Global Sea Surface Temps still headed down

And one more thing. I hope that warm pool stays there Gates. It will be the source of snow pack for us. So once again Gates, think before you post. I’m a native Oregonian raised on a farm that is dependent on snow pack. We know how that happens and plan accordingly regarding summer irrigation water.
1. Cold pool with La Nina: bitter cold and low snow pack in mountains and valleys which leads to low summer irrigation.
2. Warm pool with La Nina: cold and with average snow pack in mountain and valleys which leads to normal summer irrigation.
3. Cold pool with El Nino: warm but with mountain snow pack which leads to normal summer irrigation.
4. Warm pool with El Nino: rain which leads to low summer irrigation.
Extremes, which we take in stride, happen around these 4 scenarios.

Rhys Jaggar says: “That graph shows that SSTs oscillate up to 5C pretty rapidly, doesn’t it?”
Actually, it shows that NINO3.4 SST anomalies can rise 3 deg C pretty rapidly. With the multiplier on the global data, it shows a global (60S-60N) SST response of about 0.4 deg C from a strong La Nina to a strong El Nino.

Bob, thank you for some interesting data but I have dealt with such apparent discrepancies already. There are two answers:
i) On timescales of less than about 3 solar cycles (the approximate length of a single Pacific Ocean warming or cooling phase) the patterns of which I speak appear to be swamped by short term chaotic variability and the ENSO cycles. The pattern becomes noticeable at 3 solar cycles or longer and is obvious on the 500/1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date. The position of the ITCZ in particular needs those longer timescales to reveal the links because it moves latitudinally less than do the various jet streams.
ii) Also on those shorter time scales the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere do not shift exactly in unison because of the different land/sea distributions. In particular the vast southern oceans dominate much more so as to smooth out the interplay between sun and oceans more than can the northern land masses. Indeed those northern land masses emphasise rather than smooth out the cycling processes hence the oft reported fact that the MWP and LIA signals are less pronounced in the southern hemisphere.
So, again, I suggest that your work needs to be supplemented by a global perspective and a much longer term overview. Only then does it all fall into place. Pointing out regional and short term exceptions to the patterns that I describe is pointless and misleading.
Nevertheless I thank you for your objections because they are helping me to refine my concepts.

[off topic ~ ctm]

” George E. Smith says:
August 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm
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…”
Please do not forget that the “degree” Kelvin was only abolished in 1967, and it takes some time to travel down under. The kg was defined in 1889, and people in the good old USA still use “slug” for mass (and pound for force).

Stephen Wilde wrote, “Every El Nino tries to expand the equatorial air masses. Whether it is successful or not is partly dependent on the top down opposing solar effects and also the ENSO milieu (positive or negative) in which each individual El Nino (or La Nina for that matter) finds itself.”
Do you have data or links to studies that support this?

Stephen Wilde says: “No, Bob it’s just a hypothesis that appears to fit observations and over time observations will confirm or rebut it.”
I presented data above that rebutted much of what you’ve presented.
You continued, “There is no adequate data and there are no relevant studies. It is new ground being investigated by me…That’s good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you then, tough.”
You write about your conjectures as though they are gospel. Could that be a problem? It could be if readers assume what you’ve written is based on scientific evidence….when it’s not.

(Y’all don’t take me wrong here). Chris, Bob has got his edge honed on Judith Curry and he’s just eviscerating poor old Stephen Wilde on the backstroke!

Record salmon return explained – PDO to blame.
“Hard for some people to explain. But the abundantly obvious and evident reason for record salmon runs is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift that occurred in 2008, when cool waters replaced warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water feeds plankton and subsequently the entire food chain, including salmon.”
http://westinstenv.org/nftsf/2010/07/26/record-salmon-return-explained/
The same good news in British Columbia, Canada
“Sockeye salmon stocks in Fraser River report massive rebound‎”
VANCOUVER – Fraser River sockeye are returning in droves, with commercial fishermen catching their limit within a few hours of casting their nets.
And with the estimated sockeye salmon stocks now at 14 million and expected to rise, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering opening another commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser later this week, said Barry Rosenberger, federal fisheries director for the B.C. Interior.
The fishery would add to a sport fishery opened on the Fraser last week as well ongoing fisheries in Johnstone Strait and Juan de Fuca. The sockeye fishery was last open to commercial fleets in 2006 when a total commercial catch of 3.7 million fish was approved.
“It’s phenomenal,” said Jason Assonicis, co-owner of Bon Chovy Fishing Charter. “It’s something we haven’t seen in four years for sockeye.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Sockeye+salmon+stocks+Fraser+River+report+massive+rebound/3405913/story.html
As well as in Atlantic Canada – “Best Salmon Return in Decades”
This season’s Atlantic salmon runs to many rivers throughout Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces are breaking recent records according to counting facility reports by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
http://www.wfn.tv/news/index.php?blog=408635

Bob Tisdale said:
“I presented data above that rebutted much of what you’ve presented”.
You have presented data that demonstrates part of what I say. Namely that on shorter timescales of less than the period of the Pacific phase shifts the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.
To achieve ‘evisceration’ you need to produce data that demonstrates failure on timescales that cover the MWP, the LIA and the Modern Warming Period.
It is perfectly clear that in the MWP the jets allowed warm air as far north as Greenland which became habitable. During the LIA the jets were way equatorward for much of the time and Greenland became uninhabitable whilst the ITCZ sank nearer the equator. I have previously provided sufficient links supporting those assertions.
Now the jets have recently delivered warmer air to Greenland but not yet matching the MWP and the ITCZ is more north of the equator than it was in the LIA.
So clearly the jets move poleward and equatorward over a 1000 year or so cycle but it is an irregular process with lots of inconsistencies within that cycle. I aver that the primary forcing is oceanic.
Now if one adds in the solar effect from above that introduces an adequate additional factor and the interplay between oceanic cycles from below and solar cycles from above provides all that we need to explain all that we have seen on the longer timescales.
It is conceded that the interplay is complex so that the shorter the timescale the less apparent it is.
Bob’s perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes. I keep asking him to link his short term perspective to my longer term perspective but he consistently refuses to do so.
If he were to do so then we could all benefit because it would become clear how over enough time his work would segue almost seamlessly into mine.
His emotional opposition to my propositions will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance unless he soon sees the light.

” it may be the beginning of knowledge,”
Quite so. Where have I claimed more ?
As someone said (was it Kipling ?) “In the country of the blind a one eyed man is king.”
My New Climate Model is clearly expressed to be a starting point to be compared with ongoing climate events and revised as necessary.
My approach is needed because the models and all the assumptions and data underlying them are by now known by all to be dismal failures and fundamentally flawed. Virtually all past data (pre 1979 when satellites started to be used) is too coarse and misleading to be consistent with modern day measuring techniques. I believe they hide the vast variety and scale of rapid climate events over periods of 30 years or more. Unless we start afresh our perceptions of climate and weather variability are just going to be obscured in a thick fog caused by the inadequacy of that past climate data and the proxies that have stood in for it for too long.
We need a fresh start with up to date data and I have attempted to provide it. Initially only for my own personal satisfaction but due to the large amount of unsought support I have widened the process to all who find it of interest and I listen to what those others say in order to determine as best I can whether my work has any value and whether there are flaws to be addressed or improvements to be made.
Generally the satisfaction derived from supporters exceeds the aggravation from those who do not understand my purpose or style.
The issue of style is important. As a non scientist but one with much weather and climate experience my style is different from most contributors to blogs of this type. However, my expression of complex concepts verbally rather than mathematically is of great value to many readers and must add to the accessibility of sites such as this.

Stephen Wilde: You asked again, “Do you assert that the heat released to the air by a strong El Nino does not have any effect on the size of the equatorial air masses above ?”
You already answered your question, Stephen. In response to my earlier question, “Do you have data or links to studies that support this?” (“this” being your comment, “Every El Nino tries to expand the equatorial air masses…”) you replied, “No, Bob it’s just a hypothesis that appears to fit observations and over time observations will confirm or rebut it.” Since you have provided no data and no links to studies to confirm or rebut your conjecture, there’s no reason for me to ponder the “size of the equatorial air masses above.” It serves no purpose. I, unlike you, investigate via data and scientific papers.
You wrote, “We need a fresh start with up to date data and I have attempted to provide it.”
This is misleading. You do not present data. And when confronted with data that contradicts your conjecture, you shift from discussions of annual and decadal variability to millennial time spans and claim as an excuse, “the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.”
Let’s put the last quote of yours above back into context. You replied to me, “You have presented data that demonstrates part of what I say. Namely that on shorter timescales of less than the period of the Pacific phase shifts the patterns I describe are swamped by chaotic variability and variability within the ENSO cycle.”
In other words, you’re clarifying that your model only works on multidecadal “the period of the Pacific phase shifts” timeframes. If this is fact, then your initial comment on this thread is misleading and misrepresents your model. As a reminder, your opening comment was, “The increase in cloud cover over oceans fits perfectly with my New Climate Model which anticipates just such a development with consequent increased global albedo when the air circulation systems sink equatorward taking the clouds with them. Primarily that means the cloud bands of the various jet treams and the ITCZ.”
That is, if your model only works on multidecadal timeframes, then the shift in cloud cover over the oceans during 2010 that Roy Spencer highlighted here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-est-SW-Global-thru-Aug-18-2010.gif
…could be caused by “chaotic variability [or] variability within the ENSO cycle” that is beyond the grasp of your model.
You wrote, “Bob’s perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes.”
Your first comment on this thread pertained to a cloud cover event that occurred solely in 2010. And you further discussed how your model explains portions of a single El Niño event when you replied, “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. “ These single year events contradict your reply to me that my “perspective is entirely short term and therefore valueless for my purposes.” If you make a claim that a short-term event is explained by your model, how then, after being confronted with short-term data that contradicts your model, can you state “The pattern becomes noticeable at 3 solar cycles or longer and is obvious on the 500/1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date”? You bounce between monthly and millennial timeframes in an apparent effort to confuse your readers and to confound those who wish to debate your conjectures with you.
You wrote, “I keep asking him to link his short term perspective to my longer term perspective but he consistently refuses to do so.”
And as I have replied to you before, my interest is in the shorter-term perspective, a period for which there is data that has been obtained through direct measurement. I’m not interested in millennial scaled variability for which there is no directly measured data.
You wrote, “I have supplied plenty of principles of numerical reckoning.”
This is misleading. There are no equations, no graphs, no data in your post here at WUWT “A New And Effective Climate Model”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
You only provide vague descriptions of how you believe processes work. In fact, I noted on an earlier thread, “I have come to believe that you intentionally use terms as you see fit, and not as is generally accepted, to confuse those who read your comments and to make it difficult (impossible) for those who wish to debate a topic with you since your understandings, representations, and uses of terms are constantly shifting.”
Link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-424561
Stephen, I stumbled on a post about your New Climate Model today while searching for the Lord Kelvin quote. The post is titled “A New And Content-Free Model”. It is written by Brian Blais who is a professor of Science and Technology at Bryant University and a research professor in the Institute for Brain and Neural Systems at Brown University. Link:
http://bblais.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-and-content-free-model.html
To further illustrate how confusing your representations of your New Climate Model can be, I’ll quote from his post. He writes about your model, “This list continues for 26 points, not an equation in the mix. So why am I so hooked on equations? Take the first item, and call ‘Solar surface turbulence’ T, and the size of the atmosphere, A. Saying T goes up, so A goes up, could be like…” Blais then lists three different equations.
He continues, “Each of these is a translation of ‘when T goes up, A goes up’, but they have radically different forms, and they have radically different effects. You can’t build a proper scientific model in words alone. Words are not precise, and there are many different ways to translate them into something that is precise, that can actually make meaningful predictions.
“A model of just words is not really a model, in the scientific sense.”
Blais then goes on to quote Kelvin.
You wrote, “To achieve ‘evisceration’ you need to produce data that demonstrates failure on timescales that cover the MWP, the LIA and the Modern Warming Period.”
It is not my goal to “achieve ‘evisceration’”. I’m simply noting the contradictions about timeframes within your comments and the contradictions between data and your conjecture.
You wrote, “His emotional opposition to my propositions will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance unless he soon sees the light.”
Was that written in jest, Stephen? It has the tone of a veiled threat.
“His emotional opposition to my propositions…” Your propositions are conjecture, Stephen. You’ve admitted that on earlier threads.
“…will eventually reduce his contribution to irrelevance…” My contributions are based on data. Data must be irrelevant to you.
“…unless he sees the light”?!! And what light would that be? Your failure to provide data and calculations and your constant bouncing between annual and millennial timeframes is not conducive to anyone seeing the light, Stephen!
FYI, there is no emotion in my writings on this thread. And I’m not opposed to your propositions. I use data. You do not. And when the data contradicts your conjecture, I advise you of it. There’s no emotion in that. I will admit that sentence was a nice try at misdirection, though.
You wrote, “…I listen to what those others say in order to determine as best I can whether my work has any value and whether there are flaws to be addressed or improvements to be made.”
Unfortunately, when others point to flaws and inconsistencies, you argue. A prominent, respected physicist, Leif Svalgaard, advised you of an error with your model on the thread here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comment-361893
But instead of listening “to what those others say…”, you argued, and your arguments were based solely on your assumptions and conjecture, not on fact or data. And again, at another thread here at WUWT, you argued with Leif, instead of attempting to address the flaws and deficiencies in your model:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/
You wrote, “I have suggested the following amongst many others… iv) Calculate any link between the average latitudinal position of all the Earth’s main cloud bands and global albedo.”
Yet you provide no calculations. Do we then assume you hope someone else will respond to your suggestions and perform the calculations for you? Making suggestions is not in agreement with the portion the Kelvin writing you quoted as a preface: “In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it.” Performing and presenting calculations agrees with it. Presenting data agrees with it.
You continued, “Only someone prepared to follow through with practicable methods for measuring such matters has the right to preach to me about science,” and, “Bob Tisdale and Ralph Dwyer are not yet in that category.”
I’m not preaching to anyone. I responded to a comment from savethesharks with a quote from Lord Kelvin about science.
Also, I believe you have the responsibilities turned around. You could claim the foundations of your model had scientific bases if and only if you, Stephen Wilde, were “prepared to follow through with practicable methods for measuring such matters.” I personally have no interest in doing your work for you. And I don’t believe you’re going to find anyone else willing to do your work for you. Your failure to present data and to provide calculations to clarify your speculations is your burden, not mine.

“Unfortunately, when others point to flaws and inconsistencies, you argue. A prominent, respected physicist, Leif Svalgaard, advised you of an error with your model on the thread here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comment-361893
But instead of listening “to what those others say…”, you argued, and your arguments were based solely on your assumptions and conjecture, not on fact or data. And again, at another thread here at WUWT, you argued with Leif, instead of attempting to address the flaws and deficiencies in your model:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/”
Actually I have taken Leif’s comments very much on board but many others appear to disagree with him and some of his subsequent links left open the possibility of variable energy fluxes from layer to layer of the atmosphere so I am not ready to abandon what I said.
Additionally I am considering chemical reactions involving ozone because I can find no clear proof that a more active sun necessarily results in net warming rather than net cooling of the stratosphere.
Increased UV appears to increase destruction as well as creation and the balance between the two processes appears to be very unclear.
You seem to think it is an offence to argue. In fact I don’t actually argue. I just reserve the right to disagree whilst the evidence remains unclear.
Any process that might explain why the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and is now warming again with a less active sun is fine by me and can be slotted into my model just fine.
Alternatively just prove that a more active sun increases ozone creation more than ozone destruction and I’ll consider the implications of that too.