Global air and sea temperatures starting to drop rapidly

Dr. Roy Spencer has an essay below on sea surface temperatures starting to bottom out, but in addition to that, the UAH daily lower troposphere plot shows a sharp drop also.

As this graph of UAH TLT from D Kelly O’Day’s site shows, The current global anomaly is 0.044C – or very nearly zero. That’s a big drop from last month when we ended up at 0.60C.

Note the black dot, the value  on 10-26-10. Click to enlarge the image.

Now compare that to Dr. Spencer’s Sea Surface temperature plot below.

Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Having just returned from another New Orleans meeting – this time, a NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium — I thought I would check the latest sea surface temperatures from our AMSR-E instrument.

The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling.

(Click on image for the full-size version).

Since these SST measurements are mostly unaffected by cloud cover like the traditional infrared measurements are, I consider this to be the most accurate high-time resolution SST record available…albeit only since mid-2002, when the Aqua satellite was launched.

I won’t make any predictions about whether SSTs will go as low as the 2007-08 La Nina event. I’ll leave that to others.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sea Surface Temperature. Bookmark the permalink.

168 Responses to Global air and sea temperatures starting to drop rapidly

  1. Mike Haseler says:

    The grand old duke of penn, he had 10,000 menn, he marched them up to the top of the hill, and he ….

  2. LabMunkey says:

    It’s worse than we thought.. (is there a prize for saying that first in each thread??)

    I’m going to follow this with great interest, it would seem internal forcings are not as irrelevant as the IPCC et al would have use believe.

  3. Alec Rawls says:

    I’ll predict not just colder surface temps than 2007-08, but a long term cooling trend for all the world’s oceans. Surface temps bounce all over, but we just went through a pretty substantial heat-dump from the oceans to the atmosphere with this year’s El Nino, and with the 80 yr grand maximum of solar activity ending in 2003, the very high statistical correlation between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature (.5 to .8 in numerous studies) says it is going to get cold. Add the very high levels of snow cover for the last two winters, reflecting away an above-recent-average amount of the sun’s energy, and the planet’s heat sink (the oceans) have to cool.

    When that cooling will show up on surface is highly variable, but the cooling oceans creates a strong expectation of cooling surface temps. It’s a prediction with a high degree of short run uncertainty, but a prediction nevertheless. For the longer run, as long as the sun stays relatively quiet, cooling will follow, unless the laws of physics have somehow changed. We don’t know exactly HOW solar magnetic activity drives global temperature, but we know that it does, and that whatever the mechanism, it will still be operative, because, whatever the physical processes at work, they do NOT just change.

    Can CO2 override these mechanisms, whatever they are? No, because the warming power attributed to CO2 comes from failing to account the historic warming power of solar magnetic activity. When that temperature influence is accounted, the temperature influence attributable to CO2 falls equivalently, and becomes negligible. We are soon going to wish CO2 had a powerful warming influence–an easy way to save of cooling (which unlike warming is actually dangerous)–but unfortunately, we are not that lucky.

  4. tokyoboy says:

    Some people may strongly wish to hide the decline?

  5. Spector says:

    It is rather curious to see these temperatures falling when the Arctic sea-ice was also falling to a record low extent in 2007. It would appear that these temperatures could be a response to the ocean having been forced to melt a record amount of ice mechanically dislodged from the Arctic region…

  6. Lee says:

    Oh Dear, i think 2011 is gonna be a miserable and cold one for all. I hope it doesn’t go on any longer, and get any colder, than that. For all the GW terror stories, i’d much rather live on a warm planet than a cold one……..

  7. I have to laugh, but “starting to drop rapidly” seems as presumptive of the future as all the AGW claims. Wouldn’t “continuing to drop rapidly” be better?

  8. Rhys Jaggar says:

    The only conclusion I would draw from Dr Spencer’s graph is that ‘oscillations of SST around the mean amplified since 2007′.

  9. john edmondson says:

    If it gets colder, that’s weather and not climate?

    It still the hottest year ever in la-la Al Gore world.

  10. James Bull says:

    You will just be accused of cherry picking and only looking at short term data (that there is no data from that source prior to that date is NOT relevant)
    I find this very interesting.

  11. berniel says:

    I was wondering when the air temp would final catch up with the sea…and then just a few days ago I notice what seemed to be a turn around.

    Do you northern folks know what an amazing La Nina (IOD) winter and spring we have been having down south?…the desert awash, long dried up rivers gushing forth, dry land farmers now worried about too much moisture for harvest, all very exciting

  12. DoctorJJ says:

    Oh no!! It’s worse than we thought.

  13. Mike Haseler says:

    Thankyou Anthony – I’ve just had a profound realisation. I’ve been wondering for a while why there is such a distinction between the Judeo-Christian god which is so predictable and “good”, and the Greek/Roman/Norse style gods who “just play with men as their playthings”.

    Looking at the temperature graph, it really could seem that there is some “weather god” who purposefully leads people on … creates a trend that leads people to think they know what is going to happen, and then the “weather god” just dashes their hopes. We saw this in the 1960-70s cooling trend, we then saw it in the 1970-2000 warming trend and on a smaller scale (weather is fractal!!) we see it in the 2008-10 warming trend and now the “weather god” seems to want to play with those who are vain enough to think they can predict him/her and it’s all change again. The point I was thinking is: right now the warmists have had their hopes dashed, but in time we will see another alarming warming spell to dash our hopes after which it’ll be the warmists, then us etc. etc.

    Of course there is a perfectly rational explanation for the global temperature: it is 1/f type noise, so that we see little trends on top of even bigger longer term random up/down trends, on top of even bigger even longer term random up/down trends. Waves on waves on waves like the proverbial flees, with flees with even smaller flees.

    The result is that the randomness in the weather/climate is orders of magnitude larger than you would expect from a simple casual glance/short term study. The longer you look, the bigger the randomness!!! So that, however long you watch the climate, there will always be a bigger random trend that comes along bigger than you would expect from the period of analysis (unless you take account of the 1/f nature of the noise)

    But imagine how this was for the ancients … they think they have worked out when to plant and harvest, and just as they believe they have “understood the mood of the weather god” … hey presto along comes a change. So they readjust, they think they have understood the extent of variety in the weather and then … hey presto, along comes an even greater change that is far outside their perception of “normal variation”. That is just the nature of 1/f noise, but it sure must have look to the ancients as if their were some “hand of god” making the changes.

    Now, it may be just coincidental, but the move from “weather god” (1/f) type religion to Christian (white noise) happened during the Roman Warm Period (150BC-270AD), a period when the weather gods would have been much less important because of the absence of bad weather? Instead of an indeterminate moody set of gods, we see a replacement with a benign deterministic god; a god that doesn’t play with humans, but an adult god which works by the bargain — you be “good” and I’ll be “good”.

    This is the basis of most modern western thinking: that things have a cause, “god” acts for a purpose likewise warming must be “caused” by something. This would be an alien concept if we lived with the old god religions where a “warm spell” was just part of the inexplicable moods of the gods. Obviously without this concept of “determinism” we’d never have got most of modern scientific thinking, but even in some areas like quantum physics, we are seeing the revival of “you can’t know what’s happening …. it’s up to the gods/chance”.

    Likewise the idea that it “must be man-made” is entirely Judeo-Christian. God punishes the bad and rewards the good, that is the basis of Judeo Christian philosophy, so our culture expects a deterministic relationship between mankind and “good and bad” things. Define warming as “bad” and inevitably people will try to link this as being morally determined by “bad behaviour” on the part of mankind. It’s just the way we are brought up: bad things are caused by bad people as a punishment for being bad.

    This is unlike the older religions where the gods didn’t care two hoots for men, they just did as they pleased. It was much more a one way concept Gods => cause things to happen to men. Bad things … the gods are being moody. Men seldom caused the gods to do things! So in the older religions, there is not the moral determinism and if something “bad” happens, it is not necessarily a result of men being “bad”.

    And the insight? That the type of religion may be rationally determined by the type of technical noise that has most impact in the environment … or perhaps a period of climate uncertainty will see a revival of the old gods!

  14. Frank says:

    What will that do with “the warmest year ever”?

  15. Cirrius Man says:

    If this currend downward trend continues, Punxsutawney Phil will be casting a very big shadow on Feb. 2. 2011 !

    Wth the La Nina is still running strong combined with the fact that there is always a few months delay for a shift in the SOI show to up in the SST, we can expect the cooling to continue for at least 5-6 months.

    I’m sure Phil would predict a 40 day smoothed value of -0.3 !

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Keep in mind that Roy Spencer does not include SST data north of 60N or south of 60S in his global SST anomaly graphs, avoiding the need to adjust for sea ice. But for most of us the difference is insignificant:
    http://i56.tinypic.com/2yknzue.jpg

    And for those interested, here’s a link to the mid-month SST anomaly update:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/mid-october-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html

  17. Alan the Brit says:

    I am trying to buy large stocks of thermal underwear to sell-on at much inflated prices later this year! Brrrrr!

  18. Ecotretas says:

    Very interesting!
    It correlates very nicely to the variance of the rate of sea level rise that is happening in the last years! But what amazes me is that the rate of rise goes up before the AMSR-E temperatures go up…
    This might also explain the recent trend in the decline of the rate of sea level rise, as measured by the University of Colorado:
    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/10/going-down.html
    Ecotretas

  19. Nonoy Oplas says:

    I used the above graphs for this short article, “UN FCCC meeting in Cancun: where’s global warming?”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/10/un-fccc-meeting-in-cancun-wheres-global.html

  20. paulhan says:

    Wow, 0.35C drop in just six months. That’s half of all the warming we have experienced since 1850. This has to start reflecting in the overall temp record by now. I can’t find the link to it, but I’ve seen speculation that we may have a two year La Nina this time round. Brrr.

  21. Golf Charley says:

    Why haven’t these figures been homogenised to show a warming trend?

    This is a clear case of negligence by the Hockey Team, not an indication of falling temperatures.

    These figures cannot be correct, because I have yet to hear them repeated on a BBC news bulletin, where the news is always hot hot hot.

  22. Sam the Skeptic says:

    I’m not sure this is the place for a philosophical discussion but very briefly I must disagree with Mike Haseler about the “Judaeo-Christian” God and His involvement in climate change (and I assume Mike also means most of the other scares that have bedevilled us over the years).
    As a Christian I do not subscribe to the idea the God micro-manages the universe, at least not in the sense that appears to be implied here. In fact I am more inclined to the view expressed by Chesterton that “when man stops believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing he believes in anything”.
    To an extent it is a belief in God and His creation that drives my skepticism and my view that the earth was made for man not man for the earth, a negation of the view of the eco-loons who see humanity as a blight on the planet which has got to be not just “un”-religious but “anti”-religious.

  23. Patrick Davis says:

    “Lee says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:46 am”

    Well in Australia, the October/November cutover brings a sign of summer, ie, warm. It’s not happening this year. It’s COLD!

  24. Hans Henrik Hansen says:

    Next headline?:
    “Arctic Sea Ice Extent dropping below 2007 line!”, see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

  25. MattN says:

    Channel 5 is also dropping like a rock. October is going to be much closer to “normal” than previous months. The 1998 record is all but safe…

  26. Jimmy Haigh says:

    paulhan says:
    October 29, 2010 at 2:37 am
    Wow, 0.35C drop in just six months. That’s half of all the warming we have experienced since 1850.

    Make that “…half of all the homogenised warming we have experienced since 1850″.

  27. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC are still wailing and gnashing their teeth about warming, barely a day goes by without some mumbo jumbo SEJ inspired nonsense about melting ice/rising temperatures/sea levels etc.

    Nail meet coffin, coffin meet nail? I can see the BBC being the very last body to give up the global warming charade, mind you the BBC has bet the farm on AGW allied eco/ethical investments for their pension plan…oooops.

  28. William says:

    The back peddling begins. How long will it take before the “New Ice Age headlines?”

    A number of the AWG blogs have recently started to including a few comments about
    planetary cooling and about cycle 24, that is a 180 degree turn around from standard the comment the “the scientific debate and discussion is over”.

    The fall 2009 annual AGU meeting had a special session to discuss the abrupt changes that are occurring for solar cycle 24.

    This is a link to Livingston and Penn’s second paper that discusses their finding that the magnetic field strength of each new sunspot formed on the sun is linearly decreasing as compared to previously produced sunspots.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

    http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/

    “According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss,” says Livingston. “If the current trend continues, we’ll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots.” “This work has caused a sensation in the field of solar physics,” comments NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, who is not directly involved in the research. “It’s controversial stuff.”

    The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.

    The paleo data also shows the planet cools during the solar magnetic minimums.

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ…605L..81B

    “We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.”

  29. Michael D Smith says:

    I’m not claiming that animals predict the weather, but you should see our raccoons this year. “Scruffy”, a scrawny female, looks absolutely huge with about 2-1/2″ of winter fur. Most of our other little friends that visit us are also very thick with fur. It’s comical how fluffy they are. Hmm, there’s a good name for one of the others.

  30. Patrick Davis says:

    How inconvenient! Who’d a thought that some, I don’t know, natural “cycle” is happening. Cold 1940’s, cold 1970’s, cold 2010’s, a different cycle? Who knows, it’s cold here in Sydney, Australia, we “usually” get warm at this time of year, it’s like a switch! But no! COLD!

  31. Joe Lalonde says:

    Those galeforce winds that went ripping by are heading northeast.

    I wonder what those winds return trip will bring from the north?

  32. JohnH says:

    Frank says:
    October 29, 2010 at 1:37 am
    What will that do with “the warmest year ever”?

    Fecked

    As they say in Ireland (not allowed to swear so they have made some new ones up LOL)

  33. Adolf Goreing (ze denier) says:

    We are now experiencing AGC. Like some of the proxies, they´ve turned the data upsidedown. CO2 is actually cooling. We have to change our lifestyle now!

  34. Bill Illis says:

    It is not hard to see what temperatures are going to do now.

    The Tropics temperatures lag behind the ENSO by 2 to 3 months and this period looks to be following that pattern exactly. Still at least 4 to 6 months of cooling to come yet.

    http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/960/ensotropicssept10.png

    The global temperatures will follow the tropics temperatures, sometimes lagging behind by another 2 to 4 weeks.

    The La Nina has moderated a little in the past few weeks – one more incursion of warmer water from the north equatorial counter-current. The subsurface pattern says there is at least one more tranche of cooler water to come up from below yet. The cooler La Nina water has made it all the way across the Pacific to New Guinea now at 140E where the deep ocean ends and the subsurface ENSO circulation pattern begins. So, even if this La Nina peaks in a month or two and ends around May, it’s cool water will be back in another 18 months anyway – probably a small El Nino in between.

  35. Ric Werme says:

    Frank says:
    October 29, 2010 at 1:37 am

    > What will that do with “the warmest year ever”?

    It will make the people who hyped it very happy they hyped when they did. News of 2010 not setting a record won’t be covered, all that will be left in most people’s memories is that 2010 was on a record pace.

  36. Huth says:

    Sam the Skeptic says:
    October 29, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I thought sceptics didn’t believe anything without hard evidence. Isn’t that the definition? So please can you tell me what evidence there is that the earth was created for mankind? Give me hard evidence and I’ll believe it. I’m not aware that anyone has come up with any so far.

    Yours in scepticism.

  37. jmbnf says:

    I just wanted to say that watching the ENSO/SST reference page on a near daily basis has been a tremendous learning experience. You try to predict magnitude, correlation, and lag times which really forces you to respect these processes.

    I’ve been watching all this long enough to watch the SST and temperature drop of 2007-08, what a travesty, then Joe Rohm predict that the temperature would go back up and global warming would resume in 09 and he was right until this pesky subsequent La Nina takes away all his global warming again.

    The truth has always been that there is has been no significant global warming or cooling of the ocean or land outside of the natural flux for the past dozen years and we’ve been able to watch most of that quite well.

    I hope someone would put a timeline of all this together so we could watch the oceans lead the temperature and superimpose all the cooling/warming proclamations on top of that.

    It would be impossible to refute the case that man might have added a couple of tenths of degrees to the temperature but very difficult to make the case that man is now the dominate forcing.

  38. Bill in Vigo says:

    Wonder what the new Volcanic eruptions in Russia will bring. It is getting more and more interesting.

    Bill Derryberry

  39. Richard M says:

    Could the date 12/21/12 have a meaning after all? The beginning of the next ice age … Wouldn’t need to be very impressive either, only historically relevant.

  40. Dave N says:

    It’ll be worst the Day After Tomorrow…

  41. racookpe1978 says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:34 am (Edit)

    I’ll predict not just colder surface temps than 2007-08, but a long term cooling trend for all the world’s oceans.

    Now – here’s the larger question: Are the current 2000 – 2010 years the peak of the Modern Warming Period – 400 years after the 1600’s LIA? Or do we have another 60 year short cycle yet to come before we slide back down into the Future Little Ice Age (FLIA) from 2060 into 2460?

    We have “ramped up” in 1880-1890, 1935-1945, 2000 – 2010 – declining after each ramp slightly before temperatures increase again. In the early 1800’s, Cornelius Vanderbilt began making his transportation empire from boats he rowed across the Hudson between ice floes. When will we next see ice that far down?

  42. Henry chance says:

    How about some solar panels to heat water and generate electricity in the winter down at the poles? It is carbon free energy. Surely the Chinese whom Joe romm adores have technology for panels that operate in the shade and in the dark.

  43. Tenuc says:

    William says:
    October 29, 2010 at 4:15 am
    “The back peddling begins. How long will it take before the “New Ice Age headlines?”

    The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ…605L..81B

    “We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.”

    Spot on William! Our climate is driven by deterministic chaos, and is starting to swing towards the ‘cool Earth’ attractor as the energy from the sun starts to decline…

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    Of course other quasi-cycles will cause periods of warming within the cool halve of the cycle, and vice versa for the warm half of the cycle, but overall I think the next 90 years will be colder than the last.

  44. matt v. says:

    The bottom of northern Hemisphere surface temperatures could fall out some more due to these events . Two new active volcano eruptions at KAMCHATKA and possibly others pending.This year there have been 12 different volcanoes erupting in this area . Fortunately none have been major to date . This may signal a change .

    http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/avoreport.php?view=kaminfo

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/24/28211707.html

    http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15631672&PageNum=0

  45. Dave Springer says:

    Global average temperature varies about the average on a month by month basis by 0.6C?

    That’s as much as all the purported anthropogenic warming since teh beginning of the industrial revolution!

  46. Dave Springer says:

    OMG!

    Look at how deep and fast the 2010 SST drop is!!!!

    It’s the fastest EVER! Never in history has something like this happened. /sarc

  47. Mark Wagner says:

    Great news!

    For I have just completed the addition of 10″ R30 insulation to my attic, 1″ R5 foam to all attic knee walls, foam sealing of all ceiling penetrations and air ducts, and foam sealing of all outlets on exterior walls.

    I’m ready.

  48. racookpe1978 says:

    [This is a science blog, and all units should be in metric values. I'm sorry, but you will need to rip out that insulation and re-install it in appropriate thicknesses. 8<) Robt]

  49. Stephen Wilde says:

    Now that the sun is slowly coming out of its minimum the strength of the solar wind is increasing.

    That produces more solar photons reaching the mesosphere which then cools a little from increased ozone destruction to increase the temperature gradient right down to the tropopause. The tropopause then rises a little and the jets move a little more poleward to produce a stronger upward energy flux from the surface.

    Thus energy is leaving the Earth system a little faster than it was when the sun was quieter and at the same time the developing La Nina is denying energy to the air with the result that the air is cooling from two directions. That should at last put a solid end to the late 20th century tropospheric warming trend after the past ten years or so of mere cessation of warming.

    As per my interpretation of the recent Haigh data an active sun cools the mesosphere and stratosphere for a stronger upward energy flux and a quiet sun does the opposite.

    For a while the solar minimum held more energy within the system and combined with the recent El Nino to achieve the recent tropospheric warmth. Both processes have now reversed hence the more noticeable cooling that we are observing.

  50. @ Mike Haseler “the idea that it “must be man-made” is entirely Judeo-Christian. God punishes the bad and rewards the good, that is the basis of Judeo Christian philosophy, so our culture expects a deterministic relationship between mankind and “good and bad” things.” I don’t know where you got your caricature of Christianity from but I don’t recognize it at all, and as Sam the Skeptic says, it might be a good idea not to sound off on this topic unless you really know what you are talking about.

    The idea that ‘it must be man-made’ is pagan superstition or atheism, not Christian. If the earth was designed as a habitable place (as Christians believe), then obviously it will have been designed as a robust system. Anyone who designs safety-critical systems for a living (as I do) would not design something that falls over on the slightest perturbation, so why would the God of Christians and Jews? However, the view that this present world is just an amazing coincidence of factors can have no such confidence in design (whether or not that is misplaced in Christianity), although they can still have confidence on the basis that if the earth has survived so well until now then it must be a pretty robust system. But the idea that man is some kind of plague on the earth, as some environmentalists affirm, and that the world would be a better place without us is about as un-Christian as it is possible to be.

    Granted that there are blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience (in Deuteronomy), but these were specifically addressed to the people in which God was in covenant with – they were covenant blessings and curses. As such, they cannot be claimed or applied to those who are not in covenant, i.e. mankind in general. A general destruction is believed (on the basis of Genesis) not to take place until the end of the world “Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” And as Jesus declares, God “makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust”. We also have the account in Luke 13 “There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

    The last phrase makes it clear that, as far as Christianity is concerned, the focus of punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good is at the Last Judgment – and I hadn’t noticed that had arrived just yet. Many Christians suffer and many criminals prosper in this world – final judgment is deferred.

    This seems to represent fairly what Christians believe (and as far as the Genesis account, what Jews believe), so please don’t misrepresent and offend with unfair caricatures.

  51. Bob Tisdale says:

    Bill Illis says: “The La Nina has moderated a little in the past few weeks – one more incursion of warmer water from the north equatorial counter-current. The subsurface pattern says there is at least one more tranche of cooler water to come up from below yet.”

    Thanks, Bill. Based on the timing, will it bottom out in January?

  52. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:46 am
    I have to laugh, but “starting to drop rapidly” seems as presumptive of the future as all the AGW claims. Wouldn’t “continuing to drop rapidly” be better? “””

    I’m with you Lucy; and I also think Anthony should change his comment about “sea surface Temperatures starting to bottom out”;- hey Davy Jones’ Locker to Anthony,- man; da bottom done dropped out, is more like it !

  53. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Dave Springer says:
    October 29, 2010 at 6:48 am
    OMG!

    Look at how deep and fast the 2010 SST drop is!!!!

    It’s the fastest EVER! Never in history has something like this happened. /sarc “””

    Well Dave there you go with that never in history crap ! Any fool can see that this is totally unprecedented !

  54. DesertYote says:

    If this trend continues, what will the media response to dropping temps be?

    A) The world is getting drier and is predicted to get worse due to CO2!

    B) La Nina is covering up the increase in temperatures cause by CO2 and the rebound is going to be much worse!

    C) The consensus of science is that global cooling is caused by global warming or are you to stupid to understand that?

    D) All of the above.

    The correct answer is D. The lefty mind is not constrained by consistency of belief.

  55. Orde says:

    As Mini Bannister said to Henry Crun – “I don’t know where this wind is comming from, but I know where it’s going to!”

  56. Enneagram says:

    The pernicious and devastating “Gore Effect” it’s currently being set up by nature, as a just retaliation against global warmers/climate changers/climate disrupters/bio-diversifiers for having doubted of her power on driving the climate….and you know how women behave when mad. Just wait and enjoy it ! :-)

  57. maryr says:

    Thank you ScientistForTruth. That was very well put.

  58. George E. Smith says:

    So what’s with the Ice Page while we’ve been busy with other things. The superarctic Temperature has crashed to 20 below; after an upward surge; but suddenly the ice is heading for an “unprecedented low”.

    What gives ?

    And a question for Dr Roy; can you remind us again (briefly) how you get SSTs even with clouds; that suggests to me some Microwave sensing; but what the blazes is the actual Physical sensing cause again ?

    Time permitting of course.

    And what’s with this one way Suicide Mission to Mars ? Well I think NASA says its a Lifeboat or Noah’s Ark expedition.

    Supposably; some Boeing Aircraft “Whistle blower” has leaked to the “Sky is falling Society”, that the solar system has suddenly run into a sea of molasses, and the earth has the brakes hard on, and is going to crash into the sun sooner than expected. So everybody at NASA is working on putting some folks on a one way trip to Mars; so that we can move out closer to Jupiter.

    Not me; I’m going to stay here and get a free Viking Funeral !

    You notice that Leif Svalgaard has been awfully quiet lately; so he must know all about this space flotsam that is getting in our way and shortening the year.

  59. Wilky says:

    Didn’t the inconvenient models say that we were supposed to see 1C to 2C of warming by now due to runaway global warming? (insert dramatic music here)

  60. Steve Schaper says:

    Mike Haseler,
    Your understanding of monotheism is somewhat erroneous. Judaeo-Christian monotheism goes back at least 4,000 years, it didn’t merely exist or flourish during the Roman Warm. It is not primarily a religion about bargaining and tit for tat. There is a lot more to objective morals, justice and forgiveness than that. Just FYI.

  61. Owen says:

    Don’t get too excited, the ENSO oscillation is superimposed on a rising baseline. This could be a monster La Nina, but will the temps drop as low as previous monster La Ninas? Very unlikely. But enjoy it while you can.

  62. Enneagram says:

    As it can de seen at:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    Open the file: y2787e08.pdf and see graphs on page 50th. (where temperatures are forecasted to the year 2100)
    It has been demonstrated and practically applied in actual and, because of this, successful fishing campaigns all over the world, that the Length of the Day and its correlative the circulation index are related with temperature changes.
    What, instead, everybody has seemingly chosen not to see at, or to forget because it is not listed in the “Consensus Index ” of the Holy Church of the Post Modern & Progressive Science, is the obvious: These two are related to gravity and magnetic fields, and other unnameable and sinful fields, which only a few bold, audacious, daring, fearless, high-spirited, WUWT regulars, have had the courage to point out.

  63. timbrom says:

    Cirrius Man,

    Never mind Punxsutawney Phil, Shubnacadie Sam up here in Nova Scotia will be frozen solid in his burrow!

  64. timbrom says:

    Cirrius Man,

    Never mind Punxsutawney Phil, Shubenacadie Sam up here in Nova Scotia will be frozen solid in his burrow!

  65. nofreewind says:

    it is very obvious that it is the Pacific Ocean that controls the world’s temperature.’s. That is where the thermostat is located. We have these enormous shifts in temperature called El Nino and La Nina which cycle on and off every few years as the cold or warm water moves to the surface. Then we know that there are larger trends, 30 yrs, called the Pacific Decadel Oscillation, which was positive from the late 1970’s to almost right now. That is what has caused this small overall rise in temperature the past 30 yrs. What is so hard to understand about that!

  66. Bob Tisdale says:

    Owen says: “Don’t get too excited, the ENSO oscillation is superimposed on a rising baseline.”

    The rising global temperature trend is caused by the global oceans integrating ENSO. One of the great myths in climate science is that the effects of ENSO can be removed from the global temperature record by scaling one of the ENSO indices (NINO3.4 SST anomalies or the CTI) and subtracting the scaled ENSO index data from global temperatures. I’m finishing up a video that illustrates the 30-year cycles in global SST anomalies and the trend are caused by the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events.

  67. TallDave says:

    So much for the fond hopes of 2010 being “warmest year ever.”

  68. Brian S says:

    @ScientistforTruth: Right you are! And perhaps it’s worth mentioning that basic Christianity is not a religion. What can you do to please God? Answer – nothing, although many religions have distorted that simple fact. But of more interest to those here may be that quote in the middle of your longest paragraph: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” Business as usual then – not much reassurance there surely? Unless they were all new concepts to the Flood survivors. What might life have been like on Gondwanaland, at the South Pole, before Earth’s axis mysteriously got tilted and when there was much more CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere providing the whole Earth with growing conditions ideal enough to grow the billions of tonnes of vegetation that we now know as coal? Seedtime and harvest? Cold and heat? Winter and summer? No, uniform warmth, year round, everywhere. Night and day? Not at the pole of an upright axis. The main point is – extrapolating anything backwards very far just might be as fraught with uncertainty as the AGW prognostications of the future. The wheels are falling off the uniformitarian theory of geological history and the Darwinian religion just as the wheels are falling off AGW and Gaiaism. In fact, the parallels between the attacks on skeptics and the attacks on creatonists are striking.

    Some qustions that the bright minds here may be able to answer – what is the collective weight of the mountain ranges and how much energy was needed to raise them to their current heights? And over what period of time? Going by the uniformitarian theory I get a picture of a car crash test but instead of being a slow-mo it’s time-lapse photography. Not enough energy there to even bend a continental plate let alone raise up Everest.

    Recent history and tomorrow’s weather seem to me to be the reliability limits of what we can say we know with any degree of certainty.

  69. Scott says:

    TallDave says:
    October 29, 2010 at 9:54 am

    So much for the fond hopes of 2010 being “warmest year ever.”

    Don’t be so sure, GISS might still find a way to make it happen.

    -Scott

  70. david says:

    Regarding Owen says:
    October 29, 2010 at 8:55 am
    “Don’t get too excited, the ENSO oscillation is superimposed on a rising baseline. This could be a monster La Nina, but will the temps drop as low as previous monster La Ninas? Very unlikely. But enjoy it while you can.”

    Even if you ignore Bob Tisdale’s comment, which you should not, so what if the base line continues to rise. That base line is far lower then the last 30 years, the benefits of increased CO2 are KNOWN, not some computer models waving their arms at hummingbird speed, predicting disasters which DO NOT match the observations.

    .BTW, it is not YET a monster La Nina, and temperatures are falling rapidly.

  71. Alec Rawls says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:34 am
    We don’t know exactly HOW solar magnetic activity drives global temperature, but we know that it does
    No, we do not KNOW that it does to any significant degree. We expect [and some even find] a solar cycle variation of the order of 0.1C, but no more. More here: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

  72. Thom says:

    I just created a trend graph in Excel and if the trend of the last 30 days is projected until 2020 we will be -169F. We have to start pumping CO2 into the atmousphere at a much greater pace so we will only be at -168.3F.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hello Leif, haven’t heard from you for a while.

    What do you make of the data from Joanna Haigh which suggests that above 45Km ozone quantities seem to rise when the sun is quiet presumably leading to warming between the stratopause and mesopause contrary to expectations ?

    Presumably the reverse occurs when the sun is more active.

    The significance being that that apparent reversed sign solar effect on the mesosphere could well also drive a corresponding reverse sign solar effect on the stratosphere which does accord with late 20th Century observations.

    Then the height of the tropopause is affected and the jets shift latitudinally to give climate changes.

    Furthermore the process seems to be driven by solar protons (quantities varying with the strength of the solar wind) destroying ozone in the mesosphere when the sun is more active and letting ozone levels recover when the sun is less active.

    Those solar protons being charged particles are concentrated around the poles by the Earth’s magnetic field which interacts with the solar magnetic field so there we have a prima facie link between magnetic field variations, the strength of the solar wind and climate shifts in the troposphere.

  74. mircea says:

    Sam the Skeptic says: October 29, 2010 at 3:22 am
    ” So please can you tell me what evidence there is that the earth was created for mankind? Give me hard evidence and I’ll believe it. I’m not aware that anyone has come up with any so far.
    Yours in scepticism.”

    In the absence of a spiritual entity playing the role of Creator there is no other creation or intention of creation but the one that exists as result of the existing natural laws, i.e. natural laws -> Earth -> Mankind. Mankind is a direct result of the existence of Earth and they exist only because of Earth, therefore Earth was created for humans. Earth was not created for Martians or for Venusians or for anything else. If it wasn’t for the creation of Earth the Mankind would not have been created.

    Only if one accepts a spiritual Creator there can be doubts about the reason of the creation of the Earth. In case of the material natural laws there are no second guesses, what you see is what you get. Natural laws acted to create the Earth and then acted to create the humans, there is nothing else to discuss. Earth was created for humans to exist.
    It is also true that Earth was not created exclusively for Mankind.
    This debate is settled. No scepticism allowed here :-).

    Yours in faith!

  75. geo says:

    So, how is that “warmest year ever” thing looking right now? 10/12ths of the year in the books on Sunday, time for an update?

  76. Peter Miller says:

    Someone should tell Roy Spencer’s AMSU website is showing yesterday’s global temperature being 463.25 degrees F below the same date last year.

    I sincerely hope this number wasn’t being used in these calculations!

  77. a jones says:

    The most interesting comment abut this was made in advance as it were by Pielke senior on his blog on 8 Oct when he pointed out that if the these high global tropospheric temperatures persisted during this La Nina that would suggest there was warming due to greenhouse gasses but if they fell back to normal or below then this would imply some other kind of temperature limiting/regulating system was at work.

    Perceptive and very telling.

    Kindest Regards

  78. morgo says:

    on the 29/10 /10 we had the heater on in sydney” bring on global warming please”

  79. Lance says:

    How can we lose heat in the atmosphere like that? I mean, I think I have been lied too all this time. I was told CO2 trapped the heat in and it was going to cause CAGW. snic off….

    many stated prior to this post, but indeed, it just shows that temps go up and temps go down. Nothing to see here, move along.

  80. MartinGAtkins says:

    The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is still cooler than 2007-08

    IOD weekly.

    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/iod1.png

    but not so the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index (AMO)

    Monthly 2007-10

    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/AMO-07-10.png

    Long term the AMO appears to be at the top of it’s cycle.

    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/AMO.png

  81. Ed_B says:

    If I see any more religious discussion on this BB will write this site off as gone to the dogs.

  82. Juraj V. says:

    Global TLT UAH:
    1998 (1-12) : 0,593 °C
    2010 (1-9) : 0,554 °C

    http://i54.tinypic.com/23w1yt1.jpg

  83. Owen says:

    Bob Tisdale,

    If the cause of current warming is “integration” of the ENSO (by that I assume you mean that the release of heat from ocean to atmosphere in the past 50 years during El Nino phases has exceeded the recapture of that heat during the various La Nina phases), the n the ocean should show a definite cooling. Nicht wahr?

  84. Layne Blanchard says:

    Guys,

    This will have no effect whatsoever on the “warmest year evah” proclamation from Jimmy boy. He had his speech written last year, and he’s been jockeying the averages higher all year long anticipating this drop.

    He’ll tack .o2 onto 1998 and fudge his way to it come hell or high water.

  85. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Owen says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    Bob Tisdale,

    If the cause of current warming is “integration” of the ENSO (by that I assume you mean that the release of heat from ocean to atmosphere in the past 50 years during El Nino phases has exceeded the recapture of that heat during the various La Nina phases), the n the ocean should show a definite cooling. Nicht wahr?”

    Interesting point, Owen.

    Bob has often mentioned the discharge / recharge process with which I agree but in the absence of any other factor that should have resulted in a decline in ocean heat content during the recent warming spell but in fact ocean heat content actually rose until recently.

    Now with stronger La Ninas the ocean heat content is declining which again is opposite to Bob’s proposition.

    So my conclusion is that a separate influence is operating to dictate the longer term ENSO trends from the background thereby overriding the discharge / recharge process on longer than interannual timescales.

    My proposition is that the background trend is provided in part by internal ocean cycles but also by solar variability so that the more active sun draws the jets and their associated cloud bands poleward to let more energy into the oceans just like opening a pair of window blinds.

    The quieter sun pushes the jets back equatorward to reduce the energy input to the oceans just like closing the blinds again.

    Thus are the tiny variations in solar output massively amplified via albedo changes to explain the much larger global tropospheric temperature changes that we observe. And in the process they also skew the relative intensities of El Nino and La Nina especially on timescales longer than the 60 years or so of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    One is forced to propose something of that sort in order to explain the even longer climate cycling from MWP to LIA to date.

  86. DesertYote says:

    mircea
    October 29, 2010 at 11:03 am

    THX! I wanted to respond with this very argument, but I am at work and don’t have the time to be composing posts that attempt to explaining simple but difficult reasoning, that the anti-theists will work overtime to miss-understand. I am also an aspie which makes it especially difficult to communicate, unraveling my nonlinear thought. I don’t understand were people find the time to write up these 10 paragraph opuses. That someone else out in cyber-land was able to post what I wanted but was unable, it really quite amazing :)

  87. Lulo says:

    That’s it… I’m putting snow tires on my car during next week’s little burst of Indian summer on the northern high plains.

  88. Tenuc says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    October 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    “My proposition is that the background trend is provided in part by internal ocean cycles but also by solar variability so that the more active sun draws the jets and their associated cloud bands poleward to let more energy into the oceans just like opening a pair of window blinds.

    The quieter sun pushes the jets back equatorwards to reduce the energy input to the oceans just like closing the blinds again.

    Thus are the tiny variations in solar output massively amplified via albedo changes to explain the much larger global tropospheric temperature changes that we observe. And in the process they also skew the relative intensities of El Nino and La Nina especially on timescales longer than the 60 years or so of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    One is forced to propose something of that sort in order to explain the even longer climate cycling from MWP to LIA to date.”

    Good stuff, Stephen! However, I think as well as the ones you posit, there are many more quasi-cyclical over-lapping mechanisms at work. As climate is ultimately driven by the rules of deterministic chaos, when these cyclical mechanisms coincide they can push Earth’s weather-regimen/climate from the warm attractor to the cooler attractor. These events include sea-ice melt/freeze changes, ocean salinity, elecro-scavenging from solar wind, changes to ozone level/chemistry and importantly, changes to the rate of the hydrological cycle (heat engine).

  89. sky says:

    It seems that every time a monthly satellite anomaly is announced, it becomes a springboard for rampant speculation here about the future course of global temperatures. Even religious viewpoints are now invoked on this thread. This betrays an ill-founded notion of the mechanisms and scales of climate variability that befits the alarmist camp, rather than sober scientific skepticism.

    Although intradecadal components of climate variabilty are of great interest to agriculture and commerce, they are of little consequence to the ever-ongoing natural evolution of climate and the question of anthropogenic influence. At the very least, a multidecadal or quasi-centennial viewpoint is required for meaningful consideration of climatic issues. Much as we’d like to have nature demonstrate that the alarmists are dead wrong, latching on to every cooling month’s anomaly exposes skeptics to identical charges of sensationalism.

    Let’s not forget that natural climate variability is a very wide-band process (albeit demonstrably not 1/f in structure), with irregular oscillations out to the multi-millennial scale and beyond to the Milankovitch cycles. Present-day temperatures are sitting somewhere near the midpoint between the MWP and the LIA. Natural variability can go either way from here. If we have confidence in thermodynamic laws rather than ill-posed climate models, any excursion of ~1K should in forthcoming decades or centuries should not be cause for alarm. Such excursions have been commonplace throughout the Holocene.

  90. racookpe1978 says:

    [If that were the case, why does Hansen, et al, demand an immediate cap-and-trade tax scheme of seling carbon credits and ruinously increasing energy prices? Robt]

  91. DocMartyn says:

    “Mike Haseler says:
    October 29, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Thankyou Anthony – I’ve just had a profound realisation. I’ve been wondering for a while why there is such a distinction between the Judeo-Christian god which is so predictable and “good”, and the Greek/Roman/Norse style gods who “just play with men as their playthings”.”

    Quite close actually, the night sky up North gives you clouds, thunder, lightening and the violence of the Northern Lights.
    Deserts give you clockwork like movements of the heavens.
    The pagans had small violent gods who vied for power. The Abramic religions have a really big god who runs a tight ship.

  92. Bob Tisdale says:

    Owen says: “If the cause of current warming is ‘integration’ of the ENSO (by that I assume you mean that the release of heat from ocean to atmosphere in the past 50 years during El Nino phases has exceeded the recapture of that heat during the various La Nina phases), the n the ocean should show a definite cooling. Nicht wahr?”

    And that’s precisely what happens in the tropical Pacific. The tropical Pacific OHC shows decadal and multidecadal cooling between multiyear La Nina events: the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina and the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. The exception is the unusual rise during the 1995/96 La Nina (due to anomalously high trade winds) that fueled the 1997/98 El Nino.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

    The North Pacific had a multidecadal drop in OHC from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, then shifted upwards with a change in North Pacific SLP:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    The North Atlantic OHC (like the North Atlantic SST and Sea Level) is the outlier. It’s OHC rose at a rate that was 2 to 4 times higher than the other ocean basins, but it has also been dropping at about the same rate since about 2004. Pick a variable to blame that one on (AMOC, ENSO, NAO). Lozier et al (2008) found the NAO played a major role:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html

    With respect to my use of the term integrates, each ENSO event leaves multiyear residuals, (the strongest of which are in the North Atlantic). If El Nino events were counteracted by La Nina events, global SST anomalies would remain flat. That is, if the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events were equal to the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events, there would be no change in long-term global SST anomalies; the trend would be flat with some ENSO noise. The instrument temperature record shows that during periods when the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events exceed those of La Nina events, global SST anomalies rise, and they fall when the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events is greater that those of El Nino events.

  93. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “Now with stronger La Ninas the ocean heat content is declining which again is opposite to Bob’s proposition.”

    It is? Please show me. You make statements with no basis in fact.

    The North Atlantic is driving the recent drop/flattening of Global OHC, Stephen. Without the North Atlantic, global OHC would still be rising:
    http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg

    The graph is from this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html

  94. Dave Springer says:

    OP needs a correction in the first line:

    “Dr. Roy Spencer has an essay below on sea surface temperatures starting to bottom out, ”

    Spencer’s article is titled “Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?”

    FALLING out not bottoming out. Big difference.

  95. rbateman says:

    For a population used to the last 30 years being very warm, or to those who grew up in warm times, it does not take a whole lot of cooling to have a profound effect. Summer is shorter/cooler/later and Winter is long in the tooth, blustery and distinctly punishing.
    For those who remember the 50’s – 70’s period, you’ll have to get used to telling the uninitiated that this is how it’s going to be for a long time.
    If this is indeed the onset of a cold period, ya ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

  96. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Somewhere in that analysis, something got away from you. It did get much colder in the Little Ice Age, otherwise nobody would have bothered wasting precious time, paper & ink describing the conditions if they were indeed unremarkable. Today, yes, back then, absolutely not. The unknown is how the Sun played a part and to what degree, because until you know exactly how the Earth cooled so much, you cannot rule out the unknown.

  97. James Barker says:

    Ed_B says:
    October 29, 2010 at 11:54 am

    If I see any more religious discussion on this BB will write this site off as gone to the dogs.

    One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]

  98. matt v. says:

    It would appear to me that we have been in the past where we are now several times. Some of us older bloggers even remember some of the more recent times going back to the 1930’s and 1940’s. It would appear to me that the climate scientists of the current generation think they have discovered something new by only seeing warming ahead.

    1878 PEAK OF WARM CYCLE [VERY WARM] strongest El Nino ever

    1911 TROUGH OF COLD CYCLE [VERY COLD] cold of the 1910-1917

    1944 PEAK OF WARM CYCLE [VERY WARM] drought of the 1030’s and dust bowl

    1977 TROUGH OF COLD CYCLE [VERY COLD] extreme winters of the late 1970’s

    2010 PEAK OF WARM CYCLE [VERY WARM] recent decade of warm weather

    Future
    2043 TROUGH OF NEXT CYCLE [COLD]

    2076 PEAK OF NEXT CYCLE [WARM]

    In between these cycle there is a predictable and similar rise and fall of temperatures over approximately a 60-66 year full cycle. Even the rate of decline and fall of the different cycles are amazingly similar from cycle to cycle. We have peaked for the current cycle and are now heading down for approximately next 33 years toward the next trough in about 2043. There may be warm years in between as in the past but the general trend is cooler for the next part of the cycle. The next global warming peak may be 66 years away. So let’s ride the wave and not try to out guess every moment.

  99. John Finn says:

    rbateman says:
    October 29, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Somewhere in that analysis, something got away from you. It did get much colder in the Little Ice Age, otherwise nobody would have bothered wasting precious time, paper & ink describing the conditions if they were indeed unremarkable.

    I disagree.
    If you were living in a cold period (of several hundred years) why would you bother to note that it was cold? A lot has been written about the very cold 1962/63 winter in the UK – because of the very fact it was so unusual.

  100. Bill Illis says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    October 29, 2010 at 7:09 am
    Based on the timing, will the La Nina bottom out in January?
    ————————-

    You know, I can’t tell. There is still some warm water just north of the equator at 125W to 80W and this is being pulled into the ENSO east-west circulation at the equator. At the same time, there is still a large amount of cool water at 100 metres to 25 metres depth that is being pushed/pulled up and I can’t tell which will end up being dominant.

    Have a look at the high resolution equatorial ocean currents over the last 30 days. The mini-gyres created by the east-west equatorial current and the west-east north equatorial counter-current (where the warmer water is) makes this a little unpredictable [and might also be the reason why La Nina's never get to the magic Super La Nina level of -2.5C or less. There is always enough warmer water in the north equatorial counter-current that cycles in and prevents a La Nina from getting too cold].

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_nlom32/navo/EQSP1_nlomw12930doper.gif
    The TAO bouys show where the warm pools are still lingering.

    http://tao.noaa.gov/refreshed/sectionPlots.php?type=5day&sec=depth&var=temp

    But there is a huge amount of cold subsurface water that is still yet to come. The 140W cross-section is still showing temps as much as 9.0C below normal and it normally takes 3 months for this water to make it to the surface.

    http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/ocean/real_time/yzmaps/

    On the whole, it would be easier if the warmer pools just north of the equator were gone by now but they are still there. On ther other hand, there is still 3 months of cooler water yet to come. So, December to February for the peak.

  101. BT says:

    I wonder if DailyTech will cover this drop of global temperatures like they did in January of 2008…when I first started getting interest in climate blogs such as these…because of cooling which seemingly contradicted the warming! From then on I would frequently learn more about this fussy topic and become an official member of TEAM SKEPTIC. Boo yah! Let the cooling begin.

  102. rbateman says:

    John Finn says:
    October 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    I disagree.
    If you were living in a cold period (of several hundred years) why would you bother to note that it was cold? A lot has been written about the very cold 1962/63 winter in the UK – because of the very fact it was so unusual.

    The times were not all very cold in the Little Ice Age, but came across as multiyear disasters in a sea of cooler/unseasonable climates and land that didn’t yield the way it did in the Medieval Warm Period. They were not without immediately accesible records, and they knew things had been in decline for some time. The kings and courts knew, for they had to keep the peasantry under foot or face revolt, and they had to increase taxes due to declining productivity.
    One important note:
    There were recoveries recorded between the several major episodes of the Little Ice Age, but the first was, by far, the worst.
    An even more devastating time preceeded the fall out of the Medieval Warm Period, known as the Wolfe Minimum, and it did not get as cold as the following Sporer. It didn’t have to, as unseasonable rains ruined harvests year upon year, and the rest is history. It was climate disruption at it’s finest….700 years ago.

  103. LightRain says:

    It kinda resembles a hockey stick on an angle.

  104. John Finn says:

    rbateman says:
    October 29, 2010 at 8:29 pm


    John Finn says:
    October 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    I disagree.
    If you were living in a cold period (of several hundred years) why would you bother to note that it was cold? A lot has been written about the very cold 1962/63 winter in the UK – because of the very fact it was so unusual.

    The times were not all very cold in the Little Ice Age, but came across as multiyear disasters in a sea of cooler/unseasonable climates and land that didn’t yield the way it did in the Medieval Warm Period.

    So the LIA was a period when it was cold – except when it wasn’t.

    [It is well known that there were warm interludes in the LIA ~jove, mod]

  105. John Finn says:

    An even more devastating time preceeded the fall out of the Medieval Warm Period, known as the Wolfe Minimum, and it did not get as cold as the following Sporer. It didn’t have to, as unseasonable rains ruined harvests year upon year, and the rest is history. It was climate disruption at it’s finest….700 years ago.

    I think you my be making some rather general conclusions about some regional events. Not sure where you’re getting your information from but it seems to be a somewhat patchy interpretation of Hubert Lamb’s work. You’ll be telling us next that evidence of vineyards in medieval England means the MWP was warmer than to-day- while ignoring the fact that there are around 10 times as many english vineyards to-day than there were in the 11th century.

  106. Ulric Lyons says:

    John Finn says:
    October 30, 2010 at 1:12 am

    It is very worth noting that through Maunder, how many of the coldest winters are followed by above normal temperatures by April or May. This is not just a regional phenomena. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

  107. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Bob Tisdale says:
    October 29, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    Stephen Wilde says: “Now with stronger La Ninas the ocean heat content is declining which again is opposite to Bob’s proposition.”
    The North Atlantic is driving the recent drop/flattening of Global OHC, Stephen. Without the North Atlantic, global OHC would still be rising:
    http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
    The graph is from this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html

    Well Bob all that data confirms that the ocean heat content rose during the late 20th century warming spell despite a long run of powerful El Ninos and that is clearly contrary to your discharge / recharge proposition.

    As regards the period since 2003 it is clear that the rise in OHC has plateaued so I may have jumped the gun a bit by suggesting that it is already in decline but I’m pretty sure that a decline is about to start despite the newly negative PDO phase.

    Now that is not to disagree with your basic discharge / recharge proposition. I wholeheartedly agree with it but only on shorter interannual timescales and your recent data does show the short term effects nicely.

    However there is also the 30/60 year cycling to consider and for that period it is clear that the discharge / recharge process is likely overlaying a separate background trend that has shown a rise throughout the 20th century with upward steps along the way.

    That undelying background rise could conceivably be generated within the ENSO process without a separate forcing agent but you have not proved that and I remain doubtful.

    Then we have the 500/1000 year cycling of the MWP to LIA to date and I don’t think you have any chance of demonstrating that that is generated internally by ENSO without separate forcing mechanisms.

    So I take no issue with you on shorter timescales but I think you are going beyond your data by criticising my contentions about the longer timescales.

  108. Stephen Wilde says:

    Furthermore Bob, the data you have kindly provided also shows that OHC declined during the earlier period of negative (dominant La Nina) PDO in the 50s and 60s which again is contrary to your recharge / discharge idea over the 30/60 year cycling period.

    So I think you should be embracing my work as a useful supplement to and extension of your work so as to place your work more securely into the longer term climate scenario.

  109. Ralph says:

    >>Scientist:
    >>If the earth was designed as a habitable place (as Christians believe),
    >>then obviously it will have been designed as a robust system. Anyone
    >>who designs safety-critical systems for a living (as I do) would not
    >>design something that falls over on the slightest perturbation, so why
    >>would the God of Christians and Jews?

    Errr …….

    You mean a ‘robust’ earth that regularly has mass extinctions of 95% of the life upon it? The ‘robust’ earth that even in the recent past regularly has earthquakes and volcanos that kill hundreds of thousands of people.

    According to your philosophy, either:

    a. God is a pretty poor designer.
    b. God did not design the earth.
    c. God does not exist.
    d. You are making it all up as you go along, because in reality you have no evidence to base your assertions upon.

    .

  110. Let’s start with what causes climate change., and it Ain’t CO2, pardon my language.

    HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE

    1. SOLAR ACTIVITY

    2. PDO AND AMO TEMP. PHASE

    3. SOI OSCILLATION PHASE- EL NINO/LA NINA

    4.VOLCANIC ACTIVITY

    5. ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATIONS SUCH AS AAO,NAO ,AO

    Now if one goes back to 1977 or so ,all of the main causes of climate shown above , were mostly in a warm mode up to about 2005, hence the warmer temperatures. Now we have the above phasing toward a colder mode. Solar Activity has been low since late 2005, and remains so , and should remain so at least till the end of solar cycle 25.
    El Ninos, were much more common then La Nina’s during that time period. Volcanic Activity for the most part was quiet during that time period overall, other then some activity in 1980, early 1980’s and early 1990’s.

    NAO ,AO oscillations were mostly positive, and the PDO was in it’s warm phase that has since changed,and the AMO ,will be changing to it’s cold phase by 2015.

    All the above factors changing to a colder mode, are going to result in colder temperatures going forward. I expect the 500 mb absolute heights will be coming down in time, and the polar vortex will be expanding southward in time,as a consequence of the items I mentioned above phasing toward a colder mode.

    CO2 has nothing to do with it, and that can be easily proven by going back in time and looking at the various temp. swings both up and down and seeing if they correlate to CO2 concentrations. The answer is NO. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it.

    CO2 WARMING SCAM

    That is what it is, and how this hoax could ever get this far is beyond me. Just think what they are trying to say. They are trying to say a measly 100 ppm increase in CO2, can change the whole climate system of earth because the climate is so senisitive to CO2, AND ALL IT’S PHONY POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. The models they use in a word SUCK, and the data they put into the models SUCKS.

    I was expecting a sharp temperature decrease ,and it looks like Oct 2010, is going to show this. I have been saying this for many months prior , and I have many emails that I did way back in the spring and summer to verify my thoughts.

    I will make another prediction, and that is I expect that most of the factors ,most of the time, going forward will be in a cold or colder mode then previous. Therefore I predict temperatures going forward will be in a general downtrend ,with most months averaging below the recent norms they tabulated, going back to 1979 or so.

    That is also silly to use a period only going back to 1979, then again the world of climate science is a joke for the most part , that will change I think as the global man made warming CO2 hoax meets it’s ending. Amen.

  111. HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INDICATING

    1.SOLAR ACTIVITY- this remains low and will remain low at least to the end of solar cycle 25, that means colder.

    2. VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – This should be increasing going forward with SO2 ,high latitude eruptions not uncommon, this means colder.

    3.PDO is now in it’s cold phase with AMO to follow by 2015, this means colder.

    4.SOI OSCILLATION – will bemore in a positve pahse going forward(la nina) that means colder.

    5. AO,AAO,NAO atmospheric circulations will be more negative going forward, in response to low solar activity this wil mean colder and the polar vortex might also expand southward as a consequence.

    6. Last but not least CO2 t

  112. HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INDICATING

    1.SOLAR ACTIVITY- this remains low and will remain low at least to the end of solar cycle 25, that means colder.

    2. VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – This should be increasing going forward with SO2 ,high latitude eruptions not uncommon, this means colder.

    3.PDO is now in it’s cold phase with AMO to follow by 2015, this means colder.

    4.SOI OSCILLATION – will be more in a positve phase going forward(la nina) that means colder.

    5. AO,AAO,NAO atmospheric circulations will be more negative going forward, in response to low solar activity this will mean colder and the polar vortex might also expand southward as a consequence.

    6. Last but not least CO2 concentrations ,have no correlation to temp. swings both up or down. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it, that means colder if you were to believe increased CO2 causes temp. to increase.

    Stephen Wilde, has it backwards when it comes to the sun and how it effect earth’s climate. Peirs Corbyn on the other hand has it correct.

  113. Dave Springer says:

    Ralph says:
    October 30, 2010 at 6:57 am

    I’d suggest for a start reading up on the “fine tuning problem” as a starting point.

    Bad design = no design is a religious argument not logical or scientific one. It presumes that the designer is perfect and/or it presumes that the design isn’t as good as it can possibly be and/or it presumes that the things about the design that you feel are bad or unnecessary don’t have a purpose that you fail to discern.

    In theology this is referred to as the POE (Problem of Evil) which bascially asks and looks into why a good God allows bad things to happen. I doubt you’ve spend any time studying the subject. Your knowledge of theology is vanishingly thin. It might be good idea to know what you’re talking about before you talk about it.

  114. Dave Springer says:

    James Barker says:
    October 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    If I see any more religious discussion on this BB will write this site off as gone to the dogs.

    I think that should be “gone to the gods”. Dyslexic much? LOL

  115. Armagh Observatory says:

    Has anyone else noticed that marsupials dont get so much as a mention in the Bible?

  116. Dave Springer says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am

    “No, we do not KNOW that it does to any significant degree.”

    Yeah, but we don’t KNOW that variation in solar magnetic field doesn’t effect climate to any significant degree either. There are compelling correlations between solar magnetic field changes and surface temperature changes suggesting a significant effect. We KNOW that solar magnetic field strength variation serves to deflect more or fewer high energy extra-solar particles from impacting the atmosphere. We don’t know how much variation is possible or routine. Some suspect that these high energy particle impacts produce nucleation points that form into high altitude clouds and that such clouds can have a large effect on planetary albedo. I’m sure you knew all that I’m just wondering why you didn’t say it.

  117. M. Jeff says:

    Re: Ralph says: October 30, 2010 at 6:57 am … earthquakes and volcanos that kill hundreds of thousands of people. …

    Possible explanation? From Shakespeare’s King Lear:
    As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
    They kill us for their sport.

  118. CO2 HOAX

    Imagine trying to convince the public that a measley 100 ppm increase in CO2 with it’s phony positive feedbacks is going to throw the whole earth/climate system out of whack. This is the worst theory I have ever ever come across in my entire life.
    ON ANOTHER SUBJECT
    Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth. All one has to do is just look at past data, every solar minimum without EXCEPTION has corresponded to reduced temperatures on earth. Two recent ones being the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.

    For some reason people cannot seem to accept what the data shows when it comes to CO2 , and in the case of Mr. Wilde the sun. Whatever, I know what the data shows and that is the only info. one can base future expectations on.

    If the sun stays quiet earth’s temperatures will be going down, if the sun should become more active like it was last century then temperatures will go up.

    How active the sun is or isn’t ties in with the other items I mentioned, which determine climatic change on earth.

  119. Ralph says:

    >>Springer
    >>In theology this is referred to as the POE (Problem of Evil) which
    >>bascially asks and looks into why a good God allows bad things to
    >>happen. I doubt you’ve spend any time studying the subject. Your
    >>knowledge of theology is vanishingly thin. It might be good idea
    >>to know what you’re talking about before you talk about it

    Having studied, written and lectured on theology and theological history for 30 years, I think your reply is greatly misplaced. I thought my synopsis of the Logical Problem of Evil (LPoE) was perfectly clear, whereas your post is neither logical nor clear. What side of the debate are you on, exactly?

    I would have to agree with Lowe, regarding the LPoE, and the many theodicies or counter arguments are mere sematics or excuses. The three pillars of the deity are omnipresence, omnipotence and beneficence. One of these has to be deleted, before the presence of ebola, smallpox or even the humble mosquito, becomes logical and intelligible.

    .

    And I have to apologise to one and all for the diversion off topic. I would politely suggest that the deists on these threads refrain from attributing climate and natural events to an ‘external agency’. This is science. Science deals with the known unknowns, not with the unknowable unknowns.

    .

  120. Stephen Wilde says:

    Salvatore:

    You say that the sun is quiet and the polar vortexes might expand equatorward due to the low solar activity.

    That accords with my proposition so how have I got it backwards ? I think it also accords with Piers’s position too.

    Do you realise that to achieve the expansion of the polar vortex the stratosphere has to warm and the tropopause descend despite the quiet sun ? That is why Haigh’s data suggesting a reversal of the normally expected sign for the solar effect is so important.

    The difference between me and Piers is that I am looking at multidecadal trends in solar and climate variability in order to discern the background climate trend at any given time whereas he is trying to make short term predictions from short term solar events.

  121. PREDICTIONS

    Based on what I see, and I had made these predictions months ago, I feel and this Oct. is a good indication, that the string of above normal monthly temperatures has ended and going forward ,we will be near normal for temperatures. Going out further, temperatures will be coming in below normal, as the quiet sun and all other factors phase more into a cold mode.

    As they say time will tell who is right ,and who is wrong.

  122. Ralph says:

    >>M. Jeff says:
    >>Possible explanation? From Shakespeare’s King Lear:
    >>As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
    >>They kill us for their sport.

    Yup, that is one of the three possibilities.

    The deity is supposed to be omnipresent, omnipotent and beneficent. To explain the presence of evil the deity must either be:
    Not always here.
    Not that powerful.
    Or a naughty little boy.

    Since the other theodicies are mere platitudes, you can take your choice.

    .

  123. I had thought my first email did not go out, that is why I sent similar material out later. One went out not finished for some reason.

    I wanted to make sure I got my points across.

  124. Stephen Wilde says:

    Salvatore said:

    “Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth.”

    You need to read my hypothesis more thoroughly. I agree that the quiet sun cools the Earth system but it achieves it in the way I say and not simply by reducing TSI.

    The quiet sun warms the mesosphere and stratosphere to slow the upward energy flux which reduces the height of the tropopause and forces the jets equatorward.

    That equatorward shift increases cloud quantities and total reflectance for an increase in albedo and less energy into the oceans.

    Thus a quiet sun closes the blinds so to speak and the Earth system loses energy overall despite the reduction in the rate of upward energy flux.

    The Haigh data is just what I need to confirm that. I needed only the data, not her opinions. The data is that above 45Km ozone increased because the reduced level of solar activity was destroying less of it above that level (presumably resulting in warming). That is the opposite of previous assumptions which assumed that all the layers of the atmosphere all warmed or cooled in tandem as the sun became more or less active.

    I am sure that many are still misreading what I say so I thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

  125. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
    PREDICTIONS

    Based on what I see, and I had made these predictions months ago, I feel and this Oct. is a good indication, that the string of above normal monthly temperatures has ended and going forward ,we will be near normal for temperatures. Going out further, temperatures will be coming in below normal, as the quiet sun and all other factors phase more into a cold mode”

    Agreed.

  126. Steve, here is where I think you have it backwards.

    I think a quiet sun causes the stratosphere to cool,not warm and that cooling of the stratosphere causes the polar vortex to expand. I think the stratosphere will cool in response to a quiet sun due to less UV light ,which means less ozone which means less heat /energy to be brought down from the upper reaches of the atm. to the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere thus cooling those areas and causing the polar vortex to expand southward. (Solar protons aside with a more active sun= less ozone. Not enough to offset the less UV light =less ozone with quiet sun, my opinion )

    Steve, you are thinking the opposite in this area. Most agree with what I am saying. Then you are trying to use Haig’s latest study to say the conventional wisdom is wrong, and what you think is correct.

    Nevertheless I know you are putting much effort into what you are doing, and at least we agree the CO2 theory is a HOAX.

  127. Dave Springer says:
    October 30, 2010 at 8:27 am
    I’m sure you knew all that I’m just wondering why you didn’t say it.
    It is a question of energetics.
    Where does the Earth get its energy [first number W/m2; second number is fraction of the whole]
    Solar irradiance 340.25; 1.00000
    Heat from interior 0.061,2; 0.000,18
    Infrared radiation from the Full Moon 0.010,2; 0.000,03
    Combustion of Fossil Fuels 0.006,8; 0.000,02
    Sun’s radiation reflected from Moon 0.003,4; 0.000,01
    Solar Tidal forces in atmosphere 0.003,4; 0.000,01
    Energy dissipated in lightning discharges 0.000,2; 0.000,000,6
    Dissipation of magnetic storms 0.000,068; 0.000,000,2
    Radiation from Bright Aurorae 0.000,045; 0.000,000,14
    Energy of Cosmic Rays 0.000,031; 0.000,000,09
    Dissipation of mechanical energy from micrometeorites 0.000,02; 0.000,000,06
    Total radiation form stars 0.000,014; 0.000,000,04
    Lunar tidal forces in atmosphere 0.000,010; 0.000,000,03
    Radiation from Zodiacal Light 0.000,003,4; 0.000,000,01

  128. ALBEDO

    Let’s not forget how important this is ,and how low clouds, snow ,ice cover have a big influence,on increasing earth’s albedo as they increase. I am of the belief ,that more clouds are associated with a quiet sun and it may be due to an increase in cosmic rays, due to a weakening solar wind, or some other factors.

    I think each 1.5% increase/decrease in earth’s albedo from avg. of .30 causes the temp. to change by plus or minus .5C. That is a big change in my opinion due to albedo changes.

  129. Stephen Wilde says:

    Salvatore:

    See here:

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    but note that they also say this:

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
    revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
    slightly warming since 1996.”

    and this:

    http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200118/000020011801A0757645.php

    So both stratosphere and mesosphere were cooling during the period of more active sun and appear to have switched to warming with the less active sun. Admittedly the researchers put the reason down to CO2 effects but since CO2 continues to rise yet the stratosphere and mesosphere have now turned to warming that cannot be correct.

    Anyway, think about it. A cooling stratosphere must lift the tropopause because it increases the temperature differential between surface and tropopause. Lifting the tropopause must make the polar vortex contract and not expand. That accords with actual observations. When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled the tropopause rose and the jets moved poleward.

    Now with a less active sun the stratosphere is warming,the tropopause falling and the jets shifting equatorward

    The establishment position is logically and observationally unsustainable.

    My hypothesis is the only one that fits observations and Haigh’s data.

  130. Steve says, the quiet sun WARMS the stratosphere and mesophere , which SLOWS the UPWARD energy flux., which reduces the height of the troposphere.

    I say ,with many others, it is the exact opposite, the quiet sun COOLS the stratosphere ,which REDUCES the enegy flux brought DOWN from the upper stratosphere to the upper troposphere thus reducing the heights of the troposphere. lol . I have to laugh because it is so opposite.

    That is what I was trying to say earlier,rather poorly on my part, in how you have it backwards from what I think.
    Still I think the work you are doing in this field is wonderful. You are sincere. Unlike the frauds of man made global warming.

    It is just par for the course for climate, how opposite conclusions always seem to be reached.

    Another example is Svensmark ,claims cosmic rays increasing causes more clouds, Piers Corbyn says that is NOT the case.

    I have to be leaving for work soon. Have a good day Steve, and everyone else on the site.

    Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something.

    take care

  131. Some of my emails don’t seem to go out.

    Steve and I say the opposite. Steve says ,a quiet sun warms the stratosphere which reduces the enegy flux up to the troposphere, which causes it to lower in height. I say quiet sun cools the stratosphere which causes less enegy to be brought down to the upper troposphere which lowers the heights.

    lol. It is the opposite, but we could both be wrong, and it could be something else, this is a complicated unknown area to say the least.

    Still Steve, I appreciate your efforts ,and I know you are sincere,unlike the man made global warming frauds.

    Another basic disagreement is Piers Corbyn, who is really great in this area, says cosmic rays don’t increase cloud cover,while Stevensmark, who I also respect, says they do. The arguments never end in the study of climate, The only one I know is wrong for sure is CO2 effects climate, I am open to everything else.

  132. Steve ,it is possible you are right, I don’t know. Time will tell.

  133. In any event Steve ,you are doing good work and you are sincere,unlike the man made global warming frauds, and I have an open mind to everything other then co2 causes the climate to change.

  134. Laurie says:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/temperature.html#4600Myr

    Here is a site that may add to your information . . . . it a little longer term . . .

    I don’t have as much problem with variations is global temperatures. . . It’s the gyrations that make me nervous. . . the Earth expands as it heats up . . and contracts as it cools. . . water on the other hand is kinda backwards. . . it expands when it cold . . . contracts . . when liquid. . . and expands as a gas . .

    PS. you guys are sure busy today.

  135. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks Salvatore, we shall see.

    As regards the Svensmark hypothesis I’m with Piers on that one for two reasons:

    i) There is no shortage of particulates in the atmosphere so cosmic rays are not needed

    ii) I see an adequate cause of increased cloudiness to be the equatorward shift in the jets. As they move equatorward then due to the increasing circumference of the globe that they cover the lines of air mass conflict lengthen creating more clouds. Furthermore reflectance increases as the clouds shift to regions of more intense insolation. So we really do not need the Svensmark hypothesis at all.

    I see the increase in cosmic rays at a time of less active sun as merely a coincidental consequence of declining solar activity rather than a cause of climate changes in itself. To change the global energy budget in the troposphere one really needs to shift the jets. More clouds are a consequence of jet stream shifts and not a cause of such shifts. Indeed I cannot envisage a mechanism whereby a simple cloud quantity change would in itself shift the jets. The onle two things that can do it are a change in the rate of energy release from the oceans or a change in the upward energy flux which seems to be dependent on solar proton effects in the mesosphere and not as heretofore thought by uv effects in the stratosphere.

    If the uv effects were dominant then the stratosphere would warm when the sun is more active but it does not so the solar proton ozone depleting effect higher up must logically be the dominant process.

    Observations trump theories after all.

    Interesting times : )

  136. I see their is a delay sometimes, now I know for the future.

  137. Ralph says:

    >>Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Thanks, Leif, for that analysis of energy on the Earth. Interesting that the Moon’s infrared radiation is greater that our fossil fuel output. I would not have guessed that one.

    One element I would contend, however, is the energy from lightening. This is only recycled heat, and should not count.

    .

  138. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something”

    Salvatore, you can contact me direct via the climaterealists.com site. Messages to the site owner are passed on to me.

  139. Ralph says:

    >>Salvatore Del Prete says: October 30, 2010 at 9:34 am
    >>Let’s not forget how important ALBEDO is, and how low clouds,
    >>snow ,ice cover have a big influence, on increasing earth’s albedo
    >>as they increase.

    I noticed last year that snow was lying on the ground over all northern Europe and the East (Ukraine and Russia) well into March/April. This must have had a significant impact on the overall insolation this year, as the reflection must have been in the 99-100% bracket.

    .

  140. Stephen Wilde says:

    Tenuc said:

    “there are many more quasi-cyclical over-lapping mechanisms at work. As climate is ultimately driven by the rules of deterministic chaos, when these cyclical mechanisms coincide they can push Earth’s weather-regimen/climate from the warm attractor to the cooler attractor. These events include sea-ice melt/freeze changes, ocean salinity, elecro-scavenging from solar wind, changes to ozone level/chemistry and importantly, changes to the rate of the hydrological cycle (heat engine).”

    Yes Tenuc I agree entirely as regards short term climate change. However my judgement is that the longer the timescale involved the more likely that those other effects will cancel out leaving sun and oceans in ultimate control.

    Changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle are the key response to every other forcing and those changes in speed work to maintain the balance between sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures.

    The evidence of a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle globally is the net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined and they work their effect by shifting the cloud bands latitudinally to alter cloud amounts and reflectance so as to alter global albedo and thereby amplify solar variability substantially.

    Leif Svalgaards objections to the proposed top down solar forcing cannot be sustained unless the recent data from Joanna Haigh fails to be verified.

    Bob Tisdale’s objections to the proposed bottom up forcing fail because during the recent warming spell in the late 20th century with a long run of powerful El Ninos the ocean heat content actually increased whereas his hypothesis would have predicted a decline in ocean heat content.

    Someone else posted a comment that if I could dispose of the objections of Leif and Bob then my hypothesis would get plain sailing.

    Form your own conclusion.

  141. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    October 30, 2010 at 8:40 am

    “The difference between me and Piers is that I am looking at multidecadal trends in solar and climate variability in order to discern the background climate trend at any given time whereas he is trying to make short term predictions from short term solar events.”

    Long range forecasts on daily weather events, up to a year ahead, tried and tested. On the multi-decadal, he is very much focused on the Hale cycle.
    Surely the “background climate trend at any given time” is the actual weather events/periods, that ensure there is a trend, if at all.

  142. Ville says:

    @ Mike Haseler

    Hey, I have been thinking about that too. In the beginning there was weather chaos. then came god.

    Seems to me that some readers can not accept your reasoning because of personal belief… sad.

    If you are o believer, it is your thng. You can not force the world to act according to your beliefs.

  143. matt v. says:

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology reported on Oct 27 on the current La Nina and said, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    “Despite the brief impact of a Madden Julian Oscillation event, all ENSO indicators remain firmly at La Niña levels. The tropical Pacific Ocean is significantly cooler than average for this time of the year, both at and below the surface of the ocean. The SOI remains very high at +21, down slightly from the September value of +25, which was the highest monthly value recorded since November 1973 and the highest September value recorded since 1917. ”
    http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/soigraph/index.php?year=2010

    The SOI levels have been consistently high positive [+20] since about July. Are we in for 4 months of cold weather during late 2010 and early 2011 and possibly into spring ? The mean global tropospheric temperatures for the last 50 years fall and rise in close relationship with the SOI of about 5-7 months before. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

  144. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ulric asked:

    Surely the “background climate trend at any given time” is the actual weather events/periods, that ensure there is a trend, if at all.

    I should more accurately have said ‘background temperature trend at any given time’

    The temperature trend affects jet stream positioning and individual regional climates change with changes in jet stream positioning.

    I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘global climate’. Perhaps one could refer to a temperature dependant global set of regional climates.

  145. Svempa says:

    matt v.,

    Looking att this diagram: http://www.energiminnesfonden.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:klimatet-och-solcyklerna&catid=36:ovrigt&Itemid=59 it is easy to see that the turning points (warm to cold, cold to warm) all correspond to solar minimums. The years 1878, 1912, 1944, 1976 and 2008, to be more prcise. A colder period is on the way, it’s a sure thing.

  146. Stephen Wilde says:

    Svempa,

    I’ve mentioned on another thread as to what I think is going on so I’ll repeat it here in case it is of interest to you:

    “Various analyses show upward temperature steps during the 20th century from one 60 year PDO cycle to the next. That pattern is well recognised but the cause is unknown though it does suggest a forcing mechanism in the background which is independent of but which does influence the ENSO cycle.

    The most obvious and simplest solution would be that such stepping occurs throughout the 500/1000 year climate cycle from MWP to LIA to date with downward steps for 500 years or so then upward steps for the next 500 years.

    I have now proposed that the cause of that background trend is in fact the observed variation in solar activity over those periods. The level of TSI is largely irrelevant because it is too small. What does seem to happen is that variable solar proton quantities entering the mesosphere alter the ozone chemistry above 45Km so as to send the temperature of the mesosphere and stratosphere in the opposite direction to that which is usually assumed i.e. a more active sun actually cools the mesosphere and stratosphere thereby increasing the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere which causes the tropopause to rise and the jets are drawn poleward.

    That leads to an opening of the blinds so to speak because the cloud bands shift away from the equator where insolation is strongest and so global albedo declines and more energy enters the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of stronger El Ninos with consequent upward stepping every 60 years or so.

    The reverse process when the sun is getting less active.

    I have been canvassing that proposition more forcefully since the Haigh data became available a few weeks ago because that data confirmed my previously published opinion that in reality a more active sun must cool and not warm the stratosphere and the solar proton causation looks like a very persuasive mechanism.

    I’m waiting to see if someone can falsify that proposal but no sign of that so far.”

    Svempa, I think that explanation would sit rather well with the charts that you have now referred us to.

  147. STEVE , Possible alternative explanation for Stratosphere temp. changes.

    Did you think, that perhaps the cooling trend in the stratosphere in the late 20th century was due to the fact ,that sun for the most part prior to the late 20th century was more active. Therefore in the late 20th century the statosphere cooled in response to the sun slowly becoming less active.

    Let’s look at the very early 21st century and a slight warming. That could be due to water vapor declining from a higher level in the stratosphere in the late 20th century,due to the late 20th century warming,which in the short term could have had a temporary greater influence on the ozone concentrations in the startosphere,then the change in UV light.

    Remember water vapor destroys ozone.

    HAIGH’ STUDY

    If you really look at it ,first of all it is only for 3 years 2004-2007. Next if you look at the total geomagnetic activity frm the sun over those years you have the following:

    aa index = 23.0 in 2004

    aa index = 23.2 in 2005

    aa index = 16.2 in 2006

    aa index 15.0 in 2007 Not really that low, I would say Mayud’s aa index has to be less then 10 to really reflect a quiet sun.

    Next problem is her study said only above 45 km did ozone increase ,while below 45km there was a SIGNIFICANT decrease in ozone, and since most of the ozone is below 45 km that does not lend to much support to your theory.

    Finally lag times have to always be applied, and the study is just to short a time span, to draw any definitive conclusions.

  148. Stephen Wilde says:

    All good points Salvatore but I have thought them through already, thus:

    i) The highest solar peak was cycle 19. Cycle 20 was down a bit and cycles 22 and 23 were both high. However throughout the entire period the level of solar activity was anomalously high in historical terms (going back to around 1600) despite the small downward trend from 19 to 23 so I would say that all the time the incoming solar protons were sufficient to arrange a net depletion of ozone above 45Km to cause the observed cooling of the mesosphere (which starts around 50Km).

    ii) You have noted that the change of sign in the effect of solar activity on ozone occurs at or near 45Km. That suggests to me that below that height the ‘normal’ effects occur and more uv does warm the stratosphere when the sun is more active. However above that height the dominant effect is solar protons destroying ozone for a reversed sign cooling effect between 45Km and the mesopause. So which effect is dominant ? Well overall we are dealing with the net rate of upward energy flux and we saw both mesosphere and stratosphere cool when the sun was more active so observations suggest that the net effect on the upward energy flux is dominated by the solar proton effect in the mesosphere and not the uv effect in the stratosphere. That is the case despite the fact that there is indeed much less ozone in the mesosphere.

    iii) Lag times do apply but it is now some ten years since the jets began to move equatorward and Haigh’s data is right in the middle of the relevant period.

    Furthermore jets can only move poleward if the tropopause rises and the tropopause will only rise if the troposphere gets warmer OR if the stratosphere gets colder (i.e. the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere increases). In this instance the stratosphere did get colder the tropopause did rise and the jets did move poleward.

    The clincher is that it also happened that way in the MWP and no doubt all the earlier warm periods so this is a wholly natural phenomenon.

    As long ago as November 2009 I published my opinion that for the jets to move poleward when the sun is more active there must be a cooling of the stratosphere as a result of a more active sun. At that time I was short of a mechanism and only came to that conclusion with some reluctance because I knew it would put me out on a limb. Since then I have become aware of the ozone destructive effects of solar protons in the mesosphere and Haigh’s data fits perfectly so I am doubtful that her findings will turn out to be mistaken.

    I don’t think we need to involve water vapour in this scenario but of course it may turn out to have a separate modulating effect on the primary mechanism.

    I await developments with interest.

  149. Time will tell. The hardest item to comprehend or accept with your theory (i am not saying you are wrong) is the troposphere cooling as a result of less energy entering it from below ,rather then from above. That is the biggest problem I see with your theory.

    It is very hard to accept , less energy coming to the troposphere from below,rather then from above.

  150. Stephen Wilde says:

    Not quite.

    More energy departing the stratosphere upwards than was entering the stratosphere from below or being generated within the stratosphere by the extra uv acting on ozone there whilst the sun was more active.

    After all, both the mesosphere and the stratosphere did cool when the sun was more active and the reverse is now occurring with a less active sun.

    How else would you explain it ?

  151. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoops, you were referring to the troposphere not the stratosphere.

    Less energy reaches the troposphere from above when the sun is less active because the cloud bands move equatorward and ‘close the blinds’.

    More energy reaches the troposphere from above when the sun is more active because the cloud bands move poleward and ‘open the blinds’.

    Because most of the incoming energy goes into the oceans the rate at which it comes back into the troposphere from below is down to the oceans.

    So the temperature of the troposphere is indeed dictated primarily by how much energy is released by the oceans and not by direct insolation on land surfaces.

  152. Markus says:

    This article is bullsh … instead of changing your wasteful lifestyle you USA-folks keep on finding a proof that back is white. It’s a shame when journalists, who are expected to be more clever than the mass, try to amplify the believe that we have no global warming.

  153. I want to emphasize that there is a link between low solar activity and increased volcanic activity, and that is one of the reasons why temp. drop when the sun exhibits low solar activity.

    Just go back in time and one will see a good correlation,infact 85% of all major volcanic eruptions, since 1600 have occurred during solar minimum periods.Is this by chance? You decide.

    Let’s talk about the sun a little. When the sun is in a prolonged minmum state the upper atm. cools,(polar vortex will expand)pushing the jet equatorward.

    I think Steve Wilde ,and I are close ,except that he thinks above 45km the stratosphere will warm and he thinks the cooling of the upper troposphere,and lower most stratosphere is a result of reduced energy flux from below rather then from above,when in reality it could be a combination of the two.

    Steve Wilde, is saying above 45km ,the stratosphere warms but the reality is the stratosphere starts much lower in altitude then that,and Haig’s study also showed below 45km,ozone amounts were much less during a quieter sun(most ozone found below 45km)which would tend to substanciate that less UV light coming from the sun when it is quiet,results in ozone destruction below 45km,and thus cooling the stratosphere below 45km.

    End result ,less energy coming DOWN to the upper troposphere,thus cooling it from above.

  154. Stephen Wilde says:

    A couple of misconceptions there, Salvatore.

    From about 45Km upwards (usually said to be 50Km but I suspect it rises and falls with levels of solar activity) it is the mesosphere rather than the stratosphere and the temperature profile of that layer is different because it cools with height whereas the stratosphere warms with height.

    I accept the conventional view that the warming with height in the stratosphere is indeed induced by uv hitting ozone molecules.

    However on the basis of the reversed sign effect observed by Haigh in the levels above 45Km I suggest that above that level the primary cause of cooling up to the mesopause is solar protons destroying ozone above that height.

    When the sun is quiet the stratosphere should cool from less ozone reactions and Haigh did see reduced ozone as expected. However above 45Km in the mesosphere she saw increased ozone (the reversed sign) which implies warming there contrary to expectations.

    So the next question is why is the stratosphere no longer cooling as it did when the sun was more active ? It should be cooling because of the reducing ozone below 45Km but it is no longer cooling.

    The only explanation I can think of is that the temperature trend of the mesosphere controls the temperature trend of the stratosphere regardless of the ozone trend in the stratosphere and thereby reverses the sign from that expected by standard climatology.

    That then affects the height of the tropopause and that affects the pressure distribution in the troposphere.

    A cooling stratosphere at a time of active sun raises the height of the tropopause and pulls the jets poleward.

    A warming stratosphere at a time of quiet sun lowers the height of the tropopause and pushes the jets equatorward.

    Thus is the reversed sign solar effect made consistent with observations whereas under standard assumptions the observations seem to be an anomaly that needs human intervention for its resolution via the proposed energy budget effects of human CO2 and CFCs.

    If Haigh’s data is confirmed the CO2 and CFC effects are no longer required to explain observations.

  155. I say this. More time is going to have to go by ,with more temperature data to see what the story is. Not enough time, not large enough temperature changes have taken place. The study you referred to said, since 1996 the stratosphere has had a slight warming. Slight.

    I say more time,more data is going to be needed before one can draw any substancial conclusions.
    One has to be cautious when trying to draw this type of conclusion,also Steve the lower most stratosphere has to cool when the sun is quiet in order to maintain the stronger polar vortex as a result of the cooling of the upper troposhere when the sun is quiet. If not the polar vortex would not have much depth.
    As to levels above the lower most stratosphere, temperature change in that area could be different, but to form a stronger polar vortex some cooling is going to have to extend to at least the lowest levels of the stratosphere in my opinion.

    In closing more data is needed.

  156. Steve, I can’t post on the climate realist site, and I like corresponding with you, because you have this thought out as well as anyone,even though we have a SLIGHTLY different take maybe on the stratosphere,but largely we agree.

    I want to be able to convey to you any new ideas I might come up with, by the same token I want to know your latest thinking, and what you see going forward.

    I am going to give you my email. Here it is. salmbswx@aol.com

    Take Care, and keep doing what you are doing ,because it is quite good work.

  157. Stephen Wilde says:

    ” the lower most stratosphere has to cool when the sun is quiet in order to maintain the stronger polar vortex as a result of the cooling of the upper troposhere when the sun is quiet. If not the polar vortex would not have much depth.”

    Not so. The tropopause has to fall so that the polar vortex gets shallower and spreads out. That requires the warmer stratosphere exactly as per observations.

    If the polar vortex is to pull back towards the poles then the tropopause has to rise and the vortex becomes deeper instead. That requires a cooling stratosphere exactly as per observations.

    The implications of reversing the sign of the solar effect need some thinking through. I’m sure I’ve got it right but I agree, more data is needed.

    I just wanted to get it in early because if the new data goes my way then……….

  158. I think you may be correct with the mesosphere. I think infact the higher one goes up in the atm. the more influence the solar protons have in comparisome to UV light ,while the opposite might hold true the lower one goes in the atmosphere.

    That I think makes sense.

    I want to see what the temperatures show for the stratosphere and mesophere from 2007 on providing the sun remains quiet.

  159. Two items. Do you think there is a correlation between increased volcanic activity and low sunspot activity? Past history supports this.

    Next item ,I feel the amount of ozone concentrations is paramount to temperature values at any level in the atmosphere.

  160. That is a very good point, you just made. Very good point. That point being if the polar vortex has less depth it will tend to spread out which is associated with a negative AO,NAO. Conversely if the polar vortex has greater depth it will intensify tending to make the AO,NAO more positive.

    Good points. This is why I like this.

    Let’s look at this . In the end it is the overall heights that matter. Anotherwords if you have a more positive AO,NAO but all the relative heights are lower then prior, cooling of the globe would still take place, although I agree that it seems to be the polar vortex spreading out ,not necessarily stronger that is associated with the low sun activity,cooling, and the jet being pushed equatorward.

    That was a great point you made.

  161. What about this, and this is my thought. What if the stratosphere cools/upper troposphere cools when the sun is quiet, but the cooling over lower latitudes in comparisome to the poles is greater. That would result in the overall heights falling ,and at the same time a weaker more spread out polar vortex, because the height falls were greater at lower latititudes where the pressures are higher to begin with then at the poles in the upper trop/lower stratosphere.. How about that as a possible explanation. That I came up with quite a ways back.

  162. Stephen Wilde says:

    Salvatore,

    I’ve emailed you for future communications. As regards your final questions:

    i) I’m expecting post 2007 patterns in the atmosphere to continue the 2004 / 2007 trends noted by Haigh provided the sun stays quiet enough.

    ii) It is said that solar activity is in some way linked to solar system (even galactic) gravitational effects. I’ve no idea either way but if so thenn it would follow that the same influences could affect the Earth’s interior at the same time. So, plausible but not proven.

    iii) Agreed. Ozone reactions govern the temperature profile directly or indirectly right up to the mesopause at least. The surprise is that it is two competing ozone processes which cause the switch in temperature gradient between stratosphere and mesosphere. Previously it was thought that the uv effect just faded away at the stratopause but it turns out that that is just half the story if Haigh’s data is confirmed.

  163. Stephen Wilde says:

    ” Anotherwords if you have a more positive AO,NAO but all the relative heights are lower then prior, cooling of the globe would still take place,”

    Nearly there :)

    POSITIVE AO means smaller but deeper polar vortex with a HIGHER tropopause from stratospheric cooling when the sun is MORE active.

    Jets shift poleward reducing cloudiness and reducing albedo letting more energy into the oceans = system GAINING energy DESPITE and even BECAUSE OF the cooler stratosphere and mesosphere.

    Thus the only way to get the correct observed sign for the temperature trend in the troposphere (warming) at a time of active sun is to REVERSE the sign for both mesosphere and stratosphere which causes the observed shift in the jets and allows MORE energy into the oceans and thence the troposphere.

    Voila. All observations accounted for and basic physical principles complied with.

  164. Pamela Gray says:

    As I was driving through Wallowa Canyon, the river was losing heat all over the place and slush was starting to build. Water (and my morning coffee) often lose heat when the conditions are right. They also mix their layers occasionally, which results in colder water temperatures as well.

  165. Pamela Gray says:

    oops. I might have posted my comment too late. Was cleaning house whilst commenting.

Comments are closed.