Still Cooling: Sea Surface Temperatures thru August 18, 2010
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago. The following plot, updated through yesterday (August 18, 2010) reveals the global average SSTs continue to cool, while the Nino34 region of the tropical east Pacific remains well below normal, consistent with La Nina conditions.
(click on it for the large, undistorted version; note the global SST values have been multiplied by 10)
Dr. Spencer points out that oceanic cloud cover seems to be peaking. See the rest here
evanmjones says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:53 pm
The Pacific looks well into La Nina phase, but not the RoW. The AMO seems pretty warm.
Yes, that was my first impression. And, the Indian Ocean as well. I think ENSO is a major factor in global temps, but not the only factor. Right now other oceans are emitting lot of heat. If that changes then those predicting a cold NH winter will likely be correct.
Amino Acids in Meteorites August 19, 2010 at 8:39 pm
If there were positive feedback in the planet’s climate, then the climate would have “maxed out” billions of years ago.
Wow, who’d have figured that the earth has time to cool down somewhat when dear old skunky sol is less active?
Ben says:
August 20, 2010 at 12:26 am
The plants & animals here are behaving in a manner which suggests an early fall/winter is in the cards (lower Pacific Northwest).
Some trees were 2 months late to bloom, sunflowers (usually a mainstay) failed or stunted, birds are gathering already for migration. Feels mostly like fall already.
Your forecast for the PN is in line with what’s going on at ground level. Not bad.
Solar performance thus far in cycle 24 is weaker than even that of SC13/14:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
The ratio of penumbraless spots (lacking contrast) to spots with umbra/penumbra contrast is beyond anything in the photoheliographic record:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin10.htm
It is not simply a matter of counting sunspots this time around.
The general quality of sunspots is seriously impacted.
The stratosphere warmed because of the ash aerosols from the 2008-2009 VEI-4’s.
rbateman says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:31 pm
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Even NOAA says you are mistaken:
What are the U.S. impacts of La Niña?
La Niña often features drier than normal conditions in the Southwest in late summer through the subsequent winter. Drier than normal conditions also typically occur in the Central Plains in the fall and in the Southeast in the winter. In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is more likely to be wetter than normal in the late fall and early winter with the presence of a well-established La Niña. Additionally, on average La Niña winters are warmer than normal in the Southeast and colder than normal in the Northwest.
—————-
The question for the Pacific Northwest is not where the warm water is during La Nina, it’s the path of the storms. We can be either polar cold & dry, or in snowfall city
______
I would like to point out, that last winter, when El Nino moisture was combining with cold air from the very negative AO index that forced cold air south and brought big snow and colder temps to the east coast, I stated at the time that it was exactly that, i..e. those two factors combining to bring snow to places like Florida. I caught no small measure of ridicule from many here on WUWT by stating that El Nino warmth could have something to do with the snow in Florida. Yet, NOAA confirmed (six months after the fact) exactly what I was saying at the time.
There is a big mass of warm water in the N.E. Pacific right now and it is trending to expand to the east and south, and unless that mass suddenly just disappears, it will make for a warmer fall and winter on the west coast, La Nina or not.
Bob Tisdale:
I think you will find that the wind speed and direction changes that you document so well are linked to the latitudinal shifting of the air circulation systems.
There is a typo in my post. I should have referred to quiet sun and equatorward jets.
My comments are not repetition of a simple mantra. I actually point out how ongoing real world observations do actually fit my proposed model.
Specific numbers and quantities are not required, merely a general tendency for events to follow my general expectations.
There are lots of ways that I can be proved wrong as I have told you before. When that happens I will not ignore it but I do reserve the right to amend my hypothesis if the contrary events are not wholly fatal.
If we get the jets moving significantly poleward whilst the sun stays inactive and without a powerful El Nino pushing them poleward then that will present me with a difficulty but don’t hold your breath.
grienpies says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:32 am
Can someone explain the red colour in the Arctic ocean? According to DMi the recent water temperature is 0 to 2°C. How can it be that the SST anomaly is +5°C there? Meaning the normal Arctic ocean temperature is -5 to -3° C?
thanks
_____
DMI measures air temps, not SST’s. The water in the Arctic region has been anomalously warm for most of the year, and currently is the #1 factor melting the sea ice this time of year. This is the best chart to see the current warmth:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
And here’s a good chart to see the longer term trend:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/arctic-ocean-surface-temperatures
The upward trend in warmth of the Arctic waters, and the the greater amount of open water that we’ve seen the past few years are directly related of course, and have huge implications for the future of the Arctic Sea ice. AGW skeptics would have you believe it is “all the wind” or compaction, or whatever, but of course, the permafrost is melting too, and the last I checked, the wind didn’t blow underground. It is the poloar amplification of AGW, exactly as predicted by GCM’s.
Bob Tisdale asked:
“During an El Nino, there are changes in Walker and Hadley Circulation that cause reductions in wind speed over the tropical Atlantic. With the slower winds, there is less evaporation and less upwelling of cooler subsurface waters (and less entrainment of these waters from below the mixed layer). This is why SST rises in the tropical Atlantic during an El Nino. All of these processes are well documented and have been decades, yet they are not represented by your New Climate Model.”
I think my model does deal with that.
During an El Nino the equatorial air masses expand and all the air circulation systems shift poleward unless prevented by doing so by the top down effects of a quiet sun.
During that process the sub tropical highs expand and intensify as per your description and more solar shortwave enters the oceans because the poleward shift of the cloud bands reduces albedo. More ocean being under sub tropical highs there will of course be less wind, less evaporation and locally a slower hydrological cycle although globally thay cycle will be faster.
So my model does deal with those features and covers your observations perfectly.I have told you already that your work though highly expert in a regional context needs to be integrated with a global perspective.
Have you actually read my stuff properly ? Or perhaps you have read it but not yet fully absorbed it ?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:24 pm
The recent El Nino failed to push the jets as far poleward as similar El Ninos did during the late 20th Century when the sun was more active
Which is perfectly in agreement with Birkeland’s Terrela experiment, where when the EM field was feebler charges migrated to the equator: (see fig.6)
http://www.hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/55/…/ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf
The North Atlantic is very warm right now nearing the 1998 record levels. (Some of the following was inspired by Bob Tisdale’s recent post on this at
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/08/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-2.html
Temps hit a peak in March, the normal time expected for a 3 month lag from the El Nino which peaked in mid-December. The 3-month lag means that the temperatures right now are being impacted by the Neutral 0.0C ENSO numbers from May.
As we see in the 1998 El Nino, there was a peak at 3 months after the El Nino and then the AMO started going up (as it doing today). It should start down now going by history.
Should we use the AMO as a ocean cycle impacting temperatures just like the ENSO does?
Look at the RSS lower troposphere temperatures versus the AMO.
http://a.imageshack.us/img62/3690/amovsrss.png
It is hard to not notice how they react the same.
Let’s take the Raw Undetrended AMO values back to 1856 and compare that to Hadrcut3 temperatures (the upward trend in the AMO is usually removed so that a global warming signal is not carried into it but I used the Raw numbers here just to show how close they are).
http://a.imageshack.us/img204/8828/undetramoandhadcrut3.png
It is hard to not notice the strong correlation again.
So, why are temperatures still high. The North Atlantic is still carrying some heat (which was partly generated from the El Nino) and this is slowly being pushed into the atmosphere.
On the other hand, it could be that the AMO is not a natural ocean cycle at all but just warms up and cools down in reaction to global temperatures. It is certainly being impacted by the El Nino however, which could mean there should be two lags from the ENSO – a 3 month lag and then a 5 to 9 month one.
Manfred says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:29 am
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:55 pm
now that is pure nonsense. A few months of lag is usual.
There is a record of 30 years of lower trends in the troposhere than measured on the surface, significantly falsifying either model predictions or surface measurement data or both.
__________
Could you share that “30 years of lower trends in the troposphere” data with us?
_______
John Peter said:
” I would have thought that by now we should have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures”
____
Uh, the past 12 months have been the warmest 12 months on instrument record. The forming La Nina will be modulated by lots of warmth in other regions of the world’s oceans. Look for more records to be set in the coming years, exactly as expected by GCM’s when taking into account the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. All these other cycles, ENSO, solar, etc. ride on top of this longer term signal.
Though I remain 75% convinced that AGW is happening, with the main thrust of skepticism to AGW focused on potential longer term solar and ocean cycles that we may not know about. There are some candidates worthy of investigation, but, at least currently, not worth of increasing my skepticism. But note, regardless of my belief in the general tenents of AGW, I am not an alarmist nor do I speak of catastrophe.
R. Gates, once again you suggest that CO2 is warming oceans up. Prove it. Please post how you think that is happening. And don’t use the fall back “dipole” argument. Calculate the amount of heat energy created by the increase in CO2 that somehow gets into the oceans to the degree that they are heated from this source as you say.
in the end the Artic data is being fabricated by Hansen out of whole cloth.
Here. I’ll make it easy for you. Here is the degree of increase in heat content in the oceans.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=ohc
Here are the calculations for longwave radiation’s ability to heat oceans. Betcha you can’t make the calculations explain the rise.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/documents/thermodynamics.pdf
Well the times 10 anomaly blue and red graphs, look as if some sort of near repeat of 2008 is under way; at least as far as these SSTs. Which doesn’t mean that Arctic ice would do a repeat of 2008.
I’m still bothered by the false color world map which show the whole sea of Cortez to be at a + anomaly; and that most certainly is not true; as I have personally measured those waters recently with a real actual thermometer, and got readings that were a solid 5 deg F lower than what is normal for this time of the year; so that should turn the whole Cortez to the deep blue that is luking on the Pacific side of the Baja.
Izzit just me or is that big blue swath to the west of North America except down around Central America considerable larger than the previous la nina event that we had which I think was also 2008 was it not ?
Here is another go at it R. Gates. For CO2 to be a plausible cause of the trend, it’s first step mechanism can only be increased absorption of upwelling longwave radiation that results in a decrease in measured Outgoing Longwave Radiation at the outer edge of our atmosphere over the time period of the observed temperature trend, and that matches the supposed linear rise in CO2, minus internal atmospheric weather pattern variations that result in the rather noisy but highly seasonal and time of day dependent data.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2010 at 7:45 am
There is a big mass of warm water in the N.E. Pacific right now and it is trending to expand to the east and south, and unless that mass suddenly just disappears, it will make for a warmer fall and winter on the west coast, La Nina or not.
I am not sure where you get these ideas from. Not too much heat in the system according to this graph.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
But you have put your neck on the line….
John Peter said:
” I would have thought that by now we should have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures”
UAH data once more:
March 2010 0.66
April 2010 0.50
May 2010 0.54
June 2010 0.44
July 2010 0.49
So, John Peter, you are absolutely right: We have seen a slight decrease in global temperatures.
That graph shows that SSTs oscillate up to 5C pretty rapidly, doesn’t it?
Just imagine if you drew a line from 2008 to 2010 and suggested a 250C per century increase?
Strange that it’s dropped so rapidly since.
Perhaps straight lines aren’t the best projection in climate science???
“The sun is definitely past the solar minimum and is increasing in sunspot activity and irradiance since the minimum of 2008-2009. We will see steady increases of both in 2011, 2012, and peaking in late 2013? (maybe even early 2014?). ”
Dream, babe, dream. The lag in bulk solar input to bulk ocean output approaches a decade as estimated by many researchers. The minimum ran 3 years, about twice the average. The max in solar activity is inversely related to the length of the ramp min to max, with your 2014 an optimistic but credible WAG. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, pilgrim.
R. Gates says:
“Could you share that “30 years of lower trends in the troposphere” data with us?”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/offset:0.13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/
however, from your posting history, I would expect that you were aware of all above.
“”” Pamela Gray says:
August 20, 2010 at 9:22 am
Here. I’ll make it easy for you. Here is the degree of increase in heat content in the oceans.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=ohc
Here are the calculations for longwave radiation’s ability to heat oceans. Betcha you can’t make the calculations explain the rise.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/documents/thermodynamics.pdf “””
Thanks Pamela for those links; specially the latter.
But upon a quick glance through I did start developing some internal thermal energy without the benefit of any input othert han the photons coming off the paper.
Why do presumably knowedgeable persons keep on doing silly things to get one’s dander up.
Well I see those blokes are Aussies so that would explain it.
Why do people want to talk about “Kelvin Degrees”. There’s no such thing as Kelvin Degrees; they are Kelvins; and the size of the integer increase in the number of Kelvins is identical to one Deg C so why the blazes convert Deg C to Kelvins in an equation and simply muddy up the page to make it more unreadable; just put in the darn Kelvin mumbers and be done with it; or add the deg C someplace else if one wants to keep that number readily available.
But if you are going to throw in a complicated conversion from Deg C to Kelvins; then please; at least do that part correctly ; and the correct conversions is K = C +273.15 ; not 273.2
And the Kelvin scale is an absolute scale so if you say one Kelvin; you are describing a Temperature that is below the freezing point of Helium.
So can we please use Kelvins for the real Absolute Temperature and (maybe) toss in deg C or F as an aside to assist the more lay reader; and then use deg C when we are talking about Temperature differences; such as anomalies; (if we have to use that ugly word) with maybe a deg F aside for the lay reader.
I have taken to capitalizing “Temperature” to sort of reinforce when I mean the Kelvin scale; and I have no idea whether that is in any SI roolz but it is my rule until otherwise noted.
But I see that Aussie paper has 57 varieties of Q. I always get the heeby jeebies when people define some endless number of subscripted variables; as it is quite impossible to keep them separated in one’s mind when reading a paper.
It is like reading the (in)famous “Drake Equation” for why the universe is full of monsters who are much smarter than we are.
It’s an endless product of a string of probabilities; absolutely none of which has ever been measured or even quantified in any scientifically believeable way. And of course the SETI folks never tell you about the atronomically large Denominator of the Drake Equation which is the product of all the improbabilities of each of the essential organic chemical reactions, each of which had to spontaneously happen in the correct sequence; and in the correct favourable environment for inorganic rock elements and compounds to become the complex organic molecules of living organisms; whether intelligent or as dumb as a box of rocks.
We so far have no proof that intelligence has any better survival characteristics than just being big and mean and ugly like the dinosaurs; which kept them prospering for 140 million years.
So basing a search for life on the idea of intelligence; seems totally daft to me; and so far the results seem to support my contention.
But I digress; that was all about not liking a screed of subscripted variable quantities presumable one for each finger and toe to count them on.
But then I did mention that this was an Aussie study; didn’t I ?
Even the most erroneous calculations cannot make the rise in anthropogenic CO2 be the source of warming oceans. Not enough energy. And OLR doesn’t match the supposed theory of increasing CO2 causing increasing water vapor, which supposedly absorbs more LW.
The bottom line is that the calculations don’t match up with observations. Period. End of argument. AGW is fantasy wriggle matching without mechanism.
R. Gates, don’t tell me you don’t know where that warm pool in the NE Pacific came from? It didn’t just develop on its own. It migrated there. Now I wonder where warm Pacific waters would originate. Come on Gates, think before you hit the “Post Comment” button.