify subsidence and low-level divergence in the eastern tropical Pacific. This corresponds with a strengthening of trade winds and cooling in the tropical central Pacific.

The model’s derived component substantially shapes its global climate variability and is tightly linked to multidecadal variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This suggests potential predictive utility and underscores the importance of correctly representing North Atlantic variability in simulations of global and regional climate.

If the observations-based component of variability originates from internal climate processes, as found in the model, the recently observed (1970s-2000s) North Atlantic warming and eastern tropical Pacific cooling might presage an ongoing transition to a cold North Atlantic phase with possible implications for near-term global temperature evolution.”

And because it is so nice, here’s another paper on the subject by Dai et al. 2015 from Nature Climate Change:

Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability
Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming1, 2, 3. The recent slowdown in observed surface warming has been attributed to decadal cooling in the tropical Pacific1, 4, 5, intensifying trade winds5, changes in El Niño activity6, 7, increasing volcanic activity8, 9, 10 and decreasing solar irradiance7. Earlier periods of arrested warming have been observed but received much less attention than the recent period, and their causes are poorly understood. Here we analyse observed and model-simulated global T fields to quantify the contributions of internal climate variability (ICV) to decadal changes in global-mean T since 1920. We show that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) has been associated with large T anomalies over both ocean and land. Combined with another leading mode of ICV, the IPO explains most of the difference between observed and model-simulated rates of decadal change in global-mean T since 1920, and particularly over the so-called ‘hiatus’ period since about 2000. We conclude that ICV, mainly through the IPO, was largely responsible for the recent slowdown, as well as for earlier slowdowns and accelerations in global-mean T since 1920, with preferred spatial patterns different from those associated with GHG-induced warming or aerosol-induced cooling. Recent history suggests that the IPO could reverse course and lead to accelerated global warming in the coming decades.”

The summary sentence with suspected warming linked to ocean cycles over the coming years is mysterious, though. Perhaps the authors here are thinking about the time after 2035…

If any journalist, who got all excited about our “crude” ocean cycle theory when we published our book in 2012, wishes to contact us — they’re welcome to do so. We are not resentful when the apology comes from the heart.

24 responses to “A Shower Of Papers, New Climate Models, Show Natural Oceanic Cycles The Recent Major Climate Factor!”

  1. Don B

    The NY Times, in a moment of climate sanity during 2014, printed an article suggesting that ocean variability was an important climate driver.

    “Earth’s climate is shaped by the interplay of two complicated and turbulent systems — the atmosphere and oceans. […] The oceans hold the majority of heat in the system, are full of sloshy cycles on time scales from years to decades and, despite an increase in monitoring using sophisticated diving buoys, remain only spottily tracked.

    […] “There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process [global warming] — including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion.”

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/?_r=1

  2. sod

    Just by chance, you can look up the critisism of the book [-snip Sorry, but there’s no way I’m going to let you post the link to such a blatantly biased, contracted activist attack site. They are not the keepers of the truth.
    I was involved in the English version production of the book and in the lead up to the day the German book was officially released in Berlin on a bitter cold February 6 2012. Present was even a self-proclaimed journalist from Die Zeit, and I can tell you he was not at all open to anything the book offered and was immediately on a mission to discredit the book. He was fuming. His fear of the book spoke volumes. And I remember how a number of German scientists — Grassl and Latif, to name two — in a fit of pettiness attempted to discredit the book without even bothering to read it first. When I saw that, I lost all respect for them – that was not professional behavior in any way. It was childish activism, and it confirmed that for these guys it was not about science at all. Everything Lüning and Vahrenholt wrote above about the book’s reception is accurate to a tee. -PG}

    1. sod

      The “Die Zeit” Artikel are still online and can be found easily via google.

      Everybody can see for himself, what was written about the book.

      “Die Zeit” also allowed the two authors to write an extensive reply:

      http://www.zeit.de/2012/10/AM-Forum-Klima?sort=desc&page=2#comments

      1. Sunsettommy

        Really Sod, you can read in the German language?

        I own a copy of their book titled, The Neglected Sun,which is very good.My only complaint so far is the printing format of words are too small.

        Doubt you read ANY of their books at all.

  3. posa

    -snip. My site. I make the rules here. There are standards to hold. Places like DeSmog don’t reach them. -PG

    1. Graeme No.3

      Well said, Pierre.

      When they brain-washed sop they caused massive shrinkage.

  4. Kenneth Richard

    Regarding the “shower” of papers, this is from 4 months ago (with 12 more added since then)…

    “35 New Scientific Publications Confirm Ocean Cycles, Sun Are Main Climate Drivers”

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/11/35-new-scientific-publications-confirm-ocean-cycles-sun-are-main-climate-drivers/

    Could an alternative “consensus” be blossoming?

    1. David Appell

      Kenneth: are ocean cycles creating a net warming?

      If so, where is that warming coming from, exactly?

      We know it’s not the Sun, which has been on a slowly decreasing trend since the mid-1960s. (See LASP data.)

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Each time you have asked this question in the last month, I have responded in detail with several links to scientific papers and to full explanations from previous essays on this site. And then you ignore those responses and ask this same question again. Consequently, I suspect you are truly not interested in learning. In sum, you are engaging in activist behavior.

        Answer this question: Please provide scientific evidence (physical experiments, measurements) that varying CO2 concentrations up or down in volumes of 0.000001 (ppm) heat or cool water. I’ve asked you this question many times, and each time you ignore it … or you post a link to a paper that doesn’t address the question. I presume the same thing will happen this time.

      2. AndyG55

        The 4 strongest cycles in the last 700 or so years were in the latter half of last century.

        To say there was a drop-off is the height of slimy mis-direction. It was more like turning a guitar amplifier down from 11 to 10.

        And yes, we are about to see the effect of the fall off from that Grand Solar Maximum.

  5. posa

    If you have to resort to censorship your credibility collapses in my book.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Splendid. Good bye and Don’t bother to write.

    2. David Appell

      I agree posa. Yet censorship takes place on every denier blog that I know of — every single one.

      1. AndyG55

        Cry.baby.troll

        No-one wants a stinking sewer-rat visiting their home

  6. gallopingcamel

    PG,
    You are to be congratulated for your forbearance. You very rarely “Snip” anyone’s comments but the clueless “sod” deserves to be snipped from time to time.

    Please allow “sod” to continue to comment here as he demonstrates how weak the Alarmists are. They can’t deny that they predicted warming but it failed to materialise. Now they are twisting in the wind and people like “sod” can’t explain why Mother Nature ignores CO2.

  7. gallopingcamel

    Dear Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt,
    Sadly you are not going to get an apology from the journalists who mocked your ocean cycle theory.

    Nor are taxpayers going to get the money back that was wasted on the idea that “Mitigating Carbon” would benefit our planet.

  8. Robert Folkerts

    challenge for sod and Appell.

    Here is a link to a study on the effects on plant growth from elevated atmospheric co2 levels. The effects of elevating atmospheric co2 levels are only positive for plants and consequently food production. Witness the addition of co2 in greenhouse growing situations.

    I wonder whether sod and Appell could allow themselves to read such material and then perhaps comment thoughtfully on it?

    The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide on Plant …

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm

  9. Stephen Wilde

    From May 2008:

    “Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.

    So, to be able to monitor and predict changes in global temperature we need more than information about the past, current and expected future level of solar activity.

    We also need to identify all the separate oceanic cycles around the globe and ascertain both the current state of their respective warming or cooling modes and, moreover, the intensity of each, both at the time of measurement and in the future.

    Once we have a suitable formula I believe that changes in global temperature will no longer be a confusing phenomenon and we will be able to apportion the proper weight to other influencing factors such as the greenhouse effect of CO2.”

    from here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/

  10. Ocean cycles, The Pause and Global Warming | NEWZE

    […] is a new post by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, translated by Pierre Gosselin, on the […]

  11. gallopingcamel

    @Robert Folkerts,
    “I wonder whether sod and Appell could allow themselves to read such material and then perhaps comment thoughtfully on it?”

    David Appell’s reading comprehension seems to be stuck in 4th grade as demonstrated by his comments here:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

  12. gallopingcamel

    David Appell has absurd faith in “Climate Scientists” and especially when they write papers that are “peer reviewed”.

    Anyone with a grain of common sense realizes that most “Climate Scientists” are writing papers to please their political masters:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/

    Historians on the other hand are far more convincing. I hope y’all will find the time to watch this entertaining and informative video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZFXZ0bATyc

  13. David Appell

    “Finally there’s agreement: Ocean cycles are responsible for the missing warming since 2000 By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (German text translated, edited by P Gosselin)”

    This isn’t a journal paper, right?

    1. AndyG55

      So what. Journal publishing is totally irrelevant.

      Haven’t you ever heard of the internet.

      Or do you still live in the Dark Ages.

      You know you want to. A time of pestilence and disease.. perfectly suited to appell.