Guest post by Willis Eschenbach
Bob Tisdale has discussed a variety of issues with the hemispheric and basis-by-basin Levitus summary of the ARGO data in his excellent post here on WUWT. I wanted to take a larger look at at the global ocean data, to provide it with some context. After following a variety of blind paths and dry holes, I arrived at Figure 1. This shows the Levitus data, along with several datasets for both the sea surface temperature (SST) and the land surface air temperatures.
Figure 1. Three land surface air temperature datasets, three ocean surface temperature datasets, and two measures of the deeper ocean. Datasets from KNMI, except the Levitus ocean data. Levitus data have been converted from ocean heat content values to temperature values.
Unfortunately, we only have pentadal (5-year centered average) data for the deeper ocean layer from 1955, no annual data for the deeper layer is available before 2005. So I have shown the other data as pentadal averages as well, so that they can be compared directly. Now, I have no profound conclusions from this, but there are some curiosities about these results.
The most obvious oddity involves the sea surface temperature data. Two of the datasets, the ERSST and the HadISST, are quite similar, but are offset over much of their length by an amount that varies in an odd stepwise fashion. In particular, they diverge significantly in the period 1997-2001. They have the same small peaks and valleys, but the land is going up while the sea temperature is dropping. Figure 2 shows this in more detail:
Figure 2. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from three different sources. The vertical axis scale is different from Figure 1.
On the other hand, Figure 2 also shows that the ICOADS dataset runs almost exactly in parallel with the HadISST data up until 1997, when it shifts gears and goes up to agree with the ERSST dataset.
I have absolutely no idea what happened in 1997, or in earlier periods, which allowed the three datasets to vary so much. Always more questions than answers.
The next oddity involves the changes in the land and ocean surface temperatures. Figure 3 is like Figure 1 but leaves out the sub-surface temperatures:
Figure 3. Three land surface air temperature and three ocean surface temperature datasets.
The oddity here is two-fold: what happened around 1977 or so, and what happened around 2002 or so? From 1977 on, after twenty years with no significant land or sea temperature change, both land and sea temperatures start to rise. In addition, the land temperature rises much more rapidly than the SST. Then around 1998, SSTs start to level off, and they peak in 2002 and start to fall. The land temperatures start falling shortly thereafter. Why, on all counts?
Now, I don’t know the answer to these questions either. However, in this modern world there’s a term called a “WAG”, which means a wild-assed guess. However, scientists don’t provide those. Instead, there is a refined version called a “SWAG”, or a scientific wild-assed guess.
So here’s my SWAG about what we’re seeing here. I think at least some of this is the effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO.
The PDO is a large-scale reorganization of the flow of the North Pacific Ocean. I think that, like other large-scale patterns such as the El Nino/La Nina alterations, these all function to regulate the temperature. It is obvious that one of the two major patterns (positive or negative PDO) must be more efficient than the other one at cooling the planet. The transfer of heat via the oceans from the equator to the poles is one of the two major pathways by which the tropics moves heat (the other is via the atmosphere). One of the two PDO states must be better at cooling the planet.
I hypothesize that this alteration between PDO states is one of the ways by which the planet maintains such a regular temperature. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to support that hypothesis using observational data.
A final oddity is the decoupling of the land temperatures from the ocean temperatures. Figure 4 shows a longer version of the same data, this time extending back to the 1870’s:
Figure 4. Long-term land air temperature and sea surface temperature records, expressed as an anomaly around the 1900-1980 average.
The oddity to me in Figure 4 is that since about 1974, the land temperatures have been rising much faster than the sea surface temperatures. The SST records and the land temperature records run quite close to each other up until about 1975 or so, but after that land temperatures have been rising much more quickly, while the sea surface temperatures (and to a greater extent the sub-surface temperatures) have not followed suit.
Once again, I’m out of explanations for the decoupling of the temperatures. Clearly it’s not CO2. Urban heat islands? Aerosols reducing the clouds over the land? I have no idea. All suggestions welcome. That’s the beauty of settled science, there are always unexplained questions to
Best regards to everyone,
w.
THE DATA
Levitus provides two different global pentadal datasets. One covers the layer from 0 to 700 m depth, and the other covers a thicker layer, from 0 to 2000 m depth. I wanted to see what was happening in the “missing link”, which is the data covering the deeper layer, from 700m to 2000m depth.
The good news is that since we are dealing in oceanic heat content, the heat content of the lower layer is simply the difference between the two datasets.
My spreadsheet with the results is here.
“Once again, I’m out of explanations for the decoupling of the temperatures. Clearly it’s not CO2. Urban heat islands? Aerosols reducing the clouds over the land? I have no idea. All suggestions welcome. ”
I was thinking about the early 80’s and the arctic ice extent and what could be causes changes in the post-80’s.
The late 70’s and early-80’s were the time of the “‘acid rain’ is destroying Europe’s forests”. What was done was to use scrubbers to get rid of SO2 and particulates, the former using lime and the latter using electrostatic precipitation, and also using taller chimney’s.
I wonder if we have not been selecting for smaller particulates, which are highly hydrophobic and unable to take up charge. Prior to the use of electrostatic precipitation these small uncharged particulates would have aggregated in the flue. However, if these are placed on ice we get a smear of heat absorbing particles that float on wet ice, but are not solubilized, meaning that they have a long arctic half-life.
As Europe dashed for gas, the levels of these particulates began to fall and we are observing they mobilization via summer melting and dilution in the oceans.
Bob Tisdale says:
May 6, 2013 at 5:29 am
Thanks Bob. I was looking at the two plots you provided and noticed that there is about a 9 deg C difference between the spatially-averaged land and ocean temperatures. I didn’t realize there was that big a difference.
Also, can you located comparable absolute temperature data from the computer models?? Those all appear to be in anomaly form. Thanks.
Bob Tisdale says: May 6, 2013 at 5:43 am The other in situ measurements in recent decades are primarily from ship inlets (cooling inlets for the engines). Before that, the measurements are from buckets tossed over the sides of ships. The sailors then hauled the buckets back on board and placed thermometers in them.
Hi Bob – don’t forget the XBTs used from the mid 60s….. (someone pulled me up on this one previously!)
From Wikipedia, Expendable Bathythermograph:
The expendable bathythermograph, or XBT, is a device for obtaining a record of temperature as a function of depth from a moving ship.
Thank you Bob Tisdale for your comments. I hope you see the need to know the details of the ocean currents. If we do not know the changes in the currents then we do not really know the transfer rate of heat or cooling from the tropics to the poles. Small changes in currents supply massive flows of heat. This is obvious from the density of water. Maybe I read this wrong, but it seems from fig one that the ocean peaked first. Is this drop in sea temp around 2005 due to mixing? If so then a self regulating system seems to have kicked in around 2005. I have no answers just questions.
If the heat content of the ocean is the big gorilla in the room and all we can see are the surface currents in detail then we are losing the big picture. Anyway, just my opinion.
Bob Tisdale says: May 6, 2013 at 5:29 am
But just in case you’re concerned that surface temperatures in anomaly form only show warming, I’ve plotted land surface air temperatures and sea surface temperatures in absolute form for you. The land surface air temperature dataset (GHCN-CAMS) is the only surface temperature dataset presented in absolute temperatures:
http://i39.tinypic.com/209t8b6.jpg
And ERSST.v3b and HADISST are also presented in absolute form. Here’s HADISST:
http://i41.tinypic.com/i5w5me.jpg
Global temperatures have warmed.
Thanks Bob for all the detail …. I do accept that global temperatures are likely rising in recent decades – receding arctic ice perhaps being a significant indicator – it was a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it does go to show this ‘exact science’ ain’t quite as precise or settled as some would have it.
markx,
I think they should have stuck with the 15 C.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-elusive-global-surface-temperature.html
Then that is just me.
Willis, I believe there is more than one explanation for the departures of land and sea temps.
#1: thingodonta says:
May 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm
“I think you will find that generally, during cold periods, land temperatures decouples from ocean temperatures downwards, as in around 1880 in Figure 4, and during warm periods it decouples from the ocean upwards, as after the 1970s in Figure 1.”
#2 The Thumbtack theory. Remember Hansen jiggered the record to reduce the pesky 1936 record highs to be below the 1998 high temp. Stick a thumbtack into the land-based temp traces at 1945 and swivel clockwise, perhaps half way toward the SST traces. It will be closer to reality.
The oddity to me in Figure 4 is that since about 1974,
=========
This was the start of the Arab Oil Embargo. Fuel and petroleum products shot up in price. This drove up temperatures.
Boat owners will better recognize that this marked the start of the “pox”. Blistering of fiberglass hulls left in sea water year round. Before the 1970’s, none of the boats had the pox. After, almost every manufacturer is plagued with the problem. To this day it remains unsolved.
This also marked the end of solar dimming. Before the 70’s every year prior, water evaporated slower and slower from a pan left in the sun. After, this process was reversed.
This also marked the start of the Clean Air Act in the US and in general in industrialized nations around the world.
However, nothing significant happened with CO2 production around this time.
Caleb says:
May 6, 2013 at 3:24 am
The problem with the peer review of Climate Science is that they refuse to be “disagreeable” towards each others ideas, and therefore go forward with the 97 bad ideas.
=========
Team Peer review in Climate Science serves the same function as “secret societies”. To promote its own members from within. So for example, members of a secret society, once they gain employment in a company will promote each other, and hold back anyone else in the company, until they gain sufficient power to shape the policies and practices of the company and drain the assets for the benefit of the society and the detriment of shareholders. In effect the secret society becomes a parasite feeding off the assets of the shareholders of the company. In the context of climate science, the Team is a parasite feeding off the assets of the taxpayers.
‘Greg Goodman says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:02 am
Me said: “Maybe plotting rate of change of each would make it clearer what is happening. ”
Me did: http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219”
you can also plot on an annual basis the change in land temps divided by the change in ocean temps.
‘Once again, I’m out of explanations for the decoupling of the temperatures. Clearly it’s not CO2. Urban heat islands? Aerosols reducing the clouds over the land? I have no idea. All suggestions welcome. ”
might look at UAH data.
Willis, I have noted several times in recent posts that there is no such thing as global or regional climates, only zonal as per the Köppen-Geiger classification that reflects the impacts of heat and precipitation on land areas, and changes in the boundaries of such zones as the climates change. The consequences of this insight have been well stated by Marcel Leroux :
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf
‘One perverse aspect of the scenario put forth by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their media hitmen, is to make believe that climate behaves in the same fashion everywhere, over the whole surface of the Earth, and especially, that it is largely warming throughout, their mantra being: the climate is heating up.
Yet, they know very well that there is not one ‘global’ climate, but a large variety of climates, depending on latitude, geographic conditions, and atmospheric dynamics. Therefore, the climatic differences are considerable between Montreal and Lyon, situated about 45 degrees North Latitude, and between New York and Naples at around 40 degrees N.
For similar reasons, it is foolish to say—or believe—that the climate is heating up everywhere: Some regions are getting warmer, but others are just assuredly cooling down. For example, in the vast atmospheric domain of the North Atlantic, in which we include the area lying between the Rocky Mountains and Western Europe, the American Northeast is getting colder, at the same time that the northwestern Atlantic is heating up. MPA preferentially passes first over Canada, then over the United States, and spreads finally into the North Atlantic. In the course of its progress toward the east, and toward the south, the MPA encounters and lifts the less-cold, or warmer air (because it is lighter), and forces it to flow back toward the north (to fill the void left by its passing), forming an unstable cyclonic circulation which generates our precipitation. This air, which moves back toward the pole, brings warmth with it. Its most usual trajectory is found to be toward the east of the Atlantic, that is to say, Western Europe (cf. M. Leroux, 2001, Dunod).’
These local cooling areas are referred to in the ClimateGateII emails and confirmed by Motl and BEST analyses as well as that of Tony Brown. Not only do 30% of the temperature trends show long term cooling and differences by latitude but Verity Jones and Brown have found that they show zonal cyclical trends:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/note-to-tamino-cherries-are-not-the-only-fruit/#more-47806
You Willis have been a leading light in outlining the role of convective evaporation from oceans in limiting temperature change and in heat transfer to other zones, such that it is well known that switches in ENSO between El Nino and La Nina influence droughts in SE USA as well as having a teleconnection to AMO/NAO – that in turn influence surface temperatures in Europe, NE USA and as far as the Sahara. Similarly the PDO/NPO influences surface temperatures in SE Asia and the NW USA. It has also been shown by Clive Best that temperature trends depend on water content of soils and water vapour in the atmosphere and so are zonal.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3597
Within the USA, NCDC data also shows that the temperature trends are regional as well as zonal:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/#more-50527
These data show differences between coastal, interior and interior at altitude/ latitude that are in line with the analyses of Frank Lasner with his Ruti project on how ocean temperatures influence those on land. The failure of BEST and others to find a UHI effect is, IMO, because they are looking at the wrong factors – as Pielke Sr says they should look at land roughness and surface water capacity that affect convective cooling and especially Tmin. These can be as strong in rural areas as in urban ones due to changes in land use, cropping or cycles in precipitation. That is probably why warming and cooling stations are so intermixed in the SE USA.
Data presented at Columbia University show distinct zonal differences in the patterns of ocean temperature anomalies by latitude: Arctic, NH Mid, Tropical, SH Mid and Antarctic ocean areas http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.pdf
And these fit with zonal differences that show up in UAH temperature anomalies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/uah-global-temperature-down-significantly/#more-85587
These zonal differences are reflected in differing warming/cooling patterns in ocean basins
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/#more-81892
And the disparity in heat content in the oceans of the SH and NH:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/tisdale-on-ocean-heat-content-anomalies/#more-47656
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000-meters-why-arent-northern-hemisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/#more-85514
Finally, though the above is only a selection of data confirming zonal trends, we have Capt Dallas looking at thermal inertia and zonal heat flux in oceans and the effect on SSTs and showing that small changes in heat content in the Pacific are amplified in the Atlantic:
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.fi/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=46
The point I want to make is that given the above – that climate is zonal, linked to ocean basins operating at differing cycles and with teleconnections between zones, and that the heat flux in these basins reflect lunar (Saros) and planetary-solar cycles expressed through changes in solar activity that affect ozone heating in the stratosphere, hence the speed and direction of trade winds and so convection, cloud cover, type and place as well as precipitation etc – why does anyone think that analyzing the climate on a global basis from a data soup of zonal temperatures, proxies, heat flux, TSI, precipitation etc can have any value in determining the causes of climate change, and especially in predicting future changes? Why not make the evaluations on the basis of climate zones and then see how they fit together on a global scale? The answer to your question about the 1997 change is most likely to be due to a confluence of two or more zonal cycles as one would expect from a system that is dynamic and non linear if not chaotic.
Why do the land and ocean temperatures diverge?
Why should they be the same?
As Greg Goodman was (afaict) the first to point out, we’re dealing with anomalies here. All the temperatures were near their mean at around the same time. When they diverged from the mean, the temperatures over land diverged more than did the ocean temperatures.
The land surface mean temperature between 1901 and 2000 was 8.5 deg. C.
The sea surface mean temperature between 1901 and 2000 was 16.1 deg. C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
If you look at the monthly averages, the land is coolest in January with a mean temperature of 2.8 deg. C. It is warmest in July with a mean temperature of 14.3 deg. C. The difference is 11.5 deg. C.
The ocean is coolest in December at 15.8 deg. C and warmest in July at 16.4 deg. C. The difference is 0.6 deg. C.
The temperature over land varies about 20 times as much (annually) as it does over the ocean.
markx: Thanks for the reply. If you don’t indicate that you’re presenting something tongue in cheek, others, like me, will take you seriously. And others, unlike me, may conclude that those estimate of absolute surface temperatures were in fact a problem.
Regards
markx says: “Hi Bob – don’t forget the XBTs used from the mid 60s….. (someone pulled me up on this one previously!)”
Thanks, you’re correct. The XBTs were used for determining ocean heat content prior to ARGO. And as a further clarification, they were not used to determine sea surface temperatures, as far as I know. That is, I’ve never seen XBTs mentioned in discussions of source data for sea surface temperatures.
Regards
Looks to me like the three land data sets (on visual examination) are still about the same shape as the lower sea surface temperatures except some how being vertically stretched, around 1977-1980 it appears an approximately linear .83 deg/decade addition was suddenly applied to the data. That segment from 1977-80 is vertically stretched with that increased slope. If you removed that additional factor those traces would conform fairly well with the sea surface traces below them.
I would say look for some sort of correction factor that was applied about that time, or a redefinition of some variable that resulted in an increased slope of about .83 deg F/ decade.
The following is an explanation for what is observed.
We know that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record which are called Bond events or Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and Heinrich events. There is a particular unusual regional pattern of warming and cooling in the paleo record when these cyclic warming and cooling events occur. An example is what is called the polar see-saw where the Greenland ice sheet cools and the Antarctic ice warms and vice verse. (Comment: Interestingly this was observed in the 20th century warming pattern which provides support for the assertion that the 20th century warming was caused by whatever caused the past cyclic warming.)
The graph below shows Greenland ice sheet temperature for the last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis. The data is from Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
From 1987 to 1997, low level planetary cloud cover was reduced with a calculated forcing change of 10 watts/m^2 (See Palle’s paper excerpts and linked to below). This caused the majority of the warming 1987 to 1997. During this period of time planetary cloud cover correlates with GCR changes.
Comment:
The 10 watts/m^2 increase in forcing 1987 to 1997 is due to a reduction in planetary cloud cover (4% to 5% reduction) which resulted in less sunlight be reflected off into space. It is interesting to note that there is a calculated 2 watts /m^2 increase in forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
From 1997 to 2013 there is a net increase in low level clouds (2% to 3%) and there is a 7% increase in high level clouds (See Palle’s paper excerpts and linked to below). An increase in low level clouds cools the planet by reflecting more sunlight off into space. An increase in high level clouds (cirrus type clouds) warms the planet due to the greenhouse effect of the ice in the clouds.
Comments:
1) Low level clouds have a higher albedo than cirrus clouds and hence reflect more sunlight off into space which explains why an increase in low level clouds cools the planet while an increase in high level clouds warms the planet.
2) Almost everyone has experienced sudden cooling on a summer day due to an increase in low level clouds. A lack of cirrus clouds over deserts explains why the desert night can be very cold as there is less or no ice in high level clouds to re radiate long wave radiation back to the surface of the planet.
The planet has not cooled as the cooling effect of the 2% to 3% increase in low level clouds is compensated by the 7% increase in high level clouds.
The following is an explanation (SWAG) for the reason why the land warmed more than the oceans around 1990.
The warming effect of increased cirrus clouds has a greater effect in high latitude regions in the winter, particularly over ice sheets and sea ice. This explains the significant warming that has occurred at high latitude regions. The warming is amplified by the reduction in sea ice in the Arctic.
The effect on an increase in cirrus clouds in over the Antarctic is less than in the Arctic as due to the elevation of the Antarctic ice sheet which reduces temperatures to point that there is very little water vapor over the ice sheet.
The Greenland ice sheet is at a lower latitude the Antarctic ice sheet which explains why the winter and summer Greenland temperatures are warmer than Antarctic. There is hence more water vapor available over the Greenland ice sheet so the increase in cirrus clouds result in significant warming.
It is interesting to note that the greenhouse warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases must be significantly less than calculated as it appears the majority of the 1987 to 1997 was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover.
Now the second part of the hypothesis is what caused the sudden increase (step change) in high level cirrus type clouds?
We know the height of the ionosphere suddenly for unexplained reasons dropped during the period when there was an increase in cirrus clouds. We know the north magnetic pole drift velocity suddenly increased from 15 km/year to 55 km/year (the north magnetic pole drift velocity had been moving at 10 km/year to 15 km/year for 150 years prior to the sudden unexplained increase in its velocity.
What is required to suddenly increase the north magnetic pole drift velocity by a factor of 4 to 5, reduce the height of the ionosphere, and increase the amount of cirrus clouds? (Assume the same forcing function is the cause of what is observed.)
We know the past cyclic climate changes, the Bond cycles (also called D-O cycles and when appropriate Heinrich events) correlate with changes to the solar magnetic cycle.
The sun in the last 70 years of the 20th century was at the highest magnetic cycle activity in 8000 years based on the analysis of isotopes in the paleo record.
If the 20th century warming was caused by changes to the solar magnetic cycle (i.e. The 20th century observed warming, was the warming portion of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.) then we would expect as there has been a sudden and unexplained peculiar slowdown to the solar magnetic cycle. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly with time. What is now observed is the formation of pores (tiny short lived sunspots) rather than sunspots. It appears we will be experiencing a Maunder like minimum or a special Maunder minimum starting 2017 or sooner.
Based on the paleo climatic record we would now expect that low level planet cloud will increase and high level cirrus clouds will decrease. There will be significant cooling particularly in higher latitude regions.
http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf
Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together?
The sign and magnitude of albedo changes over the past five years have been under debate. The evidence from a variety of sources suggests that the Earth’s albedo has increased from 2000 to 2004. However, the rising planetary albedo, and the increase of sunlight being reflected back into space, has not led to a reversal of global warming.
The most up-to-date cloud data, released in August 2005 from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), a careful compilation of cloud observations covering the entire Earth from a range of meteorological satellites, reveal that the explanation of this seeming anomaly lies primarily in a redistribution of the clouds. Whereas low clouds have decreased (William: decreased 1987 to 1997 and then increased 1997 to 2006 which is the end of the data examined in the paper), as noted throughout the article) during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent, leading to both an increase in cloud amount (higher albedo) and an increased trapping of infrared radiation by clouds (increased heating).
Fig. 2. Globally averaged reconstruction (black) of albedo anomalies from ISCCP cloud amount, optical thickness, and surface reflectance (following Pallé et al., 2004).The observed Earthshine albedo anomalies are in blue. All observations agree with the reconstruction to within the 1 σ uncertainties, except for the year with sparse ES data, 2003.The shaded region 1999 through mid-2001 was used (as in Pallé et al., 2004) to calibrate the reconstruction and is the reference against which anomalies are defined. The vertical red bar indicates the estimated size of the forcing by greenhouse gasses since 1850.
However, low clouds continued to decrease post-2000 (William: Low level clouds did not continue to decrease post-2000. This statement is not consistent with the data presented in the article. See figure 1. Planetary albedo decreased 1987 to 1997 (10 Watts/meter^2 and then planetary albedo increased 1997 to 2006 which is the end of the data examined in the paper), while middle and high clouds increased. In the bottom panel of Figure 1, the globally averaged cloud amount has been divided into low (p > 680 mbar) and middle combined with high (p < 680 mbar) cloud types and averaged in five-year bands.
Fig. 1. (top) Globally averaged monthly mean total cloud amount from the ISCCP data. The overall decrease in cloud amount from 1985 to 2000 is about 4–5% with a recovery of about 2–3% from 2000 to 2004. (bottom) Globally averaged 5-year mean low (blue) and middle + high (red) cloud amounts. The difference in percent between low and middle + high cloud amounts is also given on top of each of the four 5-year intervals. Note the near doubling of this difference over the 2000–2004 period with respect to the previous means.
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
Inter-annual variations in Earth's reflectance 1999-2007
Figure 2: Top panel: Annual mean Earth albedo anomalies, as derived from ISCCP FD data, over the period 1984-2006 are plotted in black. Also, plotted in blue, are the annual mean anomalies measured by earthshine (note that annual means are only plotted for the years with complete data coverage). Bottom panel: Annual mean albedo anomalies, as derived from ISCCP FD (black), earthshine observations (blue) and CERES data (red). For the earthshine data, annual means are calculated from November to October to take advantage of the full database (see main text). For the CERES data, de-seasonalized anomalies are used, which reduces the size of the error bars. However, it is worth noting that the scatter of the CERES points in the lower panel of Figure 1 is comparable to the error bars of the ISCPP FD and earthshine points in the lower panel of this figure.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades. (William: The authors considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulate planetary temperature. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds. During both Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and the Heinrich events the mechanism is inhibited as the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted. (i.e. Galactic cosmic rays increase however there is not an increase in planetary clouds.))
This paper notes that roughly 10 years ago the magnetic field strength on newly formed sunspots started to decay linearly. Based on Eugene Parker’s analysis the magnetic ropes – the magnetic ropes are hypothesized to form at the solar tachocline and then rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun – require a minimum field strength to avoid being torn apart in by turbulence in the convection zone. The authors of this paper note there are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength that is less than 1500 gauss. It the trend continues the sun will have no sunspots in around 2017.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field
strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25. .. ..We reported in Penn & Livingston (2006) that a time series of this magnetic field data showed a decrease in the umbral magnetic field strength which was independent of the normal sunspot cycle. Also, the measurements revealed a threshold magnetic field strength of about 1500 Gauss, below which no dark pores formed. A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017.
Greg Goodman says:
May 5, 2013 at 11:13 pm
Greg, I’m sorry but that’s simply not true. They are aligned VERTICALLY by the definition of the average period. But what differs in the different periods are the trends and the shapes of the curves, not the vertical location. Here are the trends from1900-1980, and then from 1980 onwards, in comma-delimited form:
As you can see, during the first period, the trends are almost identical at around 0.05 °C/decade.
Not only that, but if you look again at Figure 4, the same is true of the trends from 1900-1940, and from 1940-1980. Land and ocean are moving in parallel. Here are those trends.
In other words, not only the overall trends but the changes in the trends are very similar between the ocean and the land during the period 1900-1980. Neither of these is affected by the choice of averaging period.
In the thirty years post 1980, on the other hand, the trend of the land temperature has decoupled from the trend of the ocean, with the land warming very rapidly (~3°C per century) and the ocean warming at only a third of that (~1°/century) …
Best regards,
w.
The oddity to me in Figure 4 is that since about 1974, the land temperatures have been rising much faster than the sea surface temperatures. The SST records and the land temperature records run quite close to each other up until about 1975 or so, but after that land temperatures have been rising much more quickly, while the sea surface temperatures (and to a greater extent the sub-surface temperatures) have not followed suit.
What year was the EPA created?
Bob Tisdale says:
May 6, 2013 at 4:26 am (Edit)
Thanks, Bob. As always your input is welcome.
I don’t trust any of the datasets back much beyond 1900, and the CruTEM dataset doesn’t even start until 1896. So I’d be very reluctant to say anything about that pre-1900 period.
Since then and until recently, as I said, the land and ocean moved mostly in concert.
Then, in about 1970 or so, something changed. Your quote says that the warming is a result of “a worldwide warming of the oceans” … but given Figure 1, I don’t see how that could possibly true.
The subsurface oceans have been warming fairly steadily since about 1900. The surface oceans have moved in sync with the land until recently, when land warming increased and oceanic warming didn’t increase.
So how can the recent land increase be due to “a worldwide warming of the oceans” as your citation claims? That doesn’t make sense.
Best regards,
w.
Bill Illis says:
May 6, 2013 at 5:59 am
Great find, Bill. They’ve updated it since I wrote the dang article, and they’ve added a new section (0-100m) … back to the drawing board, with even more data. Be interesting to see how the new one compares … now I get to start all over.
w.
thingodonta says:
May 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm
“I think you will find that generally, during cold periods, land temperatures decouples from ocean temperatures downwards, as in around 1880 in Figure 4, and during warm periods it decouples from the ocean upwards, as after the 1970s in Figure 1. ”
I agree.
All significant climate change (manifested in changes in climate zone positioning and jet stream behaviour) is a consequence of an interplay between solar and oceanic forcing elements.
As regards solar, the mechanism is a change in the mix of particles and wavelengths altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere from above and working outward from the poles.
As regards oceanic, the mechanism is changes in the balance between El Nino and La Nina events on multi decadal time scales which are ultimately solar induced via cloudiness changes (not the Svensmark mechanism but instead changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing as jet stream tracks become more zonal or meridional). That process works outward from the equator.
In comparison, variations in the net radiative capability of the atmosphere count for nearly nothing.
We are just riding a solar / oceanic see-saw.
These local cooling areas are referred to in the ClimateGateII emails and confirmed by Motl and BEST analyses as well as that of Tony Brown. Not only do 30% of the temperature trends show long term cooling and differences by latitude but Verity Jones and Brown have found that they show zonal cyclical trends:
That’s not what we showed.
peter azlac says:
May 6, 2013 at 8:20 am
“The point I want to make is that given the above – that climate is zonal, linked to ocean basins operating at differing cycles and with teleconnections between zones, and that the heat flux in these basins reflect lunar (Saros) and planetary-solar cycles expressed through changes in solar activity that affect ozone heating in the stratosphere, hence the speed and direction of trade winds and so convection, cloud cover, type and place as well as precipitation etc – why does anyone think that analyzing the climate on a global basis from a data soup of zonal temperatures, proxies, heat flux, TSI, precipitation etc can have any value in determining the causes of climate change, and especially in predicting future changes? Why not make the evaluations on the basis of climate zones and then see how they fit together on a global scale? ”
I agree. A summation of my proposals over the past 5 years.
Zonal climate zone shifting and changes in jet stream behaviour are the negative system response to ANY forcing element other than changes in atmospheric mass, strength of gravitational field or top of atmosphere insolation.
The negative system response required to negate our puny emissions of CO2 is miniscule compared to the negative system response to solar and oceanic forcing.
Willis: “Here are the trends from1900-1980, and then from 1980 onwards, in comma-delimited form:”
Oh, come Willis, you’re not going to try to put forward an argument based on fitting linear “trends” to this data, surely? Firstly climate is not linear, so let’s stop the naive ‘linear trends’ game, that’s half of what’s wrong with main-line climate science.
Secondly it has already been pointed out that ‘pentad’ smoothing actually INVERTS the 1998 El Nino, and you still want to talk like fitting anything to that will make sense. You’re no fool and I know you can do some good analysis , so please don’t disappoint me with that sort of stuff.
Bill has found you annual OHC, and in any case that was irrelevant to the land/sea comparison. So hopefully your new look will use a proper filter and we can forget the messy 5 y running means.
“Trends” are rate of change so why not just look directly at rate of change if that is what interests you. First difference is easy enough to do. That’s exactly what I did previously. It shows that land temps seem to change about twice as quick as SST. All I could see was 1945-1975 land temps varied less and were similar to SST.
If you have some comment on that or think I’m misreading the rate of change graph I’d like to hear about it. But please don’t refute what I say by referring to decadal linear trends of data distorted by 5 year runny means.
best regards.