Global Sea Surface Temps still headed down

Solar sunspot minimum in effect.
the evidence is piling up.
Paul Pierett

Note that negative low-cloud feedback would conflict with all of the IPCC climate models, which exhibit various levels of positive cloud feedback.
Negative feedback is why there is nothing to worry about in global warming. Nature keeps itself in balance. If manmade emissions take Nature out of balance it would already be showing in the data. But as Richard Lindzen continues to point out there is no imbalance in Nature showing in the data.

I look forward to counting the death toll from the coming winter in the northern hemisphere. I’m sorry to be so blunt , but the warmists need to learn a lesson they will never forget.

The lesson they will never forget? It’s the Sun Stupid!

Michael, they won’t get it. The media will hide it. This isn’t science, this is politics of the worst sort. Note, there are some people who truely believe in AGW, but I’m convinced that most of the drivers know d*mn good and well that AGW is a scam to gain money and political power.

David Gould says: wrote
August 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Michael,
“What can I say to a comment like that?”
Thank you.
It’s the lurkers I am writing this for.

Michael,
If you are writing for the lurkers, I heartily approve of you continuing to make such comments.

The global temperature has been cooling, but it is still noticeably warmer than at the same date in 2007 as the 07/08 La Nina developed, despite the fact that this La Nina seems to be clearly more advanced in its development.
Very early days yet as the significant cooling (of global temperatures) for a La Nina really only begins around November, but so far the signs are favourable that next year will be the warmest year with a La Nina in the temperature record, as SSTs do tend to cool earlier, and so far the cooling response is behind schedule.
As long as the blue line in Roy’s chart is above the red line that is evidence for overall warming, and if you want cooling, you are looking for the blue line to drop below the red.
p.s. some have asked questions about what the lag is between ENSO and global temperatures. It varies from month to month. Both ENSO and global temperuatres tend to peak/bottom out at around the same time – January, and the lag appears through the rest of the year as ENSO goes to neutral quite quickly, whereas the temperature is much slower to relax to a roughly neutral state, and when a new ENSO state starts around mid year there is little temperature response at first until a fast response develops around Nov/Dec.

Rhoda R says: wrote
August 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“Michael, they won’t get it. The media will hide it. This isn’t science, this is politics of the worst sort. Note, there are some people who truely believe in AGW, but I’m convinced that most of the drivers know d*mn good and well that AGW is a scam to gain money and political power.”
So the dead body count in Peru alone in the southern hemisphere this year is 400+.
People do adapt to conditions. Maybe that’s why the dead body count is going down, down there.
The nanny state should jump all overt the winter death thing.
It reminds me of the nanny state requiring all kids to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle.
Oh, Johnny died when he fell of his bicycle. Lets make every kid where a helmet while riding a bike. Disclosure: I own a helmet making factory. The kids still have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice in the same year than being killed on a bicycle when not wearing a helmet. The nanny state teaches people not to be responsible for their mistakes.

April E. Coggins says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm
“I am very worried that the Pacific Northwest is in for a bad winter..”
It is hard to predict the wind direction but if the winter’s winds come mainly off the N. Pacific expect not too cold winter with lots of snow. If the winds come from the north, off the continent, expect less snow and more cold. Some discussion here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm
(scroll down to large table)

Do you see all those yellow orange and red bits on the first chart above?
That’s where all of Hansens thermometres are located.
By hook or by crook, 2010 will be the hottest year on record, duly trumpeted just before the Mexico COP meeting in November.

stevengoddard says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Given that the oceans make up 70% of the earth, why aren’t UAH temperatures coming down with the SSTs?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
_______
This is probably one of the best questions asked so far. Tropo temps have been running high for quite some time…and let’s see, what is that molecule that has increased 40% in the troposphere in the past few hundred years that GCM’s just happen to have predicted will increase tropo temps? Oh yeah…CO2. And this is of course where “warmists” and skeptics diverge in opinion…yet what mechanism do skeptics find right now for the record high tropo temps?

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm
…I’m looking forward to a nice, long, ice-fishing season in northern Illinois, just like last winter’s!
Are we still considered to be in a solar minimum? There seems to be some dispute about that.
_____
The sun is definitely past the solar minimum and is increasing in sunspot activity and irradiance since the minimum of 2008-2009. We will see steady increases of both in 2011, 2012, and peaking in late 2013? (maybe even early 2014?). Expect another El Nino to occur in 2012-2013 near the Solar Max, so even if the Solar Max event is weaker than normal, the El Nino near this period should push Global temps to new instrument records.

R. Gates says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Even NOAA says you are mistaken:
What are the U.S. impacts of La Niña?
La Niña often features drier than normal conditions in the Southwest in late summer through the subsequent winter. Drier than normal conditions also typically occur in the Central Plains in the fall and in the Southeast in the winter. In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is more likely to be wetter than normal in the late fall and early winter with the presence of a well-established La Niña. Additionally, on average La Niña winters are warmer than normal in the Southeast and colder than normal in the Northwest.
—————-
The question for the Pacific Northwest is not where the warm water is during La Nina, it’s the path of the storms. We can be either polar cold & dry, or in snowfall city.

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm
…I’m looking forward to a nice, long, ice-fishing season in northern Illinois, just like last winter’s!
Are we still considered to be in a solar minimum? There seems to be some dispute about that.
_____________________________________________
That is an interesting question.
Technically we are considered to be “ramping-up” but the sun is still rather “lethargic” If you look at the past recent sunspot minimums such as cycles 20, 21 and 22 you will see the minimums had as many spots as the sun does now. Cycle 21 had a rather active minimum for example. Between 15 and 25 spots. Right now NOAA has the count under 24 and Layman’s has the count under 14. It might be interesting to compare the F10.7 flux for the minimums of the active cycles.
Sunspot graphs by cycle
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
F10.7 for 1954 (cycle 19) and now
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
http://fdab.gsfc.nasa.gov/Symposium/Session3_No2.pdf

rbateman says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm
“…There has been zero growth trend in Sunspot Area since February, and zero flux growth. If this does not change by the end of this year, cycle 24 will have undercut all cycles since the photoheliographic records began in 1874.
The sun is currently spotless.”
Yes, not typical solar minimum. Here’s a few ‘lowlights’ from the Solen solar activity report for August 20, 2010 at 03:25 UTC:-
“The geomagnetic field was quiet on August 19. Solar wind speed ranged between 300 and 339 km/s.
Solar flux measured at 20h UTC on 2.8 GHz was 77.9. The planetary A index was 5 (STAR Ap – based on the mean of three hour interval ap indices: 4.6). Three hour interval K indices: 12120121 (planetary), 12221101 (Boulder).
At midnight UTC the visible solar disk had 1 spotted region. Region 11097 reemerged with a single tiny spot in the trailing section of the large plage area.
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) – August 17-19: No obviously Earth directed CMEs were seen in LASCO or STEREO images.
Coronal holes – A large recurrent coronal hole (CH418) in the northern hemisphere will likely be Earth facing on August 21-23. The leading part of CH418 nearly closed on August 19 due to new corona caused by slowly emerging flux at the southern border of the coronal hole.”
The solar ramp-up seems comatosed at the moment, and unless activity starts to increase soon, we’re in for colder times ahead with cooler SST and a bad NH winter.

R. Gates says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:08 pm
The sun is definitely past the solar minimum and is increasing in sunspot activity and irradiance since the minimum of 2008-2009. We will see steady increases of both in 2011, 2012, and peaking in late 2013? (maybe even early 2014?). Expect another El Nino to occur in 2012-2013 near the Solar Max, so even if the Solar Max event is weaker than normal, the El Nino near this period should push Global temps to new instrument records.

Forecasting weather now are you? Basing this on actual data?
From the data I found sun is still not quite out of the minimum, there is a little more activity then zero, but not much. Minimum went into 2010…but I digress on that point. But I will remember your prediction of weather (or climate since I forgot we are talking about warmth and not cold.)..
I wonder if you looked up what the Atlantic and PDO’s will be like in 2013/2014, because frankly those have a much larger impact then the 1.1 degrees C we have warmed since the LIA. And it would take a heck of an el nino to top 1998 even if those were both warm since 1998 was an unusually warm el nino.
Since you made a prediction, I will make one. We will see the solar maximum in about 2015/2016 (I believe it appears we are coming out of solar minimum slowly). El nino in 2013/2014 will barely be noticed because at this point Atlantic will begin turning cold…And with a cold Pacific its effects will be less then usual. Solar maximum will impact at about same time as a la nina, so that will also be countered for the most part.
So all in all, I think we will drop sharply in temperature with our current la nina, a steady decrease with the el nino you talked about, and a larger plunge when la nina hits again. But then again, I am just basing my “weather” predictions off of old trends, and thoughts I have on the current solar minimum which seems to throw any prediction out the window really… so maybe I am wrong.
But since we are putting predictions out there: I have been right all except once over the last 4 years predicting weather for the next couple of seasons….
And my prediction for our fall/winter here in the midwest: Slightly above average temperatures until frost hits about one month ahead of time. After this, expect a slightly below average temperature winter with weird temperature swings, and interesting storms. Interesting could mean some big storms and quick ones…but these storms will come with “winter heat waves” and “arctic cold snaps” so temperatures will be all over the charts. Be prepared for the big storms.
I did do a pacific northwest prediction (I was asked), I basically found it likely that they will have winter hit early as well, and will be dryer then usual and very very cold. Based off of other people, looks like I am basing my trends off of option B for La Nina. I look at charts and note trends, so since it seems the pacific northwest prediction is a crapshoot, I will have 50% chance of being right…lets see how it turns out.
Who knows? that is my first prediction for the Pacific Northwest which I do not have as much experience with dealing with outside of charts, so come back next spring if I am wrong…

# stevengoddard says: August 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“Given that the oceans make up 70% of the earth, why aren’t UAH temperatures coming down with the SSTs?”
A clue is sometimes possible if the analysis distinguishes between summer and winter temperatures at higher latitude, e.g. north of 40°N, as it reduces the direct influence of the sun. The higher the latitude region the more it is possible to identify the role of the ocean during one season, or over a longer period of time. For example: What caused or supported the sudden Artic warming (and subsequently of the Northern Hemisphere) since winter 1919, lasting until 1940? http://www.arctic-warming.com/ In this case only the winter temperature increase was very significant, compared with the modest summer periods.

Since the peak of 2010 is similar to the peak of 1998, we have to compare these two years:
1998:
0.76 (February); 0.53; 0.76; 0.65; 0.57; 0.52; 0.52; 0.45; 0.41; 0.19; and 0 after 13 month, -0.12 after 16 month, -0.24 after 23 month
2010:
0.66 (March); 0.50; 0.54; 0.44; 0.49
What can one expect? The whole world to cool down in a few days? We will know more in spring of 2012.

” R. Gates says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:55 pm
stevengoddard says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Given that the oceans make up 70% of the earth, why aren’t UAH temperatures coming down with the SSTs?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
_______
This is probably one of the best questions asked so far. Tropo temps have been running high for quite some time…and let’s see, what is that molecule that has increased 40% in the troposphere in the past few hundred years that GCM’s just happen to have predicted will increase tropo temps? Oh yeah…CO2. And this is of course where “warmists” and skeptics diverge in opinion…yet what mechanism do skeptics find right now for the record high tropo temps?”
And Sea Surface temperatures are 0.24F cooler than this date 18/8 last year and indeed close to 2008. That I do not understand. Why is near surface layer so much warmer when sea surface is so relatively cool? I am a sitter on the fence and it will be interesting to see if temperatures remain steady as they have been since 1998 or if another “lift” is in the pipeline. I would have thought that by now we should have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures.

“yet what mechanism do skeptics find right now for the record high tropo temps?”
As per my New Climate model the quiet sun and poleward jets actually reflects a reduction of energy loss from troposphere to stratosphere so it takes longer for El Nino warmth to exit the system.
It’s obvious really. The stratosphere has been warming slightly since the sun settled down. A warming stratosphere increases the temperature inversion at the tropopause so energy moves upward through it more slowly. As part of that process the polar high pressure cells grow stronger and move more equatorward.
The reason for the warming stratosphere is linked to the quieter sun so something about the sun’s effect on the atmosphere above the stratosphere must be reducing upward energy loss to space.
The opposite occurred during the late 20th century period of a more active sun.

Can someone explain the red colour in the Arctic ocean? According to DMi the recent water temperature is 0 to 2°C. How can it be that the SST anomaly is +5°C there? Meaning the normal Arctic ocean temperature is -5 to -3° C?
thanks

Stephen Wilde says: “As per my New Climate model the quiet sun and poleward jets actually reflects a reduction of energy loss from troposphere to stratosphere so it takes longer for El Nino warmth to exit the system.”
As noted above, ENSO-induced SST variations outside of the tropical Pacific are caused by changes in wind speed. The question is, what has caused the delay in the increase in wind speed that would result in a decrease in SST?

stevengoddard says: {August 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm}
“Given that the oceans make up 70% of the earth, why aren’t UAH temperatures coming down with the SSTs?”
Perhaps there is no UHI in the middle of the oceans.

Ben says:
August 20, 2010 at 12:26 am
The plants & animals here are behaving in a manner which suggests an early fall/winter is in the cards (lower Pacific Northwest).
Some trees were 2 months late to bloom, sunflowers (usually a mainstay) failed or stunted, birds are gathering already for migration. Feels mostly like fall already.
Your forecast for the PN is in line with what’s going on at ground level. Not bad.

The stratosphere warmed because of the ash aerosols from the 2008-2009 VEI-4’s.

Bob Tisdale:
I think you will find that the wind speed and direction changes that you document so well are linked to the latitudinal shifting of the air circulation systems.
There is a typo in my post. I should have referred to quiet sun and equatorward jets.
My comments are not repetition of a simple mantra. I actually point out how ongoing real world observations do actually fit my proposed model.
Specific numbers and quantities are not required, merely a general tendency for events to follow my general expectations.
There are lots of ways that I can be proved wrong as I have told you before. When that happens I will not ignore it but I do reserve the right to amend my hypothesis if the contrary events are not wholly fatal.
If we get the jets moving significantly poleward whilst the sun stays inactive and without a powerful El Nino pushing them poleward then that will present me with a difficulty but don’t hold your breath.

Bob Tisdale asked:
“During an El Nino, there are changes in Walker and Hadley Circulation that cause reductions in wind speed over the tropical Atlantic. With the slower winds, there is less evaporation and less upwelling of cooler subsurface waters (and less entrainment of these waters from below the mixed layer). This is why SST rises in the tropical Atlantic during an El Nino. All of these processes are well documented and have been decades, yet they are not represented by your New Climate Model.”
I think my model does deal with that.
During an El Nino the equatorial air masses expand and all the air circulation systems shift poleward unless prevented by doing so by the top down effects of a quiet sun.
During that process the sub tropical highs expand and intensify as per your description and more solar shortwave enters the oceans because the poleward shift of the cloud bands reduces albedo. More ocean being under sub tropical highs there will of course be less wind, less evaporation and locally a slower hydrological cycle although globally thay cycle will be faster.
So my model does deal with those features and covers your observations perfectly.I have told you already that your work though highly expert in a regional context needs to be integrated with a global perspective.
Have you actually read my stuff properly ? Or perhaps you have read it but not yet fully absorbed it ?

The North Atlantic is very warm right now nearing the 1998 record levels. (Some of the following was inspired by Bob Tisdale’s recent post on this at
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/08/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-2.html
Temps hit a peak in March, the normal time expected for a 3 month lag from the El Nino which peaked in mid-December. The 3-month lag means that the temperatures right now are being impacted by the Neutral 0.0C ENSO numbers from May.
As we see in the 1998 El Nino, there was a peak at 3 months after the El Nino and then the AMO started going up (as it doing today). It should start down now going by history.
Should we use the AMO as a ocean cycle impacting temperatures just like the ENSO does?
Look at the RSS lower troposphere temperatures versus the AMO.
http://a.imageshack.us/img62/3690/amovsrss.png
It is hard to not notice how they react the same.
Let’s take the Raw Undetrended AMO values back to 1856 and compare that to Hadrcut3 temperatures (the upward trend in the AMO is usually removed so that a global warming signal is not carried into it but I used the Raw numbers here just to show how close they are).
http://a.imageshack.us/img204/8828/undetramoandhadcrut3.png
It is hard to not notice the strong correlation again.
So, why are temperatures still high. The North Atlantic is still carrying some heat (which was partly generated from the El Nino) and this is slowly being pushed into the atmosphere.
On the other hand, it could be that the AMO is not a natural ocean cycle at all but just warms up and cools down in reaction to global temperatures. It is certainly being impacted by the El Nino however, which could mean there should be two lags from the ENSO – a 3 month lag and then a 5 to 9 month one.

R. Gates, once again you suggest that CO2 is warming oceans up. Prove it. Please post how you think that is happening. And don’t use the fall back “dipole” argument. Calculate the amount of heat energy created by the increase in CO2 that somehow gets into the oceans to the degree that they are heated from this source as you say.

Here. I’ll make it easy for you. Here is the degree of increase in heat content in the oceans.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=ohc
Here are the calculations for longwave radiation’s ability to heat oceans. Betcha you can’t make the calculations explain the rise.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/documents/thermodynamics.pdf

Here is another go at it R. Gates. For CO2 to be a plausible cause of the trend, it’s first step mechanism can only be increased absorption of upwelling longwave radiation that results in a decrease in measured Outgoing Longwave Radiation at the outer edge of our atmosphere over the time period of the observed temperature trend, and that matches the supposed linear rise in CO2, minus internal atmospheric weather pattern variations that result in the rather noisy but highly seasonal and time of day dependent data.

John Peter said:
” I would have thought that by now we should have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures”
UAH data once more:
March 2010 0.66
April 2010 0.50
May 2010 0.54
June 2010 0.44
July 2010 0.49
So, John Peter, you are absolutely right: We have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures.

“The sun is definitely past the solar minimum and is increasing in sunspot activity and irradiance since the minimum of 2008-2009. We will see steady increases of both in 2011, 2012, and peaking in late 2013? (maybe even early 2014?). ”
Dream, babe, dream. The lag in bulk solar input to bulk ocean output approaches a decade as estimated by many researchers. The minimum ran 3 years, about twice the average. The max in solar activity is inversely related to the length of the ramp min to max, with your 2014 an optimistic but credible WAG. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, pilgrim.

“”” Pamela Gray says:
August 20, 2010 at 9:22 am
Here. I’ll make it easy for you. Here is the degree of increase in heat content in the oceans.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=ohc
Here are the calculations for longwave radiation’s ability to heat oceans. Betcha you can’t make the calculations explain the rise.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/documents/thermodynamics.pdf “””
Thanks Pamela for those links; specially the latter.
But upon a quick glance through I did start developing some internal thermal energy without the benefit of any input othert han the photons coming off the paper.
Why do presumably knowedgeable persons keep on doing silly things to get one’s dander up.
Well I see those blokes are Aussies so that would explain it.
Why do people want to talk about “Kelvin Degrees”. There’s no such thing as Kelvin Degrees; they are Kelvins; and the size of the integer increase in the number of Kelvins is identical to one Deg C so why the blazes convert Deg C to Kelvins in an equation and simply muddy up the page to make it more unreadable; just put in the darn Kelvin mumbers and be done with it; or add the deg C someplace else if one wants to keep that number readily available.
But if you are going to throw in a complicated conversion from Deg C to Kelvins; then please; at least do that part correctly ; and the correct conversions is K = C +273.15 ; not 273.2
And the Kelvin scale is an absolute scale so if you say one Kelvin; you are describing a Temperature that is below the freezing point of Helium.
So can we please use Kelvins for the real Absolute Temperature and (maybe) toss in deg C or F as an aside to assist the more lay reader; and then use deg C when we are talking about Temperature differences; such as anomalies; (if we have to use that ugly word) with maybe a deg F aside for the lay reader.
I have taken to capitalizing “Temperature” to sort of reinforce when I mean the Kelvin scale; and I have no idea whether that is in any SI roolz but it is my rule until otherwise noted.
But I see that Aussie paper has 57 varieties of Q. I always get the heeby jeebies when people define some endless number of subscripted variables; as it is quite impossible to keep them separated in one’s mind when reading a paper.
It is like reading the (in)famous “Drake Equation” for why the universe is full of monsters who are much smarter than we are.
It’s an endless product of a string of probabilities; absolutely none of which has ever been measured or even quantified in any scientifically believeable way. And of course the SETI folks never tell you about the atronomically large Denominator of the Drake Equation which is the product of all the improbabilities of each of the essential organic chemical reactions, each of which had to spontaneously happen in the correct sequence; and in the correct favourable environment for inorganic rock elements and compounds to become the complex organic molecules of living organisms; whether intelligent or as dumb as a box of rocks.
We so far have no proof that intelligence has any better survival characteristics than just being big and mean and ugly like the dinosaurs; which kept them prospering for 140 million years.
So basing a search for life on the idea of intelligence; seems totally daft to me; and so far the results seem to support my contention.
But I digress; that was all about not liking a screed of subscripted variable quantities presumable one for each finger and toe to count them on.
But then I did mention that this was an Aussie study; didn’t I ?

And one more thing. I hope that warm pool stays there Gates. It will be the source of snow pack for us. So once again Gates, think before you post. I’m a native Oregonian raised on a farm that is dependent on snow pack. We know how that happens and plan accordingly regarding summer irrigation water.
1. Cold pool with La Nina: bitter cold and low snow pack in mountains and valleys which leads to low summer irrigation.
2. Warm pool with La Nina: cold and with average snow pack in mountain and valleys which leads to normal summer irrigation.
3. Cold pool with El Nino: warm but with mountain snow pack which leads to normal summer irrigation.
4. Warm pool with El Nino: rain which leads to low summer irrigation.
Extremes, which we take in stride, happen around these 4 scenarios.

Rhys Jaggar says: “That graph shows that SSTs oscillate up to 5C pretty rapidly, doesn’t it?”
Actually, it shows that NINO3.4 SST anomalies can rise 3 deg C pretty rapidly. With the multiplier on the global data, it shows a global (60S-60N) SST response of about 0.4 deg C from a strong La Nina to a strong El Nino.

Bob, thank you for some interesting data but I have dealt with such apparent discrepancies already. There are two answers:
i) On timescales of less than about 3 solar cycles (the approximate length of a single Pacific Ocean warming or cooling phase) the patterns of which I speak appear to be swamped by short term chaotic variability and the ENSO cycles. The pattern becomes noticeable at 3 solar cycles or longer and is obvious on the 500/1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date. The position of the ITCZ in particular needs those longer timescales to reveal the links because it moves latitudinally less than do the various jet streams.
ii) Also on those shorter time scales the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere do not shift exactly in unison because of the different land/sea distributions. In particular the vast southern oceans dominate much more so as to smooth out the interplay between sun and oceans more than can the northern land masses. Indeed those northern land masses emphasise rather than smooth out the cycling processes hence the oft reported fact that the MWP and LIA signals are less pronounced in the southern hemisphere.
So, again, I suggest that your work needs to be supplemented by a global perspective and a much longer term overview. Only then does it all fall into place. Pointing out regional and short term exceptions to the patterns that I describe is pointless and misleading.
Nevertheless I thank you for your objections because they are helping me to refine my concepts.

[off topic ~ ctm]

” George E. Smith says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Well I see those blokes are Aussies so that would explain it.
Why do people want to talk about “Kelvin Degrees”. There’s no such thing as Kelvin Degrees; they are Kelvins…”
Please do not forget that the “degree” Kelvin was only abolished in 1967, and it takes some time to travel down under. The kg was defined in 1889, and people in the good old USA still use “slug” for mass (and pound for force).

Stephen Wilde wrote, “Every El Nino tries to expand the equatorial air masses. Whether it is successful or not is partly dependent on the top down opposing solar effects and also the ENSO milieu (positive or negative) in which each individual El Nino (or La Nina for that matter) finds itself.”
Do you have data or links to studies that support this?

Stephen Wilde says: “No, Bob it’s just a hypothesis that appears to fit observations and over time observations will confirm or rebut it.”
I presented data above that rebutted much of what you’ve presented.
You continued, “There is no adequate data and there are no relevant studies. It is new ground being investigated by me…That’s good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you then, tough.”
You write about your conjectures as though they are gospel. Could that be a problem? It could be if readers assume what you’ve written is based on scientific evidence….when it’s not.

(Y’all don’t take me wrong here). Chris, Bob has got his edge honed on Judith Curry and he’s just eviscerating poor old Stephen Wilde on the backstroke!

Record salmon return explained – PDO to blame.
“Hard for some people to explain. But the abundantly obvious and evident reason for record salmon runs is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift that occurred in 2008, when cool waters replaced warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water feeds plankton and subsequently the entire food chain, including salmon.”
http://westinstenv.org/nftsf/2010/07/26/record-salmon-return-explained/
The same good news in British Columbia, Canada
“Sockeye salmon stocks in Fraser River report massive rebound‎”
VANCOUVER – Fraser River sockeye are returning in droves, with commercial fishermen catching their limit within a few hours of casting their nets.
And with the estimated sockeye salmon stocks now at 14 million and expected to rise, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering opening another commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser later this week, said Barry Rosenberger, federal fisheries director for the B.C. Interior.
The fishery would add to a sport fishery opened on the Fraser last week as well ongoing fisheries in Johnstone Strait and Juan de Fuca. The sockeye fishery was last open to commercial fleets in 2006 when a total commercial catch of 3.7 million fish was approved.
“It’s phenomenal,” said Jason Assonicis, co-owner of Bon Chovy Fishing Charter. “It’s something we haven’t seen in four years for sockeye.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Sockeye+salmon+stocks+Fraser+River+report+massive+rebound/3405913/story.html
As well as in Atlantic Canada – “Best Salmon Return in Decades”
This season’s Atlantic salmon runs to many rivers throughout Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces are breaking recent records according to counting facility reports by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
http://www.wfn.tv/news/index.php?blog=408635

Bob Tisdale said:
“I presented data above that rebutted much of what you’ve presented”.
You have presented data that demonstrates part of what I say. Namely that on shorter timescales of less than the period of the Pacific phase shifts the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.
To achieve ‘evisceration’ you need to produce data that demonstrates failure on timescales that cover the MWP, the LIA and the Modern Warming Period.
It is perfectly clear that in the MWP the jets allowed warm air as far north as Greenland which became habitable. During the LIA the jets were way equatorward for much of the time and Greenland became uninhabitable whilst the ITCZ sank nearer the equator. I have previously provided sufficient links supporting those assertions.
Now the jets have recently delivered warmer air to Greenland but not yet matching the MWP and the ITCZ is more north of the equator than it was in the LIA.
So clearly the jets move poleward and equatorward over a 1000 year or so cycle but it is an irregular process with lots of inconsistencies within that cycle. I aver that the primary forcing is oceanic.
Now if one adds in the solar effect from above that introduces an adequate additional factor and the interplay between oceanic cycles from below and solar cycles from above provides all that we need to explain all that we have seen on the longer timescales.
It is conceded that the interplay is complex so that the shorter the timescale the less apparent it is.
Bob’s perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes. I keep asking him to link his short term perspective to my longer term perspective but he consistently refuses to do so.
If he were to do so then we could all benefit because it would become clear how over enough time his work would segue almost seamlessly into mine.
His emotional opposition to my propositions will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance unless he soon sees the light.

” it may be the beginning of knowledge,”
Quite so. Where have I claimed more ?
As someone said (was it Kipling ?) “In the country of the blind a one eyed man is king.”
My New Climate Model is clearly expressed to be a starting point to be compared with ongoing climate events and revised as necessary.
My approach is needed because the models and all the assumptions and data underlying them are by now known by all to be dismal failures and fundamentally flawed. Virtually all past data (pre 1979 when satellites started to be used) is too coarse and misleading to be consistent with modern day measuring techniques. I believe they hide the vast variety and scale of rapid climate events over periods of 30 years or more. Unless we start afresh our perceptions of climate and weather variability are just going to be obscured in a thick fog caused by the inadequacy of that past climate data and the proxies that have stood in for it for too long.
We need a fresh start with up to date data and I have attempted to provide it. Initially only for my own personal satisfaction but due to the large amount of unsought support I have widened the process to all who find it of interest and I listen to what those others say in order to determine as best I can whether my work has any value and whether there are flaws to be addressed or improvements to be made.
Generally the satisfaction derived from supporters exceeds the aggravation from those who do not understand my purpose or style.
The issue of style is important. As a non scientist but one with much weather and climate experience my style is different from most contributors to blogs of this type. However, my expression of complex concepts verbally rather than mathematically is of great value to many readers and must add to the accessibility of sites such as this.

Stephen Wilde: You asked again, “Do you assert that the heat released to the air by a strong El Nino does not have any effect on the size of the equatorial air masses above ?”
You already answered your question, Stephen. In response to my earlier question, “Do you have data or links to studies that support this?” (“this” being your comment, “Every El Nino tries to expand the equatorial air masses…”) you replied, “No, Bob it’s just a hypothesis that appears to fit observations and over time observations will confirm or rebut it.” Since you have provided no data and no links to studies to confirm or rebut your conjecture, there’s no reason for me to ponder the “size of the equatorial air masses above.” It serves no purpose. I, unlike you, investigate via data and scientific papers.
You wrote, “We need a fresh start with up to date data and I have attempted to provide it.”
This is misleading. You do not present data. And when confronted with data that contradicts your conjecture, you shift from discussions of annual and decadal variability to millennial time spans and claim as an excuse, “the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.”
Let’s put the last quote of yours above back into context. You replied to me, “You have presented data that demonstrates part of what I say. Namely that on shorter timescales of less than the period of the Pacific phase shifts the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.”
In other words, you’re clarifying that your model only works on multidecadal “the period of the Pacific phase shifts” timeframes. If this is fact, then your initial comment on this thread is misleading and misrepresents your model. As a reminder, your opening comment was, “The increase in cloud cover over oceans fits perfectly with my New Climate Model which anticipates just such a development with consequent increased global albedo when the air circulation systems sink equatorward taking the clouds with them. Primarily that means the cloud bands of the various jet treams and the ITCZ.”
That is, if your model only works on multidecadal timeframes, then the shift in cloud cover over the oceans during 2010 that Roy Spencer highlighted here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-est-SW-Global-thru-Aug-18-2010.gif
…could be caused by “chaotic variability [or] variability within the ENSO cycle” that is beyond the grasp of your model.
You wrote, “Bob’s perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes.”
Your first comment on this thread pertained to a cloud cover event that occurred solely in 2010. And you further discussed how your model explains portions of a single El Niño event when you replied, “During an El Nino the equatorial air masses expand and all the air circulation systems shift poleward unless prevented by doing so by the top down effects of a quiet sun. “ These single year events contradict your reply to me that my “perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes.” If you make a claim that a short-term event is explained by your model, how then, after being confronted with short-term data that contradicts your model, can you state “The pattern becomes noticeable at 3 solar cycles or longer and is obvious on the 500/1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date”? You bounce between monthly and millennial timeframes in an apparent effort to confuse your readers and to confound those who wish to debate your conjectures with you.
You wrote, “I keep asking him to link his short term perspective to my longer term perspective but he consistently refuses to do so.”
And as I have replied to you before, my interest is in the shorter-term perspective, a period for which there is data that has been obtained through direct measurement. I’m not interested in millennial scaled variability for which there is no directly measured data.
You wrote, “I have supplied plenty of principles of numerical reckoning.”
This is misleading. There are no equations, no graphs, no data in your post here at WUWT “A New And Effective Climate Model”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
You only provide vague descriptions of how you believe processes work. In fact, I noted on an earlier thread, “I have come to believe that you intentionally use terms as you see fit, and not as is generally accepted, to confuse those who read your comments and to make it difficult (impossible) for those who wish to debate a topic with you since your understandings, representations, and uses of terms are constantly shifting.”
Link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-424561
Stephen, I stumbled on a post about your New Climate Model today while searching for the Lord Kelvin quote. The post is titled “A New And Content-Free Model”. It is written by Brian Blais who is a professor of Science and Technology at Bryant University and a research professor in the Institute for Brain and Neural Systems at Brown University. Link:
http://bblais.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-and-content-free-model.html
To further illustrate how confusing your representations of your New Climate Model can be, I’ll quote from his post. He writes about your model, “This list continues for 26 points, not an equation in the mix. So why am I so hooked on equations? Take the first item, and call ‘Solar surface turbulence’ T, and the size of the atmosphere, A. Saying T goes up, so A goes up, could be like…” Blais then lists three different equations.
He continues, “Each of these is a translation of ‘when T goes up, A goes up’, but they have radically different forms, and they have radically different effects. You can’t build a proper scientific model in words alone. Words are not precise, and there are many different ways to translate them into something that is precise, that can actually make meaningful predictions.
“A model of just words is not really a model, in the scientific sense.”
Blais then goes on to quote Kelvin.
You wrote, “To achieve ‘evisceration’ you need to produce data that demonstrates failure on timescales that cover the MWP, the LIA and the Modern Warming Period.”
It is not my goal to “achieve ‘evisceration’”. I’m simply noting the contradictions about timeframes within your comments and the contradictions between data and your conjecture.
You wrote, “His emotional opposition to my propositions will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance unless he soon sees the light.”
Was that written in jest, Stephen? It has the tone of a veiled threat.
“His emotional opposition to my propositions…” Your propositions are conjecture, Stephen. You’ve admitted that on earlier threads.
“…will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance…” My contributions are based on data. Data must be irrelevant to you.
“…unless he sees the light”?!! And what light would that be? Your failure to provide data and calculations and your constant bouncing between annual and millennial timeframes is not conducive to anyone seeing the light, Stephen!
FYI, there is no emotion in my writings on this thread. And I’m not opposed to your propositions. I use data. You do not. And when the data contradicts your conjecture, I advise you of it. There’s no emotion in that. I will admit that sentence was a nice try at misdirection, though.
You wrote, “…I listen to what those others say in order to determine as best I can whether my work has any value and whether there are flaws to be addressed or improvements to be made.”
Unfortunately, when others point to flaws and inconsistencies, you argue. A prominent, respected physicist, Leif Svalgaard, advised you of an error with your model on the thread here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comment-361893
But instead of listening “to what those others say…”, you argued, and your arguments were based solely on your assumptions and conjecture, not on fact or data. And again, at another thread here at WUWT, you argued with Leif, instead of attempting to address the flaws and deficiencies in your model:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/
You wrote, “I have suggested the following amongst many others… iv) Calculate any link between the average latitudinal position of all the Earth’s main cloud bands and global albedo.”
Yet you provide no calculations. Do we then assume you hope someone else will respond to your suggestions and perform the calculations for you? Making suggestions is not in agreement with the portion the Kelvin writing you quoted as a preface: “In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it.” Performing and presenting calculations agrees with it. Presenting data agrees with it.
You continued, “Only someone prepared to follow through with practicable methods for measuring such matters has the right to preach to me about science,” and, “Bob Tisdale and Ralph Dwyer are not yet in that category.”
I’m not preaching to anyone. I responded to a comment from savethesharks with a quote from Lord Kelvin about science.
Also, I believe you have the responsibilities turned around. You could claim the foundations of your model had scientific bases if and only if you, Stephen Wilde, were “prepared to follow through with practicable methods for measuring such matters.” I personally have no interest in doing your work for you. And I don’t believe you’re going to find anyone else willing to do your work for you. Your failure to present data and to provide calculations to clarify your speculations is your burden, not mine.

“Unfortunately, when others point to flaws and inconsistencies, you argue. A prominent, respected physicist, Leif Svalgaard, advised you of an error with your model on the thread here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comment-361893
But instead of listening “to what those others say…”, you argued, and your arguments were based solely on your assumptions and conjecture, not on fact or data. And again, at another thread here at WUWT, you argued with Leif, instead of attempting to address the flaws and deficiencies in your model:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/”
Actually I have taken Leif’s comments very much on board but many others appear to disagree with him and some of his subsequent links left open the possibility of variable energy fluxes from layer to layer of the atmosphere so I am not ready to abandon what I said.
Additionally I am considering chemical reactions involving ozone because I can find no clear proof that a more active sun necessarily results in net warming rather than net cooling of the stratosphere.
Increased UV appears to increase destruction as well as creation and the balance between the two processes appears to be very unclear.
You seem to think it is an offence to argue. In fact I don’t actually argue. I just reserve the right to disagree whilst the evidence remains unclear.
Any process that might explain why the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and is now warming again with a less active sun is fine by me and can be slotted into my model just fine.
Alternatively just prove that a more active sun increases ozone creation more than ozone destruction and I’ll consider the implications of that too.

” I’m not interested in millennial scaled variability for which there is no directly measured data.”
That is your privilege though I think it a mistake. The absence of directly observed data is not a bar to all investigation.
I am attempting to link current events to millennial scale variability and you have nothing to offer on that issue.
There is enough data, albeit sparse, to advance a logical physics based scenario but not enough to quantify the various processes involved.

“”” Suzanne says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Record salmon return explained – PDO to blame.
“Hard for some people to explain. But the abundantly obvious and evident reason for record salmon runs is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift that occurred in 2008, when cool waters replaced warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water feeds plankton and subsequently the entire food chain, including salmon.”
http://westinstenv.org/nftsf/2010/07/26/record-salmon-return-explained/
The same good news in British Columbia, Canada
“Sockeye salmon stocks in Fraser River report massive rebound‎”
VANCOUVER – Fraser River sockeye are returning in droves, with commercial fishermen catching their limit within a few hours of casting their nets. “””
Thanks for that input Suzanne. Many many years ago on a driving trip up in those parts, I drove along a section of the Frazer river, and the whole river was red with sockeye; I could have walked across the river on their backs.
It’s great to hear that they are currently in good health (apparently).
George