Dr. Roy Spencer has an essay below on sea surface temperatures starting to bottom out, but in addition to that, the UAH daily lower troposphere plot shows a sharp drop also.
As this graph of UAH TLT from D Kelly O’Day’s site shows, The current global anomaly is 0.044C – or very nearly zero. That’s a big drop from last month when we ended up at 0.60C.
Note the black dot, the value on 10-26-10. Click to enlarge the image.
Now compare that to Dr. Spencer’s Sea Surface temperature plot below.
Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Having just returned from another New Orleans meeting – this time, a NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium — I thought I would check the latest sea surface temperatures from our AMSR-E instrument.
The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling.
(Click on image for the full-size version).
Since these SST measurements are mostly unaffected by cloud cover like the traditional infrared measurements are, I consider this to be the most accurate high-time resolution SST record available…albeit only since mid-2002, when the Aqua satellite was launched.
I won’t make any predictions about whether SSTs will go as low as the 2007-08 La Nina event. I’ll leave that to others.
I wonder if DailyTech will cover this drop of global temperatures like they did in January of 2008…when I first started getting interest in climate blogs such as these…because of cooling which seemingly contradicted the warming! From then on I would frequently learn more about this fussy topic and become an official member of TEAM SKEPTIC. Boo yah! Let the cooling begin.
John Finn says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I disagree.
If you were living in a cold period (of several hundred years) why would you bother to note that it was cold? A lot has been written about the very cold 1962/63 winter in the UK – because of the very fact it was so unusual.
The times were not all very cold in the Little Ice Age, but came across as multiyear disasters in a sea of cooler/unseasonable climates and land that didn’t yield the way it did in the Medieval Warm Period. They were not without immediately accesible records, and they knew things had been in decline for some time. The kings and courts knew, for they had to keep the peasantry under foot or face revolt, and they had to increase taxes due to declining productivity.
One important note:
There were recoveries recorded between the several major episodes of the Little Ice Age, but the first was, by far, the worst.
An even more devastating time preceeded the fall out of the Medieval Warm Period, known as the Wolfe Minimum, and it did not get as cold as the following Sporer. It didn’t have to, as unseasonable rains ruined harvests year upon year, and the rest is history. It was climate disruption at it’s finest….700 years ago.
It kinda resembles a hockey stick on an angle.
rbateman says:
October 29, 2010 at 8:29 pm
The times were not all very cold in the Little Ice Age, but came across as multiyear disasters in a sea of cooler/unseasonable climates and land that didn’t yield the way it did in the Medieval Warm Period.
So the LIA was a period when it was cold – except when it wasn’t.
[It is well known that there were warm interludes in the LIA ~jove, mod]
An even more devastating time preceeded the fall out of the Medieval Warm Period, known as the Wolfe Minimum, and it did not get as cold as the following Sporer. It didn’t have to, as unseasonable rains ruined harvests year upon year, and the rest is history. It was climate disruption at it’s finest….700 years ago.
I think you my be making some rather general conclusions about some regional events. Not sure where you’re getting your information from but it seems to be a somewhat patchy interpretation of Hubert Lamb’s work. You’ll be telling us next that evidence of vineyards in medieval England means the MWP was warmer than to-day- while ignoring the fact that there are around 10 times as many english vineyards to-day than there were in the 11th century.
So how is the land surface doing ?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/global_temp_accum.shtml
John Finn says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:12 am
It is very worth noting that through Maunder, how many of the coldest winters are followed by above normal temperatures by April or May. This is not just a regional phenomena. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
“Bob Tisdale says:
October 29, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Stephen Wilde says: “Now with stronger La Ninas the ocean heat content is declining which again is opposite to Bob’s proposition.”
The North Atlantic is driving the recent drop/flattening of Global OHC, Stephen. Without the North Atlantic, global OHC would still be rising:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-and-changes-to-nodc-ocean-heat.html”
Well Bob all that data confirms that the ocean heat content rose during the late 20th century warming spell despite a long run of powerful El Ninos and that is clearly contrary to your discharge / recharge proposition.
As regards the period since 2003 it is clear that the rise in OHC has plateaued so I may have jumped the gun a bit by suggesting that it is already in decline but I’m pretty sure that a decline is about to start despite the newly negative PDO phase.
Now that is not to disagree with your basic discharge / recharge proposition. I wholeheartedly agree with it but only on shorter interannual timescales and your recent data does show the short term effects nicely.
However there is also the 30/60 year cycling to consider and for that period it is clear that the discharge / recharge process is likely overlaying a separate background trend that has shown a rise throughout the 20th century with upward steps along the way.
That undelying background rise could conceivably be generated within the ENSO process without a separate forcing agent but you have not proved that and I remain doubtful.
Then we have the 500/1000 year cycling of the MWP to LIA to date and I don’t think you have any chance of demonstrating that that is generated internally by ENSO without separate forcing mechanisms.
So I take no issue with you on shorter timescales but I think you are going beyond your data by criticising my contentions about the longer timescales.
Furthermore Bob, the data you have kindly provided also shows that OHC declined during the earlier period of negative (dominant La Nina) PDO in the 50s and 60s which again is contrary to your recharge / discharge idea over the 30/60 year cycling period.
So I think you should be embracing my work as a useful supplement to and extension of your work so as to place your work more securely into the longer term climate scenario.
>>Scientist:
>>If the earth was designed as a habitable place (as Christians believe),
>>then obviously it will have been designed as a robust system. Anyone
>>who designs safety-critical systems for a living (as I do) would not
>>design something that falls over on the slightest perturbation, so why
>>would the God of Christians and Jews?
Errr …….
You mean a ‘robust’ earth that regularly has mass extinctions of 95% of the life upon it? The ‘robust’ earth that even in the recent past regularly has earthquakes and volcanos that kill hundreds of thousands of people.
According to your philosophy, either:
a. God is a pretty poor designer.
b. God did not design the earth.
c. God does not exist.
d. You are making it all up as you go along, because in reality you have no evidence to base your assertions upon.
.
Let’s start with what causes climate change., and it Ain’t CO2, pardon my language.
HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE
1. SOLAR ACTIVITY
2. PDO AND AMO TEMP. PHASE
3. SOI OSCILLATION PHASE- EL NINO/LA NINA
4.VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
5. ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATIONS SUCH AS AAO,NAO ,AO
Now if one goes back to 1977 or so ,all of the main causes of climate shown above , were mostly in a warm mode up to about 2005, hence the warmer temperatures. Now we have the above phasing toward a colder mode. Solar Activity has been low since late 2005, and remains so , and should remain so at least till the end of solar cycle 25.
El Ninos, were much more common then La Nina’s during that time period. Volcanic Activity for the most part was quiet during that time period overall, other then some activity in 1980, early 1980’s and early 1990’s.
NAO ,AO oscillations were mostly positive, and the PDO was in it’s warm phase that has since changed,and the AMO ,will be changing to it’s cold phase by 2015.
All the above factors changing to a colder mode, are going to result in colder temperatures going forward. I expect the 500 mb absolute heights will be coming down in time, and the polar vortex will be expanding southward in time,as a consequence of the items I mentioned above phasing toward a colder mode.
CO2 has nothing to do with it, and that can be easily proven by going back in time and looking at the various temp. swings both up and down and seeing if they correlate to CO2 concentrations. The answer is NO. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it.
CO2 WARMING SCAM
That is what it is, and how this hoax could ever get this far is beyond me. Just think what they are trying to say. They are trying to say a measly 100 ppm increase in CO2, can change the whole climate system of earth because the climate is so senisitive to CO2, AND ALL IT’S PHONY POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. The models they use in a word SUCK, and the data they put into the models SUCKS.
I was expecting a sharp temperature decrease ,and it looks like Oct 2010, is going to show this. I have been saying this for many months prior , and I have many emails that I did way back in the spring and summer to verify my thoughts.
I will make another prediction, and that is I expect that most of the factors ,most of the time, going forward will be in a cold or colder mode then previous. Therefore I predict temperatures going forward will be in a general downtrend ,with most months averaging below the recent norms they tabulated, going back to 1979 or so.
That is also silly to use a period only going back to 1979, then again the world of climate science is a joke for the most part , that will change I think as the global man made warming CO2 hoax meets it’s ending. Amen.
HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INDICATING
1.SOLAR ACTIVITY- this remains low and will remain low at least to the end of solar cycle 25, that means colder.
2. VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – This should be increasing going forward with SO2 ,high latitude eruptions not uncommon, this means colder.
3.PDO is now in it’s cold phase with AMO to follow by 2015, this means colder.
4.SOI OSCILLATION – will bemore in a positve pahse going forward(la nina) that means colder.
5. AO,AAO,NAO atmospheric circulations will be more negative going forward, in response to low solar activity this wil mean colder and the polar vortex might also expand southward as a consequence.
6. Last but not least CO2 t
HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INDICATING
1.SOLAR ACTIVITY- this remains low and will remain low at least to the end of solar cycle 25, that means colder.
2. VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – This should be increasing going forward with SO2 ,high latitude eruptions not uncommon, this means colder.
3.PDO is now in it’s cold phase with AMO to follow by 2015, this means colder.
4.SOI OSCILLATION – will be more in a positve phase going forward(la nina) that means colder.
5. AO,AAO,NAO atmospheric circulations will be more negative going forward, in response to low solar activity this will mean colder and the polar vortex might also expand southward as a consequence.
6. Last but not least CO2 concentrations ,have no correlation to temp. swings both up or down. CO2 follows temp. does not lead it, that means colder if you were to believe increased CO2 causes temp. to increase.
Stephen Wilde, has it backwards when it comes to the sun and how it effect earth’s climate. Peirs Corbyn on the other hand has it correct.
Ralph says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:57 am
I’d suggest for a start reading up on the “fine tuning problem” as a starting point.
Bad design = no design is a religious argument not logical or scientific one. It presumes that the designer is perfect and/or it presumes that the design isn’t as good as it can possibly be and/or it presumes that the things about the design that you feel are bad or unnecessary don’t have a purpose that you fail to discern.
In theology this is referred to as the POE (Problem of Evil) which bascially asks and looks into why a good God allows bad things to happen. I doubt you’ve spend any time studying the subject. Your knowledge of theology is vanishingly thin. It might be good idea to know what you’re talking about before you talk about it.
James Barker says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I think that should be “gone to the gods”. Dyslexic much? LOL
Has anyone else noticed that marsupials dont get so much as a mention in the Bible?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am
“No, we do not KNOW that it does to any significant degree.”
Yeah, but we don’t KNOW that variation in solar magnetic field doesn’t effect climate to any significant degree either. There are compelling correlations between solar magnetic field changes and surface temperature changes suggesting a significant effect. We KNOW that solar magnetic field strength variation serves to deflect more or fewer high energy extra-solar particles from impacting the atmosphere. We don’t know how much variation is possible or routine. Some suspect that these high energy particle impacts produce nucleation points that form into high altitude clouds and that such clouds can have a large effect on planetary albedo. I’m sure you knew all that I’m just wondering why you didn’t say it.
Re: Ralph says: October 30, 2010 at 6:57 am … earthquakes and volcanos that kill hundreds of thousands of people. …
Possible explanation? From Shakespeare’s King Lear:
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport.
CO2 HOAX
Imagine trying to convince the public that a measley 100 ppm increase in CO2 with it’s phony positive feedbacks is going to throw the whole earth/climate system out of whack. This is the worst theory I have ever ever come across in my entire life.
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT
Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth. All one has to do is just look at past data, every solar minimum without EXCEPTION has corresponded to reduced temperatures on earth. Two recent ones being the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.
For some reason people cannot seem to accept what the data shows when it comes to CO2 , and in the case of Mr. Wilde the sun. Whatever, I know what the data shows and that is the only info. one can base future expectations on.
If the sun stays quiet earth’s temperatures will be going down, if the sun should become more active like it was last century then temperatures will go up.
How active the sun is or isn’t ties in with the other items I mentioned, which determine climatic change on earth.
>>Springer
>>In theology this is referred to as the POE (Problem of Evil) which
>>bascially asks and looks into why a good God allows bad things to
>>happen. I doubt you’ve spend any time studying the subject. Your
>>knowledge of theology is vanishingly thin. It might be good idea
>>to know what you’re talking about before you talk about it
Having studied, written and lectured on theology and theological history for 30 years, I think your reply is greatly misplaced. I thought my synopsis of the Logical Problem of Evil (LPoE) was perfectly clear, whereas your post is neither logical nor clear. What side of the debate are you on, exactly?
I would have to agree with Lowe, regarding the LPoE, and the many theodicies or counter arguments are mere sematics or excuses. The three pillars of the deity are omnipresence, omnipotence and beneficence. One of these has to be deleted, before the presence of ebola, smallpox or even the humble mosquito, becomes logical and intelligible.
.
And I have to apologise to one and all for the diversion off topic. I would politely suggest that the deists on these threads refrain from attributing climate and natural events to an ‘external agency’. This is science. Science deals with the known unknowns, not with the unknowable unknowns.
.
Salvatore:
You say that the sun is quiet and the polar vortexes might expand equatorward due to the low solar activity.
That accords with my proposition so how have I got it backwards ? I think it also accords with Piers’s position too.
Do you realise that to achieve the expansion of the polar vortex the stratosphere has to warm and the tropopause descend despite the quiet sun ? That is why Haigh’s data suggesting a reversal of the normally expected sign for the solar effect is so important.
The difference between me and Piers is that I am looking at multidecadal trends in solar and climate variability in order to discern the background climate trend at any given time whereas he is trying to make short term predictions from short term solar events.
PREDICTIONS
Based on what I see, and I had made these predictions months ago, I feel and this Oct. is a good indication, that the string of above normal monthly temperatures has ended and going forward ,we will be near normal for temperatures. Going out further, temperatures will be coming in below normal, as the quiet sun and all other factors phase more into a cold mode.
As they say time will tell who is right ,and who is wrong.
>>M. Jeff says:
>>Possible explanation? From Shakespeare’s King Lear:
>>As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
>>They kill us for their sport.
Yup, that is one of the three possibilities.
The deity is supposed to be omnipresent, omnipotent and beneficent. To explain the presence of evil the deity must either be:
Not always here.
Not that powerful.
Or a naughty little boy.
Since the other theodicies are mere platitudes, you can take your choice.
.
I had thought my first email did not go out, that is why I sent similar material out later. One went out not finished for some reason.
I wanted to make sure I got my points across.
Salvatore said:
“Steve Wilde, is trying to use the Joanna Haigh study ,a flawed ridiculous study to help promote his theory. The truth is when the sun exhibits low solar activity it cools the earth ,and when it has high solar activity it warms the earth.”
You need to read my hypothesis more thoroughly. I agree that the quiet sun cools the Earth system but it achieves it in the way I say and not simply by reducing TSI.
The quiet sun warms the mesosphere and stratosphere to slow the upward energy flux which reduces the height of the tropopause and forces the jets equatorward.
That equatorward shift increases cloud quantities and total reflectance for an increase in albedo and less energy into the oceans.
Thus a quiet sun closes the blinds so to speak and the Earth system loses energy overall despite the reduction in the rate of upward energy flux.
The Haigh data is just what I need to confirm that. I needed only the data, not her opinions. The data is that above 45Km ozone increased because the reduced level of solar activity was destroying less of it above that level (presumably resulting in warming). That is the opposite of previous assumptions which assumed that all the layers of the atmosphere all warmed or cooled in tandem as the sun became more or less active.
I am sure that many are still misreading what I say so I thank you for the opportunity to clarify.