AMSRE Global SST down – near zero – trend since 2002 also down

@ur momisugly Pamela Gray:
I have also plotted the linear trend line, which is for entertainment purposes only…
try to understand, ok?

“global sea surface temperatures are telling another story. That story is that our trend is down since 2002. You wouldn’t know it though to look at this NOAA chart”
Err, maybe because the chart you showed wasn’t global, try this one instead http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.10.15.2009.gif
Notice how the cherry picking missed out the cold SST anomolies, or was it a genuine mistake, the kind of mistake you are so quick to damn on this site.
I haven’t seen such sloppy reporting as this since the Daily Mail blunder (US records V global).

I have tracked the particular SST events that lead to global cooling. Ocean up welling from the deep colder ocean currents in the Southern Hemisphere and associated cooling of the Southern Hemisphere SST were the earliest signs . [ SEE Professor GRAY’s papers ] Global temperature anomalies could be still rising while this is happening initially. Eventually the Northern Hemisphere SST anomalies will also start to decline The Southern Hemisphere SST has been declining now for three months in a row. If this continues for another 6 months or so watch for most of the other ocean SST’s anomalies to decline as well and to start to go cooler. We got a brief snapshot of this in September. AMO, AMO, and NAO will all to go cool on an annual basis and a drop in global temperatures will be clearly evident as a LA NINA replaces the current weak El Nino that is struggling to start. I see a possibilty of this happening in 2010.

The apparently opposite trends of OHC and SST anomaly are still confusing for me.
OHC is the amount of heat stored or present in the oceans above the thermocline which in most places is hundreds of meters deep.
SST is the temperature of the ocean at the surface.
In a stable climate OHC and SSTs will move in opposite directions. Increasing SSTs means more heat lost from the oceans and declining OHC. And increasing OHC for decreasing SSTs

Isn’t the problem of the NOAA chart the reference period for the anomaly?
Roy Spencer uses the term ‘return to the long term average’ but surely he is meaning the average of the Aqua period instrumentation from 2002. NOAA will be using the long term mean over several decades – as does Hadley (1961-1990). If you do that you get 3 C anomalies for the current decade – especially in northern oceans in the Hadley set because the base period includes the trough of 1960-1975 and excludes the Arctic peak of 1930-1940 which was also general in the northern hemisphere.
There is value in the graphic from 2002 – it shows that ‘global warming’ as driven by GHGs is not powerful enough to over-ride the natural variability (cycles) – and the reverse may be happening (which I think is the case – having concluded from the satellite data on radiation flux to the ocean surface that at least 80% of the ocean warming can be put down to thinning clouds from 1980-2000 (it is still an open question among open scientific minds – for example, Takmeng Wong at NASA – and I recommend:
http://eospo.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_observ/pdf/Jan_Feb08.pdf
for a discussion of whether thinning cloud is a consequence of the GHG warming or cause of the ocean warming that has been mistaken for the GHG fingerprint
In my mind, the current cooling or flatline, points toward the latter. But GHG advocates can point out that the decade 2000-2009 is still warmer than the decade 1990-1999, and that was warmer than 1980-1989
we really need a better handle on the recovery from the Little Ice Age – long term trends and the long cycle of 800/400 years on top of which these shorter cycles of the PDO/AMO/AO and ENSO are peaking.

David, You probably call a teeter-totter a see-saw. May be other names for this childhood playground item.

Federal Agency Honesty in Forecasting Award:
(from the Staten Island Real-Time News)
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/national_weather_service_predi.html
“National Weather Service Predicts That Winter Weather Will Be Unpredictable”
WASHINGTON — The National Weather Service’s prediction for winter weather in the Northeast is that it can’t easily be predicted.
The federal agency is forecasting equal chances for above-, near- or below-normal temperatures and precipitation, which differs from AccuWeather’s prediction yesterday of a snowy and cold winter here.
Meanwhile in Pennsylvania (from the Philadelphia Inquirer):
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091016_Earliest_snow_on_record_blankets_Poconos__Penn_State.html
(I know, I know, weather is only climate when the temperature is going UP.)

I’m hearing arguments that ocean warming has turned deep; that surface measures are no longer applicable.
I’m skeptical since there is no recent sea level rise. Guessing it’s yet another global warming oh wait climate change oh wait air temp oh wait ocean temp oh wait deep ocean temp change because the facts keep not supporting their beliefs.
Anyway, anyone have any hard data on deep ocean non-warming?

Doug Jones and Mark Baker: Mark you asked, “What happened in 2007 to cause that huge downturn?” and Doug replied, “Mark, are you forgetting that a large amount of ice was blown out of the Arctic to melt in the North Atlantic? Probably took a year for this large extraction of heat from the Atlantic to flow through into the general SST averages?”
The reason for the drop in 2007 is the significant 2007/08 La Nina, as note above by Juraj V:
http://i37.tinypic.com/5vwqhd.png
Also as M White replied, Dr Spencer noted a significant increase in cloud cover in 2007.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/
Seeming to contradict this, a La Nina causes a decrease in cloud cover over the tropical Pacific, which is what recharges the ocean heat content there for the next El Nino (the minor El Nino we’re experiencing now), but the tropical Pacific is not the globe, so the global drop in cloud cover and the La Nina combined to drop the global SST anomalies.
With respect to your ice melting theory, Doug, the Arctic SST anomalies do not show it.
http://i33.tinypic.com/11kw3s7.png
A decrease in ice cover yields more solar input to the ocean, which raises SST anomalies, which melts more ice…
The SST anomalies of the North Atlantic also don’t agree with your theory:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2ibz5fa.png
Regards

‘Also known as a ’see-saw’, basically a board pivoting on a beam (usually a pipe), with places to sit on each end. Common in children’s playgrounds’
Got it. See saw does it nicely.
Now ‘hiney’?
Actually, I know (blush).
It’s what Pamela puts on her teeter totter…

Please take a time to observe the above NOAA chart in detail, take then into account that in spite of this agency tendency to depict temperature anomalies in very intense orange and red colors, this time show not only blue but BLACK color, right in the equator line (the sea in front of Ecuador country, east pacific coast, Nino 1+2 area) , and that is a -5 degrees centigrade anomaly!
Don´t forget these are the early signs of the new minimum (Landsheidt, Jose or Eddy´s)

Adolfo Giurfa (09:24:36) :
…and that is a -5 degrees centigrade anomaly!
Part of it is Galapagy islands, but there is really black spot! Ouch!