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.
“Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
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”
Agreed.
Steve, here is where I think you have it backwards.
I think a quiet sun causes the stratosphere to cool,not warm and that cooling of the stratosphere causes the polar vortex to expand. I think the stratosphere will cool in response to a quiet sun due to less UV light ,which means less ozone which means less heat /energy to be brought down from the upper reaches of the atm. to the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere thus cooling those areas and causing the polar vortex to expand southward. (Solar protons aside with a more active sun= less ozone. Not enough to offset the less UV light =less ozone with quiet sun, my opinion )
Steve, you are thinking the opposite in this area. Most agree with what I am saying. Then you are trying to use Haig’s latest study to say the conventional wisdom is wrong, and what you think is correct.
Nevertheless I know you are putting much effort into what you are doing, and at least we agree the CO2 theory is a HOAX.
Dave Springer says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:27 am
I’m sure you knew all that I’m just wondering why you didn’t say it.
It is a question of energetics.
Where does the Earth get its energy [first number W/m2; second number is fraction of the whole]
Solar irradiance 340.25; 1.00000
Heat from interior 0.061,2; 0.000,18
Infrared radiation from the Full Moon 0.010,2; 0.000,03
Combustion of Fossil Fuels 0.006,8; 0.000,02
Sun’s radiation reflected from Moon 0.003,4; 0.000,01
Solar Tidal forces in atmosphere 0.003,4; 0.000,01
Energy dissipated in lightning discharges 0.000,2; 0.000,000,6
Dissipation of magnetic storms 0.000,068; 0.000,000,2
Radiation from Bright Aurorae 0.000,045; 0.000,000,14
Energy of Cosmic Rays 0.000,031; 0.000,000,09
Dissipation of mechanical energy from micrometeorites 0.000,02; 0.000,000,06
Total radiation form stars 0.000,014; 0.000,000,04
Lunar tidal forces in atmosphere 0.000,010; 0.000,000,03
Radiation from Zodiacal Light 0.000,003,4; 0.000,000,01
ALBEDO
Let’s not forget how important this is ,and how low clouds, snow ,ice cover have a big influence,on increasing earth’s albedo as they increase. I am of the belief ,that more clouds are associated with a quiet sun and it may be due to an increase in cosmic rays, due to a weakening solar wind, or some other factors.
I think each 1.5% increase/decrease in earth’s albedo from avg. of .30 causes the temp. to change by plus or minus .5C. That is a big change in my opinion due to albedo changes.
Salvatore:
See here:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
but note that they also say this:
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
slightly warming since 1996.”
and this:
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200118/000020011801A0757645.php
So both stratosphere and mesosphere were cooling during the period of more active sun and appear to have switched to warming with the less active sun. Admittedly the researchers put the reason down to CO2 effects but since CO2 continues to rise yet the stratosphere and mesosphere have now turned to warming that cannot be correct.
Anyway, think about it. A cooling stratosphere must lift the tropopause because it increases the temperature differential between surface and tropopause. Lifting the tropopause must make the polar vortex contract and not expand. That accords with actual observations. When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled the tropopause rose and the jets moved poleward.
Now with a less active sun the stratosphere is warming,the tropopause falling and the jets shifting equatorward
The establishment position is logically and observationally unsustainable.
My hypothesis is the only one that fits observations and Haigh’s data.
Steve says, the quiet sun WARMS the stratosphere and mesophere , which SLOWS the UPWARD energy flux., which reduces the height of the troposphere.
I say ,with many others, it is the exact opposite, the quiet sun COOLS the stratosphere ,which REDUCES the enegy flux brought DOWN from the upper stratosphere to the upper troposphere thus reducing the heights of the troposphere. lol . I have to laugh because it is so opposite.
That is what I was trying to say earlier,rather poorly on my part, in how you have it backwards from what I think.
Still I think the work you are doing in this field is wonderful. You are sincere. Unlike the frauds of man made global warming.
It is just par for the course for climate, how opposite conclusions always seem to be reached.
Another example is Svensmark ,claims cosmic rays increasing causes more clouds, Piers Corbyn says that is NOT the case.
I have to be leaving for work soon. Have a good day Steve, and everyone else on the site.
Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something.
take care
Some of my emails don’t seem to go out.
Steve and I say the opposite. Steve says ,a quiet sun warms the stratosphere which reduces the enegy flux up to the troposphere, which causes it to lower in height. I say quiet sun cools the stratosphere which causes less enegy to be brought down to the upper troposphere which lowers the heights.
lol. It is the opposite, but we could both be wrong, and it could be something else, this is a complicated unknown area to say the least.
Still Steve, I appreciate your efforts ,and I know you are sincere,unlike the man made global warming frauds.
Another basic disagreement is Piers Corbyn, who is really great in this area, says cosmic rays don’t increase cloud cover,while Stevensmark, who I also respect, says they do. The arguments never end in the study of climate, The only one I know is wrong for sure is CO2 effects climate, I am open to everything else.
Steve ,it is possible you are right, I don’t know. Time will tell.
In any event Steve ,you are doing good work and you are sincere,unlike the man made global warming frauds, and I have an open mind to everything other then co2 causes the climate to change.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/temperature.html#4600Myr
Here is a site that may add to your information . . . . it a little longer term . . .
I don’t have as much problem with variations is global temperatures. . . It’s the gyrations that make me nervous. . . the Earth expands as it heats up . . and contracts as it cools. . . water on the other hand is kinda backwards. . . it expands when it cold . . . contracts . . when liquid. . . and expands as a gas . .
PS. you guys are sure busy today.
Thanks Salvatore, we shall see.
As regards the Svensmark hypothesis I’m with Piers on that one for two reasons:
i) There is no shortage of particulates in the atmosphere so cosmic rays are not needed
ii) I see an adequate cause of increased cloudiness to be the equatorward shift in the jets. As they move equatorward then due to the increasing circumference of the globe that they cover the lines of air mass conflict lengthen creating more clouds. Furthermore reflectance increases as the clouds shift to regions of more intense insolation. So we really do not need the Svensmark hypothesis at all.
I see the increase in cosmic rays at a time of less active sun as merely a coincidental consequence of declining solar activity rather than a cause of climate changes in itself. To change the global energy budget in the troposphere one really needs to shift the jets. More clouds are a consequence of jet stream shifts and not a cause of such shifts. Indeed I cannot envisage a mechanism whereby a simple cloud quantity change would in itself shift the jets. The onle two things that can do it are a change in the rate of energy release from the oceans or a change in the upward energy flux which seems to be dependent on solar proton effects in the mesosphere and not as heretofore thought by uv effects in the stratosphere.
If the uv effects were dominant then the stratosphere would warm when the sun is more active but it does not so the solar proton ozone depleting effect higher up must logically be the dominant process.
Observations trump theories after all.
Interesting times : )
I see their is a delay sometimes, now I know for the future.
>>Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2010 at 9:14 am
Thanks, Leif, for that analysis of energy on the Earth. Interesting that the Moon’s infrared radiation is greater that our fossil fuel output. I would not have guessed that one.
One element I would contend, however, is the energy from lightening. This is only recycled heat, and should not count.
.
“Steve, I would like to correspond with you in the future ,perhaps we could arrange something”
Salvatore, you can contact me direct via the climaterealists.com site. Messages to the site owner are passed on to me.
>>Salvatore Del Prete says: October 30, 2010 at 9:34 am
>>Let’s not forget how important ALBEDO is, and how low clouds,
>>snow ,ice cover have a big influence, on increasing earth’s albedo
>>as they increase.
I noticed last year that snow was lying on the ground over all northern Europe and the East (Ukraine and Russia) well into March/April. This must have had a significant impact on the overall insolation this year, as the reflection must have been in the 99-100% bracket.
.
Tenuc said:
“there are many more quasi-cyclical over-lapping mechanisms at work. As climate is ultimately driven by the rules of deterministic chaos, when these cyclical mechanisms coincide they can push Earth’s weather-regimen/climate from the warm attractor to the cooler attractor. These events include sea-ice melt/freeze changes, ocean salinity, elecro-scavenging from solar wind, changes to ozone level/chemistry and importantly, changes to the rate of the hydrological cycle (heat engine).”
Yes Tenuc I agree entirely as regards short term climate change. However my judgement is that the longer the timescale involved the more likely that those other effects will cancel out leaving sun and oceans in ultimate control.
Changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle are the key response to every other forcing and those changes in speed work to maintain the balance between sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures.
The evidence of a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle globally is the net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined and they work their effect by shifting the cloud bands latitudinally to alter cloud amounts and reflectance so as to alter global albedo and thereby amplify solar variability substantially.
Leif Svalgaards objections to the proposed top down solar forcing cannot be sustained unless the recent data from Joanna Haigh fails to be verified.
Bob Tisdale’s objections to the proposed bottom up forcing fail because during the recent warming spell in the late 20th century with a long run of powerful El Ninos the ocean heat content actually increased whereas his hypothesis would have predicted a decline in ocean heat content.
Someone else posted a comment that if I could dispose of the objections of Leif and Bob then my hypothesis would get plain sailing.
Form your own conclusion.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:40 am
“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.”
Long range forecasts on daily weather events, up to a year ahead, tried and tested. On the multi-decadal, he is very much focused on the Hale cycle.
Surely the “background climate trend at any given time” is the actual weather events/periods, that ensure there is a trend, if at all.
@ur momisugly Mike Haseler
Hey, I have been thinking about that too. In the beginning there was weather chaos. then came god.
Seems to me that some readers can not accept your reasoning because of personal belief… sad.
If you are o believer, it is your thng. You can not force the world to act according to your beliefs.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology reported on Oct 27 on the current La Nina and said, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“Despite the brief impact of a Madden Julian Oscillation event, all ENSO indicators remain firmly at La Niña levels. The tropical Pacific Ocean is significantly cooler than average for this time of the year, both at and below the surface of the ocean. The SOI remains very high at +21, down slightly from the September value of +25, which was the highest monthly value recorded since November 1973 and the highest September value recorded since 1917. ”
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/soigraph/index.php?year=2010
The SOI levels have been consistently high positive [+20] since about July. Are we in for 4 months of cold weather during late 2010 and early 2011 and possibly into spring ? The mean global tropospheric temperatures for the last 50 years fall and rise in close relationship with the SOI of about 5-7 months before. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
Ulric asked:
Surely the “background climate trend at any given time” is the actual weather events/periods, that ensure there is a trend, if at all.
I should more accurately have said ‘background temperature trend at any given time’
The temperature trend affects jet stream positioning and individual regional climates change with changes in jet stream positioning.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘global climate’. Perhaps one could refer to a temperature dependant global set of regional climates.
matt v.,
Looking att this diagram: http://www.energiminnesfonden.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:klimatet-och-solcyklerna&catid=36:ovrigt&Itemid=59 it is easy to see that the turning points (warm to cold, cold to warm) all correspond to solar minimums. The years 1878, 1912, 1944, 1976 and 2008, to be more prcise. A colder period is on the way, it’s a sure thing.
Svempa,
I’ve mentioned on another thread as to what I think is going on so I’ll repeat it here in case it is of interest to you:
“Various analyses show upward temperature steps during the 20th century from one 60 year PDO cycle to the next. That pattern is well recognised but the cause is unknown though it does suggest a forcing mechanism in the background which is independent of but which does influence the ENSO cycle.
The most obvious and simplest solution would be that such stepping occurs throughout the 500/1000 year climate cycle from MWP to LIA to date with downward steps for 500 years or so then upward steps for the next 500 years.
I have now proposed that the cause of that background trend is in fact the observed variation in solar activity over those periods. The level of TSI is largely irrelevant because it is too small. What does seem to happen is that variable solar proton quantities entering the mesosphere alter the ozone chemistry above 45Km so as to send the temperature of the mesosphere and stratosphere in the opposite direction to that which is usually assumed i.e. a more active sun actually cools the mesosphere and stratosphere thereby increasing the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere which causes the tropopause to rise and the jets are drawn poleward.
That leads to an opening of the blinds so to speak because the cloud bands shift away from the equator where insolation is strongest and so global albedo declines and more energy enters the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of stronger El Ninos with consequent upward stepping every 60 years or so.
The reverse process when the sun is getting less active.
I have been canvassing that proposition more forcefully since the Haigh data became available a few weeks ago because that data confirmed my previously published opinion that in reality a more active sun must cool and not warm the stratosphere and the solar proton causation looks like a very persuasive mechanism.
I’m waiting to see if someone can falsify that proposal but no sign of that so far.”
Svempa, I think that explanation would sit rather well with the charts that you have now referred us to.
STEVE , Possible alternative explanation for Stratosphere temp. changes.
Did you think, that perhaps the cooling trend in the stratosphere in the late 20th century was due to the fact ,that sun for the most part prior to the late 20th century was more active. Therefore in the late 20th century the statosphere cooled in response to the sun slowly becoming less active.
Let’s look at the very early 21st century and a slight warming. That could be due to water vapor declining from a higher level in the stratosphere in the late 20th century,due to the late 20th century warming,which in the short term could have had a temporary greater influence on the ozone concentrations in the startosphere,then the change in UV light.
Remember water vapor destroys ozone.
HAIGH’ STUDY
If you really look at it ,first of all it is only for 3 years 2004-2007. Next if you look at the total geomagnetic activity frm the sun over those years you have the following:
aa index = 23.0 in 2004
aa index = 23.2 in 2005
aa index = 16.2 in 2006
aa index 15.0 in 2007 Not really that low, I would say Mayud’s aa index has to be less then 10 to really reflect a quiet sun.
Next problem is her study said only above 45 km did ozone increase ,while below 45km there was a SIGNIFICANT decrease in ozone, and since most of the ozone is below 45 km that does not lend to much support to your theory.
Finally lag times have to always be applied, and the study is just to short a time span, to draw any definitive conclusions.
All good points Salvatore but I have thought them through already, thus:
i) The highest solar peak was cycle 19. Cycle 20 was down a bit and cycles 22 and 23 were both high. However throughout the entire period the level of solar activity was anomalously high in historical terms (going back to around 1600) despite the small downward trend from 19 to 23 so I would say that all the time the incoming solar protons were sufficient to arrange a net depletion of ozone above 45Km to cause the observed cooling of the mesosphere (which starts around 50Km).
ii) You have noted that the change of sign in the effect of solar activity on ozone occurs at or near 45Km. That suggests to me that below that height the ‘normal’ effects occur and more uv does warm the stratosphere when the sun is more active. However above that height the dominant effect is solar protons destroying ozone for a reversed sign cooling effect between 45Km and the mesopause. So which effect is dominant ? Well overall we are dealing with the net rate of upward energy flux and we saw both mesosphere and stratosphere cool when the sun was more active so observations suggest that the net effect on the upward energy flux is dominated by the solar proton effect in the mesosphere and not the uv effect in the stratosphere. That is the case despite the fact that there is indeed much less ozone in the mesosphere.
iii) Lag times do apply but it is now some ten years since the jets began to move equatorward and Haigh’s data is right in the middle of the relevant period.
Furthermore jets can only move poleward if the tropopause rises and the tropopause will only rise if the troposphere gets warmer OR if the stratosphere gets colder (i.e. the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere increases). In this instance the stratosphere did get colder the tropopause did rise and the jets did move poleward.
The clincher is that it also happened that way in the MWP and no doubt all the earlier warm periods so this is a wholly natural phenomenon.
As long ago as November 2009 I published my opinion that for the jets to move poleward when the sun is more active there must be a cooling of the stratosphere as a result of a more active sun. At that time I was short of a mechanism and only came to that conclusion with some reluctance because I knew it would put me out on a limb. Since then I have become aware of the ozone destructive effects of solar protons in the mesosphere and Haigh’s data fits perfectly so I am doubtful that her findings will turn out to be mistaken.
I don’t think we need to involve water vapour in this scenario but of course it may turn out to have a separate modulating effect on the primary mechanism.
I await developments with interest.
Time will tell. The hardest item to comprehend or accept with your theory (i am not saying you are wrong) is the troposphere cooling as a result of less energy entering it from below ,rather then from above. That is the biggest problem I see with your theory.
It is very hard to accept , less energy coming to the troposphere from below,rather then from above.