Question:
If the Pacific Decadal oscillation (PDO) is the reason for the pause?
Kano
2014-02-07 18:22:58 UTC
Is it possible that a positive PDO (among with a positive AMO plus solar maximum) was the reason for all the warming in the 80's and 90's and not CO2 which continues to rise.
Seven answers:
Maxx
2014-02-08 13:19:27 UTC
Of course the problem with trying to argue PDO is the reason for the 'pause' is that PDO is SOLAR driven. The atmosphere doesn't heat the oceans, the Sun does. Air doesn't have enough density or enough heat to make any significant impact on ocean temperature, you've got to have changes in solar activity to do that.



Even NASA agrees the Little Ice Age was due to less solar activity, not anything to do with CO2. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/



-----------------------
Trevor
2014-02-08 10:35:00 UTC
Of the dozens of oceanic oscillations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is the most significant as it has the greatest impact upon our climates. The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) also has a significant influence but this switches phases within a year or two, and as such the positives and negatives soon cancel each other out.



On decadal time scales the PDO has a greater influence than all other oceanic oscillations combined.



To answer your question we need to look for a correlation between the PDO Index, the average global temperature and the total heat content of the oceans.



This first graph shows the PDO since 1900:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/12380654425/

And this second one shows the average global temperature over the same time period:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/12380810803/

What you’ll notice is that most pronounced periods of warming do coincide with the positive phases of the PDO, namely those of the early and late 20th century.



When the PDO entered its negative phase in the middle of the 20th century the average global temperature remained constant. The PDO is again in a negative phase as it has been since 1998, once more temperatures have remained constant.



If we combined the two graphs into one this is what we get:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/12381097814/

The PDO fluctuates between positive and negative phases and these cancel each other out, the average PDO Index for the period 1900 to 2013 is as good as zero (it’s actually 0.004009).



If the PDO was the cause of warming / cooling then there shouldn’t have been any overall change in the temperature, but as the second graph shows, the temperature has followed a long-term upward trend. Clearly there’s more to it than just the PDO, and this is where the greenhouse gases come in.



The warming signal is evident in that a negative PDO fails to cause cooling, all it really does is to mask the underlying warming. Once the PDO switches to positive then the warming trend bounces back.



With the PDO in a negative phase there is a greater upwelling of cold water from the oceans, this creates a greater temperature gradient between the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean and this allows more heat to transfer into the ocean.



The PDO switched to its current negative phase in 1998 and since that time the oceans have absorbed an additional 160,000 billion billion Joules of energy. On the face of it once could easily assume that the PDO was the sole cause of this additional uptake, but it’s not that simple.



In fact, the ocean heat content has been increasing since about 1970 and the reason for this is simply because the atmosphere has warmed up. The role that the PDO plays is to speed up or slow down the flow of heat into the oceans.



We’re presently close to the end of the negative phase of the PDO cycle. If we go back to c1955 – the last time the PDO was in this position – then we can look at ocean heat content across a full cycle. What we find is that there has been a more or less continual increase such that there’s now an extra 310,000 billion billion Joules of energy in the oceans.



TO SUMMARISE: Global warming is an ongoing trend, when the PDO is in its positive phase it amplifies the warming signal, in the negative phase it counters the warming signal and there’s a temporary pause in the warming. All the while, because the atmosphere has warmed, more heat energy enters the oceans; the PDO isn’t the cause of this but it does affect the rate at which energy is absorbed.



NOTE: The above is an over-simplification, there are some other key factors that I haven’t mentioned.
?
2014-02-08 15:41:25 UTC
It's possible. Dr Roy Spencer has theorized that the PDO caused a change in cloudiness which caused the global warming we have seen.



The global warming era is about 1979-1998 for 19 years. 1998-2014 is 16 years.

Somehow the one is considered much more important than the other.



Yet, there has been no cooling, so it may be the PDO caused an enhancement of a natural warming or a greenhouse gas warming, while the cooling phase merely had temperatures stay even. In that case we can expect temperatures to be level for a few more years, then another twenty years of warming, at which the climate scientists will jump back to 'Temperatures are running away.' They will presumably then begin to ignore ocean heat.
John
2014-02-08 05:25:07 UTC
No, because there has been no pause. While it is true that the past few years have shown a slower rate of warming in the surface temperatures it is also true that the deeper layers of the oceans have shown a stronger warming trend during the same time period. As we both know, it takes much more heat energy to warm water than it does to warm air. The last I checked, the oceans are still part of this planet.



Oscillations, such as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), AO (Arctic Oscillation) and ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) are too short in duration to show any long term trends in the global climate. All of them switch between positive, neutral and negative within a fairly short time frame. The oscillations are also incapable of creating or destroying heat energy. All they can do is transport the heat energy that is already there.



Added***

Kano, why do you not link to the original source of these graphics? Intellicast and BreakForNews created these graphics?

Are you now suggesting that the oscillations are capable of creating or destroying heat energy? Is this what you are claiming?
?
2014-02-09 02:32:30 UTC
What pause? Five or 10 years does not a climate make.Thirty years is a widely accepted minimum to show a climactic trend. The last three decades do not seem to show a pause.
Jeff M
2014-02-08 06:59:31 UTC
No. Because the frequencies involved with the warming exist at specific ones. You have constantly ignored this. This points to what is specifically causing the warming. But of course, once again, you will write it off because it doesn't fit your anti-science belief.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
2014-02-08 02:44:47 UTC
What "pause", we just had the hottest decade on record.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...