Noel Keenlyside et al. (from Kiel, Germany)wrote an article called "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector." Yes, I mean Kiel where Max Planck was born.
They look at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) influencing the meridional overturning circulation (MOC). The Gulf Stream is the part of the MOC along the East Coast of the U.S., mostly driven by Western winds (i.e. directly by the rotation of Earth). Its extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is also supported by thermohaline circulation.
MOC: Warm water flows from the equator to the North and returns at depth in the ocean. The intensity of this circulation depends on the AMO phase. See a detailed picture of Atlantic currents.
The oscillation is a slow quasiperiodic pattern that usually switches into the opposite regime after 60-70 years. It is a slower process than PDO we discussed a few days ago. Because only sea surface temperatures are available for previous decades, they use them to reconstruct the temperatures inside the ocean. The results are incorporated as a new term in their otherwise "conventional" computer model. With this new term, (validation) skill is improved markedly.
Commercial: Prof Roy Spencer: More carbon dioxide, pleaseTheir conclusion? The predictions for a foreseeable future change dramatically. The MOC will weaken to its long-term mean. The Atlantic Ocean, Europe, and America will cool down slightly in the next decade while the Pacific Ocean won't change. In plain English, the AGW hoax may take timeout till 2018.
Their choice of words is a testimony of the political correctness. For example, in Richard Black's article in the BBC, Keenlyside says:
One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).If you wonder what this sentence means, it means "Our models, if correct, imply that the IPCC projections for the next 15-20 years are incorrect." Recall the words that are being used when a controversial published article disagrees with a detail of a skeptic's theory: we typically read about one last nail in the coffin of an oil industry stooge. ;-) But when 2,500 hacks are proved wrong in a completely essential aspect of their paper - the projection of temperatures for the whole next decade -, a very different language must be chosen, right?
Even though 1/3 of the people who live today are said to see no more global warming in their lifetime - a problem that is often claimed to be one of the most urgent problems of the current world - and despite the disagreement of their paper with the frantically promoted hysteria about the "settled" catastrophic science, Richard Black writes:
The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous warming by the world's top 2,500 scientists ;-) "does not come as a surprise". Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper predicts 20 years of no warming.
Recall that Al Gore has predicted global destruction in less than 8 years from now. To make you even more certain that scientific papers can have no impact whatsoever on the religious dogmas of the climate debate, Richard Black quotes a Richard Wood from the Hadley Centre:
[Wood] emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.So a paper showing that a decade of predictions is completely wrong because it has neglected some very important dynamics doesn't even "indicate" that there "might" be something wrong with the projection of the IPCC "and many other institutions" in the long run. Wow. What an amazing [expletive] this Wood is. This is the kind of people who are reviewing articles about climate change to guarantee that "heresies" can't occur. This particular Wood was the reviewer of Keenlyside et al.
The whole validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture. At this moment, no one can really know for sure what will happen with the AMO in 50 years or so. If we add a term whose absolute values is equal to the strength of the greenhouse effect, a term that can exist for 60-70 years, we can get different results for 60-70 years, can't we?
And there might be many other such terms; note that no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO. Scientists might be ultimately allowed to study these sinful, mostly irrelevant (!!!) terms but they are not allowed to touch the greatness of the holy anthropomorphic God of global warming who is and who must be forever above all of them. ;-)