From the University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year,” says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets.
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value (Figure 1a) and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands,” explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat–heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 1b),” says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
###
What happened to the ‘pause’?
Apparently those”record breaking” greenhouse gas concentrations (which have been record breaking for 60 years now) only have the ability to warm the oceans. Global temps remain mysteriously unaffected. Imagine that
Really?
October tied for hottest month on record.
Visible light penetrates sea water up to about 150 meters, though most of it will be absorbed within the first 10. Long wave radiation only penetrates a few millimeters.
LOL, like the “hottest evah August” shown as a ridiculous lie by the plummeting RSS reading? (And the summer snow in the US)
Princemishkin
November 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Really?
October tied for hottest month on record.
Really? Borrowed from Real Science:
The experts at the National Climatic Data Center report that October was 4th warmest on record in the US, despite the fact that their own thermometers show it was 24th warmest – after 1947, 1963, 1884, 1900, 1882, 1950, 1881, 1931, 1938, 2007, 1953, 1918, 1956, 1897, 1910, 1927, 1971, 1934, 1973, 1941, 1940, 1962 and 1914
1947 and 1963 were nearly four degrees warmer.
Which illustrates the power of “adjustments” by the charlatans of NOAA and NASA. Ditto Had CRU. Never, ever trust government flunkies. The trough-feeding parasites are not here to help. If their mouths or printing presses are moving, they’re lying.
It is still there, SH sea ice near record high, NH snow, near record high, Great lakes ice about 10 F below normal, The ratio of very cold days to very hot days in the US in 2014 (so far) is second highest in a century
RSS and UAH anomalies about 1/2 of the 1998 anomalies, and even the highly adjusted GISS surface record does not yet make this the hottest year.
But it is the warmest ice on record!
After 10 months, the GISS average is 0.664. The previous high was 2010 at 0.661. 2005 is next at 0.655. GISS no longer shows a flat pause.
Hadcrut4.3, after 9 months, is 0.560. This is slightly above the record of 0.555 in 2010. After 9 months, the pause is 9 years and 9 months.
Hadsst3, at 0.482 after 10 months, is way ahead of 0.416 from 1998. The last 5 months have all been above the previous high monthly anomaly of 0.526 set in July 1998. It also no longer shows a pause.
The satellite data show pauses with RSS at 18 years and 1 month and UAH, version 5.5, at 9 years and 10 months. Both are ranked 7th after 10 months in 2014.
Werner, GISS infill’s large blank areas from stations up to 1200 K away, both in high latitudes in the oceans,
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/ and in large central areas which RSS shows cool, like most of Africa here..http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/out-of-africa/
Does NASA GISS use their global mean surface T maps, minus land, to determine global ocean surface T.,
or do they go and back fill the areas for their SST only maps they deleted for their mean global surface maps??
So this all means that the heat is not ‘missing’ – it’s being withdrawn from the landmasses and dumped into the ocean? Well okay.
It does continue to amaze me that only in climatology does heat flow up a temperature gradient
I don’t think there’s currently any Great Lakes ice. And we all know air temps lag ocean temps, so let’s see what happens in the coming months.
Great Lakes ice forecast:
http://www.weather.gov/cle/GreatLakesIce_text
It’s so cool that we can measure average ocean temp to .001 degrees. We must be using some of that alien tech from area 51 because I know of no way to accomplish this with Earth tech.
One of the more unscientific comments you have made. A 12 week spike in surface T does not end a 13 to 18 year pause.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.htmO
To Leif of course, still getting used to the new format.
David A – Please check your link, as it does not got to a viewable page of info. Thank you
That O on the end mucks the link up.
Explicitly, see here
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific”
Sounds like they are just measuring the El Nino.
El Nino would be in the equatorial Pacific.
When the pause officially ends folks will go back to some other nonsense to deny what they dont need to deny:
C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.
Now, skeptics who want to make an impact ( like Nic Lewis) focus on the real question. Imagine what would happen if all skeptics learned from his example?
Instead they clown around denying basic physics. They clown around chasing the orbit of Jupiter.
They clown around complaining about anomalies and the colors of charts. Faced with clowns like this, Obama pulls out his phone and pen.
In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe. And that
picture gets used to justify executive action. By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president .
An English major lectures us on “basic physics” with much hand waving. Just who is the clown here?
Just curious Mosh but what do you take as a valid number +/- error range for CO2 doubling / temp sensitivity? I’ve seen it drop from 4 C, to 3 to 2 and now we’ve got papers being published showing it is 1.5 or less.
From 0.7 to 1.5 seems to be the new range. I’m thinking somewhere in the middle of that so I’ll go with 1.25 +/- 0.25 (just a SWAG on my part from reading the studies and reviews thereof).
PS. I’m not be facetious I’m interested in what you think it is. Thanks
The “pause” may “officially” end by corrupt officials faking temperature “data”, but in the real world it has already ended, & just as skeptics predicted, the planet is cooling, not warming.
In the immortal words of the late, great real scientist, not GIGO modeler, & “Father of Climatology” Reid Bryson, ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.’
CO2 warms the atmosphere and it’s that simple, right? There could NEVER be negative feedbacks associated to warming and the natural forces which are working towards bringing about a glacial period could never overwhelm this slight increase in LWIR absorption, right? Spoken like a true believer that doesn’t understand the complexity of the issue.
This comment is beyond Orwellian, blaming sceptics for Obama’s craziness.
That should read “CO2 helps to warm.” No one knows how much or how. The models don’t even have accurate radiative physics info in them.
Was that a threat ?
We can only hope that CO2 warms the planet. What a wonderful benefit to an already beneficial gas. Is it the crank skeptics relegated to the dust bin that unleash the tyranny of bureaucracy or government funded alarmists blasted over the evening news every night? Either way mankind does have an affinity for servitude.
I think another question is just as important.
That question is “does the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor, proposed as a key to increased temps, actually exist in nature (and not just in a model).
What a nonsense!
When the plateau ends and the cooling really gets going the simpletons will still recite their bs. They will just say CO2 warms, but not that much.
Warmists deny basic physics (heat transfer) and basic education (geography). We live in the age of stupid.
@ Steven Mosher
November 14, 2014 at 9:54 am
You say:
“C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.”
———-
Seems like a rhetorical question, but considering the whole of your comment and the possibility that you may just have had one too many drinks prior to writing and posting it, I will consider that as non rhetorical.
The answer to that question, which I do not expect you to understand, will be:
“The CO2 will warm the planet not at all. Planet does not warm to any degree that we humans or any one else at all could be able to measure, and it does not even cool to any such a degree.”
Now if by some dodgy way you meant colloqually the surface and atmospheric warming then the answer to your question, which I again do not expect you to understand, will be:
“The CO2 will warm the “planet” as much as the Earth planet wants or requiries the CO2 to warm the “planet”, at a time and period as wanted and requiried, no more no less”
The day you will understand this, you will be moving out of clowning and in to basic physics.
In your comment you also surprisingly show lot of desperation, what makes me think you had one too many drinks before commenting and posting.
cheers
Prove that CO2 warms the planet. Data that I have seen indicate that there is no such relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
I don’t know of many skeptics who clown. It is widely acknowledged that CO2 can raise earth temperature about 1 degC with one doubling from 350ppm anda total of 1.5 degrees with infinite doubling ( more CO2 provides diminishing warming ability, because the CO2 wavelength get absorbed once and once one CO2 captures a photon having 100 won’t capture it any more)
The problem is really the irrational alarmists , who then take this info And then claim positive feedbacks will make the increase 2,3 even 10 times more powerful. It just doesn’t work that way and everyone knows it, even the alarmists. The temperature record shows the increase of a 0.6 degC natural heating per century, plus about 0.8 due to CO2. Of course with all the homogenization of data, we could soon see larger increases as we freeze to death.
whiten said: ““The CO2 will warm the “planet” as much as the Earth planet wants or requiries the CO2 to warm the “planet”, at a time and period as wanted and requiried, no more no less”
Wow, in 2 years of reading posts on this site, I think that is the least science based posting pretending to be science based that I have come across.
“In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe. And that
picture gets used to justify executive action. By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president.”
I am not sure how to even begin to untangle such an irrational statement. Lewandowski does not need any excuse to be ‘enabled’. If there were no ‘fringe’ skeptics, he would create his own mythical fringe skeptics, which is pretty much what he does anyway. Frankly, those who ‘chase the orbit of Jupiter’, ‘complain about anomalies’ and ‘the color of charts’, are far more rational than those who create an imaginary planet of doom and try to pass it off as Earth. It least the former are dealing with some physical realities.
Secondly, this Imperial President is not hiding behind the cover of ‘crazed skeptics’ to justify his executive actions. Even this Teflon President would not attempt to argue that we must make our energy more expensive because the crazy guy on the side walk is all for cheap electricity. The most faithful Democrats would think the President was nuts. No. This Imperial President stands boldly with the fiction writers of the IPCC and all the Federal Agencies he has payed to supply him with the fiction he wants. He needs no cover, other than the ignorance of the American people, and even that is reaching its limits. (who’da thunk?)
If we silenced all the so-called ‘fringe’ skeptics, the actions of the warmists would not change a bit, however science would likely take a huge hit. I seem to recall some ‘fringe’ German dude came up with the idea that space and time were relative! What a nut job, right Steven?
@ Chris
November 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Hi Chris.
The comment you replied to was meant for Mosher…and as I said there, I did not expect him to understand, and probably it means also many others would not understand it too, perhaps you too.
For once it means that the CS is a constant and the CO2 emissions always in dependence of natural functioning of Earth system. Seems that always to be the case, till Hansen era that is.
Only in a AGW and Hansen era things considered differently.
Is hard, very hard to consider that we humans are no gods but instead puppets as we always been.
Is quasy impossible for some to operate outside the AGW mentality, and that makes it so very hard to understand my reply to Mosher.
cheers
Who denies basic physics? Name names.
And Obama isn’t using his phone and pen to save the world, only to save his political party.
Steven Mosher: Instead they clown around denying basic physics.
Tell us again how the basic physics excludes evaporation.
By denying basic physics fringe skeptics enabled the like of Lewandowski. They give cover for an imperial president .
That is a bizarre claim. What fringe skeptics had more influence on an imperial president than John Holdren?
@ Wes Spiers
November 14, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Sorry, but S. Mosher definitely is one to name, when he says:
“C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.”
The planet does not either cool or warm, unless a Runway global warming (or cooling) at the extreme for an incredibly long period, but even then the planet’s heat content will not change by any measurable amount, basic physics. 🙂
Another one will be M.Mann when turning from global warming to glob’s warming..:-)
cheers
Steven Mosher, please consider the post by William Astley November 14, 2014 at 11:54 am. How does the basic science of your understanding explain the rather rapid reinstatement of the apparent pause just 2 months later? Was there a rapid decline in the CO2 concentration? Is his post misleading? did the warm water rise as vapor and fall again as rain on our parched West Coast? Is it some kind of denying basic physics to call November anomalies about as important as September anomalies?
C02 warms the planet. the question is how much.
Now, skeptics who want to make an impact ( like Nic Lewis) focus on the real question. Imagine what would happen if all skeptics learned from his example?
I agree completely. Don’t ask “how”. Ask “how much”.
An English major lectures us on “basic physics” with much hand waving. Just who is the clown here?
So now you can add a history major to that.
In short, some of the craziness spouted by fringe skeptics gets used to paint the whole tribe.
Lamentably true. My opponents I can handle, but lord save me from my co-belligerents.
When the pause officially ends
I expect it will end when the PDO flips positive. That’s what happened last time.
How do you know it’s a “pause”? You know, with your great track record of predictions.
The “other nonsense” will replace the pause, when the pause ENDS? So the Pause is simultaneously a pause, and nonsense? And drawing attention to the pause enables the Loonandowsky because we should be quiet about 18 years of flat temps because shut up?
Without skeptics, President Al Gore (whew, that was a close one!) in 2000 would have turned our economy and world upside down, had us go carbon neutral, and today’s pause would have been viewed as the result of his actions. “See, I told you it was the C02!” Everyone would have handily applauded Al Gore for saving the planet. Sainthood, knighthood and plenty of unwilling massueses awaits.
It might have taken generations before real science caught up with the lies. So we have a lot to thank skeptics for! And at least they are debating the science, right or wrong. And with continual debate, the foci tends to change over time to reflect actual reality.
Is it fringe to say .2-.4 for doubling? Is it fringe to say not much? Is it fringe to point out that half the CO2 bands are saturated, probably because half the “greenhouse” effect is from the top down?
You know damned well CO2 is not warming the NE Pacific and leaving everything else alone. You want fringe? Dong Choi will tell you electromagnetic energy is emerging there after moving laterally through the mid mantle and it is causing the recent upsurge in volcanism. Can’t rule it out. What’s your hypothesis?
Just when I start thinking you have no buddies by design you start talking like a marketing mouthpiece for the team.
@ Mosh: Yeah, when the pause ends we’ll be on a downward trend.
basic physics but by no means basic in application , hence the totally failure of models and why there is a need for ‘missing heat’ in the first place. The world is rather more complicated than a bell jar you pump CO2 , but your free to ‘deny ‘ that if you want.
Mosh
Once your credibility is shot it remains shot for a long, long time.
…and Mosher caught the thread, again.
You sound like the raving idiot (clown) in the room here by throwing labels around. CO2 obviously has some effect on temperatures as most skeptics accept. Real world data suggests that it is very small for reasons that are explained readily by physics. You ignore the elephant in the room, water vapor, while squeaking over the mouse, CO2. The modelers you obviously adore ignore water vapor properties, the sun, and the effect of the entire biosphere on climate. I am not a scientist. What I do know is if there is an agenda involving turning over all our rights to save the world from burning up or freezing us all to death it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with lusting for power over the lives of others. That’s where I see you entering the picture here.
“It’s the sun, stupid!”
To the head of flat-sunspot-record society, naturally… 😉
Yes, it is:
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html
Willis dismissed Meehl as a modeler, but his school of thought is based upon data & plausible, demonstrable hypotheses to explain them:
“In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.
“When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.
“The Pacific is particularly sensitive to small variations in the trade winds,” Meehl said. Solar activity may influence processes linked with trade wind strength.”
And, Timmermann himself participated in a study published in Nature Climate Change blaming the “pause” on strong trade winds, but naturally, in order to be funded, had to assert without evidence that when the winds weaken, global warming will return. Now comes his finding that North Pacific Ocean warming occurred, even if not global.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
IMO this event, if valid, will be a one off, a last gasp, before the predictable descent into a cooling interval comparable to the late 1940s to ’70s, which IMO has already begun. Naturally, it’s more obvious in satellite observations than in the cooked to a crisp land station “record”.
How does an acute (and probably short lived) spike in noisy data end a long term rate of zero change? You’d think warmists would have learned after decades of knee-jerk reactions that have made them look like idiots. Nothing has happened to the pause. My money is on this being the last surge of warmth from the oceans before the “pause” becomes the “cooling”. $20 on this not being the end of the pause, Leif?
Robert W Turner: How does an acute (and probably short lived) spike in noisy data end a long term rate of zero change? You’d think warmists would have learned after decades of knee-jerk reactions that have made them look like idiots.
My thoughts as well. After all this time, they can not all together say “maybe”, and wait a while to see how things turn out after all data have been reviewed.
its does not , but it does make a good headline and certainly helps keep the grant money flowing in while letting others know the author can be trusted as is a ‘true believer’ . So in many ways its very ‘effect ‘ research.
Leif, for a discussion on where and why global sea surface temperatures are at record high levels, see the following:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/
Well done, but would appreciate a succinct summation to go with the link.
IMO, global warming during the warm PDO phase of c. 1977-98 ended with the super El Nino of 97/98 and the whole period featured a high number of super El Ninos and consecutive El Ninos. By contrast, El Ninos have been rare since then, as would be expected during a natural cooling phase, as earth appears now to be suffering.
The unusual warm pool in the NE Pacific is IMO liable to prove transitory, an artifact of solar activity fluctuations during a transition phase between PDOs. It’s likely not to prove the harbinger of renewed warming so longed for by catastrophists.
Thanks Bob, I was looking for that article on your site earlier and could not locate it.
It is pretty obvious there that this heat did not come from WPWP and drift up the US Pacific coast in counter current to the main ocean coriolis circulation as claimed by Timmermann.
I think he’s been at the Maui wowie again.
Here’s the graph that seems the most pertinent from that article by Bob.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/figure-6-no-pac-ssta-last-12-months.png
The ‘pause” is still going strong in the phony data of NASA, NOAA and HadCRU. Sorry about the inconvenient truths with which you must deal daily, but the real world refuses to cooperate with your blind faith, and soon Washington, DC will wake up to this reality, too. Then we can start funding actual science again, instead of anti-scientific activism.
The Pause met the Cause. And came second. With scientific integrity a distant third.
It is back.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.11.13.2014.gif
That didn’t take long. What happened to all that warm water? Did it power a few of our recent (rather mild) California rain showers?
In your graph, the PDO looks closer to setting up cool than I can remember for a long time. We need the blue to shift right.
Matthew,
A lot of it went into the typhoon that made it all the way to Alaska, sending near record breaking cold and snow into the northern US.
It’s pathetic to watch Warmunistas jumping for joy at such passing weather events and grasping at straws to try to save themselves as they slide farther down the slippery slope into the oblivion of reality
Catherine Ronconi: A lot of it went into the typhoon that made it all the way to Alaska, sending near record breaking cold and snow into the northern US.
I was wondering if that was it.
“””””…..“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. …””””
So that means since circa 1980, when the early ocean buoys were deployed.
So we have SST buoy data for half a cycle. I’m guessing the next 30 years of data won’t be setting many warm records.
After the long-suffering people speak again in 2018, the jig will be up for trough-feeding leeches on society pretending to be scientists.
Nothing.
looks to me it went to where Pauses go to die…
Looks to me as if the “Pause” is still very much with us, although turning colder rather than warmer.
It was the temporary NE Pacific warm pool, a weather phenomenon, that went away to die wherever pools go. Maybe to the pools’ graveyard.
You appear to be making the same mistake as for instance Martin Wolf at the Financial Times -eminently qualified in his comments on economic and financial matters- when he starts holding forth on global warming/climate change, where he is manifestly out of his depth.
In your case, I’ll take Bob Tisdale’s analysis over your throwaway question any time of the day.
Perhaps you could augment your throwaway comment with the result of your analysis of Tisdale’s stuff. What is in your exalted opinion the answer to my question?
> James The Elder.
USA is not The World.
(And you are just a sockpuppet. G’bye, David. Your comments are all wasted effort. ~mod)
Seems unlikely with the growth of arctic ice, we will see what the follow on analysis shows.
Its better for swimming? So whats the problem. Warm water is good No? Hopefully warmer temps to follow. Its freezing where I am now. I need to move south (climate refugee)
How much money can you claim as a refugee from climate? I’m thinking I should move from Canada to the Maldives, then claim climate refugee status, and again, when the “inevitable AGW” raises the seas and floods me out. I go, repeat, ad infinutum, Or go live on a flood plain (woops, that’s all of us, right?) And I could set up a (or a number} of NGO’s to assist said refugees to get their $$ from the (pick an appropriate contraction) UN body.
OR, I could solve the problem at the source and have a steak for dinner – cut the methane out of the equation! (97%?)
Just curious.. just where do the temperature readings prior to the satellites come from? Did we have clipper ships patrolling the southern oceans with thermometers hanging off the side back in the 1880’s? I’ll concede 1979 on and maybe even back to the WWII era, but prior to that it’s a little hard to understand we have enough readings to compare to current values.
“Did we have clipper ships patrolling the southern oceans with thermometers hanging off the side back in the 1880′s?”
Actually yes. There was much more traffic at high southern latitudes during windjammer days in order to use the strong and reliable westerly winds in “the roaring forties” och “howling fifties”. When steamships took over those seas became almost completely empty. They still are.
Did those ships in 1880 bother to measure sea surface temperature, and if so did they do it at a precisely measured depth, and with calibrated thermometers? I think not.
No they didn’t record temps. The clipper ships existed for one reason and one reason only. To MAKE MONEY. A clipper could more than pay for it’s cost of construction with single trip around the horn. I suggest if you want to learn what clipper ships were all about and read a fascinating story of how a woman, working as the navigator in the manly occupation of seafaring at the time used the latest science to set the record for the fastest passage of a clipper ship (and still today the fastest for any sailing ship that was not for racing) from NYC to San Francisco http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Cloud-Americas-Famous-Clipper/dp/0688167934
It really is a fascinating story and well worth the read.
Systematic oceanography began with 19th century expeditions, such as that of HMS Beagle, with Charles Darwin as naturalist, in the 1830s, the long 1840s voyage of USN officer Wilkes, previous & subsequent French & Russian explorations & especially this RN one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition
Depends on whose chart you look at. This is the result of the revisions made after they recently took the chart down.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
Hmm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/04/sorry-to-disappoint-cooling-in-the-north-pacific-not-so-much/
Looks like all that warm water had dissipated by October, according to Mr Tisdale.
Neil, this morning I posted the full sea surface temperature update for October 2014:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/october-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Here’s the graph for the North Pacific based on Reynolds OI.v2 data:
Regards
Wow – that looks good for a lot of snow this winter in the rockies. In fact, a number of ski hills are opening this weekend in the Rockies ….
Old news, the Blob is gone and cool temperatures have taken over the N Pacific.
Looking at the graph above, the cooler waters haven’t taken over much of the North Pacific.
Regards
That is from October and is also old. There is still some warm water persisting off the coast of N America but the blob in figure B of the article is gone. That is what I was referring to.
Me saying “cool temperatures have taken over the N Pacific” was not 100% accurate.
Warm N. Atlantic would precede cooling as the next place for that warm water would be the Arctic which just dumps heat into space. As warm as it may be, it isn’t warm enough to inhibit ice growth this year. They also sound like they want to frame the warming pause as being in the past.
RSS maps generally reflect surface T fairly well. Comparing RSS 1998 to 2014 is not even close.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/us-government-agencies-just-cant-stop-lying/
TLT doesn’t, it’s particularly sensitive to El Niño, as illustrated by the 1998 data.
The 98 RSS does reflect a warmer tropical area. It is muted as you say, but the reflection is there compared to 2014 which appears to capture the blob, and a cool central Africa and northern part of South America.
TLT doesn’t, it’s particularly sensitive to El Niño, as illustrated by the 1998 data.
It’s particularly sensitive, period. It is an upper bound.
GISS infill’s large blank areas from stations up to 1200 K away, both in high latitudes in the oceans,
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/ and in large central areas which RSS shows cool, like most of Africa here..http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/out-of-africa/
Does NASA GISS use their global mean surface T maps, minus land to determine global ocean surface T.,
or do they go and back fill the areas they deleted for their mean global surface maps??
So all that heat WAS hiding in the oceans? Well I’ll be …
Actually, if the missing heat was to be in the ocean and then released, we would have a drastic spike in temperatures, not just a mild bump.
So when was the last time you burned your hand putting your fingers in a pot of cold water? That heat can’t release itself without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
OK so the Earth isn’t a closed system. That means in theory you could use the energy input from the sun to power some kind of heat pump to extract heat back out of the cold ocean waters. But it is extraordinarily unlikely any natural mechanism of this type exists. Even if it did, a change in ocean temperature of a couple hundredths of degrees warmer wouldn’t make any difference to its functioning. It could pump heat out of an “unwarmed” ocean just as well.
That heat can’t release itself without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Sure it can. What does not mix, travels in belts. (Think ENSO.)
Meant N. Pacific, don’t know where Atlantic came from. Need more coffee.
“The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
What goes up will go down. PDO is tracking Solar and that second solar peak spiked the PDO.
PDO about to pull back quickly if it continues to track solar is my feeling
I would really like it if someone could do a detailed post on the AMO PDO.
Seems there is a lot of conflicting info out there on the AMO and PDO.
Only way I can post any pictures on WUWT is through twitter. I can not figure out another way
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/533291966675828737
oops. Top left chart is AMO in red and Gistemp-dst in green Top Right chart is AMO in red and RSS in green
Bottom chart is PDO in red and Monthly sunspot data in green, 2011 to present
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/normalise
Why whenever someone uses the term “tracking” do they end up being wrong?
Perhaps I don’t understand what it means but I thought it meant following so closely one was “in the tracks of ” the other.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/normalise/mean:61/mean:53/mean:33/offset:0.2
Being totally out of phase from 1980 to 2010 is a bit of a problem for the idea of a direct correlation.
-“What goes up will go down. ”
Nope. In a few years they will adjust today’s temperatures downward and again have a record hot year
since skeptic Roy spencer controls UHA.. are you indicting him as well?
UAH TLT is showing nothing of this “enormous” heat being dumped into the atmosphere:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
Timmermann. “The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
So a six month uptick is sufficient to call and end to 18 years of no warming?
Can we have some error bars on that claim please?
As the conference on another Climate Treaty (or whatever euphemism they use) in Paris next year gets closer output like this will increase. Rebuttals will be denied until after the Paris conference.
Excellent point. These global warming scare stories are caused by international global warming conferences. That makes the fix easy – just stop having the conferences
The uptick is not over the land, and is not a record for the year, but a part of the year, and with the fact that SH sea ice near record high, NH snow, near record high, Great lakes ice about 10 F below normal, The ratio of very cold days to very hot days in the US in 2014 (so far) is second highest in a century and
RSS and UAH anomalies about 1/2 of the 1998 anomalies, the claim of hottest year ever is not just pre mature, but simply wrong.
Great lakes temperatures I believe you mean 🙂
Why are you jumping all over the globe picking out certain small areas and extrapolating the results?
SH sea ice is record high for multiple reasons, one being the influx of fresh water from the melting of Antarctic glaciers. Fresh water melts at higher temps than salt water and is less dense so it floats on the surface of the ocean. You mention SH sea but neglect NH sea ice. Why?
NH snow cover is up about 1m sq km in the winter but year round NH snow cover overall is downward trend meaning it’s losing more in other parts of the year than it’s gaining in fall and winter, why didn’t you mention that?
Great lakes? Ratio of hot to cold days in the US only? Why are you focusing on such a small surface area of the globe ignoring the other 98% of the surface and indicating that what happens at this 2% is indicative of what’s happening over the whole globe? If we have data for the whole globe why don’t we just look at that and not extrapolate results from a small area.
Gee Dan. Why don’t you actually “do” the arithmetic on that claimed-but-never-measured Antarctic land ice melting to dilute the southern hemisphere ocean around Antarctica to cause more sea ice to freeze? Why don’t YOU show us how much land ice must melt (from an Antarctic land area of 14.0 Mkm^2 square area that has NOT been heating up the past 40 years! to cause a 2.0 million square kilometer anomaly “excess” this past June and a 0.45 million square kilometer this month.
Oh – by the way – you have to “dilute” all that water UNDER today’s 14 million sq kilometers of existing sea. You have to “dilute” enough of that sea water so the top 50 meters of storm-tossed southern ocean water DOES ACTUALLY freeze at a significantly higher temperature: A rise in southern ocean freezing point from -2.5 degree C to -2.45 degree C won’t do, will it? So, how much Antarctic lnd ice must melt to change the southern ocean’s freezing point around Antarctica by 1.0 degree C?
So YOU show us the measurements. Do the math now. The West Antarctic Peninsula is only 1.7% of the entire continent, and it isn’t completely covered by ice – and that ice has not all melted (though a few of its glaciers have retreated since 1850… You don’t intend on using THAT little area to assume the rest of the continent is melting “unseen” do you?
Well, from today’s northern sea ice levels, additional loss of Arctic sea ice results only in increased heat losses from the Arctic Ocean by increased evaporation, increased radiation losses, increased conduction and convection losses 7 out of 12 months of the year.
So, more southern sea ice -> More heat energy reflected into space 12 of 12 months of the year.
Less northern sea ice -> More heat losses from the Arctic 7 of 12 months of the year.
Yes, I mean water T, likely a result of the record ice that took a long time to melt, and will make a strong comeback this year.
Dan you also failed to note that RSS and UAH are global data sets, and they show 2014 much cooler then 1998. You also failed to note the very cool SST around Antarctica, a far more reasonable exclamation for the sea ice, and you completely failed to show any evidence for mass salinity change of sea water around Antarctica. Also, please note that NH sea ice is about 60 percent plus above this time last year. (volume)
So the real kicker to the very warm SST is the blob, which for two years received far more SUNSHNE then normal due to the RRR, diverting storms around it, and away from Calif. Now please understand that the residence time of most energy striking earth is about maybe one day, by sunrise, it is pretty much gone. However SW solar insolation striking a large area of the ocean, penetrating to depth, up to 800′, now that increase in heat builds daily, sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, as the residence time of said energy is very long. Increase the heat capacity of a system, and you increase the energy content.
Feel free to go look at the below the surface maps of 1998 compared to 2014. There was a great deal more warm water below the surface in 1998. This warming may be short lived..
Also total NH annual snowfall has been increasing, so our children will know what snow is.
As far as Hadsst3 is concerned, there is no flat line, but for statistically significant warming, Nick Stokes’ site has no statistically significant warming since December 1994, or almost 20 years.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
Did the sun only shine on that part of the Pacific Ocean? What is the claim for why that area is so warm compared to anywhere else? What is the cause of this uneven heating?
Indian Pacific Warm Pool spreading out.
Exactly. It is very possible that no heat has been added. The always top to bottom warm column of heated water up against the Indonesian West Pacific coastline got blown North where it all rose to the surface and spread out its full volume. Kind of reminds me of oil spills. A tiny drop of oil in a mud puddle can spread out and make the entire puddle look like nothing but oil.
This also means that the West Pacific coastline has been drained of its store of warm water which is evaporating away as we speak and rising through the atmosphere to escape Earth’s confines. A warm North Pacific sea surface is not our friend. Neither is a warm North Atlantic. It is the warning sign of Earth losing more heat than it can absorb. This scenario may even mimic that last Medieval Warm Period breath before plunging us into an exhausted state of cold while the Earth worked overtime to restore such a massive loss of heat.
Could be undersea volcanoes. Who knows? It didn’t last long, so world is back to cooling, ie going with its major long-term trend (3000 years or more) instead of its short-term (300 years) minor warming trend.
A two year high pressure ridge diverting storms. The RRR (Ridiculously Resultant Ridge.)
Timmermann. “in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast”
Last time I looked the exceptional warmth was in the Bering and Alaskan region and spread _down_ the coast, as would be expected with the main rotation of the ocean gyres, driven by Coriolis forces.
If I am not mistaken, during the negative PDO phase, the North Pacific should have a large pool of above normal SSTs, right. This year the warm pool has tracked further east and a bit north than the classic signature
Cool PDO: Warm in the West, cool in the East. This has been a year of mostly the opposite.
It is perfectly normal for a year now and then to show counter-trend during either phase.
That is my hope Catherine Ronconi that it is a temporary thing, perhaps from the ENSO region activity.
IMO it did come from equatorial regions, but is a weather event, not indicative of climate. If you look at a graph of past PDOs, you’ll see that there are little annual spikes in opposite directions to the main phase, but the dominant multi-decdal trend reasserts itself until the shift.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
In the process of changing as one can see from the data.
I thought I’d find an animation to show what is going on and come across this from NOAA
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/
So data from THIRTY YEARS AGO is not longer being updated “real-time”. WTF?
Well it’s about 30 years too late for “real-time” so how is that a problem?
It gets worse.
With the earth at millions of years old, maybe to the earth 30 years is like real time.
For human scientists it means we still have not found the holy grail called temperature of the earth.
Earth is billions of years old.
Record breaking ocean temperatures in Northern Pacific. Rush to Aleutian beaches!
Of course, only anomalies are shown, not absolute temperatures. Has anything changed in the way anomalies are computed?
Watch the sst anomolies cool over the last 12 weeks:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html
🙂
Don’t confuse us with facts, you will kill a good story 😉
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html
In addition the overall warmth is all related to solar and has nothing to do with GHG’S.
Solar being quite strong from last century up to year 2005 and the ocean responding to this as was to be expected. Going forward and taking into account lag times the ocean temperature trends in all categories will be down in response to a continuation of weak solar conditions going forward.
In addition the atmospheric circulation will continue to display this meridional pattern in response to sub-solar activity.
Yes, the blob formed due to sun shine in the area of the RRR (Ridiculously resilient ridge) now maybe and hopefully fading.
Nonononono!…you don’t understand.
They will go down because the U.S. and China agreed to ….errr…something.
And it was HUGE success! The oceans know, doncha know!
I think Obama took 3 tenths of a degree of ocean warmth and China 2 tenths. It is an historic moment since it is the first time in human history that super power leaders used to splitting up land, are now splitting up tenths of a degree of oecean temperatures.
What happened to the rest of the ocean temps, or does a rise in one region mean the rest of the world can be disregarded so as to claim “the pause has ended”? Where’s Bob Tisdale when you need him?
I’ve been commenting on this thread. And I provided a link to the most recent (October 2014) sea surface temperature update which includes graphs for all ocean basins:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/october-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
“Warmest oceans ever recorded.” Recorded since when? But I love when they things like that because it still doesn’t prove what caused the “warmest oceans ever”.
“Warmed FAR BEYOND…” which is less than one tenth of a degree.
” I love when they things like that because it still doesn’t prove what caused the “warmest oceans ever”.
Because It goes without saying. Everyone already know it’s man-made CO2 that causes any warming…or cooling, or flooding, or drought, etc
Well the “ever” is always an appropriate moment in time where they get to make the claim “warmest ever”.
Today was the warmest ever where I live, in my case “ever” was last tuesday.
Guys, I visit this website because I find many of the articles interesting, however, I suspect I’m one of the silent majority who don’t really understand the significance of many of the graphs and data presented. A case in point is the noaa weather maps. The article says it’s the hottest water on record while the commentators say look at the noaa SST charts. I’m looking but what does it say?
Any considered response to the dumb question would be appreicated
I recommend you visit Bob Tisdale’s blog (https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/). His explanations are generally excellent. He also has published a few books (which I can also recommend)
many thanks
If there is questions about modern ocean temp measurements, how accurate are measurements from decades past?
listening to: Jonny Lang- “Lie To Me”
As a lay person who has been watching “global warming” data (and adjustments) for years, I don’t think I need to see Bob Tisdale’s comments to understand that Axel Timmermann’s “data” is a bunch of Do-Do (to quote Young Frankenstein).
Since the heat appears not to be coming from the atmosphere, should we be worried about accelerating underwater volcanic activity?
Enigmatic recent increase in Pacific submarine volcanism:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/
We can worry about a decrease of high albedo clouds in the equatorial regions.
can we all just humor the nitwit for a few minutes….
“releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat”
…times up
“enormous amounts of heat” which seem to be “hiding” somewhere ever since being released. …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2014-0-37-deg-c/
“releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat”
Isn’t it fantastic that they’ve figured out a way to release the heat in cold water. Climate scientists are obviously much cleverer than all those negative engineers who told me it couldn’t be done. Just think of the applications. I can heat my house with cold water! Better yet we can “releasing the heat” from the cooling water that comes out of a power station and use it to power the turbines. No need to burn fossil fuels or radiate stuff. We can get our power from environmentally clean water which just cycles round and round in the power station generating more energy each time. Marvellous!
It’s the sea surface temperature that’s rising, which means cold water is finding it’s way to the bottom of the container, just like they explained it to us in a Junior High experiment. The difference is that in Junior High we 1) made a prediction, 2) conducted a test, 3) saw that the results of the test were consistent with the prediction, 4) and then we discussed how that process was related to scientific method. Maybe we should send all these bozos back to Junior High
Is Timmermann’s or his Center’s project grant up for renewal?
He’d better get his claim for ending the pause in quick, cos if there’s any sort of La Nina in the next year, it’s going to flatten his temperature increase like a steamroller.
That is what our friend LordM across the pond has been saying. I’m wondering if Bob Tisdale could answer my following SWAG of a question.
Is it possible that the el Nino we were seeing earlier in the year went weak/MIA because the winds moved the warmth north?
If so does that still mean we will get a la Nina next year?
“heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade”
So greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere from the globally well mixed gas, CO2, knows where to hide the heat for a decade………….. in the Western tropical Pacific.
Interesting place for it to go, considering atmospheric global warming is greater at higher latitudes and solar energy, by a wide margin, is greatest in the tropics.
At least that’s what the AMS tells us(an organization that I was a member of for 25 years, including holding the broadcast seal for television)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
“The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land”
The Pacific ocean may be extra warm this year but the North American continent shows a different picture The pause continues .
CONTIGUOUS US
TREND OF ANNUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES IS DECLINING AT (-0.36 F/DECADE) SINCE 1998
ANNUAL, WINTER, SPRING and FALL have DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SUMMER has RISING TEMPERATURES (mostly due to one month only , namely, June)
10 months of the year show declining temperature trends and only 2 months show rising temperature trends [March, June]
CANADA
Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Summer trend SLIGHT RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
Annual trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
When you have rogue leadership it does not matter a whit what the science says.
Okay then, the Northwest Passage should be a piece of cake at this point. You go first, we’ll watch via satellite.
We should not get too excited about the current warm oceans without looking at all the seasons and the bigger picture as well.
The observable trend is for the globe is that the winters are getting colder. In the past this has caused colder spring and fall seasons and ultimately colder summers as we have just seen during 2014.in North America.
. According to NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data, the trend of GLOBAL LAND and OCEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES has been declining since 1998 at 0.6 C /decade. So has the WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for the NORTHERN HEMISPHER declined at o.11C /decade since 1998. The trend of WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES for CONTIGUOUS US declined at -1.79 F/decade since 1998
Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. This is happening in 7 of the 9 climate regions in United States. Only the Northeast and the West both of which receive the moderating effect of the oceans, had slight warming trend of 0.2 and 0.3 F/decade respectively. Theses 16 year annual temperature declines illustrate that despite any summer warming , the cooling during winter , spring and fall offsets any summer warming resulting in the annual temperature declines .
The WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CANADA declined from an average of + 2.6 C during 1998-2000 to -0.4C by 2014 winter , or a cooling of 3 degrees. A winter cooling trend is also apparent in EUROPE, and NORTHERN ASIA. I see this pattern continuing until 2035/2045
Northern hemisphere winters are indeed getting colder.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2dj8eau&s=8#.VGZO7PnF_A0
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
If the oceans really are much warmer, it cannot be due to GHG. The ocean heat capacity is so great, that the impact from GHG would be so small to be unmeasurable.
It’s a negative feedback Paul. The ocean will offer its (relative) heat to a cooler atmosphere.
Where the hell do they get the global ocean temperature in 1880?
What is ARGO saying? What’s up with OHC?
Wait a minute…..For years the alarmists have been denying the pause. Now, the pause is suddenly over and they know for certain why? Perhaps they were all waiting for another theory to hitch their wagons to and bilk the tax-payers for several more decades of nonsensicle faux science.
“heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.”
So the relief valve is being blown to cool the planet and he’s making an issue of it.
Oh, so that’s where it was “hiding”. How come someone like Trenberth had not been able to spot it if it was “hiding” in plain sight?
Get a grip, Alex.
Well if I were a younger guy, I would have claimed all that heat was hiding in my girlfriends underwear.
The low math of it:
Jon Gruber =’s Mike Mann
EPA =’s ACA
A lie and a fraud =’s Lies and Fraud
Government grants of our tax money to fund the Jon Gruber’s and Mikie Mann’s.
Obama is going to get to the bottom of it ,,,,
Maybe he finds a mirror.
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific,'”
One cannot say that the extra warming is due to greenhouse gases alone . North Pacific has had peak warm period well before 2014 ever came along . The North Pacific SST peaked around the1870/1890 era and again 1940/1970. . This latest peak may be just the latest of ocean sst cycle peaks . We should also note that Southern Oceans are at a cold trough and deep oceans are cooling . The ocean conveyor belt brings both warm and cold phases to the ocean SST. Bob Tisdale has presented a number of graphs which show a 60-70 year cycle to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean SST, pole to pole .
I thought I’d take a look at all of the SST datasets that come up to the present … here’s that graph:
Some comments. First, all three of the datasets on the left incorporate the Reynolds data, to a greater or lesser extent for the recent years. So we don’t really have three datasets, we only have one. It appears that the Hawaii folks are using one of the three datasets depending on Reynolds.
Next, what the good folks in Hawaii didn’t say is that since the high reading of the Reynolds dataset in August. temperatures have fallen back to their normal values (HadISST is not as up-to-date as the others).
Next, by how much did the new record beat the old record?
Well … two hundredths of a degree …
Finally, the important question. Does this two-hundredths of a degree portend further warming, the “end of the pause”?
The truth is, there’s nobody on this planet who can honestly answer that question. Given the gradual warming of the last three centuries or so, it seems likely … but there’s a long ways between “likely” and “we’re sure”.
w.
The gradual warming since the depths of the LIA has not been straight up, but in multidecadal cycles, so actually a cooling is more likely as the next move after the warming of the late 1970s to late ’90s. And the long-term trend is down, as it has been for 3000 to 5000 years, so the past three century period of on balance warming is itself just an up cycle in the secular, millennium-scale, post-Holocene Climatic Optimum cooling.
I should add that the Modern Warming Period still hasn’t experienced a single 30 year interval as warm as a number of such intervals during the Medieval WP, let alone the even hotter Roman and Minoan WPs or the HCO, not to mention the last interglacial, the Eemian.
Hi Willis, I thought you may find this one of interest since you seem to have adopted Loess as one of your favoured low-pass filters.
Like any low-pass filter you cannot run it into he buffers but the loess algorithm does not give you the choice.
Look up the code of whatever you use to apply the filter and you will find it changes what it does at either end and is not more valid than a convolution filter to the end or padded by infilling data.
The current SST data has couple of high values which illustrate the problem nicely.
Best, Greg.
Damn, forgot the link:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/lowess_crap.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=1023
Dang, 1.2 deg C in two months ! Now that is CAGW on steroids.
The pause is well and truly over, the missing heat has come out if it’s hidey hole and it’s worse than we thought. ™
Greg Goodman November 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, Greg. A few points.
First, if I want the best accuracy at the ends of the data, I use my own algorithm. Why? Because I’ve shown that it beats the other filters at the end points. See here for the details of the analysis.
Second, a 12-month loess filter? Why on earth would anyone use something that short? On your data above, that’s a span of 0.01. I never have used a span much smaller than ten times that, 0.1, and that’s in special situations.
Third, I’m sorry, but the loess filter actually does do better at the end of the data than padding by infilling data. Again, see my analysis linked to above. You can actually test these claims.
w.
Thanks Willis, I remember reading that when you put it up but I’d forgotten some the BS mannian methods. That explains some of the oddities I saw in one of his more recent papers. I could not work out what he thought he was doing. Apparently he’s still using his crap.
Congrats on being better than Mann at home-rolled d.p. but you are not setting the bar very high there. Instead of publishing papers on his latest “discovery” he’d do better to start reading the work thousands of other have done in this field over the last century or more. That way he’d screw up a lot less often.
The trouble with your method ( and you seem to know by constantly adding “for this data” ) is that the selection method is totally subjective to the data being processed and until you do have the rest of the data to fill the buffer you can’t know how it will go.
You could do some kind of monty carlo simulation to estimate the uncertainty, using random data engineered to have similar statistics as the rest of the data but whatever you the frequency and phase response of your filter is changing as you start altering the method at the end.
You suggest adjusting the gaussian coefficients but that is just the same as a reflection about the end of the data. Consider your last point ( window half missing ) : all points get double the weight they would in a full window since total weight is now 0.5 ; in effect, you’ve just padded the window by reflection I think this is what you are calling min slope method.
lowess and lowess suffer from similar but not identical problems. They also change the rules as they get near the end and end up giving undue weight to the final points. Progressively more so as the data runs out. This make what was a symmetrical ( ie non phase distorting ) method introduce a progressibley worse phase distortion as the end is approached.
How this actually works out and which method _appears_ best is largely a function of the data and in particular the bit of the data which is missing.
You used a farily well behaved dataset as your test but some data which more unexpected changes could produce a different result. The test is subjective.
The only solution is not to try to do the impossible. If you don’t have the ata you don’t have the data. You stop processing when you run out. Anything else is in one way or another just injecting spurious data and hoping the real data is not too different when it turns up.
You may as well just fill it in by eye where looks as though it is about to go.
The fact that your error bars are not symmetric should have been a warning too. It’s like thinking that if you have flipped four heads in a row, there’s more chance the next one will be tails.
You would not get away with this in engineering in the same way as you would not be allowed to “homogenise” you data before you started.
Of course in climatology you can do whatever you like because science is irrelevant to this field of study. Here we know what the correct result should be and the challenge is to adjust the data and the method until you can produce it. 😉
Gerg Goodman November 14, 2014 at 5:44 pm Edit
You seem to have misunderstood my method, likely my lack of clarity.
My insight was that you can estimate the end error of any smoothing method for a given dataset. Here’s how. Start by running the method over the full dataset.
Then run it again a number of times starting with the dataset truncated at the shortest possible length (half the filter width plus one) and truncating the dataset each time one timestep further on. This gives you the results you would get at the end of the dataset if it actually ended at each timestep along the line.
Now you have both the estimate if the dataset were truncated at each timestep, and also the actual eventual value of the smooth at that timestep. The standard deviation of the difference between all of these pairs is the standard error of the method at the end of the dataset.
It doesn’t require any monte carlo analysis. You simply test the candidate smoothings on the actual dataset, and pick the best one.
So far, I haven’t found an actual dataset for which my method is not the best … by which I mean it gives the smallest average end error. As a result, that’s what I use.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis. I agree that the method is not without merit. It does help show which of these defective methods produces the wildest swings for a particular dataset and quantifies, within certain assumptions, the error margin. That does not change my opinion that one should not be processing data beyond the point were a valid result is possible.
Now consider the two titles:
“On smoothing potentially non-stationary climate time series“
“A closer look at smoothing potentially non-stationary time series”
stationary means having stable statistical properties throughout the record. The definition seems rather woolly since there is not hard and fast rule as to what statistics need to be tested and what can be consider stable, or “stationary”. and it gets rather liberally applied But two of the key features would be mean and variance.
So 20th c. temps are non-stationary since they generally have a rising mean. Also temp anomalies with have notable changes in variance outside the reference period. This is what is happening at the end of most current data where a notable residual annual component remains.
In using the full dataset as you suggest, you are ignoring the effects of non-stationarity. It would seem that you have defined a method estimating the uncertainty of the various “smoothers” on stationary data not non-stationary time series.
That could probably be addressed by a more selective test period but that then assumes that the data is stationary in the reduced test period and that end bit where you don’t have enough data is not part of a new shift, like a change in direction in 2005, for example.
The whole problem is the concept of a “smoother”. This seems to come from econometrics and a more layman approach to messing around with data in spreadsheets.
In an engineering or science context you don’t “smooth” data. You may chose to filter out some of variability that is considered not to be of interest in order to focus on another aspect of the data. This is often a low-pass or high-pass filter. The classic in climatology is the need to remove the strong annual variability that tends to obscure what else is happening.
In this case you would aim to chose a well-behaved filter, with consistent and defined properties that is considered suitable for the job. You would not want to chose a method that does different things at the end of the data. Once you don’t have enough data to apply the filter, it ends.
That is the kind of rigour on which hard science is built and is why engineering usually succeeds and climatology usually fails.
Your method is a way of comparing a plethora of fudged pseudo filter extensions and getting a quantified uncertainty. This is valuable and I think the kind of errors you show illustrates that the none of the methods are much use.
In fact you could use it see what happens if you cheat a little bit and allow up to 25% of the filter window to be empty. For gaussian, I think this would still be pretty good. You could then produce an error estimation for 5,10,15,…..50% and plot error margins showing how the uncertainty mushrooms as you cheat more and more.
That would produce some useful insight for those who like to mess around extending filters beyond the end of valid results.
It’s the consolation prize to not having a super El Nino to crow about. Any cyclical warm pool will do.
No, it’s the consolation prize for not having any scientific integrity, but it’s well rewarded. Please call NSF, your budget for next year has just been approved and expensed for the Paris meeting agreed.
The north Pacific “warm pool” is cyclical because of deliberately disfunctional seasonality correction as pointed out by Bill Illis. Just see how warm it looks next spring.
By January, the north Pacific SSTs will look extremely below “average”.
Something semi-unusual happened in the north Pacific in August/September but the biggest contributor to the big red spots is that the NCDC has screwed up the seasonality of various parts of the northern hemisphere oceans.
The screw-up goes both ways because the January seasonality is way above what the normal SSTs will do so there will be a large cooling showing up in the anomalies by January.
Having said that, there was a rise in the north Pacific SSTs this summer which appears to be gone now.
Gone to space? The OLR maps show increased OLR over some parts of the north Pacific next to land over the August-October period and they usually don’t play around with these measures so far.
The other issue which has not come so far on WUWT, is that the Chinese hacked into several of the NOAA systems (starting about August it seems).
This resulted in the NOAA taking down some of our favorite server systems (like Nomads) in September and completely losing at least 2 days of valuable satellite data etc. etc.
Many stories on the web now. Search it.
Bill,
Not only that but the crooks at NOAA lied to Congress about it. Big surprise.
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Misled+Congress+About+Hack+From+China+Finally+Owns+up+to+Breach/article36884.htm
Wonder how many incriminating emails NOAA has “lost”?
The whole totally corrupt academic-gevernment-climate complex has to be burnt to the ground and genuine climatology rebuilt upon the ruins.
Bill, a layman’s explanation of the “seasonality” issue would be very appreciated.
If air were capable of warming the oceans, in July & August all the swimming pools in Phoenix would be 105 F.
I don’t trust marine temperature data. It all loiks to choreographed. The AGW story is moving to where none but a cabal of activists control the data.
What was the idiot using for a thermometer, his elbow ?
Now if only some of that heat could slide on over to Minnesota where we’re having one of the coldest Novembers ever in the history of earth.
The ‘ocean ate the heat’ angle seems to be the one that is getting the most traction with those trying to eliminate or discredit the ‘Pause’ (which in itself seems to me, a deliberately leading term – sort of like ‘denier’). Now I’m just a layman, and am willing to be corrected, but if you put a glass of cold water in a room, and don’t change the temperature, won’t the water eventually warm to room temperature even though the ambient temperature remains constant?
In any case, the entire argument seems to be an effort to move the goal posts.
Heat doesn’t move from the air to the deep ocean, thermo doesn’t allow it to flow that direction without help. Heat flows from the geothermal heat flux on the bottom of the ocean upward.
If air heats water how come the swimming pools in Phoenix need to be heated? Why aren’t they all 105 F in July and August?
See my HS science fair suggestion in the link.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Thanks for the link – and I get all that. I wasn’t suggesting that the heat actually CAME from the air – I was trying to illustrate that warming water does not mean an ambient temperature increase – that it’s reasonable to expect that water would warm AFTER the air – it doesn’t discredit the ‘pause.’ It’s more like adding the JV scores to the Varsity team’s total and claiming you won by two points.
I was also under the impression that these were generalized ocean temperatures – if they’re really looking to the deep oceans to find their temperature increases – and if they’re actually trying to sell that as a consequence of atmospheric C02 – honestly – talk about working backwards from a conclusion.
Using your pool analogy, for the water to be warmed and not the air, it would have to be a heat source coming from below – in the case of the pool, jets of heated water. In the case of the oceans, likely suspects for deep warming would seem to be things like geo-thermal activity, and that sort of thing. The idea that winds ‘forced the heat into the ocean’ – let alone the deep ocean – seems contrived.
It’s also worth mentioning that all this is simultaneous with the ‘melting of the polar caps’ – or at least the northern one, which seems to be where all the warming oceans are. I’ve spent time in Alaska, and if you’ve ever stood in a lake full of glacier melt – even on an eighty-plus degree, twenty-four-hour day that lasts for three months – it’s the sort of bone-biting cold that you simply can’t stand in without protection. If this were occurring, it seems to me that the winds would be mixing this super-chilled water into the system right along with the supposed ‘missing heat’.
So if the pause is coming to an end, can we have an update from all those who stated that (a) there would be no more warming – definitely – period – get over it, etc, and (b) those that have been regularly predicting cooling and mini ice ages, etc.
Also, if we get a record warm year for 2014, even by a small amount, what does that say about what would happen with a full blown El Nino ? – Er like 1998 ? Clearly, we are now at a higher base than in 1998 – about 0.15C :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Also, NASA GISS LOTI just out for October – not good news for coolists – its +0.74C which gives us a very close to record warm 2014 to date of + 0.67 C with 2 months to go.
James Abbott. I fear you may well be right. If we were to get an El Nino from this temp level, like 98, the graph above would be saying goodbye to any hiatus. It would be nothing more than a step like we had in the 70’s and then late 80’s early 90’s. I will certainly watch with interest and think those here who dismiss the significance of the recent ocean temp records, may well have egg on their faces. And the great thing is we will be finding out sooner than later I think.
The pause has me worried too. The last thing we need is another LIA. –AGF
You actually imagine that Gavin-made GISS “data” bear any relation whatsoever to reality?
Interesting.
If you use the SAME BASE period (1981-2010) and compare the UAH anomalies with the GISS anomalies for 2014 you’ll find they are almost exactly the same. The reason UAH (and RSS) isn’t showing near “record” temepratures this year is because the temperature response to the 97/98 El Nino and, to a lesser extent, the 09/10 El Nino was more pronounced in the LT than it was at the surface.
I’ll take your word for the surface v. LT difference, but since satellite observation began in 1979, I prefer to start then, too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/how-giss-temperatures-are-diverging-from-rss/
The divergence between GISS & RSS is systematically to the warmer.
The divergence has been extreme over the past 5 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009.75/plot/rss/from:2009.75/to/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2009.75/normalise/offset:0.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2009.75/plot/uah/from:2009.75/trend
Which is all cyclical based on the phase of the PDO as clearly shown in the 1910 to 1945 rise (+). We can only hope for a 1945 to 1977 fall (-). So if we get a la nina next year and temps drop like they do after most el nino years will you admit that it is natural cycles that rule?
So James… are you now admitting the ‘pause’ existed? Despite the fact that a pause in CO2 didn’t happen?
Yes davefreer, there has been a pause, and as I have stated numerous times on this site, it started in about 2002.
James Abbott:
Something tells me that you would whoop for joy if this year was declared the hottest ever.
Sure , we need to destroy the world in order to save the world.
If it saves itself it’s no fun at all. We won’t be able to dictate what everyone does in life.
GISS is an organized, extortionist criminal conspiracy whose capos should be RICOed, tossed into Fed SuperMax and the keys thrown away. They are mass murderers who have ripped off trillions globally. They put every other organized crime syndicate on the planet to shame.
At the very least, the whole crooked operation needs to be shut down by the new Congress, as I hope will indeed happen. Same goes for NCAR. The British will have inflict suitable punishment on Hadley Centre themselves. Their people have died of exposure in the dark in much greater number than have Americans as a result of the Climate Mafia’s anti-human activities.
The Beloved CAGW theory is clear. CO2 in the atmosphere (not ocean) absorbs LWIR energy, thus warming AIR.
So, if sea surface temps rise, how is this related to the evil, magic trace gas IN THE ATMOSPHERE??
The Air hasn’t warmed.
If the seas warm, it’s not the air doing it.
[Snip. The pejorative “denialist” is not allowed here. ~mod.]
What will be your excuse when the warm blob is gone & the “pause” continues, or as is likely in reality if not in cooked book “data”, turns significantly down? Do you have one at the ready?
The average global temperature could increase by 5 degrees ten years in a row and you lot would still talk about natural variability, how the temperature records are rigged or some other whacked out conspiracy.
Sea temps are as hot as they’ve ever been, and we’ve had several months that have set surface temperature records according to satellite measurements.
All without an El Nino.
When it does eventually come round, as it surely will, temps will escalate rapidly before plateauing again for another “pause”. Just as it has done throughout the last century.
But I know none of this will change your mind- and I dont really care to be honest.
Personally, I can’t wait for that 3 billion of your tax dollars that Obama announced today to be used to combat climate change.
mmm… tax dollars and income redistribution… mmm
Straw man.
What makes you imagine that temperature will increase by five degrees even one year, let alone ten yin a row? If that happened, of course it would obviously be outside natural variability, so your blather is idiotic.
The fact is that nothing that has happened in the past century or fifty years is outside natural variability. When something does happen with the climate that hasn’t happened before in the Holocene or any prior interglacial, then I’ll look for a cause. But so far, ho-hum. More CO2 so far has been a boon for the planet & mankind.
There is simply zero evidence of man-made global warming or climate change, let alone anything to justify CACA, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. If you know of such evidence, by all means please trot it out. IPCC hasn’t because it can’t.
THanks, Sib, for clarifying that “denialist” is pejorative while the statement “GISS is an organized, extortionist criminal conspiracy whose capos should be RICOed, tossed into Fed SuperMax and the keys thrown away.” is in no way pejorative towards the reputation of GISS.
That GISS cooks the books is not a conspiracy theory but a fact. Thus IMO calling it an organized criminal activity is perfectly valid. Is a fact pejorative? I think not. GISS’ reputation is as a factory of faked data. When finally forced to reveal their secret Al-Gore-ithms for “adjusting” for the UHI effect, what was long suspected was shown true. Or in your opinion does it make good scientific sense for UHI adjustments all to make the “data” warmer rather than cooler?
PS: I agree that as a budget cutting measure alone, zeroing out GISS would be justified. I hope the new Congress does so, & if not this one, then the next. GISS is an anti-scientific, corrupt, criminal enterprise.
Respect to whom respect is due.
GISS rates none. It rates only contempt.
It is nothing but a gang of rent-seeking, con artist scamsters, cowards who refuse to confront their critics, who have all the evidence and reason on their side.
The sooner Gavin is sent packing back to his native island kingdom and Kevin to his, the better. Too bad we can’t save money and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions by putting both taxpayer rip off artists on the same plane.
This would be great if true. It means, in most oceans, I could resist fatal hypothermia in the water an extra second or two.
Oceans transferring heat to the atmosphere is not consistent with greenhouse gas heating. The heat would have to come from somewhere else.
According to NOAA’s sea surface temperature data set, there was much more ocean surface warming from 1908-’13 to 1940-‘5 period (+0.57 C) than there was from 1940-’45 to 2008-’13 (+0.29 C), despite only 10 ppm of CO2 loaded into the atmosphere during the early 20th century period (1908-’13 to 1940-’45), but 90 ppm of CO2 added between 1940 and 2013. So here’s what that looks like:
————————–
90 ppm = 0.29 C of warming over ∼70 years (0.04 C per decade)
10 ppm = 0.57 C of warming over ∼35 years (0.16 C per decade)
————————–
This 100-year trend doesn’t correlate with the presumption that CO2 is the primary driver of sea surface warming, or surface warming in general. Here are some graphs of sea surface temperatures that show these trends:
————————–
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/m/p/compare_datasets_hadsst3_logo_large3.png
——-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/ersst-1880-ann.png?itok=necBS6mU
—————————
Consistent with the deceleration of the sea surface warming in recent decades relative to the first half of the 20th century, glaciers also melted much more rapidly in the 1920s to 1940s than in recent decades, and sea levels rose more rapidly between the 1920s and 1940s than in recent decades as well. This occurred despite the much more rapid increase in CO2 levels in recent decades than during the 1920s-1940s period, once again establishing a non-correlation between CO2 buildup and a) rapid surface warming, b) faster glacier melt rates, and c) faster sea level rise rates.
—————————
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/659/2014/tc-8-659-2014.pdf
The data set contains the glacier length records for 471 [global] glaciers and it covers the period 1535–2011. There are glacier length records from all continents and at almost all latitudes. For the observed glaciers, the 20th century retreat was strongest in the first half of the 20th century.…. [T]he retreat is strongest in the period 1921–1960 rather than in the last period 1961–2000, with a median retreat rate of 12.5 m yr in 1921–1960 and 7.4 m yr in the period 1961–2000. [Globally, glaciers melted 69% more rapidly from 1921-1960 than from 1961-2000.]
—————————
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
[T]here was a warm period in the Arctic and Greenland in the 1920s and 1930s (Box 2002; Johannessen et al. 2004; Kobashi et al. 2011) at a time when anthropogenic global warming was relatively small (see, e.g., Fig. 9.5 ofHegerl et al. 2007). This promoted glacier mass loss at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Oerlemans et al. 2011) at a greater rate than the global mean. Although in L the difference is not striking in general (not shown; L includes 79 glaciers north of 60°N and 24 north of 70°N), it is pronounced in Greenland. Length records included in L indicatea greater rate of glacier retreat in the first than in the second half of the twentieth century in Greenland (Leclercq et al. 2012)
[Below is a graph pulled directly from the above paper (Figure A) showing much larger glacier melt rate contributions to sea level rise in the 1920s to 1950s compared to the present.]
http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2013/15200442-26.13/jcli-d-12-00319.1/20130821/images/large/jcli-d-12-00319.1-f2.jpeg
——————————-
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/59/2014/tc-8-59-2014.html
Even though the rise of global mean air temperature accelerated in the 20th century,the mass loss rate of glaciers during the second half of the 20th century was not higher thanduring the first half of the century (Leclercq et al., 2011; Marzeion et al., 2012).
——————————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).
——————————-
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
Yup. Most glaciologists agree: we’re still recovering from the LIA. –AGF
Well, evaporation from the oceans move a whole bunch of heat into the atmosphere. Heat from the atmosphere to ocean as required by climate change theory is relatively trivial.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
““This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic (measuring started) eradication of the 30s/40s highs.”
There, fixed the quote.
Is it just me or does the RH end of the graph in figure a) in the article ( i.e. in the ‘hiatus’ zone ) have a vague resemblance to an ice hockey stick?
There are really two issues in play here. The first is the data itself and what you might make of it taking it at face value. The second but which must be addressed before arriving at any judgement is the crdibility of the data. The ‘credit’ of the witnesses who present this data as a lawyer might put it. And that is really where the problems start. This paper has a real whiff of the cops rounding up the usual suspects, planting evidence and beating/threatening a confession out of someone. i.e. No credibility.
Yes, the Great Global Waming “Hiatus”, now in its 19th year was only ever about SST’s, and had nothing to do with atmospheric temps. Atmospheric Global Warming (AGW) is so last-century anyway. Welcome to the new, Global Ocean Warming (GOW). CO2 has simply shifted its focus from warming the air to warming the oceans. Simples!
Bruce Cobb can say how you get to a “19th year” of the pause. Its a length of time recycled around the internet, but where does it come from ? Lord Monckton’s analysis of one satellite data set that shows the longest pause ?
Maybe here:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307#.VGafWmcXKot
Favorably analyzed here:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-started-in-1995-says-statistics-paper.html
Yep, that particular statistical analysis, which chooses some of the data sets but not others, produces that particular result.
You don’t like RSS, used by Monckton. You don’t like HadCRU, used in the statistical analysis linked above.
What data sets do you find acceptable, and why. What is wrong with the others?
Thanks.
Discussion of a lack of warming actually began around 2008 when there was a 10 year period that could be seen without warming. This led to the 2008 NOAA SOTC and 2009 Knight et al paper which claimed a period of 15 years without warming would be necessary to reach 95% confidence that current modeling was in error. These papers were followed by Santer et al in 2011 which extended that period to 17 years.
This ended the discussion for many years until we recent first reached 15 years and then surpassed 17 years. The term “the pause” started to get traction over the last couple of years when alarmists could no longer deny reality. It really has little to do with RSS since it is evident in all the data (no statistical warming). However, RSS data shows the situation most graphically. On top of that it is kind of ironic since RSS is run by a supporter of AGW (Dr. Mears) who was a co-author on the Santer paper.
It really has nothing to do with Monckton.
Are we supposed to believe that these temperatures are warmer by 1:1000ths of a degree compared to those measurements made by chucking a bucket over the side of a boat?
How come we had to wait fifteen+ years to establish there has been no warming, but hey, overnight, warming and we’re off again. Even if this is the case, then it’s official recognition of the pause, which they denied. The same pause they and their models never saw coming. This was the significant point about the pause. If they got the last eighteen years wrong, why should they have any authority about the next? It poses a big credibility issue for them. They shouldn’t have been looking for explanations for where the heat had gone, they needed to explain why they missed such a huge feature of our climate. But I think we already know the reasons for that.
Eamon.
One spike does not signify anything other than noise. Let’s see what the data trend looks like in a couple of years. Also, could someone explain where data from sea surface temperatures a hundred years ago comes from and how you can compare that to temperatures measured with better instruments( and more data points?) today?
Catherine Ronconi I never said I “do not like” any data set. I merely pointed out that the analysis being quoted uses some data sets, not others and applies a particular statistical analysis to produce the long pause quoted.
In other words, different forms of analysis using different data sets produce differing results.
A bit obvious really, but there you go.
In the case of Monckton’s choice of RSS, it could be said its because its the one that on its own produces the longest pause. He is clearly not an independent voice when it comes to climate science. He has an agenda.
Anyway, let see. In the real physical world, there are strong indications that warming is continuing, as expected, and its over the longer term that any analysis will be more meaningful.
And you don’t have an agenda James? Now the ‘pause’ is undeniable, you’re quibbling for the shortest possible. Well, whatever length, the point you’re evading – here and above, is CO2 has continued to increase year on year… and yet the temperatures didn’t. You tell us it’s ALL about man-made CO2, there could never be any other factors affecting temperature. Natural factors could never affect temperature, only man and his CO2… So: if there was a pause – which you admit, then you’re wrong, and natural factors can have major effects, and actually, no the science is not ‘settled’. Good Science never is.
Despite your obvious prejudice, the atmosphere has not continued to warm. In fact, it has obviously been cooling over the past decade. We were told for years by alarmists that the best data set was RSS. Now you want to disown it. Sorry, but you can’t change your stripes now.
The pause actually consists of the end of the +PDO driven warming followed by the start of -PDO driven cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.66/plot/rss/from:1996.66/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.66/to/trend
So, James says the “pause” didn’t start until 2004 (still waiting to see upon which data he bases that assertion), yet RSS shows cooling since 2005 and flat since 1996. HadCRU shows flat since 1995.
I’d really like to see James’ preferred data set and the reasons why it is to be preferred. Will pleasantly surprised when and if that ever happens.
And you don’t have an agenda?
There are no indications, weak or otherwise that the “warming” is continuing. If you imagine that there are, please present them here.
You took issue with a 19 year trend. You have been shown data sets in which there has been no statistically significant warming for that period and longer.
Please state what objections you have to the data set which produces the longest “pause”. Or for that matter the RSS used by Monckton. Why do you favor one which apparently you suppose shows the “pause” beginning only in 2004? Which one is that? Why should it be preferred to another?
Your agenda is on display, since you prefer the shortest “pause” but are apparently unable to defend why whatever data set produces that length is better than any other.
I take issue with the claimed Hadcru trend. The trend since 1995 is not flat. While it may not be significantly different to ZERO (at the arbitrary 95% level), it’s also true that it’s not significantly different to a trend of a 0.19 deg per decade.
In fact, the probability that the trend since 1995 is below ZERO is about the same as the probability that the trend is above 0.18 deg per decade.
It’s also true that Hadley makes no attempt to sample much of the arctic regions and whatever disagreements there are with the GISS methods, it’s clear that there has been significant recent warming in the regions above 60N.
A question a lot of sceptics should be asking is not what’s happened to the warming – but why isn’t there more cooling. We have low solar activity and a cool phase of the PDO (note the temperature dip in the 1940s) but now in 2014, a non El Nino year, global temperatures in at least 3 of the main 4 datasets are at record highs or close to record highs.
NOTE: Using a base period of 1981-2010 the mean anomalies for UAH and GISS are virtually identical.
The reason UAH won’t record a new record high is because of the relatively high temperature spikes in 1998 in particular and to a lesser extent 2010. The LT response to ENSO events is generally more dramatic that the surface response.
I am sceptical of Catastrophic AGW but it’s too early to make a definite call. A previous trend of ~0.2 per decade now appears to be offset by natural variability. If this continues for another decade then this increases the likelihood that climate sensitivity is low.
Don’t be ridiculous. The trend over the last decade+ is not even close to 0.19 deg/decade, even using the obviously manufactured GISSTEMP.
The long term trend is about 0.75 deg/century, or 0.075 deg/decade. It’s been there for far longer than CO2 could be responsible for it. Take it away, and all you’ve got is about a +/- 0.2 deg swing with a ~60 year period, also not due to CO2, which alternately adds or subtracts about 0.2 deg/decade peak to the trend.
‘that warming is continuing, as expected,’ true if you follow the ‘heads I win tails you lose ‘ method seen in climate ‘science’ has everything can be claimed to be ‘expected ‘ and no increase is the same has an increase.
Still if they every find themselves out of work climate ‘scientists’ can perhaps look forward to careers in astrology, reading tea leaves or contacting the dead , has areas where you do not need actual ‘prove ‘ your claims , becasue you cannot , and ones where strength of belief is far more important that strength of data , they are already well qualified , although sadly in these more ecology friendly times snake oils salesman is a dying career due to perceived the cruelty to snakes.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
The hidden boogeyman heat has come out of the closet. Quick hide under the covers.
Figure b) indicates the Northern oceans venting heat. I think the system is working as intended. And they were right, the heat is coming out of the oceans. Probably to soon find the TOA.
Obviously two-hundredths of a degree in increased ocean temperature across the planet is really bad. We know this because two-hundredths of a degree is 1 hundreth of a degree higher than one-hundredth of a degree. Ok can I get my grant now?
While I am waiting for the check to arrive, and assuming these suddenly important ocean temperatures are correct, how is this increase in ocean temperature indicate the pause in atmospheric temperature is over? Apparently according to the idiots handbook of logic, if the atmosphere flatlines, and the oceans grow warmer, certain areas of ocean surface is absorbing the heat from the CO2 inflamed atmosphere, meaning surface temperatures have remained the same, which we already knew. It’s good that climate science has recently figured out that something that covers most of the earth might have some effect on climate and Ok it does sound good for a plot to a science fiction movie, but where is the evidence that surface temperatures continued to increase but oceans absorbed it? Do we just assume it’s true, before understanding how it works, like everything else in climate science?
Climate science has in fact spawned a new scientific method, called Assumptive Science; if you can say it, assume it, and you don’t have to prove it.
I dont think that rising sea surface temeratures mean that we must have global warming,it would be possible for the next glaciation to occur with rising sst .The atmosphere cools down faster than the oceans as we observe in winter in the mid latitdess, that we have winter in the mid lattitudes indicates that we are in a mild period of an ice age.
Why does this NOAA map [look] so un-alarming??
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html-
Better link here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/14/claim-warmest-oceans-ever-recorded/#comment-1788648
“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started.”
When did this “systematic measuring” start? And when it started did it measure all points across the entire globe?
milodonharlani November 14, 2014 at 10:50 am
milodon, do you have a link to the study by Meehl? I’m not sure what study you’re talking about. The last time I looked at a Meehl study at your request, he was citing tree rings. Here was my comment at the time about Meehl’s citation which so impressed you:
As you can imagine … that didn’t endear me to Meehl. Since Meehl proudly presents the rings of one Chilean tree as some kind of evidence of solar effects on the earth, I fear my esteem for him as a scientist is gone.
But heck, milodon, break out your “evidence”, present for us the next Chilean tree study …
Thanks,
w.
Willis – can you substantiate your ipse dixit assertion that, quote:
==================
Although there is an 11-year cycle visible in the 14C data, it only represents about 5% of the swing of the 14C data.
=================
My search for relevant research indicated that, quote, “fluctuations in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations have been caused mostly by variations in the solar magnetic field.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/splicing-clouds/#comment-1778025
Heck, WIllis, when are you going to break out your “evidence”?
Break out my “evidence” in scare quotes? Well, at some point I’m planning to write a post on it. And although I could just put up my graph showing the weakness of the 11-year cycle in the 14C data, your nasty attitude indicates that I should wait rather than provide half a loaf for you to snark about.
So you’re just gonna have to wait, Mr. Algorithm. A polite request might have gotten you something. An ugly request gets you nothing for now.
w.
Khwarizmi,
As you can see, “evidence” is something for Willis to demand of other people, and _not_ the other way around. How dare you think otherwise, you ____, you.
As usual, mpainter, you’ve missed the point. I didn’t say I wouldn’t provide evidence. I said I wasn’t going to do it in some quick, halfassed manner. I said I wouldn’t provide half a loaf in order to satisfy some unpleasant, antagonistic random internet popup.
As a result, I told him he’ll have to wait, and I tell you the same … so sue me. When I get around to writing a post on the subject, we’ll talk about it, and I’ll provide all of the data and code as is my custom. Until then, sorry, all of your whining will do nothing.
However, as you and Algorithm both know, all of the data on this question is out there. So how about you guys provide us with some evidence that my statement is wrong? Rather than wait for me to write a post on the subject, how about you do the math, you run the numbers, and you write a post on the subject?
w.
I’m not hiding anything. You OTOH steadfastly refuse to look at the dozens of studies on the climatic effects of solar activity.
A number of Meehl’s papers are relevant & easily found.
Here’s a recent one from AGU’s Geophysical Research Letters:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058670/abstract
Interactions between externally forced climate signals from sunspot peaks and the internally generated Pacific Decadal and North Atlantic Oscillations
Harry van Loon1,2 and
Gerald A. Meehl1,*
Article first published online: 15 JAN 2014
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL058670
Abstract
When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is in phase with the 11 year sunspot cycle, there are positive sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies in the Gulf of Alaska, nearly no anomalous zonal SLP gradient across the equatorial Pacific, and a mix of small positive and negative sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies there. When the two indices are out of phase, positive SLP anomalies extend farther south in the Gulf of Alaska and west into eastern Russia, with a strengthened anomalous zonal equatorial Pacific SLP gradient and larger magnitude and more extensive negative SST anomalies along the equatorial Pacific. In the North Atlantic, when the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is in phase with the sunspot peaks, there is an intensified positive NAO SLP pattern. When the NAO is out of phase with the peaks, there is the opposite pattern (negative NAO). The relationships are physically consistent with previously identified processes and mechanisms and point the way to further research.
Here’s another one by the same authors:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051977/full
The Indian summer monsoon during peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle
Harry van Loon1,2 and
Gerald A. Meehl1,*
Article first published online: 3 JUL 2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051977
Abstract
[1] An analysis of sea-level pressure anomalies at 14 sunspot peaks in the 11 year solar cycle in the Indian region in summer shows that the mean sea level pressure anomalies consist of relatively high pressure over land surrounded by low pressure anomalies over the sea. This signal is robust enough to appear when the data are divided into two segments. The accompanying mean rainfall anomalies, with anomalies as high as 20% above normal, have maxima on the coasts and over water and are an enhancement of the mean Indian monsoon rainfall. In the sunspot peaks the Findlater Jet appears to shift east and strengthen somewhat, consistent with the lower sea level pressure and stronger monsoon rainfall.
The article I posted is based upon this, which I’ve shown you before:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
The full report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
Andrew- RSS is air temp. Why do you prefer air temp over surface temp?
‘This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. ‘
remind me again how many actual measurements they have for what is 70 % of the planet , as we go once again down the rabbit whole that claims that one grain of sand form one beach can tells us about all grains on sand on all beaches , because we cam ‘smear’ values from one place across others?
And I would love to see the 1880 measurement tools that allowed sea temperature measurements with an accuracy to three decimal places , or are we seeing a little ‘statistical smearing’ here to?
Good question, knr. The Reynolds OI dataset is the one that is most used. It is a combination of ARGO float data, other in-situ measurements, and satellite data. So there is no number of “actual” measurements, since they include continuous satellite coverage.
The ARGO fleet these days is around 3500 floats, each of which makes three measurements per month. That’s 10,500 measurements per month, which sounds like a lot, but in fact is one measurement per 220 kilometer gridcell.
w.
Still can’t get my head around warming seas becoming ‘acidic ‘. I thought they out gassed CO2?
Ran across this tonight on the wunderground weather site: U.S. Lightning Strikes May Increase 50% Due to Global Warming, by Dr. Jeff Masters.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2860
“… Main author [of a study published on Thursday in ‘Science’ journal] David Romps of the University of California-Berkeley said in a press release, “This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. Warming causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and if you have more fuel lying around, when you get ignition, it can go big time…”
__________________________________
Okay, so warming increases water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is a far more prevalent “greenhouse” gas than CO2, the more water vapor the warmer it gets and the warmer it gets the more water vapor. Sooo, is the next step to impose a global water vapor tax on us?
The article goes on to talk about ozone (yet another “greenhouse” gas) increase from all that lightning. ‘kay, add a global ozone tax to the tab.
The article is also replete with lurid tales of the death and damage caused by lightning, in case we aren’t taking the threat seriously enough.
Me, I think I’ll just go sit on the porch and enjoy the light show…
The most interesting feature of current global SSTs is the persistent cold SST all around the boundary of Antarctic sea ice.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The north Pacific peak being pulled like a rabbit out of a hat is distracting from this more important phenomenon down south.
Remember that SSTs are only surface. North Pacific anomalies down to 150m don’t look anything unusual (bottom figure):
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC001.gif?1297119137
Higher surface temp does however mean more loss of ocean heat.
Yes, this focus on the North Pacific is a cherry pick. But, then, so is 90% of the rest of the case for AGW.
Bipolar seesaw anyone?
I’ve been trying to find out which record the last month was the hottest on.
Finally I found it after considerable research:
A question a lot of sceptics should be asking is not what’s happened to the warming – but why isn’t there more cooling. We have low solar activity and a cool phase of the PDO (note the temperature dip in the 1940s) but now in 2014, a non El Nino year, global temperatures in at least 3 of the main 4 datasets are at record highs or close to record highs.
John the solar activity is not low enough or long enough as of today to create cooling but that will be changing as this decade proceeds and you will see a cooling trend. I have stated the solar parameters needed and also said they have to follow some 10 years of sub-solar activity in general. We have the 10 years of sub-solar activity in general in now it is to wait and see what happens to the climate when the sun sinks into a period of very low solar parameters.
Why? Did we need 10 years of above normal solar activity to start the warming in the early 20th century?
What evidence do you have that cooling will happen when these “low solar parameters” are reached. You’re making stuff up. It’s just wishful thinking on your part. The solar link has failed to materialise. The next shift in mean global temperatures will be upwards
John (Finn), while I agree with you about Salvatore’s prediction of upcoming cooling, you fall into the same trap. To quote you, what evidence do you have that warming will happen? How do you know that the next shift in temperatures will be upwards?
I gotta confess, in a world where no one can explain why we went into the Little Ice Age, and no one can explain why we came out of the Little Ice Age … in this chaotic, poorly-understood world, the number of people like you and Salvatore who earnestly assure me that you have the inside track on the future evolution of the climate is nothing but astounding.
Truth is, I immediately discount anyone who tells me that they know which way the climate frog is going to jump. Nobody knows what the next decade will bring, just as no one predicted the “pause” … and claiming that you do know merely marks you as someone who is not paying attention.
w.
Well, Willis, I also think it will go up — after what Jimmy Carter referred to, in a different context, as a “suitable interval”. Perhaps about 20 years. At that point ENSO will have shifted and we will be in a positive PDO. Unless other factors intervene, we will likely see warming comparable to 1976 – 2007, the flip side of the negative PDO of the 1950s, and that of today.
But even so, bottom-line, there will in all likelihood only be net lukewarming.
Willis Eschenbach
November 15, 2014 at 6:14 pm
The Little Ice Age is perfectly well explained by solar minima. Climate generally cooled during the 14th century, although the world was still warmer for most of that century than now, its latter half especially. The Wolf Minimum lasted from about 1280 to 1350, so the decline of the Medieval Warm Period correlates well with this period of lower solar activity. Climate rebounded in the latter 14th century, but then the LIA set in with the Spörer Minimum, c. 1460 to 1550, followed again by a rebound in the later 16th century. But then the cold returned with a vengeance during the depths of the LIA, thanks to the Maunder Minimum, c. 1645 t- 1715. This was followed by the most rapid and long-lasting multi-decadal warming sine the Medieval Warm Period in the early 18th century, much more powerful than the early and late 20th century warmings. Climate muddled along cooler than now but not extremely cold either during the latter 18th century until the Dalton Minimum, c. 1790 to 1820, which was followed by more muddling until the onset of the Modern Warm Period in the second half of the 19th century.
I know this has been explained to you before, so I wonder why you continue to claim that no one has a clue what caused the Little Ice Age. Maybe no one can know for certain, but there is good reason to think that climatic fluctuations like the Holocene Thernal Optimum, the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods, and the cold periods like the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages and LIA Cold Periods, are not merely chaotic. All interglacials (Bond Cycles), and for that matter glacials (D/O and Heinrich events), show these quasi-periodic centennial to millennial scale variations, based upon multi-decadal cycling around a trend line. In fact they’re visible in the paleo record from well before the current glaciation.
For instance, evidence of solar activity cycles from the Miocene on decadal, centennial and millennial time frames, from Austrian lake sediments, but also with a survey of some prior findings:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617729/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006748
Greg Goodman November 15, 2014 at 2:11 am
I disagree. If we test the method on the full dataset, it gives us the best data available for what will happen in the portion of the dataset we have not tested (the end of the data).
Look, you can end your filter once you don’t have enough data to apply it. That’s fine.
But there is nothing that is “non-engineering quality” about providing an answer plus an error estimate of applying the filter to the remaining data.
What is not good engineering is to just run the filter to the end (by padding or other methods) without providing an error estimate. But if you include an error estimate, it can be quite valuable information.
Not true in the slightest. Further information is always of use, as long as it comes with an error estimate. Which answer is more valuable: “I don’t know”, or “4.3 ± .38”?
Obviously the latter, so I fail to see why you claim it is not of much use.
Been there, done that. The error starts at zero back one half-width of the filter, and grows with each data point up to the end. You could do it with a french curve with almost no error. I’ve done it so many times I just do it by eye.
Probably what I should do is to add the end error estimation to my R code that does the gaussian calculation, so it prints automatically on my graphs …
In any case, thanks for your comments, always interesting.
w.
So is that warm anomaly in the North Pacific keeping us warmer in Washington and Oregon, or are clear skies simply radiating ocean heat it out to space?
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KPDT&wfo=pdt
It appears that this sea surface heat anomaly is evaporating (via radiational cooling) into the cold dry atmosphere never to return to warm us up. Bon Voyage heat. We will sorely miss you.
Just realised the reason for this manufactured warm record – G20. They need a show and tell for that.
But it looks like leaders are not taking it ery seriously. No climate on the G20 agenda
Actually, there has been an almost constant stream of discussions about climate change at the G20 here in Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Obama has apparently agreed to tackle climate change with the Chinese and this is all over the Aussie MSM like a sweat rash! Not sure how Obama will manage this without support from Congress.
Obama does all kinds of things without Congress to which the Constitution expressly grants power to the legislative branch, not the judicial. Without Congress, he might have trouble coming up with the $3 billion he promised to help poor countries fight climate change, although he has managed to run annual deficits of about a trillion dollars every year without getting Congress to open the purse strings, as required by the Constitution. The Fed just invents money and Harry Reid just ruled without a budget by continuing resolution.
The idiotic climate change accord with China is peanuts compared to what he’s liable to do by imperial fiat about immigration. BTW the agreement is a heck of a deal. The US promises to lower our emissions immediately, which are already headed down, thanks to natural gas, while China pledges to do something in 15 years, even though its emissions greatly exceed America’s and real pollution (not the essential trace gas and plant food CO2) are choking China’s cities and poisoning its countryside.
Bart November 15, 2014 at 11:20 am wrote in response to an earlier post by me.
What is it you have trouble with, Bart – is it reading? or understanding?
I never said the trend was close to 0.019 deg per decade “over the last decade”. I was referring to the HadCRUT trend since 1995 and I actually said that
While it may not be significantly different to ZERO (at the arbitrary 95% level), it’s also true that it’s not significantly different to a trend of a 0.19 deg per decade.
And this
In fact, the probability that the trend since 1995 is below ZERO is about the same as the probability that the trend is above 0.18 deg per decade.
In fact, under a valid statistical model, the maximum likelihood trend is about 0.075 deg/decade, and has been for about 14 decades. Sensitivity to CO2 is virtually zero.
332 million cubic miles of water will be affected by 39/1000 of 1% of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Uh huh. Yea.
…. but wait, there’s more Mike D:
For it to be anthropogenic, it has to be from the Beer-Lambert Law decimated CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm (and even that is arguable).
Hansens boiling ocean mathematics could be off by a hundred orders of magnitude, which could be many 10s of orders of magnitude worse than homeopathy.
It’s so fkin wrong the actual math(s) don’t matter. In other words, the greatest error in the history of science !!! Congratulations Jim.
The warming seems to be at the northern edge of the Ring of Fire so has volcanic activity increased here?
Willis:
“But heck, milodon, break out your “evidence”, present for us the next Chilean tree study …”
Thanks, w.
=====================
response from me:
Heck, WIllis, when are you going to break out your “evidence”?
=====================
Willis: Break out my “evidence” in scare quotes? Well, at some point I’m planning to write a post on it. And although I could just put up my graph showing the weakness of the 11-year cycle in the 14C data, your nasty attitude indicates that I should wait rather than provide half a loaf for you to snark about.
======================
Yes – I did think your attitude to Milodon was nasty – that’s why I reflected it back to you in your own style, putting the word evidence in scare quotes — just like you did. (there was more than one tree used in the study Milodon cited, btw)
empathy:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
As a layman I rely a lot on credible sources and government agencies’ databases in debating AGW advocated on Yahoo.
WUWT is one of my most trusted.
My first question is how do I find an easily digestible, accurate, and ongoing source for NOAA ARGO data? This has been invaluable in refuting those who fall back on ‘ocean heat content rise’ to explain the lack of global temperature increase.
My second question is why wouldn’t current ARGO trends blow these claims ‘out of the water’? What data do they rely on that trumps documented current technology like ARGO?
If my thermometer tells me it’s 90 degrees then it’s 90 degrees. If some guy wants to look at my thermometer, pulls out a strange, black box and waves it around, then tells me it’s 105 degrees I’d sure like to take a look at his instruments.
The answer is that the OHC estimates are either true or they are not. If not, then the entire question is moot. If so, then break out the champagne — earth has one helluva thermostat.
ARGO was created to eliminate the need for estimates. Its data are a known quantity.
If I take thermometer readings outside my house for a month they’re not called ‘estimates’. This would be a database.
Likewise there should be a location where high school dropouts like me can find similar ARGO databases collated and searchable by different parameters.
This would help me debate those on the Yahoo forums who usually just respond with their own spoon-fed talking points from agenda-driven sites like ClimateProgress.
I think y’all ought to stop picking on the Mosh. It is true that he endorses the current warming record. But even using the current warming record, the bottom line is lukewarming, only.
Where he and I depart is on the statistical integrity of the current warming record. Our approaches are dissimilar. He is attempting to infer metadata, while I advocate simply dropping moved and TOBS-flipped stations and falling back on oversampling.
I have that luxury because I am looking at the stretch of USHCN records that have excellent metadata. He can’t because he is using GHCN going further back than when competent metadata exists. He thinks one can infer it. I do not.
In this regard, I think he is barking up the wrong tree. But otherwise, we are much alike, him and I. We policy skeptics need to stick together, or there is no hope for any of us.
To Willis and John here is where I am. Notice I have many questions (PART THREE) which I pose meaning I don’t know if this is correct.
However , I think it may be due to the conclusions I have reached by looking at past historical climatic data and reading many climate research studies of current and past climate and the many theories tossed about as to why the climate changes. This does not mean I am correct but one has to go with what he /she thinks is correct. What is the use of doing anything to this degree if you do not reach some conclusion. I have reached mine right or wrong. We all have a conclusion to one degree or another.
Here is my case for why I say what I say.
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
PART TWO:
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
Once this weak maximum ends the minimum is going to be long and extreme and I think have significant climatic impacts.
PART THREE:
The new weather norm may be correlated to prolonged minimum solar activity which has not taken place post Dalton.
My thoughts, thinking and questions follow: Based from my previous post.
As I have been maintaining a prolonged minimum solar period gives rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern due to changes in ozone concentrations in a vertical and horizontal sense in the stratosphere.
A more intense atmospheric meridional atmospheric circulation pattern should result in a greater persistence in weather patterns, more cloud coverage and snow coverage and thus an increase in the albedo.
The questions to be asked are when the maximum of solar cycle 24 finally ends( which will likely be very soon) will the atmospheric circulation pattern lock into this greater meridional pattern? If so will it amplify the cloud coverage and snow coverage? If so to what degree?
Will prolonged minimum solar activity result in lower ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures? If so how fast?
Will volcanic activity increase?
How will the weakening earth magnetic field moderate solar activity?
Will the PDO/AMO stay or go into there cold phase ? Will the warm pool of water off the Western North America coast persist? Will ENSO feature more La Nina’s going forward in response to a cold PDO?
How will a cold phase AMO/PDO play upon Arctic Sea Ice?
I have three causes for global cloud coverage in mind, they are cosmic rays, the atmospheric circulation pattern and volcanic activity.
The big question is how will those three causes for cloud coverage respond when the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends following 10 years of sub-solar activity in general?
If the answers to these questions I have asked come out the way I think they will expect cooler global temperatures going forward and greater persistence in weather patters.
Note solar cycle 24 started JAN. 2008 no cycle has continued to increase in activity more then 72 months into a given cycle which means the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 should be ending in the very near future and a long severe solar decline could /should set in thereafter.
Once this happens many of the questions I have posed(I hope will) should be answered.
Truth is, I immediately discount anyone who tells me that they know which way the climate frog is going to jump. Nobody knows what the next decade will bring, just as no one predicted the “pause” … and claiming that you do know merely marks you as someone who is not paying attention.
My Reply
Willis says in the above, which I agree with 100%. Nevertheless what is wrong with expressing what one thinks may happen and why it may happen. Without the why it would be meaningless with the why you state your case right or wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete November 16, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Salvatore, this is why I pay so little attention to you. Following your hint about the Nordic Sea Ice, I got the historical data from here and compared it to the sunspot records.
The result?
NOTHING.
The correlation between them is a joke. It’s stronger with the ice leading the sunspots than with the ice lagging the sunspots, and neither one is significant. Nor is there any 11-year signal in the data. In other words, there is NO detectable relationship between times of low solar irradiance and the amount of Nordic sea ice.
I’m sorry to say that, because you obviously think about this stuff a lot … but making claims without any citations is bad enough. Making untrue claims without citations just makes me throw up my hands and skip your next dozen comments or so.
w.
I just read on another site that the warm water in the northern Pacific is largely [due] to a lack of storms to mix the water up. Obviously that can’t ask. Someone wrote that there is no ice on lake Superior currently. Actually there is but just in some small sheltered harbors
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures.”
It’s just the weak trade winds. If it’s greenhouse gas, there would be no 18-year pause because no pause in greenhouse gas increases in past 18 years.
Willis my reply to your reply is you will not find what you want to find when it comes to solar/climate correlations unless you put it in the context of all the other factors I mention below.
If you are going to try to ISOLATE solar activity versus the climate just on given solar activity at a given time and not within the context of other factors many solar/climate correlations are going to be lost to noise in the climate system and make it appear that the correlations are not there, which is why you reach the conclusions you reach. Especially when solar variation is not in an extreme phase of either high activity or low activity. The last long phase of solar low activity was from 1790-1830. I maintain if this level is reached under this current situation then you will see more apparent solar /climate correlations.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and have to be included in the context of given solar activity and how it may or may not effect the climate.
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives. Note the sun has to reach certain low level or high level parameters in order to over come noise in the climate system.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains meridional.
Again one can not isolate given solar activity versus how the climate may change it has to be in the context of other variables as well as the context of just how extreme the change in solar variability is.
I think we can all agree on one point which is there has to be a threshold point out there where by solar variability would exert a major influence on the climate.
Where the disagreement lies is many think the sun just does not vary enough to create that threshold point. I think it does. Time will tell.
Salvatore Del Prete November 17, 2014 at 8:25 am
Salvatore, I’m not the one making the unsupported claim that
That would be you.
I looked, using both CCF and Fourier analysis, and found no correlation between TSI and Nordic sea ice at all.
Now, if you think that I’m doing it the wrong way, it’s incumbent on you to show us the right way. It’s not enough wave your hands and mumble the magic incantation “Milankovich and Magnetic Field Strength”.
So I await your analysis that actually shows that what you claim is true. I did my analysis, it’s your turn. However, my strong suspicion is that unlike me, you’ll find fifty reasons NOT to do the analysis, and you will never present us with any mathematical analysis of the ice in the Nordic Sea of any kind.
However, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in this regard.
The ball is firmly in your court, Salvatore. Don’t bother with the bluster and the excuses. Either do the analysis or tell us you won’t do it, your reasons for making your choice are immaterial.
w.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/video-sun-sleep/
This lends support to my point of view. It does not prove I am correct but it supports my thoughts.
On the other hand Willis you could be correct only time will tell.
One thing that I respect about Willis is he makes a case as to why ALL items presented that may cause the climate to change just do not hold up under his analysis. You do make good arguments.
That said however we all know the climate changes (ice age to inter-glacial back to ice age) so although Willis makes the case as to why theories tossed about do not change the climate something is changing the climate because the climate changes. Therefore Willis can’t be correct. If he was correct then there would never have been an inter-glacial -glacial transitions or sometimes extremely abrupt climatic changes.
So what has to reconciled Willis in my opinion is if you keep saying everything presented shows no evidence that it causes the climate to change and yet the climate changes.
If not the sun for example which drives the basic climate system what can it be that would trump it? This is what makes me take the solar position when it comes to climate change because I can not think of anything else that could overwhelm solar influences completely independent from solar other then an impact from a comet or asteroid which I do not think can explain all of the many climatic changes. I keep being drawn back to the sun and hence I have tried to show how this may be the answer.
But darn it, no winds (at least not in the right places). So no El Nino. Well, we can live off the the hangover of the late great warm ocean into maybe January. Enough to tip a few gauges. We need every drop.