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.
R. Gates:
You can only attend 25% of the conference.☺
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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
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
I meant solar cycle 20, not 21…
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl20.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Can’t believe I did that, oh well I’ve been very busy lately and rush rush rush everything.
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…
One year, or two or five, of lower sea temperatures does not have any bearing on the global warming hypothesis as a whole.