Spencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge

Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Just an update…as the following graph shows, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) along the equatorial Pacific (“Nino3.4″ region, red lines) have been plunging, and global average SSTs have turned the corner, too. (Click on the image for the full-size, undistorted version. Note the global values have been multiplied by 10 for display purposes.)

The corresponding sea level pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin (SOI index, next graph) shows a rapid transition toward La Nina conditions is developing.

Being a believer in natural, internal cycles in the climate system, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that global-average SSTs will plunge over the next couple of months. Based upon past experience, it will take a month or two for our (UAH) tropospheric temperatures to then follow suit.

Advertisements

186 thoughts on “Spencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge

  1. So, what do we need to hit on the anomaly, and when, to avoid “2010 hottest year” headlines? April already showed some decrease, presumably May and June will as well, and then by July what Roy is talking about here should be kicking in.

  2. OT

    Anthony,

    I live in Rocklin, ca. It seems to me that the weather (at least in Nor Cal) the last 3 years or so has been cooler…..fall, spring and summer…..can’t tell with winter.

    Maybe around when the PDO changed……?? Of course this is anecdotal.

    Any evidence of this?

    Thanks JOhn

  3. Those seas are gonna chill up,
    Put on a happy face!
    Warmers will then go dry up,
    Put on a happy face!

  4. As Dr. Spencer acknowledges, there is nothing at all unusual in this kind of natural cycle (i.e. drop) after an El Nino, and exactly the same kind of fall was seen after the 1998 El Nino. The more interesting question is how low will the ocean temps go and how much will the tropo temps be affected. I doubt we’ll see the La Nina low temps we saw in 2008, though temps may fall somewhere to the 2009 low.

  5. Uh, why not just change the scale instead of multiplying the data by 10? Makes no sense to me.

  6. Trenberth’s missing heat went into hiding in the ocean, where it was subsequently presumed to be murdered. Forensic evidence from the alleged crime scene to be processed and analyzed by Dr. Spencer. From the initial statement to the press by investigators: “Knowledgeable people assured us it was hiding deep in there, but so far we have found no credible evidence to that effect. At this point we will have to verify first that it even existed at all, and we may soon be bringing those people in for questioning.”

  7. No, not altogether unusual, the drop to La Nina after El Nino. What Joe Bastardi is predicting is the drop to the type of La Nina’s of the 1950’s. The effect on humans will be rather pronounced, as what we are used to is 3 decades of warm El Ninos.
    Don’t step on my La Nina frosted Shoes.

  8. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf

    So while it is interesting to note the ENSO cycles, PDO, etc., more important for the long term climate are the longer term trends.
    +++

    Because it is uncontroversial to either side to note that 1993 was significantly cooler than 2008? Lovely Mt. Pinatubo cherry-pick there tho.

  9. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Yes, it is interesting. The sun is warming the ocean.Can you explain to me why it has anything to do with CO2? How much less would the ocean be warmed by the sun, if we, say, reduced CO2 to 0.028% , instead of 0.045% (or so)

  10. Doug says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    “Uh, why not just change the scale instead of multiplying the data by 10? Makes no sense to me.”

    There are two lines, global oceans and equatorial(5 degrees north to south).

    Dr Spencer multiplied the swing in the global oceans by 10 so one could see the global ocean temps track with the equatorial temps with a time small lag.

  11. R. Gates,
    That paper addresses a 1993 to 2008 thermal trend analysis. Not a long term climate trend and much less than the estimated 30 to 60 year ENSO cycles.

    The theory that stronger La Nina cycles will dominate for the next decade or two has interested people watching the shorter term swings. Are you betting for or against a long and strong La Nina?

  12. R Gates,

    I am not really sure what you mean by “temps may fall somewhere to the 2009 low”? 2009 was a relatively warm, El Nino year. What is the basis to believe that strong La Nina would bring about equally high temperature as those produced by a moderate El Nino in 2009?

  13. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina):

    _____________________________________________________________________
    You expect me to read an article that starts out with the word “Robust”????

    We already know there is a pseudo-60 year cycle, Vukcevic graphs it for you and so did Bob Tisdale. Bob even showed the “step function” of the ocean charging with heat after the large El Ninos. Now we seem to have hit the top of that cycle and are probably headed towards lower temperatures. This has been expected for the last couple of years and now we see the start of it.

  14. We will cool for roughly the next 15-20 years if past experience tells us anything, then go back to a warming trend. If history tells us anything, we will be smothered with the next ice age discussions starting in about 5 years then concluding in roughly 2035 after the cooling cycle has finished it buisness and is long gone…

    Natural cycles are so much fun when you change gears every 30 years and people wonder why there is so much dis-trust for climate scientists…

  15. R. Gates says: “As Dr. Spencer acknowledges, there is nothing at all unusual in this kind of natural cycle (i.e. drop) after an El Nino, and exactly the same kind of fall was seen after the 1998 El Nino. The more interesting question is how low will the ocean temps go and how much will the tropo temps be affected. I doubt we’ll see the La Nina low temps we saw in 2008, though temps may fall somewhere to the 2009 low.”

    You may be right, but the drop-off in the NINO 3.4 SST anomaly is the steepest since 1998, or close to it. I shan’t get excited much either way. El Ninos are heat shedding mechanisms and vice versa. We’ll soon know.

  16. Doug says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Uh, why not just change the scale instead of multiplying the data by 10? Makes no sense to me.

    —————–
    Uh Doug not all of us have a 2 meter wide monitor sitting on its side hooked up to our computers, at least until our cheques from Big Oil clear.

    It’s really strange for SST to be this high with SOI to so low, provided you’ve only been observing the planet for 30 years. If I were Dr. Trenberth I’d be saying “We don’t understand” right now, as per usual.

  17. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    And I’m wondering why you directed to a pay-per-view magazine study.
    Are you a Nature fan?

  18. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf

    So while it is interesting to note the ENSO cycles, PDO, etc., more important for the long term climate are the longer term trends.

    I would only look at studies in good scientific journals and I no longer consider nature to be one.

  19. Has anyone plotted the derivative (or best-estimate thereof) for the smoothed fit? Because that would appear to be one of the steepest 3 month periods on record from the AMSR-E instrument.

  20. I noticed that there seems to be a correlation between El Nino / La Nina events and global temperatures. More El Nino events than La Nina events give a warmer average temperature on the planet, and the temperature increases stagnate when there are approximately equal La Ninas and El Ninos. Greater La Ninas than El Ninos give a decline in planetary temperatures. However, the El Nino/La Nina data record extends only to the 1950s, so I can’t really claim it’s an historic phenomenon.

  21. So, R. Gates:

    What do you make of (And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about) this major study? Just wondering.

  22. @R. Gates
    “And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina)”

    Would be more interesting if it didnt stop at 2008. All that paper proves is that oceans warmed somewhat between 93-2008, which proves nothing when it comes to climate.

  23. The cool PDO (20 to 30 years) has resumed, so we should see more La Ninas, weaker El Ninos, and cooler temperatures ahead, according to Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi.

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, predicts that a new “Little Ice Age” could begin as early as 2014. Abdussamatov says that sunspot activity should reach a new minimum in 2042, resulting in a deep global temperature minimum in the years 2055-2060.

    Congress needs to force the cap-and-trade bill down our throats before the onset of colder temperatures. The good news: When the cool-down finally arrives, we won’t have to hear any more global warming nonsense.

  24. Alan S. Blue says: “Has anyone plotted the derivative (or best-estimate thereof) for the smoothed fit? Because that would appear to be one of the steepest 3 month periods on record from the AMSR-E instrument.”

    It’s no record setter, but is on the rare side. Maybe 6 or 7 similar drops in the record, though I’m not sure the graph accuracy is all that good. Re your suggestion, derivatives cause a loss in plot accuracy. The error in the graph will be increased even more, so I’m not sure whether any valid conclusions could be drawn. Worth a look, sure, but mostly for amusement.

  25. The Nature paper claims there has ocean heat accumulation that translates into a radiative imbalance of .53 to .75 W/M2 from 1993 to 2008. However since 2002 Argo demonstrates no ocean heating according to Willis.
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp
    Does anybody have an idea of what Argo has revealed since 2008?. Did the current El nino result in added ocean heat content or released heat from the oceans?
    I suspect the entire global warming movement will live or die with Argo. Forget atmospheric temperatures.

  26. The greatest source and cause of weather climate variability and long term oscillation is in the oceans and trade winds. Understand those, and you understand warming and cooling trends upon the land. C02 is a sliver in your finger compared to the forest of oceans.

  27. #
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Trenberth’s missing heat went into hiding in the ocean, where it was subsequently presumed to be murdered. Forensic evidence from the alleged crime scene to be processed and analyzed by Dr. Spencer. From the initial statement to the press by investigators: “Knowledgeable people assured us it was hiding deep in there, but so far we have found no credible evidence to that effect. At this point we will have to verify first that it even existed at all, and we may soon be bringing those people in for questioning.”
    —————-
    Uh…Kadaka…why do you equate sea surface temperatures SSTs with deep ocean temperatures? Don’t you realize they are not the same thing?
    _

  28. Pamela Gray says:
    May 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    The greatest source and cause of weather climate variability and long term oscillation is in the oceans and trade winds. Understand those, and you understand warming and cooling trends upon the land. C02 is a sliver in your finger compared to the forest of oceans.

    Exactly Pamela, and I would add an explanation point on the wind.

    A calm windless stagnated ocean cannot evaporate to any appreciable amount little matter of what is the temperature, some don’t really understand the evaporation/condensation surface interface. Now add wind, linear or from convection, and then you have something happening, once again, little matter of the temperature even though it does affect the rate of course but the wind speed easily trumps it!

  29. pgosselin,
    Yeah, I enjoy Joe Bastardi too. He’s also predicting a strong hurricane season. This leads to the possibility of the AGWers pointing at the hurricanes and saying “I told you so” only then to be hit by a cold cold winter and spring. We shall see. The empirical science that hte AGWers refuse is still being done, whether they like it or not. They can only distort (sorry, adjust) the data so much.

  30. Pamel Gray

    C02 is a sliver in your finger compared to the forest of oceans.

    Nice metaphorical mix :-) You should write political speeches :-)

  31. Pamela, I should have added that when the wind gets high enough to break the wave tops the surface area shoots up a hugely, now with wind to carry away the moisture and a huge surface area exposed a serious amount of water vapor can be stripped away from the surface in no time, but surely everyone understands that, I realize you do. Well, maybe someone not savvy on science might read this and say, “Gee, I didn’t quite realize that!”.

  32. This would explain the enormous amount of unseasonal rain in the north of Australia the past week. It follows a 3C to 4C higher monthly average in Broome for April and nearly as much for Jan and Feb, caused by well above average sea temperatures in the area between NW Australia and Indonesia. Temperatures so far for May are almost back to the monthly average following this rain.

  33. I assume Trenbarth’s statement that 50 % of the heat is missing is based on the .52 w/m2 radiative imbalance inferred from the ocean heat content accumulation curve from 1993 to 2008 as discussed in the Nature paper when compared to the 1 w/M2 radiative imbalance estimated from the Ceres Satellite data. However from 2002 to 2008 the Argo data shows no accumulation. Since 2008 the arctic ice cap has rapidly grown and is probably releasing heat at .2 w/m2 which would then need to be subtracted from any heat accumulation since 2008 gained from the current El Nino. With the impending drop in SST I bet Argo will ultimatly reveal heat loss since 2002.

  34. Crashex says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    R. Gates,
    That paper addresses a 1993 to 2008 thermal trend analysis. Not a long term climate trend and much less than the estimated 30 to 60 year ENSO cycles.

    The theory that stronger La Nina cycles will dominate for the next decade or two has interested people watching the shorter term swings. Are you betting for or against a long and strong La Nina?

    ______________

    I never bet on the weather, but I don’t see the La Nina hitting the low ocean temps we saw in the dip in late 2007/early 2008 of -2.5, more like the range we saw in late 2008/early 2009 of -1.5, and I think the odds are good for us to see a stronger El Nino in 2012/13 than we just had

    __________

    JimF says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    So, R. Gates:

    What do you make of (And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about) this major study? Just wondering.

    ____________________

    This study is confirmation of predicitons made by AGWT about the warming of the oceans using multiple data sets. It is not a landmark study, but for those, like me, who remain 25% skeptical about AGW, it begins to nudge me further down the road.

    ____________

    Ivan says:
    May 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    R Gates,

    I am not really sure what you mean by “temps may fall somewhere to the 2009 low”? 2009 was a relatively warm, El Nino year. What is the basis to believe that strong La Nina would bring about equally high temperature as those produced by a moderate El Nino in 2009?

    _________

    Ivan, I really should have said “late 2008/early 2009. There was a second downturn in the La Nina temps, that didn’t go as far down at the late 2007/early 2008 low. (only -1.5 versus -2.5) I think the next La Nina will see this range (-1.5)

  35. Dr. says:
    The anomalous step change from 2002-2003 is a step change (3.5 deg) during the transition from XBT to ARGO, something which Josh Willis has acknowledged in exchanges with RPS, yet mysteriously is not mentioned in the Nature article.
    ——————————————————————————
    If you took out the step change I bet the calculated radiative imbalance calculation would drop to something like .3W/m2 – even more missing heat.

  36. Talking of plunges, we should not forget that just a week or two ago a post here showed the largest monthly fall in upper ocean heat content (near the tropics) in the instrumental record since 1979:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/the-decrease-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-from-march-to-april-was-1c-largest-since-1979/

    There is more to climate oscillation than ENSO in the long term, so the cooling Dr Spencer is predicting is likely more than just a post-el Nino reflex. Since change in OHC is likely predictive of SST and tropospheric temperatures, and OHC has been dropping for a decade or more, a more sustained temperature decline is indeed probable. The tropospheric temperature record since the 1998 el Nino looks curiously symmetrical – two similar peaks (1998, 2009) separated by a plateau. This symmetry can be expected to continue on any rational basis – i.e. with falling temperatures. AGW proponents will of course continue to reassure themselves by nostalgic reminiscence about 1970-2000 warming. They will have to think quickly of some new innovations analogous to short-selling to persuade us of global warming in the face of an intensifying cooling period.

    OTOH – I’m in Delhi and its in the mid 40s – thats C not F, not much sign of cooling here.

  37. I would like to clarify my statement about the effect of growing ice.
    Hansen claimed that .2 w/m2 of the missing heat from 1993 to 2008 likely went to melting the arctic ice cap. The ice cap has grown at a much faster rate than the decline from 1993 to 2008, thefore based on Hansen’s analysis at least .2/W/M2 must have been released by the growing ice. Therefore if the radiative imbalance since 2008 is calculated to be say be .1 w/m2 from a gain in ocean heat content, it must be corrected by .2W/M2 to an actual .-1W/M2 or a cooling planet.

  38. Kirk Myers says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    The cool PDO (20 to 30 years) has resumed, so we should see more La Ninas, weaker El Ninos, and cooler temperatures ahead, according to Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi.

    Really, the cool PDO has resumed? I always thought that a positive PDO Index meant that it was the warm phase!

  39. The ARGO buoy situation puzzles me.
    Realizing that they measure something different than the SST. It was once explained to me once that the sea is the ultimate measure of global warming and these 3300 buoys would prove once and for all that Manmade Global warming is real.
    First it seems that NOAA hid the data.
    Then it seems that NOAA needed to adjust the data since it does not match earlier measurement methods.
    Now it seems as though the data is being ignored.
    We know that ARGO shows slight cooling 2003 to 2009
    Is this no longer considered important?
    Can someone explain what is going on here and why isn’t the data reported more frequently?
    Or is there some site where I can get the data monthly.
    Thanks for any explanation

  40. What’s the correlation between global sst and global air temperature? This is key IMHO. Everything else is secondary (feedbacks, adjustments, perception, hysteria, indifference).

  41. The first Argo floats were deployed in late 1999.
    The Argo array did not reach its full planned coverage of at least 3000 floats until late 2006. Not all the floats are equal – about 66% dive to at least 1500 meters, and 46% to 2000 meters.

    The new Argo data looking at the upper 2000m gives a possible explanation for the wide swings in 700m data – heat is being moved vertically, in upwellings and downwellings, that hadn’t been seen before in the instrument data.
    700m data:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Look at the Argo data for the upper 2000m of the world’s oceans:

    This graph is from Figure 11a:
    http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf
    From beginning 2003 to the end of 2008, the oceans warmed at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2
    Note that the upper 200m of the oceans continued to warm while the upper 700m cooled slightly.

    Offhand, I don’t know of any papers analyzing Argo data for the full 2000m in 2009.

    http://w3.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/Argo_new_brochure.pdf
    Also note that Argo floats cannot go under the sea ice, or operate over the steep continental slope, nor can the array adequately measure the oceans’ narrow and swift western boundary currents. Here autonomous gliders integrated with Argo will help to link the deep ocean to the boundary currents and continental shelves. The Argo data system can handle this data from gliders.

    I’d like to see something like a vertical wall of Argo floats measuring how much heat moves from the North Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean each year:

    I think this is the main cause of the vanishing Arctic sea ice:

    Note that there is already less sea ice than in summer 2007.

  42. Speaking of plunges…anybody notice the Arctic Sea ice volume anomaly chart:

    Going so low, they’ll need to move the vertical scale downward. Yes, just model, but that much vaunted (by the AGW skeptics) multi-year ice doesn’t seem to be holding up too well so far…and the big time melt season is still ahead…

  43. richcar said:
    May 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    I would like to clarify my statement about the effect of growing ice.
    Hansen claimed that .2 w/m2 of the missing heat from 1993 to 2008 likely went to melting the arctic ice cap. The ice cap has grown at a much faster rate than the decline from 1993 to 2008, thefore based on Hansen’s analysis at least .2/W/M2 must have been released by the growing ice. Therefore if the radiative imbalance since 2008 is calculated to be say be .1 w/m2 from a gain in ocean heat content, it must be corrected by .2W/M2 to an actual .-1W/M2 or a cooling planet.

    ________________

    This part of your post is especially erroneous: The ice cap has grown at a much faster rate than the decline from 1993 to 2008…

    All I can say is what in the world are you talking about???

  44. richcar 1225 says:
    May 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Although the maps of Arctic sea ice extent are 2D, the actual sea ice itself is 3D, and the heat required to melt it depends on the volume of ice melted, not the “extent”.
    As far as they can tell, the volume of Arctic sea ice is trending down, even after the large summer melt of 2007:

    The recently launched CryoSat-2 should hopefully start returning useful data before the summer Arctic sea ice minimum – this will be a useful check on the PIOMAS data assimilation model. With the now defunct ICESat ice volume measuring satellite, PIOMAS was shown to be a bit high in it’s estimate of Arctic sea ice volume, without the ICESat data assimilated – ICESat showed it was even smaller in the summer of 2007:

  45. FWC News – Record cold leads to record number of manatee deaths

    http://myfwc.com/NEWSROOM/10/statewide/News_10_X_ManateeRecordDeaths.htm

    As of March 19, biologists with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) have documented 431 manatee carcasses in state waters so far in 2010. This preliminary data indicates that in just three months, the number of manatee deaths has exceeded the highest number on record for an entire calendar year, which was 429 in 2009. The cause of death for the majority of these animals is cold stress…

    Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

    http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=33589

    http://myfwc.com/NEWSROOM/10/statewide/News_10_X_ManateeDeaths09.htm

    Looks like colder water to me!

  46. Don Shaw says
    The ARGO buoy situation puzzles me.
    ———————————————–
    Don,
    Global warming is due to a radiative imbalance where the earth absorbs more heat than leaves to space. The imbalance results in a heat buildup in the atmosphere and the ocean. Heat is measured in joules. Because the oceans can hold a much higher quantity of joules per volume than the atmosphere it has been agreed by climate scientists that 80% of all the heat accumulation due to global warming must be found in the oceans. The Argo buoys measure down to 2000 meters. Sea Surface temps may be quite different than the temperature of the water at depth therefore the temperature distribution at depth needs to be determined to calculate the ocean heat content in joules. I think everybody agrees that Argo has the answer. So far there has been little heat accumulation from 2002 when Argo started untill 2008. Since 2008 there has been an increase in SST. Whether this is reflected in the Argo data we do not yet know. I suspect that it will demonstrate a heat increase but at a rate that reflects a much smaller radiative imbalance than the models have predicted. Now SST as Dr Spencer points out is about to decline rapidly. I think a few more years and thanks to Argo we will have a real estimate of the real radiative imbalance, positive or negative.

  47. According to the study, 15 years of ocean warming indicates”a strong climate change signal”. How does this fit in with Phil Jones statement that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years?

    Have we now changed weather to climate from 30 years to 15 years?

  48. R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    “I doubt we’ll see the La Nina low temps we saw in 2008, though temps may fall somewhere to the 2009 low.”

    ================================

    Well I am sure scientists and experts across the world are hanging on every word of that “prognostication”.

    I doubt we will “see” this either, but you know what I would really like to see?

    A live panel with you, and then Roy Spencer, Lindzen, Bastardi, Tisdale, Maue and other actual scientists and physicists.

    It might be rather amusing to watch somebody who incessantly, and surprisingly “confidently”…talks out of his arse on this site, with material that is continually over his head and out of his league…get eaten up by the lions.

    And if that still is unsuccessful in preventing your “25% skeptical” side from being “nudged down the road” toward the religion you SO want to “believe” in…then I guess you were predestined to go that way anyway.

    Hint for ya: Listen and try to learn more. You might surprise yourself.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  49. Two items that grab my attention:

    First, when people speak of the PDO the focus seems to be on two different things. The first is a mathematical measurement of the sea surface anomalies, subtracting the cold from the warm and arriving at either a “cold” or “warm” result. However a second focus is the configuration of those anomalies. This second focus can see the PDO as being in a “cold” phase even if the total of all anomalies is “warm,” because the cold anomalies are located in a certain, distinctive parts of the
    Pacific.

    Using this second focus, I look for a blue, backwards letter “C” of cold water in anomaly maps of the Pacific, stretching from the Aleutians east and down the coast of California and then westwards beneath Hawaii towards Japan.

    This configuration will obviously result in quite different weather patterns than will be created when the backwards “C” is warm and red, and in my humble opinion it is these changes in weather patterns that matter most. They are what mark the changes in the PDO phase. Even if the sum of all anomalies shows the Pacific, as a whole, is slightly warmer, the weather generated by the configuration of cold water
    will resemble the “cold” phase.

    The second major focus of my thinking revolves around whether swings in the PDO are regular, like a pendulum, or whether they are erratic.

    It seems to me the PDO attempts to be well behaved, going “tick” for thirty years and then “tock” for thirty years, in the manner of a nice, neat pendulum. However it also seems Mother Nature likes to throw wrenches into the clockwork. Or perhaps the outside influences are not wrenches but mice, leaping onto the pendulum and swinging like Tarzan, and scampering up and down the pendulum in a manner that throws the nice neat tick-tocking and action-reaction-ing all out of whack.

    One current mouse is the quiet sun.

  50. richcar 1225

    Afraid not. Where there are data to be tortured and idiots to listen the AGW movement will continue. There is tOOOOOO much money involved.

  51. R. Gates,

    You say that the ocean warming from 1993 to 2008 is just what the AGW models predicted. Fine. It is also what we expected from natural climate variation. I recall Bill Gray saying (around 1993) that the Atlantic hurricane activity would soon pick up and that global cooling would commence in the early part of the 21st Century, all due to natural ocean cycles. Of course, he was exactly right about the hurricanes and the lack of warming over the last 12 years appears to support Gray and the natural cycles much better than the AGW model. And lets not forget the lack of a mid-tropospheric tropical hot spot, a gradual drying of the upper tropospheric atmosphere, a major rebound in Arctic ice, the lack of warming in Antarctica, no evidence of a persistent, positive water vapor feedback and all the other areas that the models have failed.

    Of course, if we go back before 1978, the models have an even bigger problem. They can’t explain any of the climate changes of the 20th century, the LIA, MWP, Dark Ages Cold Period or the RWP. Simply put, the models seem to work for about 20 to 30 years in the late 20th century, but fail miserably for all other time periods. Not a good track record. On the other hand, natural climate variability does a good job explaining the last 120 years and is rapidly deciphering that last 2,000. With a natural climate theory, we do not need to pretend that well documented climate changes didn’t happen.

    So why are you only 25% skeptical of a theory that only explains 1-2% of the last 2,000 years? Shouldn’t you be 98-99% skeptical based on the observations alone?

  52. the australian weather bureau is reporting an increasing amount of cooler than normal water in the lower depths of the pacifichttp://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

  53. Well Arctic sea ice is taking a nosedive as R Gates said.

    “Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

    “We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can’t go back.”

    We can’t go back apparently according to an “expert” as ice never comes back once it has melted, apparently.

    There is of course one huge problem with the assumptions and that is very simple:

    Monitoring of Arctic sea ice only began in 1972.

    I know, lets play a game. Are you up for it R Gates???

    Lets imagine you have Roald Amundesen and the crew of the St. Roch standing in front of you. Now explain how the current melting is unprecedented.

  54. “R. Gates says:
    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf

    So while it is interesting to note the ENSO cycles, PDO, etc., more important for the long term climate are the longer term trends.”

    The first sentence from the cite states:
    A large (~1023 J) multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in the upper 300 m of the world’s oceans was reported roughly a decade ago1 and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases

    The claim that the multi-decadal rise is due to greenhouse gases is a postulation.

    Here is an alternate explanation: In Little Ice Age the oceans were cool, then at the end of the LIA the Earth starts warming (for some reason) as the oceans warm the solubility of CO2 in the oceans reduces (cf. Henry’s Law) and CO2 out-gasses from the oceans. So the warming leads to a steady rise in atmospheric CO2 that has continued to this day as the oceans have been warming. This matches with the observed geological pattern of the Earth warming then, some years later, atmospheric CO2 increasing.
    The apparent correlation of CO2 with atmospheric temperatures is therefore not a causal relationship but atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of ocean temperatures.
    The timescales and lag of atmospheric CO2 increases starting after the LIA also matches the ‘start of the industrial period’ that is used in the AGW hypothesis as the reason for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    The AGW hyppthesis cannot therefore be sustained.

  55. Dr. Spenser is going to be shown to be correct.
    Larger fluctuations in melting sea ice will produce more cold to the ocean currents. The massive high pressure systems that have been stable for months now over the regions have increased the expansions of sea ice yet will have increased the melt as well. Surface air temperatures have declined allowing greater fluctuations and greater masses to form.
    I am not a big fan of satelite temperature data if it cannot differentiate the surface temperatures from the atmospheric temperatures.

  56. The new meme is the heat bypasses the 700m layer undetected and stealthily reveals itself below? So the “physics as we understand it” is wrong, and the upper 700m of ocean does not contain ~85% of the heat storage of the planet? The science community has been lying to us?

    R Gates and Anu, would you mind explaining how ocean heat suddenly decided in 2003 to stop increasing in the upper 700m and hide away for another day, completely undetected? Contrary to your claim R Gates, this is not in agreement with climate models.

    If that is true, then the equatorial OHC in the upper 300m somehow miraculously disappeared as well, again completely undetected through the upper 700m.

  57. I think Richcar’s 10:15pm post hit the nail on the head. Look to Argo data to explain much of our current medium term weather fluccuations. I wouldn’t be surprised to a net loss (in joules) to our world’s oceans the next 18 months.

  58. Mark highlighted this from BoM

    The map for the 5 days ending 10 May shows a large volume of cooler than normal water below the surface of the tropical Pacific, with anomalies more than 3°C cooler than normal for this time of the year. Two weeks ago there were no areas with anomalies of below −2°C.

  59. For R Gates and Anu

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/comment-from-josh-willis-on-the-upper-ocean-heat-content-data-posted-on-real-climate/

    Per Josh Willis:
    “There is still a good deal of uncertainty in observational estimates of ocean heat content during the 1990s and into the early part of the 2000s. This is because of known biases in the XBT data set, which are the dominant source of ocean temperature data up until 2003 or 2004. Numerous authors have attempted to correct these biases, but substantial difference remain in the “corrected” data. As a result, the period from 1993 to 2003 still has uncertainties that are probably larger than the natural or anthropogenic signals in ocean heat content that happen over a period of 1 to 3 years. However, the decadal trend of 10 to 15 years seems to be large enough to see despite the uncertainties. Because Argo begins to become the dominant source of temperature data in about 2004, the period from 2000 to 2005 is especially worriesome because of the transition from an XBT-dominated estimate of ocean heat content.

    You might also comment that there is another easily available estimate besides that of Levitus et al. (the one shown in this blog entry). The other long-term estimate is from Domingues et al. and can be downloaded from CSIRO: ”

    Is Josh Willis mistaken when he infers XBT was still contaminating the ARGO data through 2004?

    How is it then any conclusion can be made that OHC has transcended (does heat rise?) to below 700m when the data used is riddled with so much uncertainty prior to 2004? What we do know is this year OHC is going to drop significantly as evidenced by recent data from the equatorial upper 300m.

    Would should also take note from 2008 to 2009, global OHC dropped. It is going to drop again in 2010. I’d still like to know if heat is accumulating below 700m, how is it going undetected.

    R Gates and Anu, please explain this phenomenon as it appears to be counterintuitive.

  60. stevengoddard says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/flashback-to-2007-sst-to-plunge-again/

    In Bob’s defense, the rapidity of this change is catching most everybody by surprise, I think, even those who thought we’d have La Nina before year end. Looks like it is coming much sooner.

    I took the coward’s bet in that thread, and said that while I wouldn’t (at the time) bet on La Nina before year end, I wouldn’t bet against it, either.

  61. Declines in Global Temperatures and changes in Ocean and Continental ‘Weather’ take seemingly ‘strange’ twists over the course of hundreds of years. At the end of the MWP in the 13th Century, the ‘changes’ did not suggest cooling. When one or more of the AGW Faithful suggest that the ‘Weather’ is going to get worse they’re right, but not for the reason they think. The following quote from “Climate4You.Com” is very informative about “Global COOLING”:

    “Inhabitants of Europe presumably first noticed an increased frequency and severity of mid-latitude storms as climate began to cool in the late 13th century. Especially around the North Sea the increased incidence and severity of storms and sea floods became apparent. In at least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts the death toll was estimated at around 100,000 or more; in the worst case the estimate was 306,000. In southwestern Denmark it was reported that sixty parishes accounting for over half of the agricultural income of southern Slesvig (at that time part of Denmark) had been ‘swallowed by the salt sea’. In some of these strong storms the Zuiderzee in the Netherland was formed. The dimensions of the island Helgoland in the German Bight was seriously reduced by coastal erosion. In the year 800, Helgoland is reported to measure about 60 km across; yet around year 1300 this was reduced to 25 km only. Exposed to severe coastal erosion by the many storms characterising the following Little Ice Age, Helgoland now only measures 1.5 km across. ”
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    (At this link connect to “Climate + History”)

    PS: Climate moves at a Snail’s Pace;-(

  62. Kirk Myers says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    The cool PDO (20 to 30 years) has resumed, so we should see more La Ninas, weaker El Ninos, and cooler temperatures ahead, according to Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi.

    So according to your latest post (below) it hasn’t resumed yet but the computer model says that it’s got a ~50% chance of going negative in a couple of months? The 20-30 years duration where does that come from?

    Kirk Myers says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:42 pm
    Here is NOAA’s PDO forecast, which shows it entering negative territory during the April-May-June seasonal timeframe.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/forecasts/sstlim/for1pdo.html (click on “numerical forecast”)

  63. richcar 1225 says:
    May 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Richcar, can you please prove that the ice cap has grown at a record rate since 2008? (and faster than the decline from 1993-2008)? What months are you basing this analysis on?

  64. blackswhitewash.com says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I guess you missed the fact that it took Amundsen more than 2 years to traverse the
    the Northwest Passage whereas in 2007 a sailboat did it in a several weeks.

    Jim Clarke says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:01 am

    What major rebound of Arctic ice are you talking about? I haven’t seen any evidence of a rebound. And Antarctic is still warming. Where are you getting your facts from?

  65. Joe says:
    May 21, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Joe you have it backwards, A low pressure over the Arctic Basin is what favors ice divergence, not a high pressure.

  66. blackswhitewash.com says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Lets imagine you have Roald Amundesen and the crew of the St. Roch standing in front of you. Now explain how the current melting is unprecedented.

    Amundsen took 3 years to sail west through the Northwest Passage (1903-1906). The St. Roch took 2 years to sail east through the Northwest Passage (1940-1942).

    Amundsen was trapped in ice each of three winters. He came and went from his ship, and learned Arctic survival skills from the local Netsilik people that would later prove useful. For example, he learned to use sled dogs and to wear animal skins in lieu of heavy, woolen parkas.
    Due to water as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could never have used the route Amundsen travelled. This says more about 7 guys with enough money and supplies to wait for years until the shifting ices of the Canadian coast allow them to slip through, than the Arctic being “ice free” 104 years ago.

    Same for the St. Roch, which took the same path Amundsen did, going in the other direction. Neither man/ship made their historic journeys in one summer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen#Northwest_Passage
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch_(ship)

    Since “sea ice extent” defines a 15% filled gridbox as “sea ice”, there are probably plenty of opportunities to sail the Northwest passage in a couple weeks in recent years:

    There seems to be only a few bottlenecks among the Canadian islands where a ship would have to sail among ice floes. This is probably unprecedented in historical times.

  67. FergalR :
    May 20, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    “It’s really strange for SST to be this high with SOI to so low, provided you’ve only been observing the planet for 30 years. If I were Dr. Trenberth I’d be saying “We don’t understand” right now, as per usual.”

    The quiet sun is suppressing energy loss to space thereby creating a nore negative polar oscillation pressing all the air circulation systems equatorward.

    That leads to a SOI lower than would normally be expected for an El Nino of the moderate size just experienced. That El Nino has been restrained from pushing the ITCZ and the mid latitude jets jets poleward as much as a similarly sized El Nino would have done whilst the sun was more active.

    The energy from that El Nino is being held nearer the equator and that could lead to the more active hurricane season some expect. However we have not seen such a global air circulation system since before satellites. The whole satellite era to date has been dominated by a positive polar oscillation so we cannot be sure that the current setup will necessarily translate into more hurricanes.

    Meanwhile the three main cloud banks of the ITCZ and the two mid latitude jet streams are nearer the equator than before 2000 (because of the more negative polar oscillations). The result is that global albedo is higher and less energy is entering the oceans to replace that lost during the recent El Nino.

    So as long as the sun stays quiet the position of the cloud banks will keep the solar input to the oceans lower than is required to replace energy released by the oceans.

    The quiet sun might slow down energy loss to space but it also reduces energy input to the oceans by moving those cloud banks equatorward.

  68. Jim Clarke says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:01 am

    “R. Gates,

    You say that the ocean warming from 1993 to 2008 is just what the AGW models predicted. Fine. It is also what we expected from natural climate variation….

    So why are you only 25% skeptical of a theory that only explains 1-2% of the last 2,000 years? Shouldn’t you be 98-99% skeptical based on the observations alone?”
    ________________________________________________________________________
    R.Gates is NOT 25% skeptical, even though (s)he says he is. That is just a useful argument device. The true objective is to place doubt in peoples minds and recruit them to the AGW cause. Here is R.Gates without his sheep’s-clothing, on his favorite subject arctic ice.

    “In addition to the complete destruction of the ecosystem going on in the Arctic, what people don’t realize is the extremely critical function the sea ice plays in regulating the temperature of the whole world. It:
    1) Reflects sunlight, keeping the earth’s albedo in a constant range.
    2) Keeps the ocean temperature is check (like an ice cube in your summer drink)
    When the ice cap melts completely, you can be certain that RAPID global warming is immenent. An ice free arctic will mean massive warming from the loss of temperature control (like breaking the thermistat in your home), as well as the POSITIVE FEEDBACK of releasing massive amounts of methane from the arctic region.
    All this is assured, and already too late to stop.. .and still the fools are arguing about who will get all their precious oil reserves from the arctic…as though it will be business as usual in the future…such a foolish, blind, narrowminded, and selfish species.
    Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon.

    God Bless you all.
    R. Gates
    [Response to R. Gates comment:]
    The time is coming when many people will follow the exemplary behavior Zephyr, Glen Barry and R. Gates by speaking out loudly and clearly for something, for anything at all to do with the preservation of life as know it and Earth, even though it is not politically convenient and economically expedient to do so, even though thousands of greedy kings and self-proclaimed masters of the universe eschew such open expressions as well as maintain that “silence is golden.”
    Soon people will be heard speaking out often in many places for something, for anything at all that does not have to do with the unbridled and soon to become unsustainable growth of the global political economy.
    The silence regarding the threat of rampant economic globalization is deafening. How much longer will it continue?
    Climate Ark: Arctic Going to Hell in a Hand-Basket

    No I do not think our R Gates has a skeptical bone in his body.

  69. Nedhead says:
    Richcar, can you please prove that the ice cap has grown at a record rate since 2008? (and faster than the decline from 1993-2008)? What months are you basing this analysis on?
    ——————————————————
    http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm

    The recovery began in 2008 after the 2007 fall minimum. We do not know how much volume was added. The new ice sat satellite should help. Heat released from the growing ice should have contributed to an increased in ocean heat content from 2007 onwards.

  70. stevengoddard says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:12 pm
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/flashback-to-2007-sst-to-plunge-again/

    I had a look at this earlier thread that Steve cited – there are some interesting quotes from it:

    R Gates
    February 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm:
    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…

    O dear – what happened to the “increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing”? Spotless again today. Still no “signs” that 2010 will cool down?

    There was also on the thread some betting action or at least macho betting talk from Tom P:

    Tom P says:
    February 7, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    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.

    Steve Goddard says:
    February 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    Tom P,

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

    I think Tom would be better advised to take his chances on the stock exchange than putting any actual money behind warming predictions just now.

  71. We are heading rapidly into La Nina conditions.

    The Pacific subsurface cool anomalies are a little ahead of the normal schedule but only a month or so. The La Nina peak could be in late October to November.

    There is a definite pattern in how the equatorial Pacific subsurface anomalies oscillate between El Nino and La Nina.

    Yesterday’s cross-section is showing -5C and -6C in some areas. There is enough cool anomalies at 130E to 150E (at the beginning of the circulation pattern) to sustain a La Nina until early 2011.

    Compare yesterday to the same time last year when an El Nino was building.

    Compare the 2008-09 La Nina peak (followed by an El Nino in 2009)

    … with the same map at the 2009-10 El Nino peak.

    This is what the map looks like 8 months before an El Nino peak.

    This is what the map looks like 8 months before a La Nina peak.

  72. JeffBrown
    “And Antarctic is still warming.”

    I thought we were talking about the Earth here? To what planet does this refer?

  73. Nedhead,
    This NSDIC site shows the increase in arctic sea ice from 2008 to 2009 as 25% or 1.08 million sq km. That should have released a lot of heat due to the laws of heat of fusion. The largest decline was for the year 2008 at -23 %. The long term decline from 1978 is about -10%. However many of us think based on declining arctic ocean SST’s we will likely have thirty more years of adding sea ice. The satellite data began in 1978 when the Arctic Ocean SST was at a thirty year low.
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

  74. Anu says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    I’d like to see something like a vertical wall of Argo floats measuring how much heat moves from the North Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean each year:

    I think this is the main cause of the vanishing Arctic sea ice:

    Note that there is already less sea ice than in summer 2007.

    I agree that water movement from the Atlantic is a key determinant of Arctic ice. Ocean currents around the Arctic can indeed be expected to have equal or greater effect on ice extent than air temps – this point is made repeatedly on this site when debates on Arctic ice get confined to air temperature and winds only.

    “Be careful what you wish for”. If tomorrow there could be the “vertical wall of Argo floats measuring how much heat moves from the North Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean each year”, I can guess quite confidently what they would see: decreasing heat movement Arcticward. Why? A strong clue was given in a paper by Levitus et al 2009 concerning the Barents Sea, posted here last October:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/

    Look at the first graph with black (Barents temps 100-150m) and red (AMO) lines. Strong correlation between Barents subsurface temps and the AMO. Cyclical warming of Barents water with up to 4C magnitude can only be from ocean currents (tail end of the north Atlantic drift) not air weather. Forcasting the sinewave forward its not hard to predict that as AMO now heads south, so will Barents water temps, reflecting reduced warm input from the Atlantic. And thus the Arctic ice recovery will continue.

  75. phlogiston says:
    May 21, 2010 at 7:43 am
    stevengoddard says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:12 pm
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/flashback-to-2007-sst-to-plunge-again/

    I had a look at this earlier thread that Steve cited – there are some interesting quotes from it:

    R Gates
    February 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm:
    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…

    O dear – what happened to the “increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing”?

    For what it’s worth Gates is right, based on the most recent TSI measurement the irradiance is steadily increasing and exceeds the 2007 value:

  76. So, the new science paradigm, and at the same time the “Verbum Dismissum” (The forgotten word) is Eλεκτρον.

  77. Basil: You wrote, “In Bob’s defense…”

    I never predicted that there would not be a La Nina or that there would be one. My last post on La Nina events illustrated that they rarely happen after an El Nino Modoki. Also, it’s not a La Nina…yet.

  78. intrepid_wanders says: “Ahhh… this might be what Bob Tisdale was seeing in the SSTs.”

    Bingo. It’s what I was seeing in the NINO3.4 SST anomalies in the post that Jeff linked. But it’s a two-edged sword. A La Nina helps to fuel the next El Nino.

  79. R. Gates wrote: “And I’m wondering why the AGW skeptical group is not talking about this major study on the overall warming trend of the oceans (not the cyclical rise and fall of temps based on the cycle of El Nino/La Nina),” and you linked Lyman et al (2010).

    The basic reason is that we’ve discussed OHC before. Many of the bloggers here understand that natural variables dominate the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955, which is the start year of the NODC’s OHC dataset, and that’s the OHC dataset that was released with Levitus et al (2009). All anyone has to do is break the OHC data down into basin subsets to discover what caused the rise and you can do that using the KNMI Climate Explorer:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

    Or, if you’re one of the persons who doesn’t like to investgate data, you can read three posts I’ve written on that dataset. I believe there are links to other posts within them. Start here:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
    Then read this one on the North Atlantic:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
    And there’s this one on the North Pacific:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    Regards

  80. DR says:
    May 21, 2010 at 5:56 am

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/comment-from-josh-willis-on-the-upper-ocean-heat-content-data-posted-on-real-climate/

    Is Josh Willis mistaken when he infers XBT was still contaminating the ARGO data through 2004?
    The XBT data is separate from the Argo data – it does not “contaminate” it. There is a similar situation when stitching together the data from satellites that give temperature data for the troposphere, for instance – each satellite has slightly different instruments, orbits, calibration, and often trying to stitch the datasets together uncovers some subtle problem that wasn’t realized before. The multiple-satellite raw data used by Dr. Spencer at UAH, for instance, was incorrectly reduced for about 27 years (RSS found significant errors in 2005). Luckily, once a problem is uncovered, researchers can go back and redo the data processing correctly.

    Trying to combine the Argo data with the XBT data, similarly, uncovered some subtle problems with the XBT’s:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    How is it then any conclusion can be made that OHC has transcended (does heat rise?) to below 700m when the data used is riddled with so much uncertainty prior to 2004?
    Do you mean ‘descended’ ?
    As I said above, the first Argo floats were deployed in late 1999, and the Argo array did not reach its full planned coverage of at least 3000 floats until late 2006. Not all the floats are equal – about 66% dive to at least 1500 meters, and 46% to 2000 meters.
    Before 2004 the array was not fully deployed. And not all the floats give the full 2000m data.
    Ocean heat changes below 700m are directly measured, by about half of the Argo floats. Since there are 3255 floats as of 21-May-2010, that is more than half of the planned 3000 float array.
    The main point of the 2000m ocean heat content rising (2003-2009), while the 700m data shows a pause to warming or a slight cooling, is that vertical currents are significant in moving ocean heat – upwellings and downwellings.

    What we do know is this year OHC is going to drop significantly as evidenced by recent data from the equatorial upper 300m.
    No, I don’t know that.
    OHC is for the entire world’s oceans, down to 2000m. A transition from El Nino to La Nina in a single year is not guaranteed to cool the entire world’s oceans. What happens this year will be clear in 2011.

    Would should also take note from 2008 to 2009, global OHC dropped.
    No it didn’t.
    It is going to drop again in 2010.
    No it’s not.
    I’d still like to know if heat is accumulating below 700m, how is it going undetected.
    It is detected by half of the Argo floats. See above.

    R Gates and Anu, please explain this phenomenon as it appears to be counterintuitive.
    Ocean currents form closed loops in three dimensions – heated surface water downwells, heated deep water eventually upwells. To start the loop again.
    What happens when the cold water from the oceans depths starts the surface portion of its loop 0.1°C warmer than the last time this water was on the surface ? The SST has gone up.
    There are plenty of different loops, of different periods and locations. The topography of the vast oceans is complicated, and the oceans are on a spinning planet.

  81. Murray Carpenter says:
    May 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm …They speak of a “robust warming”, guess they will be “robustly fired” by the new government.☺

  82. Phil. says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Be careful not to get your knuckles rapped by the sun high priest Svalgaard for suggesting that minute and insignificant TSI changes can affect climate. Check the hymn sheet you are singing from.

    According to solarcycle24, solar flux is on a downer, sunspots flat out at zero, but planetary A index is showing a small rise (but it was much higher 3 weeks ago).

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

    Of course there will be a 2013 peak no-one argues with that, just its looking a very weak and sputtering rise.

    Its amusing that AGWers are looking to the sun for solace, when pre-2004 there was a universal chorus of AGW ridicule and abuse at any proponents of a role for the sun in climate.

  83. Gail Combs says:

    R.Gates is NOT 25% skeptical, even though (s)he says he is.

    Gail, I agree 100%. If R. Gates is 25% skeptical, I sure don’t want to meet a 0% skeptic.

  84. Roger Pielke is commenting on the Nature paper.
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
    He points out that 40 % of the OHCA for the 1993-2008 period was found from 2002-2003 where to many of us there appears to be a suspicious jump in OHC where the XBT data merges with the ARGO data.
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp
    Roger asks why Ocean Heat accumulation due to AGW should occur in such bursts. He also points to the lack of warming since 2004.

  85. “Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon. — R. Gates”

    Wow, I used to have a grudging respect for R. Gates, supercilious but at least civilized, but this is quite revealing. Anyone spouting ‘Gaia’ nonsense and such anti-human ‘culling’ language loses all credibility in my book to their claims of being some sort of ‘rational inquirer’.

    Gail, thanks for posting, that was a public service.

  86. Phil. says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:41 am
    O dear – what happened to the “increasingly active sun with its irradiance steadily increasing”?
    ______________________________________________________________________

    For what it’s worth Gates is right, based on the most recent TSI measurement the irradiance is steadily increasing and exceeds the 2007 value:

    _________________________________________________________________________

    The indicators are all heading back down again as the sun goes back into a funk Leif’s data

    F10.7 is not as high as in 1954 F10.7 at Minima 1954 and 2008

    Here is reconstructions of historic TSI for 1600 to 2000 Lean:2000, Wang: 2005, Leif: 2007

    The big question is if the sun is headed into a grand solar minimum.

  87. jeff brown says:
    May 21, 2010 at 6:43 am

    “What major rebound of Arctic ice are you talking about? I haven’t seen any evidence of a rebound. And Antarctic is still warming. Where are you getting your facts from?”

    Cryosphere Today is the source I have been looking at the longest. Here is the link:

    I believe this may be the most ‘pessimistic’ of the sites and have seen them make a ‘correction’ or two that seemed to increase the downward slope of the trend, but, none-the-less, I still look at cryosphere. Anyway, it is pretty obvious that 2007 was a record low year. Since then, the minimums each year have been significantly higher. The maximums each year have been steadily increasing and reached the 30 year ‘normal’ level this spring. That’s a rebound, no matter how you slice it. Will it continue? I believe it will, but that is irrelevant to my statement.

    As far the Antarctic, I am well aware that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed considerably and that some papers have used statistical methods that spread that highly localized warming to half the continent. I discount these studies. Other studies that aren’t entirely agenda driven, have indicated that about 95% of the continent has been either steady or cooling for the last 60 years. Certainly, the warming of the Arctic Peninsula can not be explained by AGW. It is an extremely local effect that is very likely the result of an ocean influence.

    In addition, Cryosphere Today clearly shows a gradually expanding ice cover at the bottom of the planet:

    A few more years of recovery at the North Pole and a continuation of the trend at the South Pole and we will likely be setting record high sea ice extent, approaching a tipping point where the Earth’s dramatically increasing albedo will topple us into the next ice age by 2100. (Okay…I made this last paragraph up. I don’t really believe that. I just wanted to try writing like a ‘warmest’ to see what it felt like. I think I need a shower!)

  88. Gail Combs said:

    “No I do not think our R Gates has a skeptical bone in his body.”

    __________

    Incorrect. I am only 75% convinced in the validity of the theory of AGW and therefore, 25% skeptical. Furthermore, I’ve stated many times on WUWT that the next few years a critical in deciding which way that percentage will be leaning, specifically if we do not see a new summer low in the Arctic sea ice extent (the September low going below the 2007 level) by 2015 and a we also see a recovery in sea ice volume in the Arctic, I’ll likely lower my level of conviction in AGW.

    A “true believer” or someone who is 100% convinced in their views will not lower their level of conviction regardless of the facts presented to them– as seems to be the case with the faithful true believers on both sides of this issue. I come to WUWT to learn about alternative viewpoints…weeding through all the political nonsense to get to the real science.

  89. Anu says:
    May 21, 2010 at 9:32 am

    “heated surface water downwells”

    No it doesn’t.

    Downwelling significant to THC only occurs at locations such as the Norwegian sea and one or two other locations such as the Southern Ocean south of Australia & New Zealand. You need near freezing temperatures and increased salinity from ice formation for significant downwelling of the type that drives THC.

    You cant push warm water down into cold, no matter how much political support you have. That is why ocean currents above and below the 3.5 degree isentrope are separate.

    Amusing how AGWers are all of a sudden fancying themselves as oceanographers and concocting this wild myth of warm water downwelling. Desperate stuff.

  90. Gail Combs,

    Thanks for the ‘heads-up’ on R. Gates. These are the kind of people who are driving the AGW crisis myth. (It is somewhat ironic that they portray themselves as ‘voiceless’ when all their wacky claims regularly appear on the front page and they have almost managed to financially hamstring the entire Western Hemisphere with carbon mitigation nonsense.) These are also the type of people that I want to talk to the most. Their arguments are so easily refuted, that the more we (respectively) engage them, the more everyone else can see that there is no AGW crisis.

  91. R. Gates responding to Gail Combs:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:28 am

    “Incorrect. I am only 75% convinced in the validity of the theory of AGW and therefore, 25% skeptical. Furthermore, I’ve stated many times on WUWT that the next few years a critical in deciding which way that percentage will be leaning, specifically if we do not see a new summer low in the Arctic sea ice extent (the September low going below the 2007 level) by 2015 and a we also see a recovery in sea ice volume in the Arctic, I’ll likely lower my level of conviction in AGW.”

    Fair enough. But why do you need to wait for the next few years when there are no observations in the last 2,000 years (or 2 million, or 2 billion) that support the theory, except perhaps for the last 20 or 30 years? And even then, the observed warming does not fit the pattern prescribed by the AGW Theory, despite 20 years and billions of dollars of research money spent on trying to find the AGW fingerprints. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to have so much faith in a theory that has so little success at explaining observations.

  92. “Trenberth’s missing heat went into hiding in the ocean, where it was subsequently presumed to be murdered.”

    No, but look. During a La Nina event the PWP thermocline descends to unusual depths to store all that hot water. Then a gravity wave in the thermocline sashays in from California and bumps La Nina’s bottom, spilling hot water all over the Pacific in an El Nino. So if Trenberth (or more likely Santer) wants to find all that heat, all he needs to do is go to the middle of the Pacific Warm Pool at the height of La Nina, drop a thermometer down to just above the thermocline, and write a paper for Science interpolating that temperature at that depth over the entire Pacific (with GISS’ help, naturally) — and voila! “We found the heat and … [wait for it…] it’s even worse than we thought!!!

  93. Jim Clarke says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:20 am
    jeff brown says:
    May 21, 2010 at 6:43 am

    “What major rebound of Arctic ice are you talking about? I haven’t seen any evidence of a rebound. And Antarctic is still warming. Where are you getting your facts from?”

    Cryosphere Today is the source I have been looking at the longest. I believe this may be the most ‘pessimistic’ of the sites and have seen them make a ‘correction’ or two that seemed to increase the downward slope of the trend, but, none-the-less, I still look at cryosphere. Anyway, it is pretty obvious that 2007 was a record low year.
    Yes.

    Since then, the minimums each year have been significantly higher.
    No, as shown here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

    The minima in 2007 and 2008 are a deadheat, 2009 shows an increase.

    The maximums each year have been steadily increasing and reached the 30 year ‘normal’ level this spring. That’s a rebound, no matter how you slice it.
    No the maximum in spring 2008 was the largest since 2003 but the maxima have decreased steadily since then. The 30 year ‘normal’ maximum is 14.136 Mm^2, this year it was 13.812 Mm^2. That’s not a rebound!

    Will it continue? I believe it will, but that is irrelevant to my statement.

    As far the Antarctic, I am well aware that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed considerably and that some papers have used statistical methods that spread that highly localized warming to half the continent. I discount these studies. Other studies that aren’t entirely agenda driven, have indicated that about 95% of the continent has been either steady or cooling for the last 60 years. Certainly, the warming of the Arctic Peninsula can not be explained by AGW. It is an extremely local effect that is very likely the result of an ocean influence.

    In addition, Cryosphere Today clearly shows a gradually expanding ice cover at the bottom of the planet:
    No real evidence of that in their data, looks like a small scale fluctuation around the 30yr mean, the current cycle looks just like 1994/5.

    A few more years of recovery at the North Pole and a continuation of the trend at the South Pole and we will likely be setting record high sea ice extent, approaching a tipping point where the Earth’s dramatically increasing albedo will topple us into the next ice age by 2100.

    Yet the global ice plot at that same site shows the latest maximum to be the record lowest in the 30yr span, and the latest minimum to be the 4th lowest.

  94. phlogiston says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Yes it does.
    I didn’t say it sinks in place – there are existing vertical currents, and they are heating up as the ocean surface absorbs the radiative imabalance, decade after decade.
    Look at the figures showing OHC down to 2 kilometers:
    http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf
    This heat doesn’t get there by diffusion – it’s the existing vertical ocean currents, heated up by a fraction of a ° C, which translates into massive amounts of heat.

    Downwelling significant to THC only occurs at locations such as…
    Yup, only at certain, existing vertical current locations. And these vertical currents are warming, as is the ocean.

    Amusing how GWMers are all of a sudden fancying themselves as scientists and concocting this wild myth of oceans not warming. Desperate stuff.

  95. “Yet the global ice plot at that same site shows the latest maximum to be the record lowest in the 30yr span, and the latest minimum to be the 4th lowest.”

    The “record” goes a lot farther back than 30 years. Warmth is better. Cold kills. And the climate is completely normal.

  96. Argo is supposed to provide a temporal three D map of heat in the ocean to 2000 meters. If there is significant downwelling it should map it. I have seen references to the absence of the postulated Atlantic conveyor belt. It seems there are many missing parts along with the heat. Has anybody provided a time varient display of the Argo data similiar to the TLT displays of the atmosphere fromm RSS?

  97. Anu:

    “Amusing how GWMers are all of a sudden fancying themselves as scientists and concocting this wild myth of oceans not warming. Desperate stuff.”

    Amuse yourself with this chart from today’s official ARGO site.

  98. R Gates, like Joel Shore, Brendan, Wren, and a few others, challenge us all here, without them we would all be singing from the same hymn sheet. I welcome their debate provided it remains courteous-which it invariably does-and it has the merit of diverting us to some sites that otherwise we would never see. I suspect that they all have as little effect on our beliefs though as we do on theirs, but it makes for stimulating debate. :)

    Tonyb

  99. For me the reason why I do not believe in AGW is really quite simple.I took it for granted it was true as MSM stated science has proven it. But as I began to pay closer attention it confused me why I would here one day that glaciers in the Himalayns would melt by 2035 then hear no it will be 2300 and the report wasnt from science but from enviromental activists through WWF.

    I decided to turn to the internet and just learn the facts for myself,not even knowing that it was co2 that was to blame for man made global warming. I quickly found out the only places I could get scientific facts to satisfy my thirst for understanding were sites that were deemed “unscientific” by groups that had no science, only alarmism unsupported by facts.

    Just the fact that the medieval warming period has been basically obilterated made me ask questions.The more I looked for answers the more disturbing it became for me. Why is it that the supposed denialists all have the same science and understanding that I now embrace and the warmist or alarmist sides are all over the map? One site says one thing, one site says another.

    I think the answer is easy. It is not difficult to have the science stay consistant as truth does not require making up stuff along the way,it just is therefore consistent. I could go on and on but just for a lark listen to the congressman on you tube who is in charge of the dep’t of global warming. His name is Edward J Markey (d) and he compares proving AGW to baseball players taking steroids. The only scientific fact he even utters is a ridiculous prediction of sea levels rising 6 feet. Not even the suspect IPCC supports that wild statement and yet this man holds a chair of this importance? Truly scary, just my opinion.

  100. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Anu:

    “Amusing how GWMers are all of a sudden fancying themselves as scientists and concocting this wild myth of oceans not warming. Desperate stuff.”

    Amuse yourself with this chart from today’s official ARGO site.
    ——————-

    Smokey, what are you trying to say with the link to an SST El-Nino temperature anomaly map? El Ninos come and go and affect the SSTs. I don’t see how that is relevant to Anu’s discussion.

  101. tonyb,

    There is one crucial difference: those skeptical of the CAGW conjecture are not trying to get their hands into the pockets of everyone like the climate alarmists are.

  102. Smokey

    Very true, but fortunately our pet climate alarmists on this blog can not rifle through our pockets over the internet (yet)

    tonyb

  103. Jim Clarke says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:52 am
    Fair enough. But why do you need to wait for the next few years when there are no observations in the last 2,000 years (or 2 million, or 2 billion) that support the theory, except perhaps for the last 20 or 30 years? And even then, the observed warming does not fit the pattern prescribed by the AGW Theory, despite 20 years and billions of dollars of research money spent on trying to find the AGW fingerprints. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to have so much faith in a theory that has so little success at explaining observations.
    ————————–
    Jim, can you please explain how the last 20-30 years of Arctic changes does not support AGW Theory? I think the Arctic explains it quite well. For many years before you started seeing record ice losses in the Arctic the models had predicted it would decline. Same with melting in Greenland, melting of other Arctic glaciers, tree-line moving further north, amplified autumn temperatures, permafrost thawing, etc. etc. These were predicted long before they were observed in reality. The thing with the Arctic is that if it was just one variable responding, say air temperature and nothing else, then you could make a case that AGW theory isn’t working. But the model-predicted changes are happening in ALL the climate state variables in the Arctic. And you don’t get those changes in the climate models if you run them with pre-industrial concentrations of GHGs. You can download climate model output and look for yourself at the differences in variables such as sea ice extent between model runs with and without the observed record of GHGs not included (and this is the observed record, not some future estimation of GHG levels). Basically the ice stays mostly the same (ignoring some natural up and down climate fluctuations). You only get the steep decline of sea ice in the models when you include the observed GHG record.
    So then the question becomes, why is this so? Did the climate modelers tune the models so that when they put in the observed GHG record so that they would match up with the observed record of sea ice decline? Perhaps, but then you would think the model wouldn’t do a good job predicting other observed changes. I’m not a modeler so I don’t know all the tunings done to the models, and I don’t fully know all of the Earth’s variables the models have been able to accurately predict and which ones they haven’t. Perhaps someone on here is a climate model expert and can comment.

  104. Jim Clarke says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Jim, the Cryosphere today does not show the Arctic ice rebounding and I don’t think you have read the Antarctic warming studies and the factors responsible for those warming trends or you wouldn’t say that Antarctica hasn’t shown signs of warming. Remember, satellite data does cover the Antarctic ice sheet so surface temperature can be measured over the entire ice sheet (from 1981 onwards from AVHRR and there are also earlier sensors from TIROS).

    I think it’s important to be clear also about the different sea ice trends between both hemispheres. In the Arctic you have statistically significant negative trends in all months and all regions. Only the Bering Sea in winter has shown some recent positive trends, but of course this still melts out every summer. In Antarctica you have negative sea ice trends in the Bellinghausen/Admundsen Sea that are statistically significant and you have statistically significant increasing trends in Ross Sea sea ice, both in winter. Really only the winter trends matter in Antarctica since it’s mostly a seasonal ice cover anyway and there is large interannual summer variability. The factors contributing to the negative trends near the Peninsula and the positive trends in the Ross Sea have both been explained by ozone losses and warming. The depletion of ozone maintains the cooling within the polar vortex, which increases the winds around the polar vortex (and this propagates downwards, strengthening surface winds). This in turn pushes the ice away from the coasts in the Ross Sea, increasing the sea ice extent. The Antarctic Peninsula adjacent to the Bellingshausen/Amundsen seas is an area of marked warming and the sea ice appears to be responding to that.

  105. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    tonyb,

    There is one crucial difference: those skeptical of the CAGW conjecture are not trying to get their hands into the pockets of everyone like the climate alarmists are.

    —————

    Wow, Smokey what an accusation. I didn’t realize that I’m only after your money. I thought I did the work I do because I love this planet. I sure wish I knew how it could make me rich too. Doing something you love and making money doing it would be a wonderful thing.

  106. Anu says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “…..Amusing how GWMers are all of a sudden fancying themselves as scientists and concocting this wild myth of oceans not warming. Desperate stuff.”
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Seems like it depends on where you look.

    “Loehle, Craig. 2009. Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20(1&2): 99-102.

    ABSTRACT:
    Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.”
    National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

    Here is one graph of Argo temperature data All data since 2002

    This is The Ocean Heat Content graphed from Argo data by Friends of Science

    Here is another graph of the ocean temp: ARGO SST anomaly

    Even this graph from the CAGW Journal Nature, shows a plateau in ocean warming since 2004 which is consistent with what was said above and what Dr. Spencer is saying: Robust Warming of the Global Upper Ocean

    And here is Bob Tisdale’s article on “El Nino” causing step changes in ocean temperatures: Flashback – Bob Tisdale’s November prediction on GISS exploiting the “warmest decade on record”

    What I am seeing is a sixty year oscillation and we are now at the top plateau about to head back down to cooler temperatures, where La Nina will dominate.

  107. jeff brown,

    Sorry, clicked on the wrong one. Here’s SST and heat content.

    skye,

    You’re looking at it wrong. The Arctic, like everywhere else, always changes. If you can convince yourself to look at the issue like Dr Spencer does, you will begin at the null hypothesis: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    Natural climate variability is the starting point. The problem is that alarmists start with the notion that CO2 is the null hypothesis. It isn’t. That is a red herring. The fixation on the belief that CO2 drives the climate results in wrong conclusions. How could it not?

    And AGW is a hypothesis; CAGW is a conjecture. To accurately discuss the issues requires using the correct terms. For example, a theory provides a means to make accurate predictions; a conjecture, being simply someone’s opinion, does not.

  108. Jim, can you please explain how the last 20-30 years of Arctic changes does not support AGW Theory? I think the Arctic explains it quite well. For many years before you started seeing record ice losses in the Arctic the models had predicted it would decline. Same with melting in Greenland, melting of other Arctic glaciers, tree-line moving further north, amplified autumn temperatures, permafrost thawing, etc. etc. These were predicted long before they were observed in reality. The thing with the Arctic is that if it was just one variable responding, say air temperature and nothing else, then you could make a case that AGW theory isn’t working. But the model-predicted changes are happening in ALL the climate state variables in the Arctic. And you don’t get those changes in the climate models if you run them with pre-industrial concentrations of GHGs. You can download climate model output and look for yourself at the differences in variables such as sea ice extent between model runs with and without the observed record of GHGs not included (and this is the observed record, not some future estimation of GHG levels). Basically the ice stays mostly the same (ignoring some natural up and down climate fluctuations). You only get the steep decline of sea ice in the models when you include the observed GHG record.
    So then the question becomes, why is this so? Did the climate modelers tune the models so that when they put in the observed GHG record so that they would match up with the observed record of sea ice decline? Perhaps, but then you would think the model wouldn’t do a good job predicting other observed changes. I’m not a modeler so I don’t know all the tunings done to the models, and I don’t fully know all of the Earth’s variables the models have been able to accurately predict and which ones they haven’t. Perhaps someone on here is a climate model expert and can comment.

    __________

    You AGWers will never give up. We could be in the middle of another “Little Ice Age,” and you’d still be trotting out your manipulated GIGO models and claiming mankind is on the brink of a CO2-induced climate meltdown.

    Here’s some news for you. The arctic was warm in the past, long before there were any evil human fossil-fuel emissions to blame. For example:

    “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post.

    Writes the Post: “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

    More evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly.

    The above report of runaway Arctic warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922 and bears an uncanny resemblance to the tales of global warming splattered across the front pages of today’s newspapers. It is one of many historical accounts published during the past 140 years describing climate changes and often predicting catastrophic cooling or warming.

    Here is the full story about past climate alarmism:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post

  109. wildred May 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm,

    Who pays the piper calls the tune. Sorry it’s so hot in that kitchen, and you may sincerely be doing good work at whatever you do. But the government is joined hip and thigh with those intent on passing Cap & Trade, with very flimsy science supporting any of it.

    But you’ve got yours, right? So you’re OK. The problem is, organizations like GISS and a lot of others want mine, too. Every time they make another scary announcement, I can feel their hands in my pockets.

  110. wildred says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Smokey says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    tonyb,

    There is one crucial difference: those skeptical of the CAGW conjecture are not trying to get their hands into the pockets of everyone like the climate alarmists are.

    —————

    Wow, Smokey what an accusation. I didn’t realize that I’m only after your money. I thought I did the work I do because I love this planet. I sure wish I knew how it could make me rich too. Doing something you love and making money doing it would be a wonderful thing.
    ____________
    Wildred, That one does not fly, especially after we find out the BBC has all their pension funds tied up in Carbon Trading, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Old Patchy and Soros are all set to make a very big profit. The World Bank is set to be the gate keeper reeling in big bucks in fees and the wall street traders are salivating at the chance to get in on the next “bubble”

    The fact carbon trading is going to bankrupt countries and leave millions unemployed means nothing to the greedy who are behind this fraud. Check out Maurice Strong before you join the rest of Strong’s “useful idiots” under the bus five years from now.

    Once the US Cap and trade bill is passed and the other WESTERN countries sign on, “capital” will head to China and India in a flash to take advantage of loose environmental laws. This means all the western climate scientists will now longer be needed and will find themselves without a job.

    The really sad part is the environment will suffer dreadfully from unregulated pollution abroad and there will be no real reduction in CO2.

  111. Gail Combs says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    This cold that is setting up will be lasting much longer and be more intense.
    So far no one has mentioned anything of the salinity changes as well.

  112. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Smokey, ok now it’s time to tell me what natural variability is contributing to the declining Arctic ice cover observed these last 30 years. There has been no link to natural atmospheric circulation, or oceanic circulation, or sun activity, or volcanic
    activity, or the Earth’s position relative to the sun, or what? So please, show me the
    evidence that it is natural variability. Climate modelers have shown with their models
    that GHGs are contributing. Satellite and in situ observations show storage of heat
    in the atmosphere and the oceans and less outgoing LW emitted back to space
    consistent with rises in GHGs.

    There have been moments of natural variability, such as the extremely positive AO of the late 1980s/early 1990s that contributed to a reduction of old ice in the Arctic Basin, but that stopped and the ice is still declining. There have been pulses of warm water seen entering the Arctic, but it’s episodic and the ice is still declining. It seems that no matter what the weather patterns are doing, the ice is still declining. So why is that? What is acting on the system to cause this decline? It seems you constantly say “it’s natural variability” but you don’t seem to know what that means. We get why we have glacial and interglacial periods that gave rise to past extreme temperature and ice fluctuations, that’s not what is pushing on the system today. So please…point to the natural variability that is causing it.

  113. Smokey, scientists have been looking for a natural variability signal for years in trying to explain things like the decline in the Arctic sea ice cover. How much better would it be for everyone if it is natural variability. Then we can hope that it will recover and the Earth won’t experience a dramatic shift in its climate like it would if the Arctic Ocean were to become open water (remember atmospheric and oceanic circulation is driven by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles).

    There are many papers with links to natural variability, and I see in these papers that scientists are constantly struggling to find links to circulation patterns to explain the ice loss every year. But it doesn’t seem to be working. Weather patterns that scientists once believed would result in ice gain now also lead to ice loss (the negative AO this winter is a perfect example of this). Cyclonic or anticyclonic flow in the Arctic Basin seem to both give low summer ice conditions where before Cyclonic usually meant more ice. So ok if it’s the oceans causing the rapid melt, then why is the Arctic Ocean warming up so much? Is this the missing heat? And if so, isn’t that a bad thing since it would also lead to no summer sea ice which again is a big climate shift.

    Honestly, I do believe the Arctic sea ice is on a trajectory towards ice free summers. And whenever the last time that happened was, there certainly were not 7 billion people on the planet depending on so much of the Earth’s resources to survive back then. The reason to care (and CO2 cap and trade is something I’m completely against btw), is that billions of lives will be affected by a shift in the Earth’s hydrological cycle, which for sure will occur if the Arctic Ocean is ice free in summer. And if it’s a natural cycle that makes this happen, well then it is still happening and we still need to deal with it. So spending so much time talking about what is causing it seems futile to me. What seems important is to understand the implications of such a big change in our climate system. And yeah..its probably still good to try to get a better handle as to what’s causing the current decline…

    Honestly I hope I’m completely wrong and the ice rebounds in the next few years. That would be great for us all.

  114. Kirk Myers says:
    May 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Kirk, you get that icebergs come from land and not the ocean right? And moraines and earth and stone are on land and not the ocean. BTW..your link didn’t work.

  115. skye says:
    May 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Skye, I can recommend Spencer’s latest book. I have worked with computers, modelling and control loops for many years.

    Spencer is onto something when he describes how he believes climate scientists mis-interpreted the feedback-loop, and how they consequently modelled the climate wrong. He also has a very plausible theory on why. He has a peer reviewed paper on it, but it was total silence from the media.

    Again, it’s highly recommended. You will enjoy reading it.

  116. In terms of the sea ice area, we should be using the Global Sea Ice Area which shows a consistent downward trend of about 0.16% per year.

    There is no rationale for CO2 to be causing an increase in the Antarctic sea ice area – maybe ozone depletion but that would take us to a completely different explanation for the climate and the slight warming of the planet.

  117. phlogiston says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Thanks, I hadn’t seen that thread before.

    The data in that paper is interesting (the area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006), but that’s not quite the same as how many joules pass into the Arctic through a vertical wall in the sea between Greenland and Norway:

    No doubt there were existing ocean currents and multi-decadal oscillations, but I was wondering if the heat was increasing, especially since 2000, when the Arctic summer sea ice had much faster summer melts.

    I suppose a 60 year oscillation would have shown the same increased heat flow through such a vertical wall since the late 1970’s, if the Barents data can be extrapolated to the entire Arctic:

    The warm 1940’s would also match with the time of the St. Roch making it’s Northwest passage in a single season:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch_(ship)
    It wouldn’t explain the rising global surface temps, or the world ocean’s heating, but it could be a significant warming signal superimposed on an underlying warming trend. Time will tell – the next 10 years, say. If the Arctic ice truly does recover (summer minimum extent, total volume) in the next decade, I will give a lot more attention to the AO/PDO/NAO arguments.

    Since the late 1970s sea ice extent has decreased substantially [Comiso et al., 2008], whereas, simultaneously, AW [Atlantic Water] has become warmer and perhaps more abundant in the BS [Barents Sea].

    The question is, will this warm water flowing into the Arctic from the Atlantic continue to become warmer, will it go back to “normal” because of a 60 year cyclical AO, or is there a sine wave signal (AO) superimposed on a global warming signal (exponential incline) ? I think data from the next decade will be much more persuasive to most people than all the arguments bounced around here.

  118. If one is tying the Arctic sea ice extent to the AMO (and there is a pretty good match – inversed of course), then one should be looking at what the AMO is doing right now.

    And that is spiking higher – the AMO index was 0.478 last month which is nearing the highest levels the AMO gets to. The AMO sometimes spikes in response to large El Ninos (4 to 6 months after the El Nino peaks) and it appears to be doing so this time.

    The weekly SST updates show it is declining slightly now but if there is a link between the AMO and Arctic sea ice, the ice should have been declining over the past two months, which is exactly what it is doing.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

  119. sea level rise is a proxy for global warming although it needs to be divided into steric and mass components. The bottom line is the long term since the beginning of the Holocene is the same as it is today.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
    Therefore any radiative forcing due to global warming must be manifested in a sea level rise above what has been happening for ten thousand years. An increase in the rate of sea level rise is not happening.

  120. Hiye skye,

    Finding a natural variability signal would be nice [there must be dozens, if not hundreds that all interact]. But it is not necessary; the Higgs boson hasn’t been found, but no one doubts gravity.

    And it does not matter to the discussion if, as you say, billions of people will be affected by change. If you’re inclined to make that argument, then consider the confiscation of wealth through Cap & Trade, and the diversion of food into ethanol, with its concomitant increase in food costs, and the allocation of resources by government bureaucrats rather than by the infinitely more efficient free market mechanism, and consider the billion-plus people who now live on one dollar a day or less, who will suffer immensely as a direct result of C&T, with millions starving. Literally.

    So let’s not go there.

    I know it’s difficult, but you must at least try to wrap your head around the idea that everything observed is well within the parameters of past climate variability. Everything. The assumption that a minor trace gas is running the climate is based on no measurable evidence. So why try to construct a hypothesis around it?

    Instead, heed Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
    ~William of Ockham [1285-1349]

    Adding an extraneous entity like CO2 to explain what is fully explained by natural variability is, frankly, nuts. Water vapor, oxygen and ozone would make much better candidates, if you needed any. But even the typical man in the street would laugh off “oxygen credits,” or worry about his “water vapor footprint.” [Then again… maybe not.]

    I am not saying that CO2 has no effect. Radiative physics shows that it does. The question is: how much. And the answer is: not much at all. In fact, the effect of atmospheric CO2 is too small to empirically measure. That’s why it is only modeled.

    And even though atmospheric CO2 has very little effect on temperature, probably because other planetary feedbacks naturally counteract it, it must be kept in mind that human produced CO2 amounts to only one molecule of every 34 emitted in total.

    Disrupting civilization based on the CO2=CAGW conjecture only makes sense to those who will benefit, and that leaves most of us out. Anyone with common sense can see that C&T is simply a tax by another name. Those carbon credits that industry must purchase in order to be allowed to emit CO2 will be paid for by you and me, in the form of higher prices. Do you think you will get a pay raise to keep up?

    And if anyone believes the government will forego the added revenue in order to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted is simply dreaming. This Administration and Congress consistently lies to Americans. They have zero intention of actually reducing CO2 to 1990 levels, or reducing it at all. They’re saying anything, then doing what they’re going to do — which is to allow all the CO2 to be emitted that industry wants, in return for the dollars per ton that Cap & Trade generates.

    It’s all about the money. If they really believed in CO2=CAGW, they would be setting an example for us.

  121. kwik says:
    May 21, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Please point me to the peer-reviewed journal article, I would like to read it. I don’t however want to buy the book at this time.

    And Smokey I’m not for cap and trade, it makes absolutely no sense at all if we actually want to reduce global CO2 emissions. I am for alternative energy though…for many, many reasons besides CO2

  122. tonyb says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    R Gates, like Joel Shore, Brendan, Wren, and a few others, challenge us all here…

    =================================

    I wouldn’t put Joel Shore in the same sentence or classification as Gates and Wren.

    The former is a real and legit scientist/physicist. The latter are not.

    It is one thing to hear a legitimate, informed argument from the “other side.”
    It is quite another to have to listen to people spout erroneous information continuously and worst, confidently. Said it before and will say it again: they should listen more and talk less and let the REAL experts speak [of which I readily admit, am not of them]. :-)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  123. Stephen Wilde, as I said before, I hope you keep track of your entries here and produce a book someday. You have an interesting logical flow to your sentences that make it easy and rather magnetic to the reader, to want to follow along.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  124. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    tonyb,

    There is one crucial difference: those skeptical of the CAGW conjecture are not trying to get their hands into the pockets of everyone like the climate alarmists are.

    _______________

    Uh, I don’t think the Heartland Institute was offering up their little revival meeting this past week for free. Money is flowing on both sides of this issue…and billions of dollars are at stake on both sides of the issue.

  125. R. Gates,

    Please cite the “billions of dollars” at stake for skeptics who refute CAGW. Contrast that with what the alarmist contingent is trying to get at… in which case it is $trillions.

    So, whose $billions are skeptics trying to get?

    Specifics, please.

  126. “savethesharks :
    May 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Stephen Wilde, as I said before, I hope you keep track of your entries here and produce a book someday. You have an interesting logical flow to your sentences that make it easy and rather magnetic to the reader, to want to follow along.”

    Thanks Chris. All I really need is for the climate to follow along and so far it is doing so very nicely :)

    Anthony:
    Is it possible to convert the threads that I have contributed to into a format that can be emailed to me ?

    REPLY: Sure, but it will have to wait until my next lifetime, since I have no time left in this one. -A

  127. The Sun is fixing to take off and we’ll be looking at a solar cycle that resembles an elongated solar cycle 21. To prove Hathaway and Svalgaard wrong.

    Odd cycles are the ones that produce the warmth, not the even ones, but a decent cycle may prevent drastic global cooling.

    Eddie Mertin
    The Sun Man
    Sunman, Indiana

  128. “Oceans Warmer and Smaller in New Studies”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/climate-change-oceans-smaller-warmer-scientists-thought/story?id=10713517&page=2

    …A climatologist at NASA who was not involved in the research said this week that the long-term trends in ocean warming presented in the new study have confirmed other results in the field.

    “That’s what the climate models were predicting would be happening,” said Gavin Schmidt, the NASA climatologist. “It’s a great paper.”…

  129. Tom P says:

    I’m willing to bet that 2010 is likely to be one of the warmest years recorded, if not the warmest.

    Phlogiston says:

    I think Tom would be better advised to take his chances on the stock exchange than putting any actual money behind warming predictions just now.

    At present the bettors on https://www.intrade.com are collectively estimating that there’s an 80% chance 2010 will be the warmest year on the GISS record. If they’re wrong (and I hold onto all my bets), I’ll take some $700 out of their hide. However, my cool-side bet isn’t based so much on thinking that they’re wrong, just that they’re over-confident. I think the likelihood is about 60%. If the next months’ measurements turn cooler and the odds fall to, say, 60%, I’ll sell my bets and exit with a 100% gain. (Most likely I’ll sell some bets and hold onto others.) The warmists can win too, if they stay the course. It’s a win/win situation. All aboard!

    REPLY: Given what I’ve seen of USHCN2 and GHCN3, such pronouncements of “warmest x on record” are almost a certainty given the way they are adjusted. – Anthony

  130. PS: Intrade’s bettors estimate the chance of 2010’s minimum arctic ice extent’s exceeding 2009’s at 43%. That’s another offer I think is a bargain (and have wagered on).

  131. Ed Murphy says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:22 am
    The Sun is fixing to take off and we’ll be looking at a solar cycle that resembles an elongated solar cycle 21. To prove Hathaway and Svalgaard wrong.

    Odd cycles are the ones that produce the warmth, not the even ones, but a decent cycle may prevent drastic global cooling.

    ________________

    The solar cycle is only superimposed on the longer term effects of GHG forcings. This is easily seen in graphs such as can be found here:

    http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global temperature and sunspot number

    The ENSO, PDO, AMO, and the rest are ocen cycles also superimposed on the GH warming as can be found and seen on the same graph, but of course on other postings here on WUWT, the HadCrut3 temps are being praised for their accuracy, but when they show the warmth, especially when the natural cycles can be clearly seen on top of that warmth, we’ll need to find something wrong with the HadCrut3 data…

  132. R. Gates says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Uh, I don’t think the Heartland Institute was offering up their little revival meeting this past week for free.

    Attendees get their expenses paid and probably a speaker’s fee, but that’s only a once-a-year event. Maybe some of the free market think tanks have occasional dinners where speaker’s fees are also paid, or they pay reprint fees for articles in their journals. But that’s very thin gruel to try to make a living on.

  133. REPLY: Given what I’ve seen of USHCN2 and GHCN3, such pronouncements of “warmest x on record” are almost a certainty given the way they are adjusted. – Anthony

    But surely they couldn’t put their thumb on the scale by more than 2% or so without getting caught, could they? Further, if the 2nd half of the year is anomalously cool and the goalies on the Team make such a visible “stick save,” it would be worth my money to see that happen. (YMMV)

  134. Anthony said:

    “Given what I’ve seen of USHCN2 and GHCN3, such pronouncements of “warmest x on record” are almost a certainty given the way they are adjusted. – Anthony

    ___________

    Anthony, do you mean to imply that you would doubt the credibility of the data if multiple sources end of verifying 2010 as the warmest year on instrument record? This would imply a conspiracy on such a grand scale so as to be truly un-believable…

    REPLY: Mr. Gates, first, I don’t like you putting words in my mouth.

    I haven’t said “conspiracy”, but YOU DID. I expect an apology if you want to continue to post here. I take this issue seriously, and you can either apologize for connecting me to those words, or you’ll never post here again.

    I said nothing about a “conspiracy” in the data, only about the way the post measurement adjustments tend to add a positive bias. NOAA confirms this by their own graph for example showing cumulative adjustments on USHCN1.

    Look at individual adjustment biases here:

    and the cumulative bias here

    USHCN2 and GHCN3 have increased even over those numbers. It speaks to a flawed method, confirmation bias, and sloppiness in the data processing. It says nothing about conspiracy. When the adjustments add warmth, making press releases about “warmest on record” becomes more likely.

    Secondly, if you understood in the slightest what you are talking about, you’d know that both HADCRUT and GISS derive a significant portion of their global data from USHCN and GHCN, which ties them to the same data adjustment problems. NOAA makes a processing change, they necessarily follow. It points to the problem of one group’s methodology (NCDC) having influence by the fact that it is the single source for the majority of worldwide surface data. This is why when countries like Russia do their own data examinations of their own country station data, they see differences.

    I have now access to the same surface station data outside the NOAA adjustment process, done in parallel but with a process that cleans the data using a different set of processes that were developed for business forecasts where failure means loss of revenue. It was developed because business interests stopped trusting the NOAA/NCDC data when they had to bet millions of dollars on the outcome.

    When that work from that data is published, perhaps even you might see the adjustment problem with NCDC’s methods.

    You have one chance to apologize for connecting my statement about adjustments to “conspiracy”. I’m not going to get into an argument, as you’ve proven it here to be a waste of time. Choose now. Two words will suffice. – Anthony Watts

  135. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that there two separate indicies for PDO. One is by NCDC and the other by JIASO. They seem to be different . From 1999 foreward, the NCDC is 20% positve and 80 % negative during the 136 months . JIASO is 46% positive and 54 % negative . Significant difference. During 2010 NCDC shows the index going negative while JIASO is going positive to the end of April. One gets a different impression to what is happening. One index seems to say that PDO has been mostly negative since 1999. The other says , it has been fluctuating and essentially went neagtive after only September 2007 . So it depends on whose PDO index one quotes ?

  136. rogerkni says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
    R. Gates says:
    May 21, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Uh, I don’t think the Heartland Institute was offering up their little revival meeting this past week for free.

    Attendees get their expenses paid and probably a speaker’s fee, but that’s only a once-a-year event. Maybe some of the free market think tanks have occasional dinners where speaker’s fees are also paid, or they pay reprint fees for articles in their journals. But that’s very thin gruel to try to make a living on.

    _______________

    You’re probably right on that, though they were charging a tidy fee for those who just wanted to attend. Regardless, I don’t see the conferences as being a big money maker for Heartland as overall that’s not the point of those particular conferences, and who knows, I may even get out to the next one myself. My more essential point is billions of dollars are riding on both sides of the issue, and with that much money at stake, sometimes the science gets lost. (okay, most of the time the science gets lost). In my own search for the truth of AGW science, the more someone on either side begins to take a political stance (which is at heart an economic one under our current system of government), the less I tend to listen to them.

  137. rogerkni

    May 22, 9:44 pm

    I’d be careful, if Intrade are that confident perhaps they have received some assurances from HADCR, GISS, UAH etc. Its not the reality that will count but the “official” record.

  138. R. Gates:

    I don’t see the conferences as being a big money maker for Heartland as overall that’s not the point of those particular conferences, and who knows, I may even get out to the next one myself.

    You can only attend 25% of the conference.☺

  139. Anu

    May 21, 5:37 pm

    Thanks for the informative response concerning AMO, Barents etc. The next 10 yrs will indeed give important answers. I have this hunch that the AMO involves oscillation in the strength of the north atlantic drift but this could be proved completely wrong by more ocean data from the N Atlantic.

  140. matt v. says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:58 am
    I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that there two separate indicies for PDO. One is by NCDC and the other by JIASO. They seem to be different .

    I always follow the JISAO one, it’s the original, the NCDC one was designed to match it.
    “The NCDC PDO index is based on NOAA’s extended reconstruction of SSTs (ERSST Version 3). It is constructed by regressing the ERSST anomalies against the Mantua PDO index for their overlap period, to compute a PDO regression map for the North Pacific ERSST anomalies. The ERSST anomalies are then projected onto that map to compute the NCDC index. The NCDC PDO index closely follows the Mantua PDO index.”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

    Surprising that they no longer match, especially given the sentence I’ve highlighted above.

  141. Anthony said:

    “You have one chance to apologize for connecting my statement about adjustments to “conspiracy”. I’m not going to get into an argument, as you’ve proven it here to be a waste of time. Choose now. Two words will suffice. – Anthony Watts

    _____________________

    I apologize.

    My post to you was truly a question, not in any manner as an accusation. I used the word “conpiracy” when I shouldn’t have, and your explanation based on my original question was given in an most thorough manner, and now I more fully understand that you are talking about processes of data gathering, not intent.

    REPLY: Thank you.

  142. Smokey says:
    May 22, 2010 at 5:38 am
    R. Gates,

    Please cite the “billions of dollars” at stake for skeptics who refute CAGW. Contrast that with what the alarmist contingent is trying to get at… in which case it is $trillions.

    So, whose $billions are skeptics trying to get?

    Specifics, please.

    _____________

    The billions of dollars come in the form of the policies and laws that made be put into place (or not) depending on where the political wind blows. Corporations who end up on one side of the issue or another will either make or lose money. The “public relations” efforts (we dare not call in propaganda do we?) is aimed squarely at changing public perceptions with the final aim of changing the perceptions of the policy makers who will or won’t enact and enforce environmental laws. From a politcial standpoint, this is where the rubber meets the road on the AGW issue. From a science standpint, that is, what is actually happening or not to the climate basedd on human activities, the politics are meaningless…

    REPLY: That’s not a citation, it’s an opinion. Cite facts, figures, budgets, etc. – Anthony

  143. phlogiston says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:26 am

    rogerkni

    May 22, 9:44 pm

    I’d be careful, if Intrade are that confident perhaps they have received some assurances from HADCR, GISS, UAH etc. Its not the reality that will count but the “official” record.

    The odds on Intrade are very good forecasters. For instance, they have been skeptical that any country would leave the euro this year — the odds only briefly got up to 24%. It now looks as though the euro block is going to make extraordinary efforts to avoid breaking up. But that wasn’t at all clear a month ago, when it looked like one or more departures was likely.

    However, the odds at Intrade aren’t set by the organization itself, which is a mere marketplace where individual bettors posts bids and offers (sell-short bids, in effect) on certain propositions, similar to bids and offers placed on the stock market. (I.e., the bettor specifies the price level and quantity of his bid/offer.) If a bid or offer is tempting enough to another bettor, he “covers” it, and the price at which he does so establishes the latest odds.

    For instance, on the Greater Arctic Ice This Sept.? proposition, I currently have a bid at 40% for five $10 “contracts.” (All contracts are for $10.) I had to post a margin of $20 (40% * 5 * $10 = 20). If someone wants to take my bet at those odds, he posts a “sell” order at 40 for 5 and posts margin of $30 (60% * 5 * $10 = 30). In October Intrade settles the bet one way or the other and places $50 in the winner’s account. That’s one nice thing about the site — the feeling that I’m punishing the other side (not a bookie).

    Another nice thing is that if you change your mind on a bet you can sell it (or try to) at a partial loss before it goes totally bad. For instance, I could place a sell offer on my position at 30 and lose only a quarter ($5) of my bet ($20). You don’t have to put up extra cash to hedge yourself by buying a bet on the other side, the way you have to with a bookie. (Of course, Intrade charges commissions, but they aren’t onerous.)

  144. R. Gates says:
    May 22, 2010 at 5:38 am

    “The billions of dollars come in the form of the policies and laws that made be put into place (or not) depending on where the political wind blows. Corporations who end up on one side of the issue or another will either make or lose money. The “public relations” efforts (we dare not call in propaganda do we?) is aimed squarely at changing public perceptions with the final aim of changing the perceptions of the policy makers who will or won’t enact and enforce environmental laws. From a politcial standpoint, this is where the rubber meets the road on the AGW issue. From a science standpint, that is, what is actually happening or not to the climate basedd on human activities, the politics are meaningless…”

    =================================

    A new record. The most asinine, meaningless, quote from him ever. Nothing is said, because all bases are covered (obliquely).

    Everything in the paragraph above is complete and utter nonsense. Moving on….

    Have said it once, twice, three times a lady: Listen more and speak less. Your posts have nothing substantive to offer and they are merely sophistry. Not good enough!

    I have mad respect for someone who has the cahones to say: “I don’t know.”

    But for someone who has an answer for everything, talking out of his arse with “doublespeak”, like the paragraph above, then I lose total respect.

    Hey R….go and read “1984.” If it convicts you, and you can man up, then “props” to ya.

    If it has no effect, then…well….so be it. Prove me wrong though. Will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  145. matt v. says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:58 am
    “I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that there two separate indicies for PDO. One is by NCDC and the other by JIASO. They seem to be different… So it depends on whose PDO index one quotes ?”

    =========================================

    Yup. The uncertainty reminds me of Tisdale’s posts on here about the PDO really being a statistical artifact of ENSO.

    The cycle is there…its just not as clear-defined as we’d like….no?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  146. I meant solar cycle 20, not 21…

    Can’t believe I did that, oh well I’ve been very busy lately and rush rush rush everything.

  147. kim says: May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
    ===============

    But Mike does ;-)

    Two presenters at the ICCC had the same dates. One worked from physics principles, the other did a FFT wavelet analysis and applied the cycles found. Both hit the same basic time periods:

    It cools to 2014, when we fall into the start of a Little Ice Age. This gets progressively worse until 2040 +/- 11 years (per Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory)

    http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

    So ‘mark your calendar’… we start getting warmer about 2050 and get back to ‘normal’ about 2100 … give or take a couple of decades…

  148. One year, or two or five, of lower sea temperatures does not have any bearing on the global warming hypothesis as a whole.

Comments are closed.