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.
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.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
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.
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:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circle.svg/1000px-Arctic_circle.svg.png
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:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/barents_sea_temp_with_amo.png
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.
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.
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
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.
A good synopsis on sea level rise.
http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/forum/topics/sea-level-rise-what-the-data
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Looks like a decent decline in temps on channel 4 and 5 in the last few days: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
“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
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
“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.”…
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
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=DCPLYN2RZYQMUCQCEAQSBHQ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1274468690079.xml#continue
Long story short: It hasn’t been the quick, easy planting season it looked like it would be a month ago. And, the progress that has been made has varied widely in the last few weeks.
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).
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…
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.
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)
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:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
and the cumulative bias here
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
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
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 ?
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.
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.