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.
Leif Svalgaard,
Thanks for all your comments.
I understand that from earlier experiments that the few percent of modulation of cosmic rays may very much changes the propensity for clouds to form. i.e. It’s a high-gain amplifier. The CLOUD experiment at CERN should shed some more light on the issue; being of larger scale.
The other big variable in cosmic ray flux, other than the magnetic fields from Earth/Sun is the variable density of the particles in the galaxy. IIRC, Anthony had an article regarding that on this blog a little while ago.
Nigel Calder Updates described Why Star Positions Matter for Climate Physics.
GCR, in conjunction with solar activity and Earth’s magnetic fields are certainly not the only factor in determining climate, but they seem to be much more important than CO2.
peterhodges says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm
as far as the solar cycle length, my laymans assumption is that there is consensus on the historical record for the length solar cycles.
Not really.
because the correlation between sunspot length and temperature seems so simple and convincing
Except when you analyze the data correctly, there is no correlation.
Keith Minto says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm
My understanding of Svensmark’s theory has the Muon count (not the Neutron count) influencing low cloud cover, but that seems to be heading down,
The neutron count is just a measure of the Muon count. A cosmic ray proton creates Muons in the atmosphere. These Muons create Neutrons in the measuring device, and are just our measure of the Muons.
If you look at Sunspot activity since 1700 at http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global ,we are close to the 1914 level and not that far from the zero at 1810 and 1712.
so by that argument our climate now should be on par with the climate in 1914, 1810, and 1712. I believe most people would agree that it isn’t.
Bernd Felsche says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I understand that from earlier experiments that the few percent of modulation of cosmic rays may very much changes the propensity for clouds to form. i.e. It’s a high-gain amplifier.
But this is moot because the flux at every minimum [taking into account the odd-even and even-odd difference] has been the same since the 1950s. I think most people will agree that the climate hasn’t.
The other big variable in cosmic ray flux, other than the magnetic fields from Earth/Sun is the variable density of the particles in the galaxy. IIRC, Anthony had an article regarding that on this blog a little while ago.
the galaxy is so big that there is very little variation in the cosmic ray flux from it. I don’t think any variation has been detected in recent times.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Gary Gulrud: … I, like many others who blog here, don’t have the time to run through all comments on a thread, so I use the browser to search for my name. With that in mind, how would you expect me to find your nonsensical reply to me…
In the future, if you quote me, please include my name. Thanks.
Sorry Bob, my nonsense isn’t actually directed at or offered for the author of the quote. Your work was intended no disparagement whatever. I acknowledge your request and hope to do better.
Leif Svalgaard
I’m puzzled by that remark. Have you read Calder’s article?
So there are clear signs of temporal and spatial variability in cosmic ray flux.
Oulo shows roughly 5% variation recently. The significance of that variation is defined by the actual sensitivity of water vapour to having high-energy particles acting as catalysts for the formation of droplet nucleation sites. That is to be determined experimentally by the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Earlier link and preliminary reports.
Leif Svalgaard
A word-search through the PNAS climate denier black-list reveals – no Dr Svalgaard! 🙂
Thus your industrious efforts in constantly opposing the idea that any solar or cosmic ray parameter could affect climate in any way – have been successful, you are politically acceptable to the climate establishment. You may be, overall, wrong but this doesn’t matter very much, what is more important is – you are officially CORRECT.
There is however just one niggling question that arises inevitably from all your comments:
Does the sun in fact exist?
Some recent research has indicated that the appearance of a bright yellow object in the sky could be an illusory artifact of the fovea centralis or “yellow spot” in the retina or the human eye.
Modern research is revealing the possibility that the “sun” could also be an artifact of faulty instrumental measurements and incorrect analysis methods, combined with historic traditions associated with the sky visual artifact referred to above. Also, scientists hitherto claiming the sun’s existence probably received inadequate political vetting, by today’s standards.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:54 am
Thanks for these illuminating data on the OHC downward trends, I’ve copied and saved them to file. It is indeed regrettable that the science media is little better than the MSM in extraordinary selectiveness in what they protray concerning climate. The North Atlantic fall in 0-700m OHC is indeed striking, as is the media silence about it.
“Thanks for these illuminating data on the OHC downward trends”
Bob’s latest graphs reinforce(rightly or wrongly) my intuition of the SO as Gaia’s heat sink and NH as its radiator fins. The now departed Modoki was in no way evidence of ‘hotting up’-just the typical cyclic climatic behavior at solar minimum: La Nina regime punctuated by moderate El Ninos via circulatory rebound.
Last La Nina bequeathed 3 record evening lows on us, Brrrr.
Bernd Felsche says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:28 pm
“I don’t think any variation has been detected in recent times.”
So there are clear signs of temporal and spatial variability in cosmic ray flux.
Perhaps the word ‘recent’ should be seen in perspective. By recent I meant the past few centuries where we have reasonable measurements. Not millions of years [where we only have suppositions]
Oulo shows roughly 5% variation recently.
1. Oulu is discrepant compared to other monitors
2. The variation is solar cycle related. The original question was if there were observations of recent variations of the flux coming from the galaxy. There is only one that I’m aware of, and it is not confirmed [yet] by other data [so is still a puzzle]: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf and their suggestion is of a ‘decline’ not an increase.
phlogiston says:
June 24, 2010 at 1:21 am
Thus your industrious efforts in constantly opposing the idea that any solar or cosmic ray parameter could affect climate in any way
Not opposing, ‘challenging’ would be better. One does not ‘oppose’ anything in science, except that which is not science, e.g. the pseudo-science often spewed here.
Does the sun in fact exist?
There is some evidence that it does, but you may find this crowd more to your liking:
http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/The_Sun_Is_Cold_I.htm
http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/The_Sun_Is_Cold_II.htm