There is a lot of wailing an gnashing of teeth today over this Associated Press story title:
Please take a moment to read that story above as I can’t post it here. AP has declared war on bloggers.
First a few caveats:
- Yes (as mentioned about the northeast USA beach water temperatures in the AP article) we have some very warm sea surface temperatures this summer, we also had the coolest summer surface temperatures on record in many places in the USA.
- The AP story is written by Seth Borenstein. Seth tends to report the warmest side of things in the worst way, so take the story with a grain of salt. For example, Portland Maine also set a new record low for July Temperatures, see here. I don’t think Seth covered that one nor the -50°F all time statewide Maine record low on January 16th, 2009 seen here. One should also note that NOAA reported “July Temperature Below-Average for the U.S.” How quickly we forget. I’m not trying to pick a weather -vs- climate food fight, but simply pointing this out for balance. We’ve had some cold events this year also.
- Sea temperature spikes like this have have happened before. More on that later.
In the story Seth says: “The result has meant lots of swimming at beaches in Maine with pleasant 72-degree water.”
To check that out, I utilized the Rutgers SST satellite page here. This image showing coastal Maine from NOAA-15 on August 18th seemed fairly representative and was one of the few that was almost completely filled with SST data. As you can see on this summary page, there is a lot of missing data. With this much missing data, one wonders if SST data averages are accurate.
I’ve annotated the image to give you landmarks and cities. Our warmer buddy “Tamino” lives in Portland, I wonder if he’s taking a dip. As you can see, indeed there is some 72 degree water around Portland. But up in the Bay of Fundy and tip of Nova Scotia, there’s some pretty cold water also, and it is in the 45 to 55 degree range.
A wider view SST of the northeastern US shows the reason for this juxtaposing of opposite ends of the sensing range:
I’ve also annotated this image to give you landmarks and cities.
Note the prominent tongue of warm water and the eddies and swirls. That is the warm water of the Gulf Stream mixing with the cold water of the north. In the middle mix, pleasant swimming temperatures. The earth is doing what is has always done, transporting warm water northward via the Gulf Stream. Yes it is a little stronger this year and maybe a little closer to the coast than usual.
Here’s a view of the source in the Gulf of Mexico, Oh…wait…I had to use a different source since the NOAA/Rutgers imagery was missing so much data in the Gulf – see for yourself here
This Weather Underground plot of buoy based sea temperature measurements shows that indeed the Gulf is warm and around the 90 degrees indicated in the article.
But the question is: is this warmth an event to be concerned about? From the Rutgers map above, it appears that the Gulf Stream has come closer to shore than it normally does, which of course makes it more noticeable to people recreating in the water.This of course generates attention, and reporters naturally pick up on these things. The question is: weather or climate?
Here’s a NOAA Ocean Explorer SST image from a 2005 article that shows how the Gulf Stream tends to hang off the coast a bit more.
And of course, we have an El Nino going on, so a warmer Pacific is certainly not unexpected.
Note the the temperatures above are anomalies, not absolute measurements.
As the AP article mentions, the last time we saw ocean temperature this high was in 1998 during the super El Nino.
What I find most interesting though is this NOAA Hovmoller graph as pointed out by Paul Vaughn in Bob Tisdale’s thread:
Hovmollering the SST: T-shirt tie-dye design or climate science?
Just looking at the 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 SST spikes, it does seem like we are due for another at the bottom doesn’t it?
The point I’m making here. Yes the ocean is warm, it has gotten warm before. Should we panic? No.
A couple of closing points. The AP article that I referenced at the beginning of this post makes no references as to sources other than generally mentioning NCDC.
However I did find a more in depth NPR/AP article that did reference the NCDC sources which you can read here.
The two sources listed were:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?reportglobal&year2009&month7
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/all.html
But there is no mention of this on either source:
“The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center”
The latest summary NCDC offers ( which AP referenced: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?reportglobal&year2009&month7 ) is for July 2009 where they say this:
The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, which was also a record.
So that makes me wonder, did NCDC give Seth Borenstein some inside information for the middle of August that the rest of us aren’t privy to? Or, could it be a misprint or C to F conversion error?
I simply don’t know, but I do find it odd that I can’t find a NOAA or NCDC press release or data table that has that 62.6 degrees mentioned in it. If anyone knows where that figure came from, please post it in comments. Google is saturated with so many news stories with the keyword combination of NCDC and 62.6 that I’m unable to locate the original source. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but if it does, I’m sure our WUWT readers will find it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re. Warm water off Maine: this happens every year around this time.
I used to live at the beach in Southern Maine. The ocean water was almost always too cold to swim. Every summer my wife and I would stroll down the beach watching the tourists from Boston run into the water, scream, and run back out. They always forgot how cold it gets!
By late August, some tendril of the gulf stream current often moved into the area, and made the water tolerable for more than a few minutes of ankle-deep pain. That has just happened. In fact, we just got back from York Beach in Maine, and it was a great beach day, by Maine standards. I managed to stay in the water for a good half an hour, and there were actually decent waves! Then I sat in my beach chair and shivered for while.
One of the joys of living in York Beach was watching surfers (in warm rubber wetsuits, of course), braving a blizzard when a Nor’easter storm came up the coast and raised the waves above the usual lake-like placid ripples.
Alejo
If were coming up with weather anecdotes why not this story from Alaska. It looks like they had a frost which was not only robust but unprecedented.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/aug/13/interior-alaska-gets-chills-early-frost/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/record-july-2009-sea-surface-temperatures-the-view-from-space/
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “SST measure the rate at which the oceans release heat to the atmosphere.”
Wrong. You’d need to include a change in time to measure rate. SST in and of itself is a snapshot of an average temperature for a given month or week or day.
You wrote, “Once the heat is in the atmosphere it is lost to space fairly quickly.”
The rise in Northern Hemisphere Mid-to-High Latitude TLT anomalies that resulted from the 1997/98 El Nino lasted at least until the El Nino of 2002/03, which bumped them up again, so “fairly quickly” needs to be clarified.
Bob Tisdale, those quotes are from me not Stephen Wilde.
You are being overly pedantic re SSTs. Implicitly I was referring to change over time. But then I could have been more precise and said it is the SST versus atmospheric temperature differential over time that determines the rate of oceanic heat loss. Then I could have got into the effect of local wind speed and air humidity.
However, I was just trying to convey the basic fact that warmer SSTs mean the Earth’s climate is cooling (all else being equal) as this is counter-intuitive for many.
And on heat lost to space. Once the heat is in the atmosphere, it cannot return to the oceans and therefore can only be lost to space at some point. I was being deliberately vague in saying ‘fairly quickly’ because I don’t know how long it takes. But then nobody else knows based on a physical model.
The SOI atmospheric temperatures correlation implies about 3 to 6 months. I think most people would consider 3 to 6 months in the range of fairly quickly.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm
Whether the heat is retained for 6 months or some other period is not relevant to the point I was making. My point was that increased SSTs and increased ocean heat release cannot result in increased atmospheric temperatures over IPCC timescales (one or more centuries) and will (all else being equal) result in lower atmospheric temperatures over this timescale.
regards
It just occurred to me that I never hear mention of the effect or water clarity on the depth of solar heating of the upper ocean layers. If for example the water is highly turbid, the solar energy will be absorbed in a relatively shallow layer near the oceans surface, and little radiant heating will occur deep in the layer.
You are correct.
However, most tropical and subtropical oceans are clear and most solar heating of the oceans occurs in these regions. So turbidity has a limited effect on solar heating of the oceans on a global basis. Although turbidity may have a significant local effect. I am thinking of things like monsoon runoff in the Bay of Bengal. I recall seeing satellite images of silt plumes stretching hundreds of kilometers from the coast.
How does decreased solar activity equate to an increase on ocean surface warming and northern polar ice melt that is currently at third lowest levels. (only 2008 and 2007 had less ice in the arctic.) And Antarctic ice is still lower than 16 or 17 of the last 20 years?
Bryan,
We don’t know what relationship there is between changes in the amount of solar radiation entering the ocean and SST. However, we know that SSTs in areas that have been studied like the central pacific are primarily determined by winds and ocean currents. It is likely small changes in solar radiation (insolation) have no significant effect on SST over a few years.
Arctic sea ice has increased rapidly during the current solar minimum. At the fastest rate on (the satellite) record.
You have your facts wrong about Antarctic Sea Ice. It has increased significantly during the current solar minimum and in fact reached a record high.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
BTW the 16 or 17 out of 20 years claim came from cherry picking a single day out of 20 years of data.
And if you were referring to the Antarctic icecaps. We have no idea whether they have increased or decreased over the current solar minimum. But then changes in solar radiation (more precisely solar insolation) would have no measurable effect on the Antarctic icecap over such a short timescale.
Which makes me thing you are merely repeating talking points you don’t understand.
Just a thought………long wave (heat) radiation atmospheric absorption makes it impossible for earth based telescopes to study this form of energy coming from outer space,so how do satellites measure SST’s through our atmosphere?
The place to get an estimate of warming bias in the MSM would be to look at the citations on the topic in the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. I’m sure it would turn out to be about 94% warmist, 1% heretical, and 5% non-committal (warming not characterized specifically as man-made).
===========
Who is Really Making Up the Facts
By Joseph D’Aleo
In a Time/CNN story by Michael Grunwald “Steven Chu, A Political Scientist” on Chu’s mission to China, attempting to convince them to cooperate on emissions reductions in the December Copenhagen UN conference to discuss the next step after Kyoto (the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank because they know our pain would be their gain).
Grunwald noted “When I asked Chu about the earth-is-cooling argument, he rolled his eyes and whipped out a chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years and that 1998 was the hottest. He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures: “See? It’s gone down! The earth must be cooling!” But then he got serious, almost plaintive: “You know, it’s totally irresponsible. You’re not supposed to make up the facts.””
This is how the warmists “carry the day” with the media. They are able to baffle them with rebuttals like these that the media take at face value. What our side needs are:
1. A semi-official PR central (or perhaps a half-dozen separate contacts) for the media to call for counter-counterpoints (Morano?);
2. A counterpoint wiki, as suggested by Lucy Skywalker. This might cost $100,000 to put together professionally. (C’mon Exxon, cough it up!)
Maybe there is a connection between this spike in SST and the lack of tropical cyclones in the months leading up to July. Tropical cyclones move heat from the ocean’s surface up to the base of the stratosphere through convection, thereby cooling the waters that they pass over. Tropical cyclones also increase mixing of cooler water from below with the warm surface water. These effects are significant – a tropical cyclone that moves very slowly or comes to a stop will weaken after a day or two, and a tropical cyclone that crosses the path of another recent tropical cyclone will usually show a drop (or leveling off) in intensity as it does so. It seems reasonable that a decrease in tropical cyclone activity would cause heat to build up on the surface of the tropical oceans. Large-scale ocean currents would spread this heat around, so the warm anomaly would not just be restricted to the tropics. Now that the tropical cyclone activity has picked up a little, it seems that the SST anomaly has come down pretty quickly. Obviously this is a simplistic way of looking at it and there are other factors at work, but this may be a significant part of it.
Then reporting is consonant with the weather. Where’s the bias?
Answering other replies…
Of course you’ll get more hits with warm than cool, hot than cold if you google under climate. There’s nothing surprising – or biased – about that.
If there are 3 or 4 to 1 stories supportive of the mainstream view over the ‘skeptical’ view, then that ratio is much smaller than the ratio of scientific views on the matter. There are people who don’t think HIV leads to AIDS – qualified medical people, too. Why should the handful of nae-sayers get equal air time? Or the scientists who don’t believe in plate tectonics?
I think the climate ‘skeptics’ get a lot of air time considering the number of qualified people who propagate such views. Look at Ian Plimer, who makes extraordinary errors (volcanoes emit more CO2 in a year than industry, for example). He’s had a very high profile press run in the antipodes and has made it into the British and US press – despite not being a climatologist. The only national paper in Australia, The Australian tends to publish more from the ‘skeptical’ side. I see nothing to complain about.
Except that the media is not the place to get unsullied information. Bad journalism on climate change? Fish in a barrel, whatever your stripe.
Michael Sager (21:15:01),
Interesting point you make about cyclones and SST’s. It brings up the point of how much mixing and how deep is the mixing when a cyclone passes over water?. Perhaps a cyclone over the Tao-Triton buoys would give valuable information.
A cyclone over the El-Nino hot region might be needed,in fact do cyclones occur on the equator at 85-105 degrees west?
Keith,
There is typhoons project currently underway in the Western Pacific doing exactly what you are interested in, buoys, SSTs and all.
Cyclones don’t tend to occur directly ON the equator due to the diminishing Coriolis force (f -> 0 with latitude).
Re: Philip_B (18:28:11) :
Perhaps we’re speaking apples and oranges.
The chart I was refering to was this one
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
My statement about Antarctic Ice being lower than in 16 of the last 20 years is confirmed by this chart.
It clearly shows current ice extent (though admittedly not at southern winter maximum levels yet) is currently only greater than the maximums of 2008, 2002, 1992, and 1987. All other years between 1987 and current had more ice coverage than today.
Re: Nogw (14:30:38) :
If you are saying that decreased solar activity like we are seeing doesn’t equate with warmer temperatures you are likely right. However:
We do have a deep solar minimum occuring with little to no spot activity occuring.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/21/soho-back-up-and-running-didnt-miss-anything-sun-still-blank/#more-10138
Current Antarctic Ice extent (though not at maximum but close) is at 4th lowest point of the last 21 years (subject to change when maximum has been realized)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Current Arctic Ice is at third lowest level per this sites dataset
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
So while one as you state
Re: Nogow (14:30:38)
Bryan (12:40:49) : “It simply doesn’t equate.”
It still is fact that we are:
in a deep solar minimum
Experiencing 3rd lowest arctic ice levels since prior to 1978
&
Experiencing potential 4th lowest maximum Antarctic Ice coverage levels in 21 years
Re Antarctica:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
This is silly-
Well, a 1.06 degree F increase added to a 61.5 degree F average does equal 62.6 degrees F, when rounded down to one decimal place.
What’s your point?
You’re questioning the rounding?
Philip_B: You wrote, “And on heat lost to space. Once the heat is in the atmosphere, it cannot return to the oceans…”
It can’t? I suggest you watch the following video:
Watch the tropical Pacific for the formation of the 1997/98 El Nino, then watch the SST anomalies of the Atlantic rise. The heat released by the El Nino warms the troposphere, which in turn, warms the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. With the increase in SST anomaly in the Atlantic comes an increase in OHC. The surface is part of the ocean, is it not?
You wrote, “You are being overly pedantic re SSTs. Implicitly I was referring to change over time.”
You may have thought you implied it, but you obviously had not.
Regards
The remarks were:
—————
Bob Tisdale (14:39:52) :
Philip_B: You wrote, “And on heat lost to space. Once the heat is in the atmosphere, it cannot return to the oceans…”
It can’t? I suggest you watch the following video:
Watch the tropical Pacific for the formation of the 1997/98 El Nino, then watch the SST anomalies of the Atlantic rise. The heat released by the El Nino warms the troposphere, which in turn, warms the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. With the increase in SST anomaly in the Atlantic comes an increase in OHC. The surface is part of the ocean, is it not?
—————
.
I beg to differ in that matter of the atmosphere being able to impart heat energy BACK into a body of water, when the body of water is at least as warm as the atmosphere, AND is radiating heat into said atmosphere.
.
Since neither the atmosphere nor the oceans are able to ‘store’ heat energy, inasmuch as such a thing is an impossibility without first converting the heat energy into something else, then the ability of one source to affect another source is directly dependent upon which body is the lesser active heat-wise.
.
On a very cold day, with the temps below freezing, one may see the moisture in one’s expelled breath, merely that the atmosphere is denser and therefore the moisture is not so readily absorbed as it would on a very much warmer day.
.
That very same principle applies with atmosphere over water: As the water becomes closer in temperature to the atmosphere, the water vapor become thinker above the water, and as a result of that the atmosphere becomes the recipient of the heat energy, and NOT the water.
.
And one other thing: Neither the atmosphere nor the oceans generate heat, or cause heat ‘regeneration’ or ‘amplification,’ as without the Sun, there would be no heat at all, other than the geothermal.
.
The whole is system is a net loss engine. Once energy has been expended, it is such: Expended. It CANNOT be ‘recycled.’
Leland Palmer – you’re the guy who keeps moaning and groaning that the end of the world is nigh. I cant find the blog where I gave you some friendly advice
Highlander: You began your comment with, “I beg to differ in that matter of the atmosphere being able to impart heat energy BACK into a body of water, when the body of water is at least as warm as the atmosphere, AND is radiating heat into said atmosphere.”
Excuse my use of the word heat and the other descriptive errors. I’ll rewrite what I wrote as:
########
Philip_B: You wrote, “And on heat lost to space. Once the heat is in the atmosphere, it cannot return to the oceans…”
An El Nino event shifts coupled-ocean atmosphere processes. These result in rises in SST anomalies elsewhere. I suggest you watch the following video:
Watch the tropical Pacific for the formation of the 1997/98 El Nino, then watch the SST anomalies of the Atlantic rise. The 1997/98 El Nino transferred warm subsurface water from the Pacific Warm Pool to the surface of the Eastern and Central Tropical Pacific, changing convection patterns there. It also shifted “normal” coupled-ocean atmosphere processes. As these shifts in coupled-ocean atmosphere processes travelled east, they raised the surface temperature of the Atlantic Ocean (and the TLT anomalies of the same area).
http://i29.tinypic.com/nwgg2v.png
The 1997/98 El Nino also caused an upward step change in tropical Atlantic SST Anomalies.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2whmr60.png
The increase in SST anomaly in the Atlantic implies an increase in Ocean Heat Content, at least of the surface component. The OHC of the tropical Pacific may decrease during an El Nino, but the El Nino has resulted in an increase in heat content elsewhere.
Philip_B: You wrote, “Whether the heat is retained for 6 months or some other period is not relevant to the point I was making. My point was that increased SSTs and increased ocean heat release cannot result in increased atmospheric temperatures over IPCC timescales (one or more centuries) and will (all else being equal) result in lower atmospheric temperatures over this timescale.”
Sorry for the delay, but there seems to be a run on SST posts here at WUWT, a few of which are mine. I’ve spent most of my time over the past day on those. Back to the closing paragraph of your comment…
I’ve illustrated in a number of posts here and at my blog that significant El Nino events, particularly the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events, resulted in upward step changes in mid-to-high latitude Northern Hemisphere TLT anomalies and in SST anomalies of 25 to 30% of the global oceans.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
Those step changes lasted for close to a decade. In actuality, there are decays in both of those TLT and SST anomaly subsets, which appear to take in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 years. However, the lesser El Nino events that followed the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos (that may be aftereffects of those significant events) raised the SST and TLT anomalies again and give the impression of decade-long step changes.
It doesn’t take that many significant El Nino events and decade-long shifts to cause the increases in SST and LST from 1910 to 1944 and from 1976 to present. One of these days, I’ll have to go look at the El Nino events and the East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies during early 20th century, to see if those step changes existed during that period.
But what I can show you is that a scaled running total of NINO3.4 SST anomalies can reproduce the basic global temperature anomaly curve. This implies that the global oceans integrate the effects of ENSO events and that LST follow SST.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
About That Warm Ocean…
climate by seablogger
There has been a lot of publicity about a warm spell that has affected oceans of the northern hemisphere this summer. Rare reader Ron sent me the text of this much remarked AP article:
By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON — The world’s oceans this summer are the warmest on record.
The National Climatic Data Center, the government agency that keeps weather records, says the average global ocean temperature in July was 62.6 degrees. That’s the hottest since record-keeping began in 1880. The previous record was set in 1998.
Meteorologists blame a combination of a natural El Nino weather pattern on top of worsening manmade global warming. The warmer water could add to the melting of sea ice and possibly strengthen some hurricanes.
The result has meant lots of swimming at beaches in Maine with pleasant 72-degree water. Ocean temperatures reached 88 degrees as far north as Ocean City, Md., this week.
The Gulf of Mexico, where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temperatures dancing around 90. Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been considerably warmer than normal. The Mediterranean is about three degrees warmer than normal. Higher temperatures rule in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
It’s most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees above average.
Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land. That’s because water takes longer to heat up and doesn’t cool off as easily, said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia.
“This is another yet really important indicator of the change that’s occurring,” Weaver said.
Let’s unpack this article and examine the embedded deceits. First let’s consider the 1880 claim. There was no NCDC in 1880 — no organization to gather and standardize data. The date is arbitrary. About that time ship records became sufficiently numerous that a rough, guesswork chart can be reconstructed. There is no reasonable way to compare the records of that time with the global satellite data we receive today.
US records for all-time high atmospheric temperature were almost all set in the Nineteen Thirties. It would be interesting if we had a satellite data bank of ocean temperatures from those years. But we don’t. Properly speaking, our period of record is only thirty years, not a hundred thirty.
It is true that an unseasonal summer El Nino has developed in the Pacific this year. At the same time other extensive warm anomalies have been noted in the northern hemisphere. The Arctic ones are suspect, owing to the unreliable data coming from a broken polar-orbiting satellite. The mid-latitude anomalies are real. But the AP author conveniently omits mention of the continuing cold anomalies at higher latitudes in the southern hemisphere, which has been more radically decoupled from the northern hemisphere than at any other time in the satellite record.
You can bet that any violent landfalling hurricanes would have been incorporated into the article too. The author overlooks data indicating the tropics worldwide are experiencing less cyclone energy release than at any time since a previous dip in the Seventies. In fact it could be that the deficit of tropical storms has contributed to a surplus of warmth.
I was astonished by the claim of 88 degree ocean temperature in Maryland, so I looked up the site at the National Data Buoy Center. The location is an ocean inlet, subject to tide. When the tide goes out, sun-heated bay water passes the sensor. It did spike to 88 a few days ago on an outbound tide in hot weather. But the true ocean temperature is 78, and this is reflected in cooler readings on the inbound tide. The spike datum has been used in deceptively the article. This is so typical.
Holes of coolness are already appearing in the El Nino. I suspect it will fade before the end of the year. But that will not matter to the AP author, whose agenda is Save Copenhagen! The next round of climate talks is scheduled for December, and it is absolutely necessary, if you are a believer, to keep the agenda on track. The US must pass cap-and-trade. Then it will be better positioned to argue other nations into similar nonsense.
Meanwhile the sun continues spotless. The real driver of Earth’s climate hints at the next ice age. To cripple our civilization for a flutter in sea surface temperatures would be the grandest folly in human history.
From http://www.seablogger.com
New England SSTs look fairly typical for July. Cape Cod has Horseshoe Crabs, a definite warm water creature. It’s been that way for years and years.