Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Continue their Plunge
By Dr. Roy Spencer
Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue their plunge as a predicted La Nina approaches. The following plot, updated through yesterday (June 17, 2010) shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific is well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST, something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event (click on it for the large, undistorted version):
The rate at which the Nino34 SSTs are falling is particularly striking, as seen in this plot of the SST change rate for that region:
To give some idea of what is causing the global-average SST to fall so rapidly, I came up with an estimate of the change in reflected sunlight (shortwave, or SW flux) using our AMSR-E total integrated cloud water amounts. This was done with a 7+ year comparison of those cloud water estimates to daily global-ocean SW anomalies computed from the CERES radiation budget instrument, also on Aqua:
What this shows is an unusually large increase in reflected sunlight over the last several months, probably due to an increase in low cloud cover.
At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.
Looks like Jow Bastardi was right. We are looking at a massive global cooling at the moment, even if there are a few warm spots near Greenland, which looks to me nothing more than a “hangover” from the El Nino. I reckon they’ll have disappeared by the Autumn, and then Joe is predicting significant ice growth after that.
It would seem to me that the cooler areas of ocean are below areas of less water vapour; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth
and warmer where there is more cloud cover.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Midwest Mark-
You might want to rething that Seattle move thing. Officially, we have NOT hit 75 once this year. The longest it has *ever* gone without hitting 75. So, the record books are waiting as to what will be entered for the latest date *ever*. We’ve set records for low-highs and consecutive days of rain (not always Seattle drizzle) this time of year. Our forecast for today and tomorrow is low 70’s. That’s warmer and drier than it’s been for a while.
kwik says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:10 am
That doesnt support cosmic rays support, does it? It does the opposite?
That is why cosmic ray supporters carefully avoid showing the full dataset…
Regardless of which cosmic ray graph, which recently shows a small dip, the levels are at historic highs. A climatologist would not be surprised by a lag time before clouds develop en masse. Cosmic rays are at unprecedented levels today using a 2-3- or more-year moving average. (We can use the “u” word too, not just the warm-earth cultists).
Wife and I went to Wallowa County (NE Oregon) over the weekend, Sunday was grim,it was coastal- winter Oregon coastal ugly. So far we have not had a decent summer type
day with and exception for a couple of days last week constant cold rain.
Finally the Sun is out…
Not holding my breath…
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:15 am
Correct: There are unprecedented high values at both stations at most frequencies.
Further corroborates the cloud cover-cooling-cosmic ray hypothesis.
Dr. Lurtz says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?
If lower Sun energy output, and higher reflectivity of the upper atmosphere are occurring, this would easily explain the “sudden” drop in ocean temperatures.
Of course the Sun is NOT variable star, “correct” ?!?! The TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) measurements do not appear to correctly measure TSO (Total Solar Output) that reaches the Earth’s surface.
___________________________________________________________________
It is more variable than the often quoted 0.1% change in TSI indicates. For one thing this
TSI Graph from NASA shows the TSI is lower than usual for this solar minimum and the minimum has gone on longer than usual. This means the total energy absorbed by the earth over a couple of years has decrease instead of decreasing for just a year or so. This is a decrease of “0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet”
“….At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet….
Finally – and of most immediate relevance for Earth–SDO will observe the sun at wavelengths where the sun is most variable, the extreme ultraviolet (EUV). EUV photons are high-energy cousins of regular UV rays that cause sunburns. Fortunately, our atmosphere blocks solar EUV; otherwise a day at the beach could be fatal. In space, solar EUV emission is easy to detect and arguably the most sensitive indicator of solar activity….” SDO: The Variable Sun Mission
For the last two years the sun has been very quiet.
“…But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up….” Deep Solar Minimum
The 6% change at extreme UV wavelengths is a change that effects the atmosphere especially ozone and oxygen. The interaction of oxygen with UV causes ozone formation.
● UVC (200–280 nm) is far more energetic and dangerous than UVB. UVC is sometimes
referred to as germicidal UV as it is deadly
to most forms of life, but luckily these
wavelengths are completely absorbed
in the Earth’s ozone layer. Light in this
range is useful for a number of scientific
measurements.
● VUV stands for vacuum ultraviolet and
spans from 200 down to 10 nm. These
wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen in the
Earth’s atmosphere so measurements of
VUV are usually made in vacuum conditions.
Source
So we are presently seeing a 6% decrease of these very energetic (and chemically reactive) wavelengths.
“The ozone found in our atmosphere is formed by an interaction between oxygen molecules (composed of two oxygen atoms) and ultraviolet light. When ultraviolet light hits these oxygen molecules, the reaction causes the molecules to break apart into single atoms of oxygen (UV light + O2 –> O + O). These single atoms of oxygen are very reactive, and a single atom combines with a molecule of oxygen to form ozone (O3), which is composed of three atoms of oxygen (2O + 2O2 –> 2O3). “ OZONE LAYER
Joe Lalonde says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:39 am
Dr. Spencer,
Still not looking into salinity changes?
Salt being a crystal HAS reflective abilities especially when they concentrate on the ocean surface.
________________________________________________________________________
Salt is VERY soluble in water and dissociates into Cl+ and Na- ions which have no reflectivity.
“Low salinities occur in polar seas where the salt water is diluted by melting ice and continued precipitation…
…The saltiest water (40 o/oo ) occurs in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, where rates of evaporation are very high. Of the major oceans, the North Atlantic is the saltiest; its salinity averages about 37.9 o/oo. Within the North Atlantic, the saltiest part is the Sargasso Sea, an area of about 2 million square miles, located about 2,000 miles west of the Canary Islands. The Sargasso Sea is set apart from the open ocean by floating brown seaweed “sargassum” from which the sea gets its name. The saltiness of this sea is due in part to the high water temperature (up to 83º F) causing a high rate of evaporation and in part to its remoteness from land; because it is so far from land, it receives no fresh-water inflow….” http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm
bubbagyro says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:48 am
Cosmic rays are at unprecedented levels today using a 2-3- or more-year moving average. (We can use the “u” word too, not just the warm-earth cultists).
bubbagyro says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:56 am
Correct: There are unprecedented high values at both stations at most frequencies.
Further corroborates the cloud cover-cooling-cosmic ray hypothesis.
‘Both’ stations?
The cosmic ray count at this minimum is not higher than at any other minimum [between odd and even cycle – that makes a well-understood difference] since measurements started in the 1950s. This station-chain from the equator [Tsumeb] over South Africa to Antarctica [Sanae] clearly shows this to be the case:
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
It is very difficult to maintain constant calibration over half a century. The group operating this chain has done an outstanding job [better than Oulu]. Most other stations also show no ‘unprecedented’ values, e.g. Kiel: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Kiel-1959-now.png
Dr. Lurtz says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
Notice that the Sun appears “bluer” through the Earth’s atmosphere. As per SpaceWeather.com, the increased “blue” tint is caused by increased ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. These “Noctilucent” clouds increase during a Sunspot minimum, due to cooling in the upper atmosphere.
We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?
Robert says:
Two days ago I was in my garden and noticed the same thing. There were no clouds in the sky and the sun gave no heat. This time off the year here in Barcelona that´s not normal. Also temperatures are a lot lower than normal. Nature is about 2 or 3 weeks behind schedule and there is no way my tomatoes get red
Lief,
Does the energy distribution of electromagnetic radiation from the sun (at ~ earth orbit) vary with the ~11 yr solar cycle? If so, do you think there is any significance to any distribution shifts with respect to earth’s energy receipt?
John
Gail Combs says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:08 am
It is more variable than the often quoted 0.1% change in TSI indicates. For one thing this TSI Graph from NASA shows the TSI is lower than usual for this solar minimum and the minimum has gone on longer than usual.
That graph is based of the PMOD-composite which is not calibrated correctly, see:
http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
Thanks, Gail.
From NASA, “A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming…”
The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming:
And this is because???
I love the way the warm-earth “scientists” use these throw-away phrases like they were tic-tac mints.
A 0.2% change in irradiance is nothing to shake a stick at, apart from the unknown (or unknowable) effects of decreased UV, radio waves, and other wavelength radiation. Without the sun we are close to absolute zero (notwithstanding fissile energy from radioactive elements in the crust), right? -273°C? Let’s say the present earth average temperature is 300°C higher than that, at 27°C, just for argument’s sake.
0.2% of 300° is 0.6°C just from the irradiance difference from high to low in the cycle.
Add in lower flare incidence, lower high and low wavelength UV effects, lack of the protective magnetosphere (only a negative influence?), and the 0.2% looks awful big to me.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:23 am
The Kiel graph can not be trusted. For one thing, the X-axis is in two year major increments, except at the outset, it jumps from 1958 to 1970! Gee, a 12 year duration of the maximum for 1958! That would be unprecedented.
That was enough for me to stop looking and discount the data.
Leif,
Sorry, got your name wrong in previous post. : (
I looked in my excuse file, and didn’t find one.
John
John Whitman says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:28 am
Does the energy distribution of electromagnetic radiation from the sun (at ~ earth orbit) vary with the ~11 yr solar cycle? If so, do you think there is any significance to any distribution shifts with respect to earth’s energy receipt?
Yes, and that is not appreciated [or even known – as people shut their eyes when put in front of inconvenient data].
Here is a modern view:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/working_groups/WACCM/Presentations/2010/fontenla.pdf
“Most of the visible varies opposite to TSI and UV and to infrared [see slide 10].”
Now, those variations are all very small [fractions of a Watt/m2].
Calahan et al. discuss the implications of the Solar Spectral Irradiance in some wavelength bands being out of phase with the solar cycle:
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/Cahalan_Wen_etal.pdf
Dr.Roy Spencer has been honoured in the Deniers´Black List at Nr.27. Congratulations!
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html
bubbagyro says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:40 am
it jumps from 1958 to 1970! Gee, a 12 year duration of the maximum for 1958! That would be unprecedented. That was enough for me to stop looking and discount the data.
Perhaps you should look again. The time marks read
1958, 1960, 1962, …, 1968, 1970, 1972, … etc. Nothing wrong with those.
you should should not discount data that I endorse 🙂
It does not matter if under cloudy or under cloudless skies, but that Kid (El Niño) died from neumonia.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:47 am
Yes, and that is not appreciated [or even known – as people shut their eyes when put in front of inconvenient data].
Here is a modern view:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/working_groups/WACCM/Presentations/2010/fontenla.pdf
“Most of the visible varies opposite to TSI and UV and to infrared [see slide 10].”
Now, those variations are all very small [fractions of a Watt/m2].
Calahan et al. discuss the implications of the Solar Spectral Irradiance in some wavelength bands being out of phase with the solar cycle:
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/Cahalan_Wen_etal.pdf
Leif,
This is the start of “Looking Beneath the Veil”!
Thanks. Great stuff. Those references will take me some time to wade through . . . . : ) It should be worth it.
John
You have to start worrying about Leif when he goes fishing for other data graphs…..Either one is wrong or the other one is please provide back up evidence
should says Leif’s “data” not him my blooper
@Amino Acids in Meteorites
‘I don’t see the same people commenting on this quick cooling who put up many comments on the warming of the first 1/4 of this year.’
Where did that warming really occur?
For some reason if there was any warming in the NH it apparently where not many a people live, and apparently not that many weather stations neither.
When talking about winter temps I once got the answer Australia, so being the very nice and humble person that I am, I happily pointed out that Australia is a very warm place in the summer indeed before I promptly LMAO. :p
Enneagram says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:51 am
Forget any preconceptions as no one of us were living during the previous “interesting times” epoch, so all this is not to be taken as usual phenomena. If we are or about witness a new Maunder like minimum, this SST deep dive could indicate that, so let’s see what happens.
BTW this will enrage those in the NON-deniers list.
____________________________________________________________________
Yes , and the change in circulation patterns that are moving warmer air and water to the poles is a great way for the earth to dump heat faster.
I wonder what the 6% decrease in solar EUV and the decrease in the height of the atmosphere reported by NASA is doing to the rate of heat transfer?
“…The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets, explains Stan Solomon, acting director of the High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.
“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then….” NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere.
Of course the usual CO2 – AGW blurb is included.
“The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.
While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide.”
The Upper atmosphere cools and warms in sync with the solar cycle, and more importantly the changes in the amount of solar energy, but the cooling is in response to increasing CO2 according to “a fundamental prediction of climate change theory”
The article says “the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002.” So what has the sun been doing? The second peak of cycle 23 was in 2002 and sunspots as well as TSI has decreased steadily since than until the beginning of this year. click Here is the most recent graph of total solar irradiance graph from SORCE
Ignore the evidence in front of your nose why don’t you. It just has to be a minuscule change in a minor component of the atmosphere that is responsible for the ten fold decrease in IR radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules. GRRrr