Claim: Warmest oceans ever recorded

From the University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST

warmest_ocean_SOEST“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year,” says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets.

“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value (Figure 1a) and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands,” explains Timmermann.

He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat–heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.

“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 1b),” says Timmermann.

The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

308 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 14, 2014 8:02 am

What happened to the ‘pause’?

Col Klink
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 8:15 am

Apparently those”record breaking” greenhouse gas concentrations (which have been record breaking for 60 years now) only have the ability to warm the oceans. Global temps remain mysteriously unaffected. Imagine that

Princemishkin
Reply to  Col Klink
November 14, 2014 1:27 pm

Really?
October tied for hottest month on record.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Col Klink
November 14, 2014 4:47 pm

Visible light penetrates sea water up to about 150 meters, though most of it will be absorbed within the first 10. Long wave radiation only penetrates a few millimeters.

Andrew
Reply to  Col Klink
November 14, 2014 5:11 pm

LOL, like the “hottest evah August” shown as a ridiculous lie by the plummeting RSS reading? (And the summer snow in the US)

James the Elder
Reply to  Col Klink
November 15, 2014 8:43 pm

Princemishkin
November 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Really?
October tied for hottest month on record.
Really? Borrowed from Real Science:
The experts at the National Climatic Data Center report that October was 4th warmest on record in the US, despite the fact that their own thermometers show it was 24th warmest – after 1947, 1963, 1884, 1900, 1882, 1950, 1881, 1931, 1938, 2007, 1953, 1918, 1956, 1897, 1910, 1927, 1971, 1934, 1973, 1941, 1940, 1962 and 1914
1947 and 1963 were nearly four degrees warmer.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Col Klink
November 17, 2014 10:50 am

Which illustrates the power of “adjustments” by the charlatans of NOAA and NASA. Ditto Had CRU. Never, ever trust government flunkies. The trough-feeding parasites are not here to help. If their mouths or printing presses are moving, they’re lying.

David A
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 8:33 am

It is still there, SH sea ice near record high, NH snow, near record high, Great lakes ice about 10 F below normal, The ratio of very cold days to very hot days in the US in 2014 (so far) is second highest in a century
RSS and UAH anomalies about 1/2 of the 1998 anomalies, and even the highly adjusted GISS surface record does not yet make this the hottest year.

Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:37 am

But it is the warmest ice on record!

Werner Brozek
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:53 am

After 10 months, the GISS average is 0.664. The previous high was 2010 at 0.661. 2005 is next at 0.655. GISS no longer shows a flat pause.
Hadcrut4.3, after 9 months, is 0.560. This is slightly above the record of 0.555 in 2010. After 9 months, the pause is 9 years and 9 months.
Hadsst3, at 0.482 after 10 months, is way ahead of 0.416 from 1998. The last 5 months have all been above the previous high monthly anomaly of 0.526 set in July 1998. It also no longer shows a pause.
The satellite data show pauses with RSS at 18 years and 1 month and UAH, version 5.5, at 9 years and 10 months. Both are ranked 7th after 10 months in 2014.

David A
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:57 am

Werner, GISS infill’s large blank areas from stations up to 1200 K away, both in high latitudes in the oceans,
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/ and in large central areas which RSS shows cool, like most of Africa here..http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/out-of-africa/
Does NASA GISS use their global mean surface T maps, minus land, to determine global ocean surface T.,
or do they go and back fill the areas for their SST only maps they deleted for their mean global surface maps??

chris moffatt
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 9:14 am

So this all means that the heat is not ‘missing’ – it’s being withdrawn from the landmasses and dumped into the ocean? Well okay.

chris moffatt
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 9:15 am

It does continue to amaze me that only in climatology does heat flow up a temperature gradient

Barry
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 9:54 am

I don’t think there’s currently any Great Lakes ice. And we all know air temps lag ocean temps, so let’s see what happens in the coming months.

milodonharlani
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 12:42 pm
Sal Minella
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 1:31 pm

It’s so cool that we can measure average ocean temp to .001 degrees. We must be using some of that alien tech from area 51 because I know of no way to accomplish this with Earth tech.

David A
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 8:53 am

One of the more unscientific comments you have made. A 12 week spike in surface T does not end a 13 to 18 year pause.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.htmO

David A
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:54 am

To Leif of course, still getting used to the new format.

Ben
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 10:27 am

David A – Please check your link, as it does not got to a viewable page of info. Thank you

Adam Gallon
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 2:25 pm

That O on the end mucks the link up.

Bart
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 4:46 pm
MarkW
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 9:17 am

“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific”
Sounds like they are just measuring the El Nino.

Barry
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2014 9:53 am

El Nino would be in the equatorial Pacific.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 9:54 am

When the pause officially ends folks will go back to some other nonsense to deny what they dont need to deny:
C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.
Now, skeptics who want to make an impact ( like Nic Lewis) focus on the real question. Imagine what would happen if all skeptics learned from his example?
Instead they clown around denying basic physics. They clown around chasing the orbit of Jupiter.
They clown around complaining about anomalies and the colors of charts. Faced with clowns like this, Obama pulls out his phone and pen.
In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe. And that
picture gets used to justify executive action. By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president .

SkepticGoneWild
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:17 am

An English major lectures us on “basic physics” with much hand waving. Just who is the clown here?

TRM
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:20 am

Just curious Mosh but what do you take as a valid number +/- error range for CO2 doubling / temp sensitivity? I’ve seen it drop from 4 C, to 3 to 2 and now we’ve got papers being published showing it is 1.5 or less.
From 0.7 to 1.5 seems to be the new range. I’m thinking somewhere in the middle of that so I’ll go with 1.25 +/- 0.25 (just a SWAG on my part from reading the studies and reviews thereof).
PS. I’m not be facetious I’m interested in what you think it is. Thanks

milodonharlani
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:28 am

The “pause” may “officially” end by corrupt officials faking temperature “data”, but in the real world it has already ended, & just as skeptics predicted, the planet is cooling, not warming.
In the immortal words of the late, great real scientist, not GIGO modeler, & “Father of Climatology” Reid Bryson, ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.’

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:44 am

CO2 warms the atmosphere and it’s that simple, right? There could NEVER be negative feedbacks associated to warming and the natural forces which are working towards bringing about a glacial period could never overwhelm this slight increase in LWIR absorption, right? Spoken like a true believer that doesn’t understand the complexity of the issue.

Pete Ross
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:46 am

This comment is beyond Orwellian, blaming sceptics for Obama’s craziness.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:53 am

Steven Mosher November 14, 2014 at 9:54 am
C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.

That should read “CO2 helps to warm.” No one knows how much or how. The models don’t even have accurate radiative physics info in them.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 11:01 am

Was that a threat ?

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 11:08 am

We can only hope that CO2 warms the planet. What a wonderful benefit to an already beneficial gas. Is it the crank skeptics relegated to the dust bin that unleash the tyranny of bureaucracy or government funded alarmists blasted over the evening news every night? Either way mankind does have an affinity for servitude.

Bill Marsh
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 11:30 am

I think another question is just as important.
That question is “does the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor, proposed as a key to increased temps, actually exist in nature (and not just in a model).

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 11:42 am

What a nonsense!
When the plateau ends and the cooling really gets going the simpletons will still recite their bs. They will just say CO2 warms, but not that much.
Warmists deny basic physics (heat transfer) and basic education (geography). We live in the age of stupid.

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 1:01 pm

Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 at 9:54 am
You say:
“C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.”
———-
Seems like a rhetorical question, but considering the whole of your comment and the possibility that you may just have had one too many drinks prior to writing and posting it, I will consider that as non rhetorical.
The answer to that question, which I do not expect you to understand, will be:
“The CO2 will warm the planet not at all. Planet does not warm to any degree that we humans or any one else at all could be able to measure, and it does not even cool to any such a degree.”
Now if by some dodgy way you meant colloqually the surface and atmospheric warming then the answer to your question, which I again do not expect you to understand, will be:
“The CO2 will warm the “planet” as much as the Earth planet wants or requiries the CO2 to warm the “planet”, at a time and period as wanted and requiried, no more no less”
The day you will understand this, you will be moving out of clowning and in to basic physics.
In your comment you also surprisingly show lot of desperation, what makes me think you had one too many drinks before commenting and posting.
cheers

Sal Minella
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 1:34 pm

Prove that CO2 warms the planet. Data that I have seen indicate that there is no such relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.

marque2
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 2:05 pm

I don’t know of many skeptics who clown. It is widely acknowledged that CO2 can raise earth temperature about 1 degC with one doubling from 350ppm anda total of 1.5 degrees with infinite doubling ( more CO2 provides diminishing warming ability, because the CO2 wavelength get absorbed once and once one CO2 captures a photon having 100 won’t capture it any more)
The problem is really the irrational alarmists , who then take this info And then claim positive feedbacks will make the increase 2,3 even 10 times more powerful. It just doesn’t work that way and everyone knows it, even the alarmists. The temperature record shows the increase of a 0.6 degC natural heating per century, plus about 0.8 due to CO2. Of course with all the homogenization of data, we could soon see larger increases as we freeze to death.

Chris
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 2:13 pm

whiten said: ““The CO2 will warm the “planet” as much as the Earth planet wants or requiries the CO2 to warm the “planet”, at a time and period as wanted and requiried, no more no less”
Wow, in 2 years of reading posts on this site, I think that is the least science based posting pretending to be science based that I have come across.

Jim Clarke
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 3:23 pm

“In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe. And that
picture gets used to justify executive action. By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president.”
I am not sure how to even begin to untangle such an irrational statement. Lewandowski does not need any excuse to be ‘enabled’. If there were no ‘fringe’ skeptics, he would create his own mythical fringe skeptics, which is pretty much what he does anyway. Frankly, those who ‘chase the orbit of Jupiter’, ‘complain about anomalies’ and ‘the color of charts’, are far more rational than those who create an imaginary planet of doom and try to pass it off as Earth. It least the former are dealing with some physical realities.
Secondly, this Imperial President is not hiding behind the cover of ‘crazed skeptics’ to justify his executive actions. Even this Teflon President would not attempt to argue that we must make our energy more expensive because the crazy guy on the side walk is all for cheap electricity. The most faithful Democrats would think the President was nuts. No. This Imperial President stands boldly with the fiction writers of the IPCC and all the Federal Agencies he has payed to supply him with the fiction he wants. He needs no cover, other than the ignorance of the American people, and even that is reaching its limits. (who’da thunk?)
If we silenced all the so-called ‘fringe’ skeptics, the actions of the warmists would not change a bit, however science would likely take a huge hit. I seem to recall some ‘fringe’ German dude came up with the idea that space and time were relative! What a nut job, right Steven?

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 3:28 pm

Chris
November 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Hi Chris.
The comment you replied to was meant for Mosher…and as I said there, I did not expect him to understand, and probably it means also many others would not understand it too, perhaps you too.
For once it means that the CS is a constant and the CO2 emissions always in dependence of natural functioning of Earth system. Seems that always to be the case, till Hansen era that is.
Only in a AGW and Hansen era things considered differently.
Is hard, very hard to consider that we humans are no gods but instead puppets as we always been.
Is quasy impossible for some to operate outside the AGW mentality, and that makes it so very hard to understand my reply to Mosher.
cheers

Wes Spiers
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 3:42 pm

Who denies basic physics? Name names.
And Obama isn’t using his phone and pen to save the world, only to save his political party.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 3:52 pm

Steven Mosher: Instead they clown around denying basic physics.
Tell us again how the basic physics excludes evaporation.
By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president .
That is a bizarre claim. What fringe skeptics had more influence on an imperial president than John Holdren?

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 4:03 pm

Wes Spiers
November 14, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Sorry, but S. Mosher definitely is one to name, when he says:
“C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.”
The planet does not either cool or warm, unless a Runway global warming (or cooling) at the extreme for an incredibly long period, but even then the planet’s heat content will not change by any measurable amount, basic physics. 🙂
Another one will be M.Mann when turning from global warming to glob’s warming..:-)
cheers

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 4:10 pm

Steven Mosher, please consider the post by William Astley November 14, 2014 at 11:54 am. How does the basic science of your understanding explain the rather rapid reinstatement of the apparent pause just 2 months later? Was there a rapid decline in the CO2 concentration? Is his post misleading? did the warm water rise as vapor and fall again as rain on our parched West Coast? Is it some kind of denying basic physics to call November anomalies about as important as September anomalies?

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 4:52 pm

C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.
Now, skeptics who want to make an impact ( like Nic Lewis) focus on the real question. Imagine what would happen if all skeptics learned from his example?

I agree completely. Don’t ask “how”. Ask “how much”.
An English major lectures us on “basic physics” with much hand waving. Just who is the clown here?
So now you can add a history major to that.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 4:54 pm

In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe.
Lamentably true. My opponents I can handle, but lord save me from my co-belligerents.
When the pause officially ends
I expect it will end when the PDO flips positive. That’s what happened last time.

jl
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 5:11 pm

How do you know it’s a “pause”? You know, with your great track record of predictions.

Andrew
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 5:16 pm

The “other nonsense” will replace the pause, when the pause ENDS? So the Pause is simultaneously a pause, and nonsense? And drawing attention to the pause enables the Loonandowsky because we should be quiet about 18 years of flat temps because shut up?

Kozlowski
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 5:42 pm

Without skeptics, President Al Gore (whew, that was a close one!) in 2000 would have turned our economy and world upside down, had us go carbon neutral, and today’s pause would have been viewed as the result of his actions. “See, I told you it was the C02!” Everyone would have handily applauded Al Gore for saving the planet. Sainthood, knighthood and plenty of unwilling massueses awaits.
It might have taken generations before real science caught up with the lies. So we have a lot to thank skeptics for! And at least they are debating the science, right or wrong. And with continual debate, the foci tends to change over time to reflect actual reality.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 6:48 pm

Is it fringe to say .2-.4 for doubling? Is it fringe to say not much? Is it fringe to point out that half the CO2 bands are saturated, probably because half the “greenhouse” effect is from the top down?
You know damned well CO2 is not warming the NE Pacific and leaving everything else alone. You want fringe? Dong Choi will tell you electromagnetic energy is emerging there after moving laterally through the mid mantle and it is causing the recent upsurge in volcanism. Can’t rule it out. What’s your hypothesis?
Just when I start thinking you have no buddies by design you start talking like a marketing mouthpiece for the team.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 10:17 pm

Mosh: Yeah, when the pause ends we’ll be on a downward trend.

knr
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 15, 2014 12:03 am

basic physics but by no means basic in application , hence the totally failure of models and why there is a need for ‘missing heat’ in the first place. The world is rather more complicated than a bell jar you pump CO2 , but your free to ‘deny ‘ that if you want.

tetris
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 15, 2014 1:39 am

Mosh
Once your credibility is shot it remains shot for a long, long time.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 15, 2014 6:21 am

…and Mosher caught the thread, again.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 23, 2014 7:34 am

You sound like the raving idiot (clown) in the room here by throwing labels around. CO2 obviously has some effect on temperatures as most skeptics accept. Real world data suggests that it is very small for reasons that are explained readily by physics. You ignore the elephant in the room, water vapor, while squeaking over the mouse, CO2. The modelers you obviously adore ignore water vapor properties, the sun, and the effect of the entire biosphere on climate. I am not a scientist. What I do know is if there is an agenda involving turning over all our rights to save the world from burning up or freezing us all to death it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with lusting for power over the lives of others. That’s where I see you entering the picture here.

tolou
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 10:10 am

“It’s the sun, stupid!”

tolou
Reply to  tolou
November 14, 2014 10:17 am

To the head of flat-sunspot-record society, naturally… 😉

milodonharlani
Reply to  tolou
November 14, 2014 10:50 am

Yes, it is:
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html
Willis dismissed Meehl as a modeler, but his school of thought is based upon data & plausible, demonstrable hypotheses to explain them:
“In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.
“When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.
“The Pacific is particularly sensitive to small variations in the trade winds,” Meehl said. Solar activity may influence processes linked with trade wind strength.”
And, Timmermann himself participated in a study published in Nature Climate Change blaming the “pause” on strong trade winds, but naturally, in order to be funded, had to assert without evidence that when the winds weaken, global warming will return. Now comes his finding that North Pacific Ocean warming occurred, even if not global.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
IMO this event, if valid, will be a one off, a last gasp, before the predictable descent into a cooling interval comparable to the late 1940s to ’70s, which IMO has already begun. Naturally, it’s more obvious in satellite observations than in the cooked to a crisp land station “record”.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 10:35 am

How does an acute (and probably short lived) spike in noisy data end a long term rate of zero change? You’d think warmists would have learned after decades of knee-jerk reactions that have made them look like idiots. Nothing has happened to the pause. My money is on this being the last surge of warmth from the oceans before the “pause” becomes the “cooling”. $20 on this not being the end of the pause, Leif?

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 14, 2014 4:00 pm

Robert W Turner: How does an acute (and probably short lived) spike in noisy data end a long term rate of zero change? You’d think warmists would have learned after decades of knee-jerk reactions that have made them look like idiots.
My thoughts as well. After all this time, they can not all together say “maybe”, and wait a while to see how things turn out after all data have been reviewed.

knr
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 15, 2014 12:06 am

its does not , but it does make a good headline and certainly helps keep the grant money flowing in while letting others know the author can be trusted as is a ‘true believer’ . So in many ways its very ‘effect ‘ research.

Editor
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 10:45 am

Leif, for a discussion on where and why global sea surface temperatures are at record high levels, see the following:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 14, 2014 11:18 am

Well done, but would appreciate a succinct summation to go with the link.
IMO, global warming during the warm PDO phase of c. 1977-98 ended with the super El Nino of 97/98 and the whole period featured a high number of super El Ninos and consecutive El Ninos. By contrast, El Ninos have been rare since then, as would be expected during a natural cooling phase, as earth appears now to be suffering.
The unusual warm pool in the NE Pacific is IMO liable to prove transitory, an artifact of solar activity fluctuations during a transition phase between PDOs. It’s likely not to prove the harbinger of renewed warming so longed for by catastrophists.

Greg
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 14, 2014 11:56 am

Thanks Bob, I was looking for that article on your site earlier and could not locate it.
It is pretty obvious there that this heat did not come from WPWP and drift up the US Pacific coast in counter current to the main ocean coriolis circulation as claimed by Timmermann.
I think he’s been at the Maui wowie again.

Greg
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 14, 2014 12:04 pm

Here’s the graph that seems the most pertinent from that article by Bob.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/figure-6-no-pac-ssta-last-12-months.png

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 10:55 am

The ‘pause” is still going strong in the phony data of NASA, NOAA and HadCRU. Sorry about the inconvenient truths with which you must deal daily, but the real world refuses to cooperate with your blind faith, and soon Washington, DC will wake up to this reality, too. Then we can start funding actual science again, instead of anti-scientific activism.

phlogiston
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 11:12 am

The Pause met the Cause. And came second. With scientific integrity a distant third.

William Astley
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 11:54 am
Matthew R Marler
Reply to  William Astley
November 14, 2014 4:04 pm

That didn’t take long. What happened to all that warm water? Did it power a few of our recent (rather mild) California rain showers?

Ragnaar
Reply to  William Astley
November 14, 2014 6:39 pm

In your graph, the PDO looks closer to setting up cool than I can remember for a long time. We need the blue to shift right.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  William Astley
November 14, 2014 6:54 pm

Matthew,
A lot of it went into the typhoon that made it all the way to Alaska, sending near record breaking cold and snow into the northern US.
It’s pathetic to watch Warmunistas jumping for joy at such passing weather events and grasping at straws to try to save themselves as they slide farther down the slippery slope into the oblivion of reality

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  William Astley
November 14, 2014 11:05 pm

Catherine Ronconi: A lot of it went into the typhoon that made it all the way to Alaska, sending near record breaking cold and snow into the northern US.
I was wondering if that was it.

george e. smith
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 12:32 pm

“””””…..“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. …””””
So that means since circa 1980, when the early ocean buoys were deployed.

Richard G
Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2014 6:05 pm

So we have SST buoy data for half a cycle. I’m guessing the next 30 years of data won’t be setting many warm records.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 5:17 pm

After the long-suffering people speak again in 2018, the jig will be up for trough-feeding leeches on society pretending to be scientists.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 14, 2014 6:56 pm

Nothing.

Reply to  tomwtrevor
November 14, 2014 8:47 pm

looks to me it went to where Pauses go to die…

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  tomwtrevor
November 15, 2014 1:07 pm

Looks to me as if the “Pause” is still very much with us, although turning colder rather than warmer.
It was the temporary NE Pacific warm pool, a weather phenomenon, that went away to die wherever pools go. Maybe to the pools’ graveyard.

tetris
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 15, 2014 1:46 am

You appear to be making the same mistake as for instance Martin Wolf at the Financial Times -eminently qualified in his comments on economic and financial matters- when he starts holding forth on global warming/climate change, where he is manifestly out of his depth.
In your case, I’ll take Bob Tisdale’s analysis over your throwaway question any time of the day.

Reply to  tetris
November 15, 2014 12:46 pm

Perhaps you could augment your throwaway comment with the result of your analysis of Tisdale’s stuff. What is in your exalted opinion the answer to my question?

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 17, 2014 6:49 am

> James The Elder.
USA is not The World.
(And you are just a sockpuppet. G’bye, David. Your comments are all wasted effort. ~mod)

November 14, 2014 8:02 am

Seems unlikely with the growth of arctic ice, we will see what the follow on analysis shows.

daddydunit
November 14, 2014 8:06 am

Its better for swimming? So whats the problem. Warm water is good No? Hopefully warmer temps to follow. Its freezing where I am now. I need to move south (climate refugee)

John
Reply to  daddydunit
November 14, 2014 10:06 pm

How much money can you claim as a refugee from climate? I’m thinking I should move from Canada to the Maldives, then claim climate refugee status, and again, when the “inevitable AGW” raises the seas and floods me out. I go, repeat, ad infinutum, Or go live on a flood plain (woops, that’s all of us, right?) And I could set up a (or a number} of NGO’s to assist said refugees to get their $$ from the (pick an appropriate contraction) UN body.
OR, I could solve the problem at the source and have a steak for dinner – cut the methane out of the equation! (97%?)

The other Ren
November 14, 2014 8:09 am

Just curious.. just where do the temperature readings prior to the satellites come from? Did we have clipper ships patrolling the southern oceans with thermometers hanging off the side back in the 1880’s? I’ll concede 1979 on and maybe even back to the WWII era, but prior to that it’s a little hard to understand we have enough readings to compare to current values.

tty
Reply to  The other Ren
November 14, 2014 11:17 am

“Did we have clipper ships patrolling the southern oceans with thermometers hanging off the side back in the 1880′s?”
Actually yes. There was much more traffic at high southern latitudes during windjammer days in order to use the strong and reliable westerly winds in “the roaring forties” och “howling fifties”. When steamships took over those seas became almost completely empty. They still are.

MikeUK
Reply to  tty
November 14, 2014 12:55 pm

Did those ships in 1880 bother to measure sea surface temperature, and if so did they do it at a precisely measured depth, and with calibrated thermometers? I think not.

rah
Reply to  tty
November 14, 2014 2:42 pm

No they didn’t record temps. The clipper ships existed for one reason and one reason only. To MAKE MONEY. A clipper could more than pay for it’s cost of construction with single trip around the horn. I suggest if you want to learn what clipper ships were all about and read a fascinating story of how a woman, working as the navigator in the manly occupation of seafaring at the time used the latest science to set the record for the fastest passage of a clipper ship (and still today the fastest for any sailing ship that was not for racing) from NYC to San Francisco http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Cloud-Americas-Famous-Clipper/dp/0688167934
It really is a fascinating story and well worth the read.

milodonharlani
Reply to  The other Ren
November 14, 2014 1:09 pm

Systematic oceanography began with 19th century expeditions, such as that of HMS Beagle, with Charles Darwin as naturalist, in the 1830s, the long 1840s voyage of USN officer Wilkes, previous & subsequent French & Russian explorations & especially this RN one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition

pochas
November 14, 2014 8:09 am

Depends on whose chart you look at. This is the result of the revisions made after they recently took the chart down.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

Neil
November 14, 2014 8:09 am

Hmm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/04/sorry-to-disappoint-cooling-in-the-north-pacific-not-so-much/
Looks like all that warm water had dissipated by October, according to Mr Tisdale.

Editor
Reply to  Neil
November 14, 2014 10:49 am

Neil, this morning I posted the full sea surface temperature update for October 2014:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/october-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Here’s the graph for the North Pacific based on Reynolds OI.v2 data:comment image
Regards

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 14, 2014 6:59 pm

Wow – that looks good for a lot of snow this winter in the rockies. In fact, a number of ski hills are opening this weekend in the Rockies ….

November 14, 2014 8:12 am

Old news, the Blob is gone and cool temperatures have taken over the N Pacific.

Editor
Reply to  gyan1
November 14, 2014 10:50 am

Looking at the graph above, the cooler waters haven’t taken over much of the North Pacific.
Regards

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 14, 2014 11:07 am

That is from October and is also old. There is still some warm water persisting off the coast of N America but the blob in figure B of the article is gone. That is what I was referring to.
Me saying “cool temperatures have taken over the N Pacific” was not 100% accurate.

Steve Keohane
November 14, 2014 8:12 am

Warm N. Atlantic would precede cooling as the next place for that warm water would be the Arctic which just dumps heat into space. As warm as it may be, it isn’t warm enough to inhibit ice growth this year. They also sound like they want to frame the warming pause as being in the past.

David A
November 14, 2014 8:13 am

RSS maps generally reflect surface T fairly well. Comparing RSS 1998 to 2014 is not even close.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/us-government-agencies-just-cant-stop-lying/

Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:23 am

TLT doesn’t, it’s particularly sensitive to El Niño, as illustrated by the 1998 data.

David A
Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2014 8:40 am

The 98 RSS does reflect a warmer tropical area. It is muted as you say, but the reflection is there compared to 2014 which appears to capture the blob, and a cool central Africa and northern part of South America.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2014 5:12 pm

TLT doesn’t, it’s particularly sensitive to El Niño, as illustrated by the 1998 data.
It’s particularly sensitive, period. It is an upper bound.

David A
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:26 am

GISS infill’s large blank areas from stations up to 1200 K away, both in high latitudes in the oceans,
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/ and in large central areas which RSS shows cool, like most of Africa here..http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/out-of-africa/
Does NASA GISS use their global mean surface T maps, minus land to determine global ocean surface T.,
or do they go and back fill the areas they deleted for their mean global surface maps??

JimS
November 14, 2014 8:14 am

So all that heat WAS hiding in the oceans? Well I’ll be …

looncraz
Reply to  JimS
November 14, 2014 10:21 am

Actually, if the missing heat was to be in the ocean and then released, we would have a drastic spike in temperatures, not just a mild bump.

Ian H
Reply to  looncraz
November 14, 2014 11:14 am

So when was the last time you burned your hand putting your fingers in a pot of cold water? That heat can’t release itself without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
OK so the Earth isn’t a closed system. That means in theory you could use the energy input from the sun to power some kind of heat pump to extract heat back out of the cold ocean waters. But it is extraordinarily unlikely any natural mechanism of this type exists. Even if it did, a change in ocean temperature of a couple hundredths of degrees warmer wouldn’t make any difference to its functioning. It could pump heat out of an “unwarmed” ocean just as well.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  JimS
November 14, 2014 5:15 pm

That heat can’t release itself without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Sure it can. What does not mix, travels in belts. (Think ENSO.)

Steve Keohane
November 14, 2014 8:15 am

Meant N. Pacific, don’t know where Atlantic came from. Need more coffee.

njsnowfan
November 14, 2014 8:18 am

“The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
What goes up will go down. PDO is tracking Solar and that second solar peak spiked the PDO.
PDO about to pull back quickly if it continues to track solar is my feeling
I would really like it if someone could do a detailed post on the AMO PDO.
Seems there is a lot of conflicting info out there on the AMO and PDO.
Only way I can post any pictures on WUWT is through twitter. I can not figure out another way
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/533291966675828737

njsnowfan
Reply to  njsnowfan
November 14, 2014 8:27 am

oops. Top left chart is AMO in red and Gistemp-dst in green Top Right chart is AMO in red and RSS in green
Bottom chart is PDO in red and Monthly sunspot data in green, 2011 to present
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/normalise

Greg
Reply to  njsnowfan
November 14, 2014 9:41 am

Why whenever someone uses the term “tracking” do they end up being wrong?
Perhaps I don’t understand what it means but I thought it meant following so closely one was “in the tracks of ” the other.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/normalise/mean:61/mean:53/mean:33/offset:0.2

Greg
Reply to  njsnowfan
November 14, 2014 9:42 am

Being totally out of phase from 1980 to 2010 is a bit of a problem for the idea of a direct correlation.

Reply to  njsnowfan
November 14, 2014 9:31 am

-“What goes up will go down. ”
Nope. In a few years they will adjust today’s temperatures downward and again have a record hot year

Reply to  qam1
November 14, 2014 10:20 am

since skeptic Roy spencer controls UHA.. are you indicting him as well?

Greg
Reply to  qam1
November 14, 2014 12:13 pm

UAH TLT is showing nothing of this “enormous” heat being dumped into the atmosphere:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png

Greg
November 14, 2014 8:22 am

Timmermann. “The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
So a six month uptick is sufficient to call and end to 18 years of no warming?
Can we have some error bars on that claim please?

Ian W
Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2014 8:38 am

As the conference on another Climate Treaty (or whatever euphemism they use) in Paris next year gets closer output like this will increase. Rebuttals will be denied until after the Paris conference.

Ian H
Reply to  Ian W
November 14, 2014 11:18 am

Excellent point. These global warming scare stories are caused by international global warming conferences. That makes the fix easy – just stop having the conferences

David A
Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2014 8:44 am

The uptick is not over the land, and is not a record for the year, but a part of the year, and with the fact that SH sea ice near record high, NH snow, near record high, Great lakes ice about 10 F below normal, The ratio of very cold days to very hot days in the US in 2014 (so far) is second highest in a century and
RSS and UAH anomalies about 1/2 of the 1998 anomalies, the claim of hottest year ever is not just pre mature, but simply wrong.

Bill
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 9:34 am

Great lakes temperatures I believe you mean 🙂

Dan
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 10:02 am

Why are you jumping all over the globe picking out certain small areas and extrapolating the results?
SH sea ice is record high for multiple reasons, one being the influx of fresh water from the melting of Antarctic glaciers. Fresh water melts at higher temps than salt water and is less dense so it floats on the surface of the ocean. You mention SH sea but neglect NH sea ice. Why?
NH snow cover is up about 1m sq km in the winter but year round NH snow cover overall is downward trend meaning it’s losing more in other parts of the year than it’s gaining in fall and winter, why didn’t you mention that?
Great lakes? Ratio of hot to cold days in the US only? Why are you focusing on such a small surface area of the globe ignoring the other 98% of the surface and indicating that what happens at this 2% is indicative of what’s happening over the whole globe? If we have data for the whole globe why don’t we just look at that and not extrapolate results from a small area.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Dan
November 14, 2014 10:19 am

Dan
Why are you jumping all over the globe picking out certain small areas and extrapolating the results?
SH sea ice is record high for multiple reasons, one being the influx of fresh water from the melting of Antarctic glaciers. Fresh water melts at higher temps than salt water and is less dense so it floats on the surface of the ocean.

Gee Dan. Why don’t you actually “do” the arithmetic on that claimed-but-never-measured Antarctic land ice melting to dilute the southern hemisphere ocean around Antarctica to cause more sea ice to freeze? Why don’t YOU show us how much land ice must melt (from an Antarctic land area of 14.0 Mkm^2 square area that has NOT been heating up the past 40 years! to cause a 2.0 million square kilometer anomaly “excess” this past June and a 0.45 million square kilometer this month.
Oh – by the way – you have to “dilute” all that water UNDER today’s 14 million sq kilometers of existing sea. You have to “dilute” enough of that sea water so the top 50 meters of storm-tossed southern ocean water DOES ACTUALLY freeze at a significantly higher temperature: A rise in southern ocean freezing point from -2.5 degree C to -2.45 degree C won’t do, will it? So, how much Antarctic lnd ice must melt to change the southern ocean’s freezing point around Antarctica by 1.0 degree C?
So YOU show us the measurements. Do the math now. The West Antarctic Peninsula is only 1.7% of the entire continent, and it isn’t completely covered by ice – and that ice has not all melted (though a few of its glaciers have retreated since 1850… You don’t intend on using THAT little area to assume the rest of the continent is melting “unseen” do you?

You mention SH sea but neglect NH sea ice. Why?

Well, from today’s northern sea ice levels, additional loss of Arctic sea ice results only in increased heat losses from the Arctic Ocean by increased evaporation, increased radiation losses, increased conduction and convection losses 7 out of 12 months of the year.
So, more southern sea ice -> More heat energy reflected into space 12 of 12 months of the year.
Less northern sea ice -> More heat losses from the Arctic 7 of 12 months of the year.

David A
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:14 pm

Yes, I mean water T, likely a result of the record ice that took a long time to melt, and will make a strong comeback this year.

David A
Reply to  David A
November 14, 2014 8:28 pm

Dan you also failed to note that RSS and UAH are global data sets, and they show 2014 much cooler then 1998. You also failed to note the very cool SST around Antarctica, a far more reasonable exclamation for the sea ice, and you completely failed to show any evidence for mass salinity change of sea water around Antarctica. Also, please note that NH sea ice is about 60 percent plus above this time last year. (volume)
So the real kicker to the very warm SST is the blob, which for two years received far more SUNSHNE then normal due to the RRR, diverting storms around it, and away from Calif. Now please understand that the residence time of most energy striking earth is about maybe one day, by sunrise, it is pretty much gone. However SW solar insolation striking a large area of the ocean, penetrating to depth, up to 800′, now that increase in heat builds daily, sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, as the residence time of said energy is very long. Increase the heat capacity of a system, and you increase the energy content.
Feel free to go look at the below the surface maps of 1998 compared to 2014. There was a great deal more warm water below the surface in 1998. This warming may be short lived..
Also total NH annual snowfall has been increasing, so our children will know what snow is.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2014 9:02 am

As far as Hadsst3 is concerned, there is no flat line, but for statistically significant warming, Nick Stokes’ site has no statistically significant warming since December 1994, or almost 20 years.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

Gerry Parker
November 14, 2014 8:24 am

Did the sun only shine on that part of the Pacific Ocean? What is the claim for why that area is so warm compared to anywhere else? What is the cause of this uneven heating?

Ragnaar
Reply to  Gerry Parker
November 14, 2014 7:23 pm

Indian Pacific Warm Pool spreading out.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Ragnaar
November 15, 2014 9:52 am

Exactly. It is very possible that no heat has been added. The always top to bottom warm column of heated water up against the Indonesian West Pacific coastline got blown North where it all rose to the surface and spread out its full volume. Kind of reminds me of oil spills. A tiny drop of oil in a mud puddle can spread out and make the entire puddle look like nothing but oil.
This also means that the West Pacific coastline has been drained of its store of warm water which is evaporating away as we speak and rising through the atmosphere to escape Earth’s confines. A warm North Pacific sea surface is not our friend. Neither is a warm North Atlantic. It is the warning sign of Earth losing more heat than it can absorb. This scenario may even mimic that last Medieval Warm Period breath before plunging us into an exhausted state of cold while the Earth worked overtime to restore such a massive loss of heat.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Gerry Parker
November 14, 2014 7:26 pm

Could be undersea volcanoes. Who knows? It didn’t last long, so world is back to cooling, ie going with its major long-term trend (3000 years or more) instead of its short-term (300 years) minor warming trend.

David A
Reply to  Gerry Parker
November 14, 2014 8:30 pm

A two year high pressure ridge diverting storms. The RRR (Ridiculously Resultant Ridge.)

Greg
November 14, 2014 8:28 am

Timmermann. “in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast”
Last time I looked the exceptional warmth was in the Bering and Alaskan region and spread _down_ the coast, as would be expected with the main rotation of the ocean gyres, driven by Coriolis forces.

JP
November 14, 2014 8:30 am

If I am not mistaken, during the negative PDO phase, the North Pacific should have a large pool of above normal SSTs, right. This year the warm pool has tracked further east and a bit north than the classic signature

Ragnaar
Reply to  JP
November 14, 2014 7:25 pm

Cool PDO: Warm in the West, cool in the East. This has been a year of mostly the opposite.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Ragnaar
November 14, 2014 7:28 pm

It is perfectly normal for a year now and then to show counter-trend during either phase.

Ragnaar
Reply to  Ragnaar
November 14, 2014 7:32 pm

That is my hope Catherine Ronconi that it is a temporary thing, perhaps from the ENSO region activity.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Ragnaar
November 17, 2014 10:11 am

IMO it did come from equatorial regions, but is a weather event, not indicative of climate. If you look at a graph of past PDOs, you’ll see that there are little annual spikes in opposite directions to the main phase, but the dominant multi-decdal trend reasserts itself until the shift.

November 14, 2014 8:34 am

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
In the process of changing as one can see from the data.

Greg
November 14, 2014 8:36 am

I thought I’d find an animation to show what is going on and come across this from NOAA
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/

NOTE: Please note this file has been reduced to January 1982, which is when the OISSTv2 dataset begins. This file will continue to be updated each month in real-time. The COADS data prior to January 1982 is no longer updated in real-time.

So data from THIRTY YEARS AGO is not longer being updated “real-time”. WTF?
Well it’s about 30 years too late for “real-time” so how is that a problem?
It gets worse.

Alx
Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2014 7:11 pm

With the earth at millions of years old, maybe to the earth 30 years is like real time.
For human scientists it means we still have not found the holy grail called temperature of the earth.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Alx
November 14, 2014 7:23 pm

Earth is billions of years old.

Curious George
November 14, 2014 8:38 am

Record breaking ocean temperatures in Northern Pacific. Rush to Aleutian beaches!
Of course, only anomalies are shown, not absolute temperatures. Has anything changed in the way anomalies are computed?

Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 14, 2014 8:41 am

Watch the sst anomolies cool over the last 12 weeks:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html
🙂

Old'un
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 14, 2014 9:21 am

Don’t confuse us with facts, you will kill a good story 😉

November 14, 2014 8:44 am

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html
In addition the overall warmth is all related to solar and has nothing to do with GHG’S.
Solar being quite strong from last century up to year 2005 and the ocean responding to this as was to be expected. Going forward and taking into account lag times the ocean temperature trends in all categories will be down in response to a continuation of weak solar conditions going forward.
In addition the atmospheric circulation will continue to display this meridional pattern in response to sub-solar activity.

David A
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
November 14, 2014 8:48 am

Yes, the blob formed due to sun shine in the area of the RRR (Ridiculously resilient ridge) now maybe and hopefully fading.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
November 14, 2014 8:55 am

Nonononono!…you don’t understand.
They will go down because the U.S. and China agreed to ….errr…something.
And it was HUGE success! The oceans know, doncha know!

Alx
Reply to  jimmaine
November 14, 2014 7:14 pm

I think Obama took 3 tenths of a degree of ocean warmth and China 2 tenths. It is an historic moment since it is the first time in human history that super power leaders used to splitting up land, are now splitting up tenths of a degree of oecean temperatures.

Vince Causey
November 14, 2014 8:46 am

What happened to the rest of the ocean temps, or does a rise in one region mean the rest of the world can be disregarded so as to claim “the pause has ended”? Where’s Bob Tisdale when you need him?

Editor
Reply to  Vince Causey
November 14, 2014 2:47 pm

I’ve been commenting on this thread. And I provided a link to the most recent (October 2014) sea surface temperature update which includes graphs for all ocean basins:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/october-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

jl
November 14, 2014 8:54 am

“Warmest oceans ever recorded.” Recorded since when? But I love when they things like that because it still doesn’t prove what caused the “warmest oceans ever”.

Reply to  jl
November 14, 2014 9:58 am

“Warmed FAR BEYOND…” which is less than one tenth of a degree.

Paul
Reply to  jl
November 14, 2014 10:45 am

” I love when they things like that because it still doesn’t prove what caused the “warmest oceans ever”.
Because It goes without saying. Everyone already know it’s man-made CO2 that causes any warming…or cooling, or flooding, or drought, etc

Alx
Reply to  jl
November 14, 2014 7:16 pm

Well the “ever” is always an appropriate moment in time where they get to make the claim “warmest ever”.
Today was the warmest ever where I live, in my case “ever” was last tuesday.

bananabender56
November 14, 2014 8:57 am

Guys, I visit this website because I find many of the articles interesting, however, I suspect I’m one of the silent majority who don’t really understand the significance of many of the graphs and data presented. A case in point is the noaa weather maps. The article says it’s the hottest water on record while the commentators say look at the noaa SST charts. I’m looking but what does it say?
Any considered response to the dumb question would be appreicated

xyzzy11
Reply to  bananabender56
November 14, 2014 1:55 pm

I recommend you visit Bob Tisdale’s blog (https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/). His explanations are generally excellent. He also has published a few books (which I can also recommend)

bananabender56
Reply to  xyzzy11
November 15, 2014 3:55 am

many thanks

Dave
November 14, 2014 9:04 am

If there is questions about modern ocean temp measurements, how accurate are measurements from decades past?

1 2 3 4