New Study Predicts a Slight Cooling of North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures over the Next Decade

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Pierre Gosselin at NoTrickZone provided an introduction to a recently published paper in his post IPCC Scientist Mojib Latif Sees North Atlantic Cooling Over Next Decade…Confirms Oceans Play Crucial Role. The paper is Klöwer et al. (2014) Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the prediction of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. It is a study of the cause of the multidecadal variability of the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).  They find that multidecadal variations in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation, precede the changes in North Atlantic surface temperatures.  Their findings suggest the “present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency”.

The abstract of Klöwer et al. (2014) reads:

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major current system in the Atlantic Ocean, is thought to be an important driver of climate variability, both regionally and globally and on a large range of time scales from decadal to centennial and even longer. Measurements to monitor the AMOC strength have only started in 2004, which is too short to investigate its link to long-term climate variability. Here the surface heat flux-driven part of the AMOC during 1900–2010 is reconstructed from the history of the North Atlantic Oscillation, the most energetic mode of internal atmospheric variability in the Atlantic sector. The decadal variations of the AMOC obtained in that way are shown to precede the observed decadal variations in basin-wide North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which strongly impacts societally important quantities such as Atlantic hurricane activity and Sahel rainfall. The future evolution of the AMO is forecast using the AMOC reconstructed up to 2010. The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.

In his blog post, Pierre Gosselin has translated portions of the press release for the paper, which clarifies what the authors mean with the last sentence of the abstract. Co-author Dr. Mojib Latif of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel says, according to Pierre:

Our model tells us that the phase with a rather high surface temperatures in the North Atlantic will continue also over the coming decade, however with a lightly negative trend.

And as Pierre also notes, a slight negative trend means cooling. It’s also important to note that Dr. Latif was discussing surface temperatures of the North Atlantic, not the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index, which is detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature data.

To further clarify the impact of this on global sea surface temperatures, see Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 compares the sea surface temperature anomalies from January 1975 to present for the North Atlantic and for the rest of the global oceans. The warming rate of the North Atlantic doubled that of the rest of the global oceans in that time, and that additional warming is a response to the warming phase (not warm phase) of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.  So it’s blatantly obvious that the North Atlantic contributed to the warming of global sea surface temperatures since the mid-1970s.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Sometime after the turn of the century the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation peaked.  Due to the volatility of the data and the short time frame, it’s tough to determine when it peaked. But for illustration purposes, Figure 2 compares the same two sea surface temperature data subsets starting in 2003.  The surface of the North Atlantic has cooled slightly over that time, while the surfaces of the rest of the global oceans show very little warming.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Proponents of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming like to claim that the additional warming of the North Atlantic was caused by manmade forcings. The CMIP5 climate models (the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report) contradict that claim.  I illustrated this quite plainly about a year ago in the post Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming.  There I wrote:

[Start quote from earlier post.]

We can illustrate the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation using the method recommended by Trenberth and Shea (2006), and it was to subtract global sea surface temperature anomalies (60S-60N, excludes the polar oceans) from sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic (0-60N, 80W-0).  They used HADISST data and so have I.  In the time-series graph in Figure 3, I’ve also smoothed the AMO data with a 121-month running average filter.  As shown by the blue curve, the North Atlantic has a mode of natural variability that causes its sea surface temperatures to warm and cool at rates that are much greater than the variations in the surface temperatures of the global oceans.  And we can see that the variations occur over multidecadal time periods (thus the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).  Keep in mind that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is responsible for some (but not all) of the warming of land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the more recent warming period, according to the climate scientists at RealClimate.  (See also Tung and Zhou (2012) Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records.)

Figure 3

Figure 3

If we subtract the modeled global sea surface temperatures from the modeled sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic (shown as the red curve in Figure 3), we can see that the forced component of the CMIP5 models (represented by the multi-model ensemble mean) does not simulate the observed multidecadal variations in the North Atlantic.  That is, there is very little difference between the modeled variations in global and North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies.  The comparison also strongly suggests that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is NOT a response to manmade greenhouse gases (or aerosols) used by the climate modelers to force the warming (or cooling) of sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic.

[End quote from earlier post.]

Back to Klöwer et al. (2014):

The abstract of Klöwer et al. (2014) notes the surface temperatures of the North Atlantic impact hurricanes and Sahel rainfall.  The North Atlantic sea surface temperatures also have strong influences on rainfall patterns in North America, on land surface temperatures throughout the Northern Hemisphere and on Arctic sea ice (because the Arctic Ocean is open to the North Atlantic).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For those new to the topic of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) refer to the NOAA Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) webpage and the posts:

SOURCES

The HADSST3 data presented in Figures 1 and 2 and the HADISST data in Figure 3 are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.  The North Atlantic surface area percentage is presented in the NOAA webpage Volumes of the World’s Oceans from ETOPO1.

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “New Study Predicts a Slight Cooling of North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures over the Next Decade

    • Reykjavik atmospheric pressure instrumental record is going back to 150 or more years. It is far more accurate than the reconstructions of the AMO, or possibly any other temperature record.

      Its multidecadal cycle leads the AMO by some years, and if past history is any guide to the future it suggests more than slight cooling
      In addition I have added my set of tectonic data, but since I am still sitting on the data the green line should be ignored.

      • There are three different physical events so Y axis has hPA for pressure, degree C for temperatures and the events count for tectonics all with normalised scale for the graph
        The idea was to present correlation of the events for an easy visual inspection.

    • The Abstract reads:
      http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/25683/

      Abstract

      Highlights:
      • North Atlantic sea surface temperature exhibits high decadal predictability potential.
      • Model bias hinders exploiting the decadal predictability potential.
      • An innovative method was developed to overcome some of the bias problem.
      • North Atlantic sea surface temperature will stay anomalously warm until about 2030.

      Abstract:
      The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major current system in the Atlantic Ocean, is thought to be an important driver of climate variability, both regionally and globally and on a large range of time scales from decadal to centennial and even longer. Measurements to monitor the AMOC strength have only started in 2004, which is too short to investigate its link to long-term climate variability. Here the surface heat flux-driven part of the AMOC during 1900–2010 is reconstructed from the history of the North Atlantic Oscillation, the most energetic mode of internal atmospheric variability in the Atlantic sector. The decadal variations of the AMOC obtained in that way are shown to precede the observed decadal variations in basin-wide North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which strongly impacts societally important quantities such as Atlantic hurricane activity and Sahel rainfall. The future evolution of the AMO is forecast using the AMOC reconstructed up to 2010. The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.

      ***************************

      “North Atlantic sea surface temperature will stay anomalously warm until about 2030.”

      So steady as she goes until 2030? I hope so.

      If true, this may give Europe time to correct their dangerous dabbling with green energy. A major failure of the power grid in winter seems increasingly probable in several countries and could cost many lives.

      • Actually, long range forecasts say this winter is predicted to be quite cold in Europe, especially in Germany, Scandinavia, and further east. Cancel my previous optimism.

        Bundle up, and buy a Honda generator – or stock up on firewood.

      • Received today from Benny Peiser and The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

        Note that I published the above post two days ago. Repeating for the UK (and continental Europe):

        “Bundle up, and buy a Honda generator – or stock up on firewood.”

        Too bad they did not listen twelve years ago when we predicted this green energy debacle.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/03/britains-green-energy-fiasco-deepens/#comment-1753757

        Twelve years ago in 2002 we published the following statements that have proved true to date:

        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

        http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

        [PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae]

        Regards to all, Allan

        CCNet 28/10/14
        BRITAIN ANNOUNCES EMERGENCY MEASURES TO PREVENT WINTER BLACKOUTS
        Cold Winter Could Cause Britain’s Lights To Go Out

        Emergency measures to prevent blackouts this winter have been unveiled by National Grid after Britain’s spare power capacity fell to just 4 per cent.
        –Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 27 October 2014

        The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years. Everyone seems to have seen this coming – except the people in charge.
        –Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014

        National Grid has warned that there has been a significant increase in the risk of electricity shortages and brownouts this winter after fires and faults knocked out a large chunk of Britain’s shrinking power station coverage. The grid operator admitted that in the event of Britain experiencing the coldest snap in 20 years – a 5 per cent chance – then electricity supplies would not be able to meet demand during two weeks in January.
        –Tim Webb, The Times, 27 October 2014

        The UK government will set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts as a “last resort”. The price to Britons will be high. Factories will be asked to “voluntarily” shut down to save energy at peak times for homes, while others will be paid to provide their own backup power should they have a spare generator or two lying around.
        –Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014

    • Which part is only a model? The abstract seems to refer to using a statistical method which uses analogue years (what happened before now sort of thing) to predict future forecasts. This is different than a dynamical model which uses theorized processes in a multiple connected (“coupled”) set of mathematical code strings based on those theories to forecast future conditions.

      • True they are not trying to simplistically model global climate with tinker-toy computer code.

        Using trends to forcast future results has drawbacks as well. Weathermen do not use trends for daily and weekly forecasts because then they would be rarely right and so out of job. Looking at macro patterns or ocillations is interesting, especially if you can get large enough and reliable sample sizes. However, like stock brokers like to say, past returns are no guarantee of future returns, your results may vary.

  1. Footnote: the warm phase of the AMO likely increases the humidity of the far North Atlantic and adjacent areas. Humidity (water vapor) is a greenhouse gas. So, the positive AMO might be creating warming in areas well away from the water, such as northern Eurasia and the Arctic.
    I wonder how much of the observed warming in the Arctic in the last twenty years was humidity-related.

    • I suspect the Arctic warming has more to do with reduced sea ice (which is a factor of the AMO). This allows the ocean heat to be transferred into the atmosphere. The Arctic ocean is no doubt cooling but is still being supplied with enough warm ocean water in the North Atlantic to keep it from dropping too much on the surface. This is probably why the Southern ocean is cooling as well. More downwelling cold water in the Arctic drives more upwelling cold water around Antarctica via the THC.

      • Good point, but advanced maths is needed.

        Open sea should let heat into atmosphere, which would be less arctic, not ‘heated’ I mean, and meanwhile the open waters cool down to zero and below. This would mean the sea does not warm up there, but the circulation could be faster.

        But I’m just amateur and quite enjoy the warmth.

    • Yes Bill Gray was ahead of his time. The mainstream has been treating climate like an atmosphere only issue. Now they are waking up to the existence of the ocean and the THC. Better late than never.

    • What is new is the climate science community is maybe expanding their myopic and naive view of how climate works.

      I’d love to see them admit the 3 core compounding errors in their science; presuming that climate was independent of the global eco-system and could not only be isolated but predicted. Then to compound that error, isolate one element (CO2), and conclude it was the thermostat that controlled global temperature with little evidence and much speculation. Then to further compound those errors to claim AGW was settled based on the first 2 errors.

      Will climate scientists like Mann ever admit they were wrong? I do not mean in their predictions. I have no idea if global warming or related catastrophes will come to pass, I mean in their methodology which is an embarassment and the greatest failure of the dicipline of science in modern history.

  2. Expect screams of ‘We must act now before it’s too late!’ What they really mean is ‘we must act now before our claims are exposed.’

  3. Sorry, but I fail to see how an AMOC record starting in 2004 can tell us much of anything about whether

    … decadal variations of the AMOC obtained in that way are shown to precede the observed decadal variations in basin-wide North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

    We have one single decade of observations, 2004-2014, of a huge and widely dispersed oceanic current which is difficult to measure. Claiming significance for this is a joke of the type the warming alarmists are fond of, but which is (fortunately) rare on the skeptical side of the discussion.

    w.

    • True. However, using statistical methods (what happened in the past) to predict future behavior is a first step to the eventual development of dynamical models developed from theorized processes. ENSO forecasts started with statistical forecasts before they developed their dynamical models.

    • I had the same thoughts – ten years of data for a fifteen year forecast, or is it a “projection”?
      Now we shall hear Ben Santer intone “It will require at least 33 years of data before an anthropogenic climate signal can be distinguished from the noise”. Thus climate science regresses.

    • I agree, Willis. I had intended to note the shortness of the term of the AMOC data in the post, but missed it in my haste to write it. However, I haven’t read the paper due to the paywall so I can’t say how or if the results of their study depend on the short-term AMOC data.

      Cheers.

    • My thoughts as well. And why all these short 10 year graphs using straight-line trends (y=mx+b) when we know climate is always changing? Straight lines lend a visual tendency to think there is a continuance.

  4. Bob,
    I went to the FAQ NOAA link and this jumped out at me, “How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes – in other words – is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?
    During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry.” My take is that there is a disconnect the past 8 years and that that the FAQ hasn’t been updated.

  5. davidsmith651……you are right in assuming an effect, but note that humidity is generally very low in polar regions and in the Arctic it is determined not just by low sea-ice cover in summer, but also import of clouds from the Bering Sea and from the North Atlantic. In the global warming period 1980-2000, cloud cover in the Arctic increased by 14%. At these latitudes, clouds act as insulators and hence contribute to the warming. Also, when the Beaufort Sea is ice-free and subject to cyclonic conditions, more water vapour/clouds result, but that the Arctic Oscillation involves a see-saw with anticyclonic conditions. When the latter predominate – as over the past few weeks, winds blow out of the Arctic Ocean rather than into it, and with high pressure in the Beaufort Sea, there is less cloud. I expect the Arctic to show a substantial drop in temperature anomaly as the year ends. If this persists, and is coupled to ongoing very large and slow cyclones in the mid-Atlantic, as also over the past two weeks, then the whole North Atlantic surface will cool substantially. The question then is for how long will the heat store down to 200m take to be run down? After that, the North Atlantic will be in a long cool phase and significantly lower the global average.

    I am no great fan of the speed of AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation as a major influence on climate. I have yet to see convincing treatment of the amount of heat that can be shifted at depth. The AMO, (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) on the other hand, as Bob Tisdale points out, is a measure of temperature, and hence must point to a mechanism in the oscillation that stores and run down heat in the surface waters. All that is needed for that is a shift in the percentage of cyclones sucking heat out in the area of the major heat-storing gyres (30-55 degrees North) – and affecting cloud cover (see my chapter in the disposition of heat stores in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’). The AMOC speed is affected by changes in wind patterns, as well as salinity and I would say it is a consequence of rather than a driver of changes – despite the consensus on its presumed role in long-term climate cycles. The crucial question then relates to the mechanism of oscillation – stochastic internal resonance, or some solar trigger, to shift the preponderance of cyclones, as with the North Atlantic Oscillation, where the Icelandic lows are replaced by high pressure systems, and the Azores highs replaced by low pressure systems. This oscillation seems, historically at least, to have a 20 year periodicity – but any shift over a longer term would affect not just the North Atlantic, but the Arctic also – and ultimately the global average. These shifts could be small over decades, but if persistent over centennial timescales, account for the longer term global cycles such as the ‘Little Ice Age’. There is even a case for a major role in the glaciation and deglacial dynamics.

  6. Only one comment which is will you guys PULEEEASE STOP using thos bloody linear trends lines for this sort of data. They are bloody meaningless. Frankly a 2 to 5 year running average would be far more informative or say a binomial filter. Either would show a plot that probably peaked some years back and was now wending its way down. Linear trend lines are a joke for data that is generated by completely non linear mechanisms and I do not give a rats what the statisticians say.

  7. Bob,
    You close your Intro, part two with this- “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is a recently discovered mode of Sea Surface Temperature variability for a significant portion of the global oceans. Climate studies provide different causes for the additional strength of the changes in North Atlantic SST anomalies: some blame the Atlantic branch of Thermohaline Circulation, while another discusses the multiple interactions between Saharan dust, Sahel precipitation, solar radiation, and Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature. While cause may be debatable, its impact on Northern Hemisphere sea surface and land surface temperature is clear.”
    The detective work you and others are doing is fascinating! Without having your knowledge and expertise, the skeptic in me wants to say that there are too many unknowns and confounding factors to call this a “discovery.” Perhaps an inference.
    As with the atmosphere, differences in temperature cause differences in pressure. Differences in pressure cause winds or ocean circulations (and it’s a coupled system). Are North Atlantic and Arctic albedo changes the the main cause of the Atlantic’s exaggeration of overall global ocean temperature changes? The sensitivity of the North Atlantic/Arctic oceans to albedo change is very high. Dust and especially black carbon (soot) in the Arctic play dual roles of both attenuating and amplifying the albedo change there, exaggerating the sensitivity. The Arctic’s and North Atlantic’s exaggerated response to global warming and cooling has been known since before H.H. Lamb.

    • The Arctic’s and North Atlantic’s exaggerated response to global warming and cooling has been known since before H.H. Lamb.

      I’m inclined to think this is more junk. I will note that some constant DWLR will cause a higher sky temp at cold temps than at warmer temps. 4W/m^2 is good for about 3F change in sky temps at -56F, and it’s closer to 1.6F with a sky temp of 32 (the sky temp on a warm humid day). But it’s just because at -56 that’s about 136W/m^2, and at 32 it about 300W/m^2, so the ratio is different.

  8. IMO this is how the planet cools, the Arctic melts from warm water, warm water dumps massive amounts of heat to space.

    For instance, last night about 6:00 it was about 50F out, sidewalk was 47F, grass was 42F, the clear sky was -60F, 110F colder.
    By 9:00 it was ~44, sidewalk was 45F, the grass was 32F, sky was -61F.
    At 10:30 it was 40F, sidewalk was 42F, the grass was actually a bit warmer at 33F, the sky was -63F

    Air temps track surface temps (Winds died by 6:00) which radiated to space. The grass cools quickly because it traps air between the blades, acts like an insulator, where the surface cools much faster than the ground underneath it.

    • Mi Cro
      October 24, 2014 at 7:25 am

      Let’s discuss this for a few minutes, I think it will prove very valuable in the future as a reference ..

      Is there an empirical (or observed) consistent relationship between Tair and Tsky under clear calm conditions – as you had last night, and between Tair and Tsky under cloudy conditions? Does Tsky vary from daylight through nighttime?

      We have all experienced this type of frost after a clear night’s radiation, but longwave radiation loss is never mentioned across the daylight hours when SW heating dominates air and ground temperatures. Everything still radiates to space eventually though every hour.

      Thus, if 2 meter air temperature =

      -25 C  (Arctic winter)    => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???  
      -15 C (Arctic equinox)    => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???
       +1 C (Arctic mid-summer) => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???
      +15 C (Temperate equinox) => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???
      +25 C (Temperate-midday)  => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ??? 
      +30 C (Temperate-summer)  => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???
      +35 C (Tropic mid-day)    => Tsky_clear = ??   ....   Tsky_cloudy = ???
      

      For example, in Arctic waters, the top of the exposed ocean water stays between +2 and +0 deg C, until it freezes over. Then the bottom of the 1 meter nominal sea ice is at that +2 – 0 deg C, but the top of the sea ice approaches air temperature -25 to -15 degrees.

      Thus, the open ocean water radiates much more energy to space (Tsky) than does the same area when it is ice-covered.

      • RACookPE1978 commented

        Let’s discuss this for a few minutes, I think it will prove very valuable in the future as a reference ..
        Is there an empirical (or observed) consistent relationship between Tair and Tsky under clear calm conditions – as you had last night, and between Tair and Tsky under cloudy conditions? Does Tsky vary from daylight through nighttime?
        We have all experienced this type of frost after a clear night’s radiation, but longwave radiation loss is never mentioned across the daylight hours when SW heating dominates air and ground temperatures. Everything still radiates to space eventually though every hour.
        Thus, if 2 meter air temperature =

        -25 C (Arctic winter) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        -15 C (Arctic equinox) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        +1 C (Arctic mid-summer) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        +15 C (Temperate equinox) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        +25 C (Temperate-midday) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        +30 C (Temperate-summer) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        +35 C (Tropic mid-day) => Tsky_clear = ?? …. Tsky_cloudy = ???
        For example, in Arctic waters, the top of the exposed ocean water stays between +2 and +0 deg C, until it freezes over. Then the bottom of the 1 meter nominal sea ice is at that +2 – 0 deg C, but the top of the sea ice approaches air temperature -25 to -15 degrees.
        Thus, the open ocean water radiates much more energy to space (Tsky) than does the same area when it is ice-covered.

        Tsky IMO is slightly correlated to surface temps, ie while on clear cool days it is quite cold, it does seem to drop some into the night, in the few hours I checked last night it dropped a couple degrees, while the surface dropped closer to 10 degrees.

        But you’ve hit on a point I’ve recently also been making, it is very cold, and open water at 32F radiates far more energy than ice does. They radiate more over the full 24 hour day, than they absorb for the 4-6 hours the Sun is over head. I don’t think there any kind of tipping point, I don’t think it’s even possible.

        Now your question about clouds, they are warm, all of them warm the sky temp, faint wispy high clouds warm the sky 10-20-30F, big old thick cloud bottoms are a lot warmer, 50-60-70F warmer.

        Clear skies radiate a lot of energy, cloudy skies (from the ground) don’t. Even if Co2 increased Tsky by 4F, clouds increase it 10F to +70F. Clouds regulate surface temps, not Co2. IMO this is why Co2 can’t be responsible for any warming, and Ocean temps can explain modern warming.

      • Oh, one more point.
        I spent $150 for a -60F IR Thermometer, if more people start measuring Tsky, and telling/showing people, if enough people do this no one will believe Co2 is warming anything, it becomes obvious.

  9. Based on paleoclimate data in the Florida Strait, Lund (2006) “Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium” estimated transport of the Gulf Stream declined by 10% during the LIttle Ice Age. One mechanism was the southward shift in the ITCZ, a shift that has been linked in several studies such changes in Monsoons and upwelling. It would also make sense that a weaker sun during the LIA would weaken the Hadley circulation and thus the trade winds.

    If the current weakening of the sun’s output contributes to a slowing of the poleward transport of heated tropical waters, then we should expect a cooling Atlantic and a trending recovery of sea ice in the Barents and Kara Sea.

  10. “Sometime after the turn of the century the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation peaked…..”

    Isee peaking roughly every 4 to 7 years;

    i.g. 1977, 1981, 1987, 1991, 1998, 2011….

    so we can expect (conform the trend) a new peak between now and circa 2018…

    • IMNon-HO: Conform to trend, peak at 2017; conform to trend IF rolling over from max at 2010, peak is 0.3C, further declining as cooling continues.

      End of CAGW, 2019.

      Another five years of this. And then, of course, the disaster will be changed to ocean acidification, as that is the one definite thing, water accepting more CO2 with a higher atmospheric pCO2.

  11. While it isn’t SST’s, take a look at Paul Homewood on the subject of Icelandic weather stations and the mess GISS make of their data (google) “iceland inurl:notalotofpeopleknowthat”.

    One presumes that SST’s and land (Iceland) temps are related though.

  12. H.H. Lamb writes extensively about ocean currents, general circulation, dust carried by the atmosphere, and climatically sensitive points including the Arctic. While I can’t find that he links Arctic albedo changes from carbon black (soot) to Arctic warming, he does write on p. 438 of “Climate Past, Present, and Future, part 1” of the “many indications of turbidity of the lower atmosphere during the twentieth century … with almost constant amounts of dust… from the 1790’s to around 1930’s at 10-20 mg/l… rising to an average of 50 mg/l in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” From memory, the recent IPCC Assessment attributed some of the recent Arctic melt (second strongest forcing?) to the soot that accumulates there causing rapid melting during summer, something that doesn’t occur at the Antarctic where there has been very little increase in soot accumulation. Open Arctic waters create less water and surface air temperature difference, less pressure difference, and less vapor difference between the Arctic/northern Atlantic and the mid or southern Atlantic than occurs when the Arctic is frozen during the warmer months. Do the reduced thermal and pressure gradients create reduced wind and circulation? I’m trying to understand this, not argue about it.

  13. Bob Tisdale said

    “So it’s blatantly obvious that the North Atlantic contributed to the warming of global sea surface temperatures since the mid-1970s.”

    Err … you also said in an earlier article that the record high sea surface temperatures in 2014 are being caused only by a very warm Pacific.

    Also, related to this, why is WUWT slow to report on the September 2014 NOAA data ? :

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

    Interestingly, that reports states

    The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

    and

    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.

    It also says that

    The average September temperature for the global oceans was record high for the month, at 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for September. This also marked the highest departure from average for any month since records began in 1880, breaking the previous record of 0.65°C (1.17°F) set just one month earlier in August. This is the third time in 2014 this all-time monthly high temperature record has been broken. Record warmth was observed in parts of every major ocean basin, particularly notable in the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean.

    Bob you criticised me recently for saying there were warm conditions widely across the oceans and that whilst parts of the Pacific are unusually warm, it was not just the Pacific that was contributing to the record high global sea surface temperatures.

    So do you say that NOAA is wrong too ?

    • James Abbott,
      So good to hear from you. I take this opportunity to congradulate you and your fellow countrymen on the fabulous bounty of shale gas that has recently been surveyed in Great Britain. What an energy bonanza! I know that you are delighted. Just think, now GB can dispense with coal and use the cleanest of fuels for heating, etc., with the assurance of several hundred years supply! What plans have you made to insure that this wonderful gift is expeditiously developed?

    • 100th of one degree C. Let us smash our comfortable modern existences or we are doomed to become yet more comfortable.

      What was it ‘supposed’ to be again? 2 tenths of a degree C by now? Oops.

    • James Abbott quoted me, “So it’s blatantly obvious that the North Atlantic contributed to the warming of global sea surface temperatures since the mid-1970s,” and then said, “Err … you also said in an earlier article that the record high sea surface temperatures in 2014 are being caused only by a very warm Pacific.”

      In one instance, this post, I was talking about long-term warming. In the other post, I was talking about the events that caused the record highs this year.

      Are the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic presently at or near record high levels? No. Not even close. They’ve been warmer many times in the past.

      Are the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific at record high levels? Yes, they are.

      Then, James Abbott, you quoted the NOAA state of the climate report and asked, “So do you say that NOAA is wrong too ?”

      Why are you playing games, James? I explained in an earlier post why there were record high sea surface temperatures globally, and the reason was the North Pacific unusual warming in the North Pacific:
      http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/

    • Surface temperatures, post adjustment. Check out the AMSU and RSS temps. No sign of a record September average.

  14. Had me going until I read “multi-model ensemble mean”. That’s a new one on me! And I like the alliteration.

  15. Mi Cro October 24, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Oh, one more point.
    I spent $150 for a -60F IR Thermometer, if more people start measuring Tsky, and telling/showing people, if enough people do this no one will believe Co2 is warming anything, it becomes obvious.

    Mi Cro, you’re asking the wrong question. The question is not “does CO2 warm anything”. You measured the night sky at -60°F, which sounds about right.

    The real question is, would the earth be warmer or cooler if it were exposed directly to the bitter cold of outer space at -450°F or so, rather than being exposed to the -61°F due to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Easy question, easy answer. CO2 leaves the earth warmer than it would be without CO2.

    w.

    • Willis E. Commented

      CO2 leaves the earth warmer than it would be without CO2

      You are absolutely correct, my language was sloppy.

      What I was trying to highlight was that the small change in Tsky, based on a change in Co2 is swamped by the effect of clouds on surface temps.
      If nothing else changed in response to Co2, the surface would experience a slight warming (compared to surface temps prior to a change in Co2), but what I’ve seen in the things I’ve measured is that this does not seem to be happening. In particular CS does not appear to be amplified by water vapor, and a slight increase in cloudiness would/could completely cause CS to be less than a doubling of Co2 alone.

  16. Mi Cro, let me add that it’s just like with your coat. You go out wearing a coat, and your coat is much colder than you are … so by your lights it wouldn’t be able to warm anything, including you.

    But in fact, you end up warmer wearing your cold coat than you would if you took it off … go figure. The same is true of the earths “coat” of CO2. As you point out, the CO2 is colder than the earth … but the earth ends up warmer than it would if we took off the CO2 coat.

    w.

    • So now Willis has joined the global warmers by implying that AGW is an immutable fact of physics. But Willis can never show any warming that is attributable to CO2.
      Can you, Willis?

      • I think Willis is correct here. If there was no CO2 at all in the atmosphere, I believe the earth would be quite a bit cooler.

  17. Bob Tisdale said

    “Then, James Abbott, you quoted the NOAA state of the climate report and asked, “So do you say that NOAA is wrong too ?”

    Why are you playing games, James? I explained in an earlier post why there were record high sea surface temperatures globally, and the reason was the North Pacific unusual warming in the North Pacific:”

    Bob you repeat the same line without addressing my question at all.

    The NOAA reports says

    “This is the third time in 2014 this all-time monthly high temperature record has been broken. Record warmth was observed in parts of every major ocean basin, particularly notable in the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean.”

    So I repeat, are you saying that NOAA is wrong ? You say that the record warm ocean surface temperatures are only due to the North Pacific. NOAA say that in parts of EVERY major ocean basin there was record warmth observed in September.

    I can guess why you don’t want to admit this – it is evidence of global warming, whereas the line that record warmth in one location is tilting the global figure can be explained away as an exception.

    That looks like cherry picking.

  18. mpainter October 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    So now Willis has joined the global warmers by implying that AGW is an immutable fact of physics. But Willis can never show any warming that is attributable to CO2.
    Can you, Willis?

    mpainter, it’s obvious you disagree with something I said … but what? I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your either your understanding or your misunderstanding of my own words.

    So please, quote the exact words that I said that you disagree with, and tell us why you disagree. At present, the nature of your objection is totally unclear.

    w.

Comments are closed.