Flashback to 2007 – SST to plunge again?

Steve Goddard points out that warm SST events often have a downside. My view: something like capacitor discharge in an RC circuit. – Anthony

http://www.amusementtoday.com/2009_new_site/image/May2009/Plunge03.jpg

Pilgrims Plunge - photo from Amusement Today - click for details

Dr. Roy Spencer reported that January, 2010 was the warmest on record at +0.72C anomaly after a relatively cool +0.28 in December.  Dr. Spencer is one of the most trustworthy players in climate science and clearly does not have a warming agenda. So is earth’s climate warming out of control after all?

To answer this question, it is worth looking back at the “second warmest January” which came in 2007. Like 2010, January, 2007 also took a big jump up from the previous month and was at the peak of an El Nino.  The warm weather led the Met Office and to forecast a record warm year.  Hansen also speculated about the possibility of a “Super El Nino.”

4 January 2007

2007 – forecast to be the warmest year yet

2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

But the Met Office was wrong in 2007.   Instead of breaking the temperature record, temperatures plummeted nearly 0.8C to below normal after El Nino quickly faded – as you can see in the graph below.

Source : Wood For Trees – Late 2006 to mid 2008

One big difference between January, 2007 and January, 2010 is that this time around, land temperatures are not so warm.   Many parts of the planet have been reporting near record cold temperatures, in particular Europe, Siberia, Antarctica and the US.

So what is going on in 2010?  Bob Tisdale has reported that this is the warmest El Nino since 1998.

http://i50.tinypic.com/24zda1i.png

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/preliminary-january-2010-sst-anomaly.html

The ocean makes up 2/3 of the planet and dominates the global temperature average.   Bob reports that “NINO3.4 SST anomalies peaked about five weeks ago and they’ve been dropping like a stone” so we may be in for a repeat of 2007.  The Met Office is doing their part to make it happen.

Met Office : Climate could warm to record levels in 2010

10 December 2009

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

In the meantime, try to stay warm during the “record heat.”

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp3.html

Flashback to 2007

Dr. Roy Spencer reported that January, 2010 was the warmest on record at +0.72C anomaly after a relatively cool +0.28 in December.  Dr. Spencer is one of the most trustworthy players in climate science and clearly does not have a warming agenda. So is earth’s climate warming out of control after all?

To answer this question, it is worth looking back at the “second warmest January” which came in 2007. Like 2010, January, 2007 also took a big jump up from the previous month and was at the peak of an El Nino.  The warm weather led the Met Office and to forecast a record warm year.  Hansen also speculated about the possibility of a “Super El Nino.”

4 January 2007

2007 – forecast to be the warmest year yet

2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

But the Met Office was wrong in 2007.   Instead of breaking the temperature record, temperatures plummeted nearly 0.8C to below normal after El Nino quickly faded – as you can see in the graph below.

Source : Wood For Trees – Late 2006 to mid 2008

One big difference between January, 2007 and January, 2010 is that this time around, land temperatures are not so warm.   Many parts of the planet have been reporting near record cold temperatures, in particular Europe, Siberia, Antarctica and the US.

So what is going on in 2010?  Bob Tisdale has reported that this is the warmest El Nino since 1998.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/preliminary-january-2010-sst-anomaly.html

The ocean makes up 2/3 of the planet and dominates the global temperature average.   Bob reports that “NINO3.4 SST anomalies peaked about five weeks ago and they’ve been dropping like a stone” so we may be in for a repeat of 2007.  The Met Office is doing their part to make it happen.

Met Office : Climate could warm to record levels in 2010

10 December 2009

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

In the meantime, try to stay warm during the “record heat.”

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp3.html

Advertisements

169 thoughts on “Flashback to 2007 – SST to plunge again?

  1. You gave me a real flashback there until I realized you weren’t talking about the Super Sonic Transport.

  2. “Lockitch gave a presentation arguing free-market economies are better positioned than socialist societies to deal with any severe weather events caused by climate change — and was called a “denier” and compared to a shill for “Big Tobacco” for his trouble. Taylor got off a little easier, receiving only scoffs and curious-to-annoyed glances for asking inconvenient questions.
    But that’s not to say we were the only people to question the assumptions of the attendees who believe the “science is settled” on global warming. Perhaps the greatest challenge came from one of their own — renowned climate scientist William Sprigg — who urged his colleagues to stop treating the ClimateGate scandal as irrelevant noise promoted by “deniers.” In an amazingly telling moment, green energy consultant Andy Van Horn, who introduced Sprigg, admitted he’d never heard of ClimateGate until Sprigg suggested it a few weeks ago as a topic worthy of discussion. (Who are the real “deniers” again?)”
    http://biggovernment.com/jlakely/2010/02/05/an-honest-ipcc-scientist-warns-his-colleagues-dont-dismiss-climategate/

  3. Very Interesting, this see saw effect. Suggestive of a mechanism that can be quickly altered. (Magnetic field?) In any event, not the slow steady rise of C02, nor a steady decline.

  4. The el Nino, is it a result of one of the so called conveyor belt’s ?
    Or is it surface temps? Or both, perhaps?

  5. OT
    “Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, said global warming skeptics are like people who see no difference between cancer-causing asbestos and talcum powder”

    "I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day."

    What a lovely thing to say!!!
    I forecast in my scenario that Pachauri will be gone by the end of the month, or at least an announcement of intention to go before end of his tenure.

  6. One big difference between January, 2007 and January, 2010 is that this time around, land temperatures are not so warm. Many parts of the planet have been reporting near record cold temperatures, in particular Europe, Siberia, Antarctica and the US.
    Why trumpet Jan 2010 if this has the high potential to lead to a far colder year?
    Someone may have taken a pawn sacrifice thinking of a game of attrition.
    Just a thought.

  7. we live on a water planet. sun warms oceans. el nino smears the warmth around. oceans warm air, which convects the heat up to be radiated away. Makes sense to me.
    only this time around (if you believe Svensmark) the sun is being blocked by low clouds due to the sun’s (continuing) magnetic funk.
    So all this atmospheric heat will be lost to space and the recharger’s on trickle.
    Better buy a coat.

  8. kwik (13:40:34) :
    The el Nino, is it a result of one of the so called conveyor belt’s ?
    Or is it surface temps? Or both, perhaps?

    Lost UFO, upside down on the floor of the Pacific. Every now and then the powerful propulsion system turns on for a while, and since the craft is flipped over it generates a plume flowing up to the surface that brings along warmer water from under the surface, resulting in a cooler ocean as the heat is released into the atmosphere.
    Actually, last I heard, no one really knows why it happens, so the above is merely an “as likely as anything else” hypothesis. Maybe.

  9. I think we might see some “see-saw” effect in 2010, but there is at least one very important difference between now and 2007. In 2007 we were seeing a sun that was becoming less active as it headed for the minimum we saw last year. Now we are seeing an increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing toward the solar max of 2013. Plus of course, we have more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere than in 2007, so with any heat released, the more that will be trapped and continue to warm the troposphere. So far at least, there are no signs that 2010 will cool down like 2007 did…but we all can track it daily which makes this so fun & interesting…

  10. OT: All climate scientists should reaad this:
    Why Climate Science is on Trial.
    “The findings of climate science will (and should) be held to a much higher standard of accuracy and certainty than normal scientific studies. Scientists can be wrong about the lesser spotted skink for twenty years and then change their minds; no harm, no foul except maybe to the skinks. But if the implications of the work of climate scientists lead to serious proposals for the entire world to make dramatic shifts in its basic patterns of energy usage, it would be utterly naive and idiotic for scientists to expect that there wouldn’t be lots of people second guessing their work and checking over it in the hope of discovering mistakes.”
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/05/why-climate-science-is-on-trial/

  11. This seems like an arguement that extremes are followed by falls back to below the mean. But if the long term mean trend is up and look like continuing to go up, it has to go down and stay down to affect the mean.
    Also tonight the BBC are reporting a growth in climate scepticism. But can I beleive it? Advice please.

  12. Slightly OT, BBC Radio 4 this evening reported that, according to to an opinion poll last November, 41% of British people believed that man-made global warming was happening. But a poll at the beginning of February this year has seen this figure fall to just 26%, with 38% ambivalent (or saying it was not proven), 25% saying that man-made global warming wasn’t happening at all, and 10% saying it had all been made up by environmentalists. That’s quite a collapse in public belief in just 3 months.

  13. kadaka (14:07:55) :
    kwik (13:40:34) :
    “The el Nino, is it a result of one of the so called conveyor belt’s ?
    Or is it surface temps? Or both, perhaps?
    Lost UFO, upside down on the floor of the Pacific. Every now and then the powerful propulsion system turns on for a while, ….”

    Sure that UFO is not a volcano?
    “…. so the above is merely an “as likely as anything else” hypothesis. Maybe.”

  14. JonesII (13:50:59) :
    Thanks for the chart. It looks like the water temp around Rio will be higher than normal – great for diving 🙂

  15. Okay, I gotta say something about Pachouri’s idiotic asbestos comment. I know it isn’t really on topic and it doesn’t really matter in any big way, but it does point out what an idiot Pachouri is.
    There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! In it’s raw form, it’s fibrous and rather soft. You could make a washcloth out of it and rub it on your face every day and NOTHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU! Sheesh, Pachouri is supposed to be some kind of scientist and he only has a third graders cartoon version idea of what asbestos really is?
    The *only* way asbestos is dangerous is if it is ground into a form where it becomes a dust that hangs in the air, and you stay in that atmosphere breathing it for many years.

  16. R. Gates (14:11:19)
    “…. Now we are seeing an increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing toward the solar max of 2013.”
    increasingly active sun??? Last I checked it was still trying to crawl out of the basement up to the level of the minimums of the recent solar cycles. I think it still has a long way to go to be considered “active” like next year not next month.
    see the layman’s count comparison to cycle 5 http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24.png

  17. Mike Guerin (14:41:41) :
    That’s why people resort to proxies. I think it was Jo d’Aleo who did a great job recently bringing many together – no tree rings :^)
    It is the hsitorical, snd archselogicsl record that I trust most; this goes back a few thousand years.

  18. I have a plea to make to the Met Office.
    Will you please stop predicting hot summers? I am sick and tired of freezing to death on my sun bed.

  19. … “Plus of course, we have more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere than in 2007,” … from R. Gates comment
    Not to be a pragmatist but the world has been in a deep recession for the last year and industrial activity has been declining since the beginning of 2007.
    Where is all this increasing “man made” CO2 and Methane coming from?

  20. kadaka (14:07:55) :
    I see. Well, if one doesnt know the true nature of these conveyor belts….how wide, how deep, their temperature, the speed…..then there is no way one can ever model the climate.
    Or does these sensors deployed as I saw on a map the other day, measure temperature, speed and direction? Just wondering. Cant know everything, you know.
    hehe.

  21. Steve
    I agree that the Met Office long term (experimental) forecasts have proved that they cannot yet model seasonal trends. It a good decision to withdraw them.
    But an easterly wind in winter in the UK for a couple of days does not have much of an impact on global temperatures (I always find that if the UK is colder than average, Moscow is warmer than average – the cold war has more than one front – so some places are colder while other are warmer). But assuming the Met office can use a thermometer properly – you seem happy to quote their short term forecasts, the long term global trend over a long period is up and will contiue up given the temperatures over the last few years.
    What mechanism will make the temperatures fall below the 30 year average for long enough to start make the trend flat, never mind fall? I hear a lot of arguements saying the temperatures are being manipulated and the physics twisted but that would make all climate science into a good old fashion western (black and white hats), but there are some adults out there that are sceptics who understand a grey world.

  22. wws (14:58:13) said:

    Okay, I gotta say something about Pachouri’s idiotic asbestos comment. I know it isn’t really on topic and it doesn’t really matter in any big way, but it does point out what an idiot Pachouri is.
    There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! In it’s raw form, it’s fibrous and rather soft. You could make a washcloth out of it and rub it on your face every day and NOTHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU! Sheesh, Pachouri is supposed to be some kind of scientist and he only has a third graders cartoon version idea of what asbestos really is?
    The *only* way asbestos is dangerous is if it is ground into a form where it becomes a dust that hangs in the air, and you stay in that atmosphere breathing it for many years.

    Oh no, I am sure you are wrong. Why would the media and those lawyers and the Government say otherwise?

  23. john pattinson (14:23:59) :
    You have to paddle your own canoe when it comes to what’s going on with the climate. Skepticism has sharply increased due to very bad forecasts, which are in turn based on model output which come from suspicious Climategate data doings.
    You can believe, at this point, what you can see & observe for yourself.
    Beyond that, it’s totally up to you.
    May I suggest that if you are well to do, that you travel to the South Pacific in Search Of the hot oceanic anomaly?

  24. wws (14:58:13) :
    “Okay, I gotta say something about Pachouri’s idiotic asbestos comment. I know it isn’t really on topic and it doesn’t really matter in any big way, but it does point out what an idiot Pachouri is.
    There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! ….The *only* way asbestos is dangerous is if it is ground into a form where it becomes a dust that hangs in the air, and you stay in that atmosphere breathing it for many years.

    AND you have to smoke cigarettes too. Cigarettes wipe out the cilia in the lungs that would normally sweep these particles out of the lungs. There have been a lot of people killed because of the ban against both asbestos and freon but no one ever documents that.
    Thanks wws for bring up that bit of truth.

  25. Having had some experience with asbestos, I would highly recommend that you stay away from it. It is nasty stuff in either your lungs or skin.

  26. ENSO cycles at less than half the rate of the annual cycle on average, so a dose of reality is encouraged. It takes awhile to come down off an ENSO high – and the thing doesn’t have stationary periodicity – and it isn’t understood like the tides (yet) – so speculation is gambling. If my life depended on betting money, I’d put money on 2014 plus or minus a few years for a circulation/redistribution regime shift. My impression is that a lot of folks have been fooled by 1998. See here:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChristmasTreeIndex.PNG
    and here:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/RegimeChangePoints.PNG
    and here:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/100204.PNG

  27. It has been my observation over my 50+ years of living on this planet that periods of weather that are unusually extreme in one direction are often followed by periods that are unusually extreme in the other and that an “average” year is very rare. “Average” isn’t a mode. It is just an average.
    A period of drought is often broken by floods. A heat wave broken by unseasonably cool,

  28. “There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! ”
    What has always tickled me is how they treat asbestos when they remove it. It is almost as if they have to “seal” it from the environment.
    I have a better idea. The best place to put asbestos is right back where they found it … in old asbestos mines. Maybe that will return some jobs to the areas that were devastated when asbestos mining was cut back. It is a natural mineral, not a man made substance. If you want to get rid of it, just put it back where you got it from to begin with!

  29. R Pearse (13:57:55) :
    “I was wondering if anyone was looking into any correlation between plate techtonics and ocean temp”
    I’ve wondered this too. The ocean is 71% of Earth’s surface, ocean crust on average varies between 5 km and 10 km in thickness compared to an average of 35 km to 70 km for continental crust, and ocean crust is softer than the granite that largely comprises the continental crust.
    No wonder then that 80% of the known active volcanoes are in the seas. My guess would be that the tremendous weight of water pushing down would help to push a tear down into the mantle, where the magma would be free to well up and form islands.
    So, the weight of the water would in effect help separate plates along tectonic boundaries in some places, which is why the Ring of Fire wraps around the whole Pacific plate. For island chains such as Hawaii where we describe a “hot spot” that the Pacific plate slides over creating new islands, couldn’t this hot spot be due to a thin crust deformed by the weight of the water?
    I would wonder too if undersea volcanoes tend to erupt longer due to the forces describes above. How many are continuously erupting? How many yet to be found? Look at the mid-ocean ridge, the apparent engine of plate tectonics, how much energy does the ridge contribute to the oceans?

  30. crosspatch (15:47:31) :
    “There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! ”
    ….. It is a natural mineral, not a man made substance.”

    Yes, I have a really nice “crystal” of asbestos in my mineral collection. My father used to sell the stuff and I played with it as a kid. I think old Patchy was thinking of fiberglass when he made that statement. The asbestos material and cloth Dad had was soft.

  31. I think we’re in danger of too much naval gazing over whatever the latest global temperature is.
    When you consider all of the potential influences on our climate, including increasing CO2, you end up with chaos, and, as any card player will tell you, the more you shuffle the pack the more unusual the distribution.

  32. So let’s see…
    We have
    cold land masses… check
    a phasing out El Nino that belched lots of heat out… check
    a not so active sun… check
    many volcanos that could erupt… check
    I don’t know about you guys, but this is much more scarier than global warming.

  33. Huh, but capacitors heats up the higher charge they get or the more they’re constantly used during a longer time. Of course this isn’t a problem as long as you keep the surrounding at like 10 below, but still…
    Of course a capacitor can get colder the warmer it’s supposed to get… :p

  34. OK – Everything is packed up, food (tinned), clothes & locked up the house – everything turned off – gas, electricity – post cancelled. Kids laden with books and clothes on travois. Mass migration to Spain about to commence. We are meeting 36 other families on the way through France. Going on foot because fuel too expensive! Wind-up radio tuned to AlGore.FM for latest updates. Hang on a minute – Didn’t our ancestors used to do this? Yes – but without the b***ard taxes, and a freedom to roam without hindrance. How did they survive? Who knows, they did – we will, and it will be another great journey in the story of “Life on Earth”. Someday, hundreds if not thousands of years in the future, scholars will try to work out how we did it in such an inhospitable environment. B***ocks say I, we booked a package tour to Spain via Thomas Cook just like half of Great Britain do every year. The only problem is we have to pay too much tax to go by plane that this year we tried to sneak in on a fishing boat. It took 2 weeks to get the smell out of my shorts!!
    Cue song: “When will they ever learn?”

  35. Asbestos in and of itself is fairly benign. However what it does do is to puncture the cell walls and allow chemicals into the cell that shouldn’t be getting in there. Those chemicals often trigger cancer and other rather nasty things. Treat it with respect. At one time it was the best thing around. Since then we have come up with better stuff.

  36. I would suggest that the extremes of cold and hot have produced a layering effect of the atmosphere more so than normal trapping warmer parts closer to the oceans (fluid dynamics anyone)?

  37. Laymans interpretation:
    The accumulation of energy in the oceans over the latter part of the 20th C is being periodically “exhaled” by the oceans via El Nino.
    History tells us this exhalation takes much less time than accumulation, hence the sudden drops.
    With the less active sun of recent times, El Nino events will gradually weaken.
    The water vapour in the atmosphere due to these exhalations manifest themselves in the larger than normal snow covers in the northern hemisphere.
    It’s irrelevant to the climate what happens over the land areas as they can’t store heat like the oceans.
    The upshot is, buy yourself a good coat for the coming decade or three.
    It’s the sun and the oceans stupid, CO2 is largely irrelevant unless you want a new mechanism to tax people.

  38. Gail Combs (15:33:59) :

    wws (14:58:13) :

    “Okay, I gotta say something about Pachouri’s idiotic asbestos comment. I know it isn’t really on topic and it doesn’t really matter in any big way, but it does point out what an idiot Pachouri is.
    There is *Nothing* poisonous about Asbestos! ….The *only* way asbestos is dangerous is if it is ground into a form where it becomes a dust that hangs in the air, and you stay in that atmosphere breathing it for many years.

    AND you have to smoke cigarettes too. Cigarettes wipe out the cilia in the lungs that would normally sweep these particles out of the lungs. There have been a lot of people killed because of the ban against both asbestos and freon but no one ever documents that.
    Thanks wws for bring up that bit of truth.

    Asbestos used as a talcum power replacement will likely be ground fine.
    Also, asbestos in lungs help catalyze a reaction with smoke to produce benzopyrenes, a strong carcinogen. I think I clipped a small article about that from Science News (I also saved the first article they had on AIDS before it had a name).
    I don’t know the cancer rate among non-smoking asbestos workers, but it was extremely high for smokers.
    BTW, the first (main? one of the few?) studies linking Radon exposure to lung cancer was among Uranium miners who worked in dusty conditions and many smoked.

  39. This large January warming anomaly is a bit worrying to me.
    Many cold records have been made recently, at least in the NH. I don’t think it would be too controversial to hypothesise that this cooling is due to a lack of heat!
    To get the record high January temperatures that we’ve just experienced indicates that thermal energy is being redistributed and in ways that we won’t find favourable.
    As land dwellers we depend on what’s happening at ground-level, not on the sea or in the stratosphere.
    If the recipients of lost land heat are unusable parts of the globe that then radiate that energy into space then, Houston, we may have a problem!
    Global average temperature, whether absolute or relative, tells us nothing about crop production, disaster prediction, quality of life or, just about anything that really matters.
    Measuring GAT has become an obsession. Figuring out what it means has turned into pointless debate. Arguing about how the numbers should be interpreted vastly exceeds the medieval contortions involving needles and angels.
    Forget GAT, what matters to our existence is QOL. Quality of Life.
    It may not be easily measurable but it sure is recognisable!

  40. In addition to my above post.
    The PDO has already flipped. This happens sooner than the ENSO because of the smaller ratio of oceans in the northern hemisphere.
    ENSO will follow (don’t know the lag time) and will be dominated by La Ninas
    Until the sun becomes more active, (possibly by the ascending phase of cycle 27), expect temps to drop followed by a drop in precipitation.
    But hey, I’m just speculating like the IPCC. (very likely lol)

  41. The cold land based temperatures are probably more important than the warm SSTs. I think that both land based temperatures and sea based temperatures will respond to radiative forcing. But SSTs can contradict the radiative forcing effect for short periods of time through currents and Kelvin waves. The land will reflect the radiative forcing more quickly. I think that we will see the oceans catch up with the land based trend eventually.

  42. [quote]
    Dr. Spencer is one of the most trustworthy players in climate science and clearly does not have a warming agenda.
    [/quote]

    Agreed. But NASA still needs to release the source code used to process satellite data. The public paid for it with tax dollars and it’s clearly in the public’s interest to know how these data are produced.
    And I’m still not convinced the satellite data is correct now that I know they measure temperature using statistics.

  43. Gail Combs (14:50:32) :
    Sure that UFO is not a volcano?
    I suspect the geo part of climate has been underestimated given the rush to make CO2 the culprit. I haven’t seen anything lately on this topic.
    I have wondered about the warm area between SA and NZ. It has hung around for a long time (at least when I’ve noticed) which seems unusual for weather. Anyone know of any research into this area?

  44. magicjava (17:32:33) :
    And I’m still not convinced the satellite data is correct now that I know they measure temperature using statistics.
    Well, at least there are two separate analyses that are in close agreement (RSS and UAH). This makes me more comfortable.

  45. Well, I sure hope these warm temperatures make it down to the surface and over land. I could use a little warmth right about now.
    Now there’s an interesting thought … if more warm moist air stays over oceans for an extended time then the big GHG (H2O) could retain additional heat … that causes more evaporation … hmmmmm. Could the blocking highs actually be part of the reason for this big jump in January?

  46. I’ve been totally confused by the controversy over the several theories of climate change. So in August 2007 I began a day-by-day study of highs and lows in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State. I now have 30 months of data. Of those thirty months, 24 expereienced daytime highs below the 20-year average (as posted by the local newspaper). The other six, including Jan 2010, were above average. Jan set a new high, credited to the latest El Nino.
    As I understand it, El Nino’s always start in the same general area of equatorial western Pacific waters and migrate north and east until they brush up against North America. Last summer (August, I believe) University of Washington researchers discovered a significant level of undersea volcanic activity precisely where El Nino’s are born. Connect the dots.

  47. Asbestos, much like CO2 and compact flourescent lamps has had a knee-jerk reaction, it is a great roofing and insulation product, whatever colour it is fairly safe when wet (wet particles have trouble getting in a position to be inhaled) in the UK all asbestos, even cement asbestos sheets are toxic waste (and have to be handled by high cost specialists) until it is in the skip then off to open land-fill where it is inert. It is funny the dusky con man should bring it up at the same time as his fraudulent activity

  48. Well it sure looks like el nino la nina follow global temperatures vice versa really so we are learning a lot about climate now arent we? explains 1998 and 2009/2010

  49. [quote Richard M
    Well, at least there are two separate analyses that are in close agreement (RSS and UAH). This makes me more comfortable.
    [/quote]

    RSS uses the same type of instrument UAH uses. Which means they’re using statistics too.
    If those statistics were set during warming periods (which they were), what’s to say they’re not causing artificial warming when they adjust the data? The statistics are adjusting the readings of channel 5 by 10 times what the reported anomaly is.
    That, and you can’t use one unknown process (RSS) to describe another (UAH).

  50. As some posts above have suggested:
    If the ocean surfaces are at high temperatures, then they are likely to lose heat to space even more rapidly. If, on balance, less heat is arriving (due to clouds, for example), then the earth will cool down even more.
    However, the “pattern” I see in the satellite temperature indicates a few years of warmer temperatures.
    Unless we get following year like 1998 — followed by a “bump up” of the temperature oscillations.
    Hmmmm… We’ll see which it is. But, it will take a while.

  51. Heat moves from warm places to cool places. When SSTs are warm, heat moves out of the ocean. When SSTs are cool, heat moves into the ocean.

  52. My high school girlfriend’s father was a non-smoking dock worker in WWII, who was exposed to asbestos on the docks. He died a horrible death at age 55 from asbestosis.

  53. OT: interesting doings on the Sun today.
    Flux pops up 4 units, and some 8 hours later up pop 2 new Sunspot groups.
    The leading group appears at roughly the same longitude where the last one (1043) appeared.

  54. Do not doubt the danger of asbestos. Long term inhalation of asbestos fibers will be very bad for your health.

  55. Steve Goddard (13:54:22) :
    Interesting theory about the causes of El Nino here:
    =============================================
    You have to be ready to duck into a foxhole to avoid a storm from certain people when you bring up the sun sometimes.

  56. There is volcanism on the floors of the oceans, but Science doesn’t know exactly how extensive or active it is — much of the seafloor is unexplored.
    For example, there is evidence that volcanism takes place on the sea bottom of the Arctic Ocean, but, again, how extensive or active, is not known with precision.
    Of course, the next question is how much energy or heat gets added to the oceans by Earth’s undersea volcanic processes?
    A numerical value is hard to find.
    But it would be due dilligence to investigate.
    Maybe it’s next to nothing and insignificant — but that’s Science — asking questions and then seeking answers.

  57. Richard M,
    “Well, at least there are two separate analyses that are in close agreement (RSS and UAH). This makes me more comfortable.”
    You mean like GISS and HadCrut??

  58. Steve Goddard (19:32:22) :
    My high school girlfriend’s father was a non-smoking dock worker in WWII, who was exposed to asbestos on the docks. He died a horrible death at age 55 from asbestosis.
    I’ve known some that have died as badly
    in similar circumstances. Asbestos, is not up for trivialiasation

  59. A comparison of the current situation with the decline in sea surface temp from 1880 along with the solar cycles is useful.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sst-ssn1870.jpg
    I’ve been saying for some months the current SST’s would go higher before the crash. I’ve also been saying for ages that according to my analysis big el nino’s occur especially after long solar minima.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
    I’ll have a new post on ocean cycles and el nino up later at my blog.

  60. One of the problems that we and the whole of climate science face is that because of deterministic chaos we get periods of stability which appear to show linear trends. However, turbulent systems can also change state very quickly in unpredictable directions, so I’m not holding my breath that another 2007 event will happen. Pattern matching can work well for time scales of a few days but has little or no predictive power even at monthly scale.
    During the period of our quiet sun, the Earth’s climate system has been losing energy over the last few years (e.g. fewer hurricanes, lower wind speed, erratic jet stream, slower ocean currents, weak El Nino). I suspect that the reduction in the speed and density of the solar wind, the decrease in strength of the solar/planetary magnetic field connection and the reduction in solar UV will produce new patterns for us to observe – until we observe it who knows?
    We are living in interesting times.

  61. By the way, the Hurricane “Oli” that has affected French Polynesia confirms a El nino situation and we know stronger north hemisphere winters influence the translation of the ME southward.

  62. Take a close look at the argo ocean heat content curve:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg
    To me it seems that ocean heat content varies slowly and continously and does not fluctuate wildly as the surface temperature does. This makes sense, the large thermal mass of the oceans makes sudden ocean heat content fluctuations impossible.
    I strongly suspect that, let’s say, 30 years of high quality and smooth argo data, would revoulutionize our understanding of the climate. We know so little and have started to theorize long before we have any data…

  63. He died a horrible death at age 55 from asbestosis.
    Asbestosis – asbestos spread widely in the lung – is technically different from asbestos related mesothelioma – cancer. Apparently lodged asbestos fibers themselves can cause a lot of fibrosis – scar like tissue reaction – which can simply destroy enough lung tissue to compromise lung function. It usually happens from long term exposure and was probably a bigger menace than mesothelioma at one time, and well known at least 40 years ago. Offhand you’d think the little fiberglass fibers could do something similar – I don’t know anything about that except you obviously don’t want to inhale fiberglass, which can literally shower from uninclosed batts.

  64. @Bob Tisdale (15:04:32) :
    Thank you sir!
    Now I have two resources to study that are “peer approved” as to quality, wading through Wikipedia or a Google search was not necessary. And more than one person has had a smile, a chuckle, perhaps even a good laugh, as opposed to if I had made a dry request for info. Objectives met, mission accomplished.

  65. Steve Goddard
    “One big difference between January, 2007 and January, 2010 is that this time around, land temperatures are not so warm. Many parts of the planet have been reporting near record cold temperatures, in particular Europe, Siberia, Antarctica and the US.”
    Actually the land mass is on average very warm at present. RSS give the current lower troposphere anomaly over land as +0.795 C. An area of relative cool temperatures for January was over the continental USA and Europe: go to http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html and hit anomaly.
    There is no contradiction between an exceptionally warm January globally and the very cold winters experienced by many readers.
    As for an upcoming drop in temperatures, the current UAH lower troposphere temperatures continue to be very high: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

  66. These sudden (monthly) jumps in the Global temp “anomolies”, while atmospheric CO2 levels effectively remain unchanged, clearly demonstrates that there is no connection between the two and other factors are at work.

  67. My take on this is that warm water rises to boost Earth temperatures; during a warming phase they provide a series of steps in the warming, while the oceans take in more heat, and during a cooling phase they ameliorate that cooling, while the oceans lose heat.
    YES the global climate did warm up during my lifetime but now it is cooling.
    I can only echo others its time to stock up with warm clothing and to ensure our housing is well insulated.

  68. Question for BoB Tisdale:
    Bob, I have seen no reports, by sceptics or deniers, commenting on the effects that sub-oceanic volcanic action and rifts in the Earth’s crust have on sea temperatures. Can such powerful natural occurances be insignificant?
    Aye, Bob

  69. kuhnkat (21:08:09) :
    <i?Richard M,
    “Well, at least there are two separate analyses that are in close agreement (RSS and UAH). This makes me more comfortable.”
    You mean like GISS and HadCrut?
    To be honest … yes. While I think both organization suffer from group think and would be much more likely to miss errors on the high side, I do think they’ve made an honest attempt. However, more openness would make their case far better.
    Magicjava, maybe you should send an email to Dr. Roy and volunteer to review the code. Same for RSS. I suspect the reasons their code has not been released is the same as other organizations. It’s probably not real well written and they feel uncomfortable showing it where professional programmers might pick it apart. You might have to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

  70. Bob (Sceptical Redcoat) (05:37:11) : You asked, “Bob, I have seen no reports, by sceptics or deniers, commenting on the effects that sub-oceanic volcanic action and rifts in the Earth’s crust have on sea temperatures. Can such powerful natural occurances be insignificant?”
    It depends on your definition of insignificant. Is 2% of the surface heat flux significant to you? Refer to “Geothermal heating, diapycnal mixing and the abyssal circulation”, Emile-Geay and G. Madec (2008):
    http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/5/281/2008/osd-5-281-2008.pdf
    They write on page 3 of 45, “Of course, the deep ocean has another source of heat: geothermal heating due to lithospheric cooling. Yet it is usually neglected from an oceanographic point of view because this flux is less than 2% of surface heat fluxes.”

  71. Mike Guerin (14:41:41) :
    Right on the nail, Mike. What it can’t be is CO². These variations are the same size as the total global warming of the past 100yrs. That can’t be CO induced. What I like is the debate (scientific) that has been provoked by the ‘sudden’ increase in temp this jan. That is what science is about.

  72. tallbloke: You start your post…
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
    ,,,with “As you can see from the chart below, El Nino tends to occur away from the peak of the solar cycle.”
    But when I look at the graph and start at the beginning of the data (logical place to start)…
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg
    …the El Nino events occur at solar minimums. Then as time progresses the El Nino events occur at solar maximums, minimums, and anywhere in between. Sorry, I don’t see it.

  73. tallboke: Disregard my 06:39:46 comment. Excuse my mistake. I missed the word “away” in your opening sentence. I must not be awake. I’ll read your post after some coffee.

  74. Bob ( Sceptical Redcoat) (05:37:11)
    Sub-Oceanic Volcano’s
    In 1968 while in the New Zealand Navy, we were going from Auckland,NZ. to Norfolk Island (North of NZ about halfway to Australia ) when the Engine temp. increased, upon investigation it was discovered that the seawater intake temp. had increased some 8C. We could see a “bubble” on the ocean horizon several miles away, after a check,
    water depth, 4.4 miles,
    length of bubble, 2.3 miles,
    hight of bubble in center 16 feet,
    radius of temp. affected water, 17 miles,
    temp. in center 21C higher than outside affected zone,
    we spent 2 days in the area collecting water samples etc, the above numbers are what I recorded at the time, but I am sure there are NZ government records,
    This is just one of hundreds of underwater volcanoes, which like the straw on the camels back ?

  75. J.Peden (02:30:21) :
    OT The same phenomena was observed in garment industry workers in spinning mills – fibers coating the lining of the lungs leading to death. Dust of any form can be deadly – silicosis, asbestosis, and others of the same form, small particles, air borne. I’m concerned about the carbon fibers being used increasingly in brakes, and other wearing structures leading to fine dust in the air, not to mention nano-technology. I’m for it, but concerned just the same.
    Moderators, maybe this topic deserves its own thread.

  76. According to Timo Niroma
    According to my theory about Jovian effect on sunspots, based on facts measured since 1700 and estimated since 1500 (Schove)
    – The Jupiter perihelion and sunspot minimum never coincide and the nearing perihelion in 2011 will slow the rise of the height of sunspot cycle, as now is happening to the cycle 24.
    – The Gleissberg cycle almost reached its lower limit, which is 72 years in 2005.
    — In fact this low it has not been ever after the Maunder minimum.
    — So it must go up, the short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.
    — This means lower cycles and if the past is a good predictor, colder times on Earth.
    As at 23/06/2009

  77. @rob m (14:17:49) :
    “OT: All climate scientists should reaad this:
    Why Climate Science is on Trial.
    “The findings of climate science will (and should) be held to a much higher standard of accuracy and certainty than normal scientific studies.”
    Agreed. The late Dr. Carl Sagan’s statement “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is certainly applicable to climate science’s AGW hypothesis.

  78. Bob Tisdale (06:28:11),
    I’m a little concered that this article uses the assumed thermohaline structure as assumed in 1998. A more recent paper shows that biological influences affect this structure more than previously thought.
    I didn’t read the paper and I’m not likely to understand it with my current knowledge in the field. However, I can see a relationship. Just sayin …

  79. @R. Gates (14:11:19)
    “…. Now we are seeing an increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing toward the solar max of 2013.”
    We are currently in solar cycle 24. Australian scientist David Archibald is of the opinion that in the next 20 years, solar cycles 24 and 25 will be diminutive.
    “In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.”
    David Archibald
    International Conference on Climate Change
    March, 2008
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

  80. From The Times Jan 5, 2010
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece
    Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere yesterday, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains.
    There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25C (-13F).

  81. I got news for these folks. I live in the middle of the Pacific and it has been freezing, December and January, albeit dry except at higher levels.

  82. –Offhand you’d think the little fiberglass fibers could do something similar – I don’t know anything about that except you obviously don’t want to inhale fiberglass, which can literally shower from uninclosed batts.–
    I was thought to be at risk of silicosis at one point (very similar to asbestosis but caused by silica instead), turned out to be sarcoid instead, so I know a bit about this stuff.
    Asbestosis, black lung, silicosis, etc, are caused by the microscopic fibers which are inhaled and lodge so deeply in the alveoli they cannot be expelled.
    According to my pulmonary doc, fiberglass fibers are simply to large to do the same thing.
    And mesothelioma itself is not, IIRC, technically a lung cancer. It begins as cancer of the pleura surrounding the lungs. It can also occur in the peritoneum or abdominal pleura. I’m open to correction by more knowledgable folks.

  83. Bob Tisdale (06:43:22) :
    tallboke: Disregard my 06:39:46 comment. Excuse my mistake. I missed the word “away” in your opening sentence. I must not be awake. I’ll read your post after some coffee.

    Bob, no worries, and thanks for your input on my blog. I’ve replied to the best of my ability.

  84. Found a very nice NOAA Weekly Report that supports Bob’s observations. It looks like the weekly shows more trend detail then the monthly report for Jan.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
    NOAA SST: Nino Regions SST Departures – Recent Evolution
    page 5: Regions 3, 3.4, and 4 are showing rapid decline since Jan. 2010. Nino region 1+2 is showing a recent increase in weekly temperature.
    page 10:Central & Eastern Pacific Upper Ocean weekly SST (0-300m) also shows rapid decline since Jan. 2010.
    page 13: Atmospheric Circulation over the North Pacific & North America During the Last 60 Days show the Temp. Anoms.
    page 16: Oceanic Kelvin Waves
    page 19: Outgoing Longwave (OLR)
    additional pages show models and forecast and summary

  85. Tenuc (23:30:29) “One of the problems that we and the whole of climate science face is that because of deterministic chaos […] However, turbulent systems can also change state very quickly in unpredictable directions […]”
    How do you explain the regularity of the QBO? and of polar motion? and what of spatial autocorrelation? Surely all “chaos”. (sarcasm)

  86. These kinds of blog posts: our monthly “how cold/hot was it”, beg for a better way of analyzing temperature data. Once again and I will type slowly: The…Earth’s temperature machine…does…not…care…what…day/week/month…it…is. It does not have a 30 day monthly period (though it appears the weather back East appears to be quite irritable). Comparing this January to a past January is nonsense. But we are human creatures all live with monthly calendars. So what to do? Present temperature anomalies just like Nino anomalies: IE a three month moving average. Jan-Feb-Mar, Feb-Mar-May, Mar-May-Jun, etc. Why it isn’t just stuns me.

  87. Pamela,
    Sorry you think this is post ridiculous. Lets check back in a few months and see if the implied predictions are correct.

  88. The ‘this year’ – ‘last year (at this time)’ measurements act as a simple filter to null out annual periodicities. It is much like a one year moving average or one year moving sum except that is does not smooth out shorter period effects.
    I recall one amateur meteorologist who kept track of the one year moving rainfall sum at his home. Once he charted a mid-year point where the one-year total rainfall was less than half the normal annual amount for this area. That fact was not evident in the normal year-to-date numbers issued by the weather bureau.

  89. Steve wrote:
    Steve Goddard (19:32:22) :
    “My high school girlfriend’s father was a non-smoking dock worker in WWII, who was exposed to asbestos on the docks. He died a horrible death at age 55 from asbestosis.”
    Steve,
    Your girlfriend’s father smoked alright. Smoking was so prevalent in WWII and in all public places that non-smokers inhaled vast quantities of ciggy smoke. Don’t forget that populated areas had high smoke levels from vehicles, industry, and home fires. Airborne pollution was a problem.
    The asbestos abatement engineers that I have worked with never wore masks, gloves, or protective gear when analyzing samples for me. They always laughed at me when I handled the abestos samples as if they were radioactive.
    The other posters are correct. A person has to inhale FINE asbestos dust for a lifetime along with another agent, like ciggarette smoke, to form asbestosis. I am cautous when I handle asbestos, but I am not paranoid over the stuff.
    Pamela Gray (14:04:18) :
    Pamela, you are one smart person! What you wrote seems so logical.
    Baa Humbug (16:56:47) :
    I like and agree with your layman’s explanation. Anthony’s capacitor discharge is another analogy that I like.
    markm

  90. Steve, I did not say you are nonsensical or that your post was nonsense. Please don’t accuse me of words I did not say. I am simply repeating my opinion about how global temperature anomalies are reported. The habit of reporting same month anomaly is nonsense. The Earth does not care about Jan 1 through Jan 30. We would do better with a running 3-month average as that would take into account the fact that the Earth knows no such 30-day time tables. So I say again, it is nonsense to compare one month in one year with the same month in another year as if that helps us understand cause and effect, and trends. Maybe it is more important to compare this January with December or February a few years back, because the conditions were similar but Earth’s winter conditions were not between the exact dates. Do you see my point?

  91. To continue the discussion, it would be good to compare temperature anomaly responses to El Nino’s, regardless of the month they occur in (or months). Since it is anomalies we are talking about, the month doesn’t matter. Are we getting hotter with each El Nino (an AGW suggestion)? In other words, it don’t matter what month we are talking about. It matters greatly that we compare El Nino to El Nino global temperature anomaly response.

  92. Pamela,
    El Nino is normally a winter phenomena and peaks around January or February. The 1998 El Nino produced warmer anomalies than the 2010 El Nino, but they peaked in February.
    The month does matter, which is the point of this article – the similar behavior to the previous El Nino of 2007.

  93. Pamela
    From the Wikipedia I see that the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) period is typically five years, but varies from three to seven years. I presume one could try a ten-year moving average to minimize this effect.

  94. Precisely.
    The coldest and most severe Winter for Northern Hemisphere land areas
    (North America, Europe, Russia, East Asia) in many, many decades.
    Makes me wonder “what”(if anything) we ARE measuring.
    ENSO is fading fast.
    A massive drop in “Global” temps is inevitable this year.

  95. The obvious point so far is – the worldwide “science” community can’t predict climate change because they have been focused on minor aspects of a system they can’t fully define?
    Can anyone point me to a climate model that embraces all aspects of the climate system?
    If you can’t, what is this logic based on?

  96. I’m not saying to get rid of variation by smoothing it away, I am saying record the variations in an Earth sense, not a human sense. Steve, it is useful to talk about the El Nino winter temperature period of 98, 07, and the current one, as it relates to the El Nino three month running average (which is the way El Nino is recorded, not single month by single month). Are we seeing a warming temperature trend with each one? The only way to compare would be to use the temp anomaly 3-month running average, taking into account the temperature response delay we usually see, and determine if things are getting hotter. Saying that January 2010 is the hottest recorded January anomaly does not tell us if it is getting warmer due to CO2 causing increased long wave radiation making El Nino’s warmer. El Nino induced warm temps are perfect measures of increased long wave radiation from increasing greenhouse affect, is it not? So does it matter if the month is December, January, or February? No. What matters is if the El Nino warm peak is getting hotter.

  97. Very interesting thought, PDO seems to want to go back to a negative phase, note warm waters along western Canada and Alaska.
    Just so no one thinks you are just picking cold weather anomalies here are some tidbits about warm areas. While much of the USA, Mexico and Europe/Asia are very cold for the next 2 weeks (coldest in 15-20 years), most of Canada, Africa, Greenland, Alaska, South America and the southern Oceans are trending warmer than normal.
    I’d like send you a plot of the expected world temperature anomalies for the next 2 weeks, just don’t know how…

  98. Pamela,
    CO2 should warm temperatures over land much more rapidly than it does over the ocean. But what we are seeing now is cold land temperatures and warm sea temperatures. So I don’t see how the current high UAH anomalies can be attributed to CO2.

  99. Land cools off much more rapidly than oceans do so I am not too concerned about the temporary direct greenhouse affect on land. Besides, the argument has been made that CO2 related heat is being stored in the oceans. I don’t think so. It has also been postulated that weather extremes will happen as a result of CO2. Again, I don’t think so. El Nino is far and away the stronger reason for weather and I want to show the correlation between SST conditions and the delayed but moderately predictable affects on global temps. To be clear, I am trying to state the case for the hydrologic/atmospheric cycle as the cause of temperature behavior and trends, short and long term, as opposed to CO2. Therefor, temperature needs to be analyzed and reported in the same way SST’s are in terms of El Nino/La Nina and other SST oscillations. If they were, we would not be dealing so much with ideas that the Sun is cooling the planet, or CO2 is heating it up. We instead would be learning about the real connections that make up our weather pattern variations. Once that is understood by the general public, a case can be made for or against man-made changes in weather pattern variations.

  100. Pamela,
    I’m not trying to solve the fundamentals of climate science in this article (or any other.) I’ll leave that to other people like yourself. I’m just saying that I expect to see a similar pattern in UAH temperatures as 2007 – for the same reasons as it happened in 2007.

  101. Pamela Gray (14:04:18) :
    So what to do? Present temperature anomalies just like Nino anomalies: IE a three month moving average. Jan-Feb-Mar, Feb-Mar-May, Mar-May-Jun, etc. Why it isn’t just stuns me.

    Trying to do away with April showers Pamela? 😉

  102. I am not sure that it is correct to speak of the ocean being heated by CO2 as CO2 is not an inherent source of heat.
    As best I can determine, the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is on the order of one degree Celsius for each complete doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is equivalent to saying that the warming from the pre-industrial era, when the CO2 concentration was on the order of 280 ppm, is given by the following formula:
    W=(1/Ln(2))*(Ln(CO2)-Ln(280)) where CO2 is the CO2 concentration in ppm.
    Science Daily reports that a “10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 [2010] in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.”

  103. Steve Goddard (18:57:23) :
    “But what we are seeing now is cold land temperatures and warm sea temperatures.”
    Nonsense. The RSS land anomaly for January is 0.795 C while for the oceans it’s 0.565 C. Dr Roy Spencer’s plot in the post below shows that historically when the global temperatures are high, so are sea-surface temperatures.
    You won’t get very far in understanding the cause of this warming if you misread the data.

  104. Pamela Gray (16:14:04) : Are you asking if the response of global temperatures to an El Nino event is greater now than it was decades ago? As far as I know there has not been a noticeable change. Now my question, whould there be one? That is, if anthropogenuc greenhouse gases were having an effect, should we see a greater global response now than we had in the past? Scientists assume the response has been linear, that the response to the 2007 event was the same as in 1997, 1982, 1972, etc. But should it be increasing with time?

  105. Pamela Gray (14:04:18) :
    These kinds of blog posts: our monthly “how cold/hot was it”, beg for a better way of analyzing temperature data. Once again and I will type slowly: The…Earth’s temperature machine…does…not…care…what…day/week/month…it…is. It does not have a 30 day monthly period (though it appears the weather back East appears to be quite irritable). Comparing this January to a past January is nonsense. But we are human creatures all live with monthly calendars. So what to do? Present temperature anomalies just like Nino anomalies: IE a three month moving average. Jan-Feb-Mar, Feb-Mar-May, Mar-May-Jun, etc. Why it isn’t just stuns me.

    Fair enough, Pamela.
    Nov-Dec-Jan for 2009-2010 is the warmest NDJ period in the UAH record.

  106. Tom P (01:39:07) :
    You won’t get very far in understanding the cause of this warming if you misread the data.

    Since you think it’s co2, we’ve got further than you have at least. 😉

  107. John Finn,
    The map you sent over is low resolution and smears in February data, but did confirm my assertion that Alaska and parts of Australia were below normal in January. The RSS January map confirms that Southern Africa was below normal in January. NCEP showed Brazil below normal in January, but RSS showed it slightly above.

  108. Steve Goddard (07:13:01) :
    “What this shows is that the “global temperature average” can be a dodgy concept.”
    It’s the anomaly that is important, not the absolute temperature. Of course there were plenty of very cold places in January, but on the whole the lower troposphere over the ocean, and especially the land, was considerably warmer than normal.
    What’s dodgy here is you ability to comprehend this.

  109. Tom P,
    OK, so predict that UAH anomaly will not drop this year when El Nino fades and the AO returns to normal. I’ll mark that one down and we can discuss later.

  110. Tom P,
    You said “on the whole the lower troposphere over the ocean, and especially the land, was considerably warmer than normal.”
    Your statement is misleading. The “average” anomaly was above normal, due to a large area of warm water in the South Pacific and a large positive anomaly over the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. That tells you nothing about the distribution of temperature in the rest of the land areas. The AO has pushed cold air down south, making Canada less cold than their January average. To say that land “was considerably warmer than normal” is not accurate for much of the planet – where the land was actually considerably colder than normal.

  111. At the center of the RSS hot spot:

    Iqaluit: ‘Cold enough to freeze a can of 10W30’
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/g7_lookahead_100205/20100205?hub=Canada
    Friday Feb. 5, 2010 7:37 AM ET
    When finance ministers from the world’s seven biggest industrial democracies descend on the small town of Iqaluit Friday, they will have more on their minds than financial system reform, China’s undervalued yuan and mounting deficits.
    The G7 finance ministers appear to be more concerned – even alarmed – at the prospect of being fed raw seal meat, being eaten by polar bears, and of course braving the Nunavut capital’s freezing temperatures.
    Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s decision to take his G7 counterparts to the High Arctic for their two-day meeting has raised eyebrows in Britain, the U.S., France, Italy, Germany and Japan.
    One unnamed European official told a British newspaper it was “crazy.”

  112. Steve Goddard (07:40:24) :
    John Finn,
    The map you sent over is low resolution and smears in February data, but did confirm my assertion that Alaska and parts of Australia were below normal in January. The RSS January map confirms that Southern Africa was below normal in January. NCEP showed Brazil below normal in January, but RSS showed it slightly above.

    There are bound to be some differences. The NCEP anomaly map represents the surface while RSS and UAH are measuring temperature in the lower troposphere. Incidentally what base period is NCEP using. It looks like 1966-1996 but I can’t make out the start year properly.

  113. Steve Goddard (09:58:38) :
    I would be very surprised if the UAH anomaly didn’t drop. It’s remarkably high, +0.83 C, at present, especially given that the current El Nino is nothing like as strong as in 1998. But I also think there is a good chance of 2010 being the hottest year seen since satellite records began.
    “To say that land “was considerably warmer than normal” is not accurate for much of the planet – where the land was actually considerably colder than normal.”
    Please look at: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/medium/global/ch_TLT_2010_01_anom_v03_2.png
    Much less of the land area is coloured blue rather than red or yellow. There is nothing misleading in saying that on the whole the land was considerably warmer than normal. You are misrepresenting the data when you claim otherwise.

  114. Tom P,
    Very few people will remember January, 2010 as being record heat, but many will remember it as being near record cold and snow.
    The RSS and UAH January land anomalies are heavily skewed by the Canadian Arctic reading at 14,400 feet. If you look at the UAH near surface layer CH4, you will see that the anomalies are much smaller. Likewise, the ground based thermometer readings in the Canadian Arctic also show a different story.
    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYIO/2010/1/7/MonthlyHistory.html
    Note that Pond Inlet, Nunavut (near the center of the RSS hotspot) spent half of the month far below normal.
    A deeply negative AO means warm air in the upper atmosphere over the Arctic. It is essentially an inversion. The high January satellite anomaly indicates to me that measuring land temperatures at 14,400 feet has some serious limitations.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html
    My guess is that GISS will not show such a large January spike, just like it didn’t in 1998.

  115. Steve Goddard (11:44:53) :
    “The high January satellite anomaly indicates to me that measuring land temperatures at 14,400 feet has some serious limitations.”
    You were quite happy to rely on lower-troposphere satellite measurements when you thought they showed a cooling trend:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/18/giss-divergence-with-satellite-temperatures-since-the-start-of-2003/#more-5166
    But now they’re showing unprecedented warming, you reckon they have “serious limitations”. Some consistency would be nice!

  116. “Steve Goddard (10:32:40) :
    At the center of the RSS hot spot:
    Iqaluit: ‘Cold enough to freeze a can of 10W30′
    […]
    The G7 finance ministers appear to be more concerned – even alarmed – at the prospect of being fed raw seal meat, being eaten by polar bears, and of course braving the Nunavut capital’s freezing temperatures.”
    No pina colada, samba dancers and enchiladas there by now? I’m relieved. Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope for humanity.

  117. Steve Goddard (09:58:38) :
    Tom P,
    OK, so predict that UAH anomaly will not drop this year when El Nino fades and the AO returns to normal. I’ll mark that one down and we can discuss later.

    There are three bets you two (and others) can make on how warm 2010 will be (in GISStemp terms), at https://www.intrade.com They are:
    Will 2010 be THE warmest year on record? (32% chance)
    Will 2010 be warmer than 2009? (31% chance)
    Will 2010 be one of the five warmest years on record? (66% chance)
    At least three noted warmists have given a “better than likely” estimate of the first question (and thus the second by implication, because 209 was close to being the warmest), and from that I infer that they are virtually certain that 2010 will not be noticeably cooler than recent years (the third question). Since the odds automatically adjust as punters place their bets on one side or the other, they and their followers seem not to have backed up their opinions with cash. The skeptics seem to be more willing to put their money where their mouth is.

  118. Roger Knights (14:16:04) :
    “The skeptics seem to be more willing to put their money where their mouth is.”
    Readers of this site were remarkably reluctant to bet against me concerning UAH temperature trends last year. But I’ll have a look at that site – the odds look pretty good, especially that 2010 will be warmer than 2009.

  119. Paul Vaughan (13:57:34) :
    How do you explain the regularity of the QBO? and of polar motion? and what of spatial autocorrelation? Surely all “chaos”. (sarcasm)
    Perhaps your confusing chaos with randomness, Paul. Deterministic chaos does have structure and order, but is unpredictable. That’s why instead of regular cycles which happen on the same timings, with the same magnitude, in climate we get quasi-cycles, like the atmospheres Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, and the polar motion is made up by two quasi-periodic components and a gradual ‘drift’.

  120. Tom P,
    You are changing the subject again, which you seem to like to do. This article is about predicting that UAH temperatures will drop as the year progresses – and you have acknowledged that you agree.
    I use NCDC/USHCN ground based measurements for most of my articles, simply because they have a longer temperature record than satellites. Clearly there are problems with both ground based and satellite readings. When there is a temperature inversion, satellite data at 14,000 feet is going to give very different numbers from temperatures recorded on the ground. On the other hand, the paucity of data used by GISS in the Canadian Arctic is also problematic.
    I don’t buy the idea that the current warm spot at 14,400 feet over the Canadian Arctic has anything to do with CO2. Would you disagree?

  121. Steve Goddard (16:15:50) :
    I’m willing to bet that 2010 is likely to be one of the warmest years recorded, if not the warmest. That’s hardly agreeing with your prediction of UAH temperatures. And I think the composition of the atmosphere would certainly play an important part in that warming.

  122. Tom P,
    I’ll take you up on that bet. Based on UAH temperatures. 2010 will not be as warm as 1998.

  123. Tenuc (16:07:43) “Perhaps your confusing chaos with randomness, Paul.”
    As I settle down from laughing at this suggestion: No, certainly not.
    I shall leave you to your hobby of promoting the defeatist belief that we have exhausted all possibilities.
    There are many voices in the choir.

  124. Steve Goddard (19:49:01) :
    Intrade were offering 32% that 2010 will be warmer than 2009. What are you offering?

  125. Steve Goddard (06:09:49) :
    1998 was quite an exceptional El Niño year. But with the latest ONI coming out at 1.8 plus the background of a warming trend, 2010 looks like it has the capability of being even hotter.
    But I’ll stick to betting with people who, unlike you, are willing to put their money where there mouth is.

  126. Tom P,
    Understood – so apparently you don’t have a lot of confidence in your prediction that 2010 will be the warmest. If you read this article again, you will see that I am predicting that UAH temperatures will plummet later in the year.

  127. Pamela Gray (18:20:26) :
    El Nino induced warm temps are perfect measures of increased long wave radiation from increasing greenhouse affect, is it not?

    Well since you ask,
    NO.
    It’s a sign of large amounts of energy coming out of the oceans. The Greenhouse effect doesn’t put energy into the oceans to any measurable degree. Only sunshine does that.

  128. Tom P (10:02:16) :
    Steve Goddard (06:09:49) :
    1998 was quite an exceptional El Niño year. But with the latest ONI coming out at 1.8 plus the background of a warming trend, 2010 looks like it has the capability of being even hotter.
    But I’ll stick to betting with people who, unlike you, are willing to put their money where there mouth is.

    The ’98 el nino was dying down by Feb 98.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:1999
    Betting on Jan 1st to Dec 31st temps makes no sense in this context.

  129. Steve Goddard (12:29:57) :
    “…so apparently you don’t have a lot of confidence in your prediction that 2010 will be the warmest.”
    Not at all – unlike you I’ve got some real money riding on this year’s UAH temperature.

  130. Steve Goddard (14:41:59) :
    It’s against some foolish sceptic who actually believed 2008 was the start of a downward trend in temperatures. He lost last year.
    I can’t imagine where he got the idea that the Earth was cooling…

  131. Tom P,
    You keep changing the subject. Again, this article is a prediction that UAH temperature anomalies will decline this year from the January high.
    Good luck with your gambling.

  132. “something like capacitor discharge in an RC circuit”
    Perhaps your thinking of a LC circuit.
    It has more kick. the RC combo has no “inertia” like the
    LC pair does.
    I know your talking metaphorically, but …
    As the capacitor (dis)charges either thru or in parallel
    with the inductor a mag field builds storing energy in the
    field around the inductor.
    As the charge in the capacitor reaches peak or zero the
    collapsing field of the inductor continues to drive current.
    such a “tank” circuit would ring forever if it wasnt for
    the resistive and stray magnetic coupling losses (toroids
    are better).
    its an apt metaphor anyway, you can add the notion of
    harmonics and/or modulation into the mix.
    On a old school Ampl Modulated transmitter, the peak power
    at 100% is four times the carrier power.
    As for the notion of harmonics, when the two waveforms briefly sync, the peak/valley moves from the difference to the sum of both.

  133. Here a worldwide map of January Temperatures. Uses a 20 yr normal from 1990 to 2009. We use both NCEP reanalysis data and approximately 4,000 QC’d surface observations. I do hereby acknowledge that their could be somewhere on the map that is not perfect. Error can be from mapping process or bad ob that missed the QC. All in all gives a fairly reasonable snapshot of the world. Using this methodology 2010 was not the warmest year since 1990, but it was in the top 5.
    I am testing this image posting site since we typically do not allow the general public to browse our database for information, but I thought it might be useful for the discussion here.
    Cheers
    [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/mraaud.png[/IMG]

  134. Aghh one more mistake in my explanation..its actually a 30 year normal from 1980 to 2009.
    If I use this data, Jan 2010 was the 3rd warmest since 1993 (when my history begins) with a temperature of 55.32 F. The warmest January was 2007 with a temperature of 55.64 F. January 1998 was actually in the middle of the pack with a temperature of 54.90 F. 54.8 F is my 30 year normal from 1980 to 2009.

Comments are closed.