New Study: No "hiatus" in AGW

[AvantHiatus]

I could easily envision us returning to 2008-2013 levels for awhile, or I could envision this being another step change upwards. On 10-25yr scales, forcings can destructively interfere, so making declarations now is kind of silly. There's more that goes into short term climate change than ENSO, TSI, and volcanism.

We'll see what the climate system decides to do over the next several years. There isn't much that would surprise me, at this point.

Is the CO2 benchmark not too far out of the bounds with the surface response? Rapid warming seems like the only possible path. Sometimes deep down I think you masquerade as a denier. This should be obvious to someone with advanced knowledge as you claim to posses. 

 

The only way I could envision that scenario is if we experience a massive unprecedented meltwater pulse.

[The_Global_Warmer]

2008-13 levels are not coming back.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Nothing that can bring us back to 2008-2013 levels except ENSO and Volcanism. And ENSO would really have to tank. Like big time (think Super Nina). I'd encourage you to read the Church paper from Nature that shows hiatus periods become extremely unlikely by 2030 assuming BAU.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2513.epdf?referrer_access_token=NMvH_xHJTvCIc2CRWXNSQtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OO9zeaQM0SsZ36aVR-KegKF_L2Vn8Ed-qCHOFxjrQ8LFNq2kxIXMoZgPzvYj0xt2IHgRdSSMtOcMgKOLNFR-_-Nsx26_7DGqCH1pFw-cu8PjKEV7Ws0_sOCyfe4FeoPjrYR99xEHljSuXvrrEu2ds_rJITL_JWsUMxgFCY8LTxPA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.au

I totally disagree with the bolded. It flies in the face of the higher resolution paleo data, too. To name a few forcings that could theoretically bring temps down in the short term:

1) A retraction of the Hadley Cells and subsequent AAM transport.

2) A strengthening of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation and subsequent invigoration of convection in the tropics due to tropopausal lowering there.

3) A strengthening of the Walker Cell relative to the Hadley Cells, forcing a persistent Niña/-PDO background. This was likely responsible for the current hiatus.

We see these mechanisms in work on shorter timescales, too. For example, there are reasons why Niños like 2002-03 and 2006-07 were relatively cool, and why years like 2001-02, 2005-06, and 2013-14 relatively warm.

[AvantHiatus]

I totally disagree with the bolded. It flies in the face of the higher resolution paleo data, too.

To name a few:

1) A retraction of the Hadley Cells and subsequent AAM transport.

2) A strengthening of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation and subsequent invigoration of convection in the tropics due to tropopausal lowering there.

3) A strengthening of the Walker Cell relative to the Hadley Cells, forcing a persistent Niña/-PDO background. This was likely responsible for the current hiatus.

We see these mechanisms in work on shorter timescales, too. For example, there are reasons why Niños like 2002-03 and 2006-07 were relatively cool, and why years like 2001-02, 2005-06, and 2013-14 relatively warm.

All of the above is your theory on why we have warmed up in 2013-2014-2015. In my opinion, the Hadley Cell expansion is permanent and caused by Ocean Heat Accumulation.

 

The hiatus era is done man, just accept it. How can paleo data be high-resolution? Mindblown.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

All of the above is your theory on why we have warmed up in 2013-2014-2015. In my opinion, the Hadley Cell expansion is permanent and caused by Ocean Heat Accumulation.

Regarding the surface temperature spike, observations indicate that three factors are behind it.

1) Warming ENSO

2) Dropping global wind speeds

3) An expansion of the Hadley Cells

I didn't make this up. These are observations.

[StudentOfClimatology]

To clarify, I'm not making a prediction either way right now. But I know better than to preach declarations that are contrary to the physical evidence available to me.

If I had a gun pointed at my head, I'd predict a resumption of warming at the 1985-2000 over the next 15yrs if global wind speeds remain low, or a 2000-2014 rate over the next 15yrs if things ever out. But that's a guess.

[The_Global_Warmer]

No reason to bang my head into the wall.

Anyone can run the correlation between the ohc data and temp trends.

This is going one way.

It is what it is

[StudentOfClimatology]

What deep OHC is doing is largely irrelevant because it lags in the equilibrative process to begin with, as far as CO^2 forcing is concerned.

It's a reflection of energy flow. The OHC will tend to spike when surface winds weaken, while atmospheric temps will tend to cool, or visa versa. There's no projectable variable in the short term.

[stadiumwave]

No cooling on Hadcrut4 since 2001.  Still warming FWIW.

 

We are not going back to the "hiatus."  It's really silly thinking otherwise.  By 2016 it will be 8 years after 2008 and unless the PDO and ENSO go LOWER than the hiatus years, they should be a fair bit warmer than 2008-2012, per additional forcing on the climate.  This is all barring a major volcanic eruption.  Simple statistics show that type of deviation from the trend line would be like a 3 sigma event.

 

The "stadiumwave" theory with Judith Curry is really out of the mainstream when she suggest the hiatus can last until 2030.  It quite simply ain't going to happen.  Even with a Mauder Minimum.

 

Remember that there was recently a paper that predicts a slight cooling over the next 25 years due to the AMO.  So...Stadiumwave is not the only study.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is an overwhelming correlation between OHC and surface temps with a small lag.

[stadiumwave]

No reason to bang my head into the wall.

Anyone can run the correlation between the ohc data and temp trends.

This is going one way.

It is what it is

 

 

Our ability to measure deep ocean heat at this point is not very good at all...so I'm not even sure it should be the talking point it so often is.

[AvantHiatus]

Our ability to measure deep ocean heat at this point is not very good at all...so I'm not even sure it should be the talking point it so often is.

Yeah but SSTA tho, lols. This needs to go away for surface cooling to commence.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

That's total bull****. These discussions have become u readable when bull**** is interjected.

If you want to say the way OHC is calculated is BS OK.

But the data is plentiful.

There is still a undeniable correlation between OHC and all of the surface data sets.

There is also a strong correlation between ssts and nodc OHC.

Everything is happening as expected.

And given how powerful natural variability is that is quite a huge achievement.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The OHC uncertainties are high because we're talking about fluctuations so small they're more effectively measured in Joules..a few hundredths of a degree centigrade.

[stadiumwave]

Let's be clear....we all know this is a moot point as to the danger of continuing to pump the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.  I think most of us agree we have to put the breaks on that.  But this is a huge issue as to climate sensitivity & the prediction of the rate of warming over the next century.

 

It just appears to me that NOAA's paper had a desirable result to find from the beginning. It reeks politics & I'm sure placates the current administration greatly.  The hiatus has been a PR nightmare & they just eliminated it in the minds of many.  My hunch is that this will backfire PR wise & create more distrust between science & the public.  That's very unfortunate because this isn't a time to widen that gap.

 

Dr. Curry makes an excellent point about this whole thing with NOAA...that's kind of telling of their intentions:

 

"It would have been more convincing if they first provided a detailed analysis of what they did to the ocean data and compared it with the HADSST data sets – in a journal that allowed a lengthy contribution. Instead, they went for a politically desirable headline first."

[stadiumwave]

Yeah but SSTA tho, lols. This needs to go away for surface cooling to commence.

 

 

 

Well...it is...because that heat is being released into the atmosphere. 

 

 

BTW....I prefer maps that do not use bright colors to make it look so intimidating...lol. Especially during a moderate to super Nino underway

 

 

 

 

FWIW, the greatest point of departures could very well be over the N. Atlantic on the negative side. But certainly overall it's on the....toasty side.

[nflwxman]

Here is OHC uncertainty as defined by 3 major peer reviewed papers.  The post 2003 uncertainty is quite small as compared to the trend.  I don't know what y'all are talking about....

 

Note: this only goes to 2010

[AvantHiatus]

I think the CO2/Combined GHG forcing has reached a level where heat is accumulating in the ocean and being released on the surface simultaneously. We're going to reach a point where natural variability (as we know it), simply disappears in a meaningful-way.

 

The whole rampant SSTA warming started way before the el nino appeared, back in 2013. It even took a while for land temperatures to respond in 2014.

[stadiumwave]

I think the CO2/Combined GHG forcing has reached a level where heat is accumulating in the ocean and being released on the surface simultaneously. We're going to reach a point where natural variability (as we know it), simply disappears in a meaningful-way.

 

The whole rampant SSTA warming started way before the el nino appeared, back in 2013. It even took a while for land temperatures to respond in 2014.

 

I totally agree with your 1st paragraph. 

 

I don't agree with the 2nd.  I think it's all related to the current ENSO event.

[stadiumwave]

Here is OHC uncertainty as defined by 3 major peer reviewed papers.  The post 2003 uncertainty is quite small as compared to the trend.  I don't know what y'all are talking about....

 

Note: this only goes to 2010

 

 

I have no doubt the data is reflecting a real trend 0-700 meters. Below that is worthless.

[stadiumwave]

No reason to bang my head into the wall.

Anyone can run the correlation between the ohc data and temp trends.

This is going one way.

It is what it is

 

 

My apologies...I looked at it wrong & thought you posted a graph showing below 700 meters.

[The_Global_Warmer]

My apologies...I looked at it wrong & thought you posted a graph showing below 700 meters.

No problem.

I would like to see a 100M and 300M product from them as well.

I'm guessing 700M has some upper ocean/deeper ocean correlation.

But we do know the recent spike in OHC data is closer to the surface wth the weakening trades

[StudentOfClimatology]

I totally agree with your 1st paragraph.

I don't agree with the 2nd. I think it's all related to the current ENSO event.

I disagree with the 1st paragraph, and agree with the second one. If ENSO were to blame for 2014, it'd be reflected in the satellite data, as the dynamic changes in the equatorial thermal profile that result from ENSO are felt strongest in the middle troposphere.

The surface warmth is most likely due to decreasing global wind speeds reducing the evaporative process at the sea surface.

[StudentOfClimatology]

There are a lot of hilarious proclamations being made in this thread. Could be some good bump-trolling material down the road.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Here is OHC uncertainty as defined by 3 major peer reviewed papers. The post 2003 uncertainty is quite small as compared to the trend. I don't know what y'all are talking about....

Note: this only goes to 2010

You should probably give Dieng et al 2013 a read. Here, steric sea level rise (thermal expansion) is used to guide observed energy input into the oceans, and is homogenized alongside the ARGO network.

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/701/2015/osd-12-701-2015.pdf

[nflwxman]

There are a lot of hilarious proclamations being made in this thread. Could be some good bump-trolling material down the road.

Seems like a normal science blog conversation to me..

[donsutherland1]

I don't agree that Dr. Karl's paper was intended to be political. He's been researching temperatures, data, modeling, etc., for more than 20 years. I very much doubt he would throw away the credibility he has accumulated by embracing politics. Whether or not the paper holds up under further scientific review or the findings are modified is a separate matter.

[PB GFI]

I would never discredit the  NOAA correction but I have never found myself to be of an obsequious nature . I always yields to science however here I  have to pause for something very obvious  IMO .

 

This is the second time NOAA has " corrected " the past . And both times the errors were ONLY found on the cold side ?

In both cases they cooled the past ... Never finding any " colder " anomaly that needed to be warmed ?  Maybe that is plausible and they believe they are within a 90% probability .

BUT HERE IS WHERE THE SMELL TEST GIVES ME SOME CONCERN . In EVERY case  Land , Ocean , Global the correction is

1 way .

There is not  one single solitary part of the equation when they " fill in the data " COOL ever show sup ?

So I again I am not throwing the NOAA data set and yelling fire , but I am saying  I am either looking at a corrected data set  ( AGAIN ) or something deep down I hope is not taking place.

[ORH_wxman]

I would never discredit the  NOAA correction but I have never found myself to be of an obsequious nature . I always yields to science however here I  have to pause for something very obvious  IMO .

 

This is the second time NOAA has " corrected " the past . And both times the errors were ONLY found on the cold side ?

In both cases they cooled the past ... Never finding any " colder " anomaly that needed to be warmed ?  Maybe that is plausible and they believe they are within a 90% probability .

BUT HERE IS WHERE THE SMELL TEST GIVES ME SOME CONCERN . In EVERY case  Land , Ocean , Global the correction is

1 way .

There is not  one single solitary part of the equation when they " fill in the data " COOL ever show sup ?

So I again I am not throwing the NOAA data set and yelling fire , but I am saying  I am either looking at a corrected data set  ( AGAIN ) or something deep down I hope is not taking place.

 

 

It depends what timeframe you are looking at. Changing the 1998-2014 trend from 0.06C per decade to 0.11C per decade is what all the focus was on.

 

If you looked at my post on the last page, they actually made a case for a significant reduction (on the order of 10% plus) in the instrumental period warming given that the early periods were warmed a lot.

[PB GFI]

It depends what timeframe you are looking at. Changing the 1998-2014 trend from 0.06C per decade to 0.11C per decade is what all the focus was on.

 

If you looked at my post on the last page, they actually made a case for a significant reduction (on the order of 10% plus) in the instrumental period warming given that the early periods were warmed a lot.

 

 " the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. 

 

I think that is the cause for pause . Again I am not claiming the new data set is wrong, but we keep increasing the slope that ends up mirroring the warming concerns and NOAA never seems to find sampling errors that flatten the curve .