Hmmm, very interesting.

It appears that the earth's axis tilted in Jan 2001. The world looks entirely differant after that and might explain a lot of differant things.

Now seriously; notice the total lack of sea ice in 1998. The deniers will likely point to that as proof positive that the earth has cooled significantly since then OR that NASA data can no longer be trusted.

Lets do a poll and see if the deniers endorse one theory over the other.

Brett,
For the Pacific, it looks like your classic El Nino/La Nina cycle, with a rather long period (2002-2006) having elevated SSTs.

For the Atlanitc, the AMO is in an obvious positive cyle.

My guess is that the PDO is still in the positive cycle. We probably won't know for sure until the next El Nino phase.

The 6 year drought over Oceania can be partially explained by high MEIs and El Nino like SSTs from 2002-2006. The peristent drought over the SE US can aslo be partially explained by the warm Atlanitc, and a neutral to cooling East Pacific since 2005. I think also, the fairly warm climate these past several years in the NH can also be partially attributed to elevated Atlantic and Pacific SSTs. One thing of concern is if the next El Nino event is weak (like the short lived 2006 event), and the Atlantic remains warm. In that scenario (A switch to a cold PDO/Warm AMO), the moist gulf flow is diverted southward into Mexico, and a dry regime sets up for most of middle America and Southern Canada. This is essientially what happend in the late 20s through the 30s Dust Bowl era.

These graphs simply support the fact that there has been no man made anthropogenic warming since 1998 (unless 1998 was really caused by man LOL). Graphs shows that there has been a relationship between sea temperatures and global temperatures/climate over the measured period. The first figure reveals a down trend for 2008. I reckon this time the next 10 year trend will go way down to -0.8C at some stage and it will not return to +0.8 re GISS data). This ought to kill AGW

Intriguing. The Pacific, which of course is about half the world surface, is doing all kinds of things. The Atlantic and Indian oceans appear to be consistently warmer. Is that a fair interpretation?
The 1998 image is a bit confusing - it would appear that the ice was warmer than average - I don't beleive there was no ice either in Antarctica or the Arctic at that time. Could you expand & explain? Reply: In 1998 they were not "whiting out" the >15% sea ice covered areas. That is why you see the difference, so you really cannot compare that image of the polar regions in 1998 with the more recent ones.

It would be nice if NOAA had a policy of always displaying what the baseline period is on their anomaly maps. I like their other SST maps better, because they display -0.5/+0.5 as a neutral color.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

No one really knows what "normal" is within 0.5 degrees, so the appearance of the maps above can be altered quite a bit by a small difference in the "normal" definition. Also interesting is how one NOAA map shows well above normal temperatures along the northeast US seaboard and the other map shows temperatures well below in the same region.

The really interesting thing for me is how anomalies in the North Atlantic have dropped several degrees since last fall.

Thanks for this post; it's interesting. One question: The map for 1998 is showing a strong and uniform positive anomaly for the arctic, whereas all other years basically show ice cover (at that 15% threshold). Was it really that warm and largely ice free in 1998? Reply: In 1998 they were not whiting out the 15% or greater sea ice areas for whatever reason.

Andrew Said

"Lets do a poll and see if the deniers endorse one theory over the other."

Yes cause Alarmists are not subscribing to any theories over another, right? Geez Andrew, it is almost as if you are turning the AGW group into an Elitist Group or something.

Brett,
What's up with sea ice in 1998? I can't believe there's no ice at all anywhere in the world. Is it a mistake? Reply: I would ignore it. Obviously in 1998 they were not whiting out the >15% sea ice areas yet.

Interesting article for two reasons.

1. It shows again that people hoping for worldwide CO2 reductions are wasting their time.

2. It provides more evidence that the GCM's are too immature to be of any real world value. None of the modeler's predictions have been correct about this winter's weather.

Snow storm brings China to a halt January 28 2008 15:19

China's transport and energy systems have been caught in a perfect winter storm, with hundreds of thousands of people stranded during the peak travel season after train delays caused by heavy snow and power failures. The power crisis, the worst in China for many years, has been caused by an acute shortage of the supply of coal, the country's staple fuel. The problem has been amplified by unseasonally large snowfalls in northern and central China

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ccaf42e-cdb1-11dc-9e4e-000077b07658.html

If anyone other than Al Gore would have brought the theory of global warming I believe it may have been accepted by more people. However, even a retired airtraffic controller with limited weather knowledge is able to read the maps and charts of reality weather cycling. Again, looking into Al Gores eyes a person can see the lights are on.....but no one is home. He's not the first deceiver the world has ever known ..and I'm sure he won't be the last. Have a "Great Day".

An interesting presentation by Stu Ostro regarding synoptic weather patterns and its relationship to anthropogenic climate change. Note: It's over 250 slides:

http://image.weather.com/web/multimedia/images/blog/globalwarming_synopticmeteorology.pdf

For those who simplistically believe that all of our warming is explained by the +PDO/+AMO, he addresses that, too.

What caught my eye was the hot spot in the Barents Sea that's in all of the images. It appears it might be synched with the AMO, since it's in the cool mode from the 40s to the 70s. Refer to Figure 2-9c of TAR for that image.

So, add that to the list of things that help amplify warmth in the Arctic.

JP,

In order to see what is really going on in the North Atlantic, I digitally removed all colors in the -0.5 to +0.5 range, and replaced them with white. The North Atlantic isn't that warm, and the map looks quite different without all of that "just barely above normal" bright yellow.

http://patrickphenry.blogspot.com/2008/01/corrected-sst-anomalies.html

I still find myself after looking at these images and letting my mind process the information, I can only stick with my previous thoughts concerning the natural cycle progress. Even with the graphs showing the rise, then sharp drop to cool , then continueing rise of warmth across the countries that this is perhaps just a cycle.

I do not totally throw out the theory of Gobal Warming but neither will I endorse it. I believe it is truly to earlier to jump onto the band wagon of the GW theory, but we shouldn't dismiss it either. For while it is still not proven, it remains possible seeing as how we haven't proved it doesnt exist either.

I can't stress the facts enough. I constantly hear renowned individuals spreading the word and message of GW as if tomorrow the world is going to crumble and we will cease to be here. I hear these same people screaming for action and change. I believe until the facts are proven or dismissed as myth that any action is the wrong action. You simply can not direct treatment without knowing the extent of the whole wound.

So before anyone casts the first vote, plan, or course of a response to GW I would hope that individual or individuals understood fully the fact of GW, its true nature and the actual cure to prevent further harm or endangerment.

Who knows maybe in the next graphs 50 years from now will point even stronger to my theory of earth's natural cycles taking place. If I am right someone better bring flowers to my graveside.

Yes its a mistake. Ive checked the sea ice in 1998
and its all there and actually more sea ice to the east of greenland in 1998 then 2008.

Pollution from gas and oil development causing Arctic warming.

"The reduction in the intensity of cold (temperatures) during winter over these last 20 years corresponds to an accumulation (rise) of 1,000 degrees Celsius," Gascard said. The team highlighted the role of ocean currents, namely in the northern Pacific, behind warming of waters. Gascard's research colleague, Gerard Ancellet, also spoke of recently-formed Arctic mist, pollution clouds which "trap" Earth's naturally-emitted infrared rays thereby raising temperatures. "Internal" Arctic pollution is the source, Ancellet said, highlighting Russian and northern Scandinavian gas and oil exploitation.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/cgi-app/reports?ARCHIV=0&LANG=en&JJ=2008&MM=01&TT=24&MENU=Topics&FILE=b1.txt&

Some very interesting data showing that perhaps the rising atmospheric C02 is derived from the oceans has been proposed by certain eminent. ther is a very live debate going on between some of the RC crowd climatologists/meteorologists:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

Mark,
from all these 221 slides only one(#214) has in some way connection with AGW, the rest of them with GW. BTW, exactly this slide has not any scientific evidence to support it. The so simple looking ABC logic is not actually so simple. If condition A is not true then C is not true, too. But C can be true if other factors naturally influence the climate. Until A is not proved without any doubt (that humans influence the climate at magnitude greater than other factors) better to stay with Occam's razor: the sun dynamic explains everything from these 221 slides in perfect way, and more of this - there are facts to prove it.

About the SST series posted here: interestingly, through all of these years, no matter what is happening in world ocean, there are 4 relatively not too big areas with significant above averages temps: along the North East Cost of USA, Japan Sea, Yellow Sea, and the waters North of Norway. Only the last one is not connected with any nearby heavy industrialized territory. Is it possible the SST in these areas to have anthropogenic distortion but not connected to CO2? Also, could these areas distort the whole SST picture (there is near 5 degrees departure from the averages)?

BRETT

Many thanks for this post. Good work, keep it going.

Thanks

Stephen

Mark,
I'm not sure what Stu's point was other than chasing extreme weather events around the globe. He's seems to have broken YOUR first rule: Weather isn't Climate. The mid lattitudes is dynamic; there will be periods of higher and lower pressures over certain areas of the world. In a dynamic system, there will always be areas of significantly higher/lower temperatures and precipitation. AGW theorists aruge the opposite -more warming means hotter summers and milder winters. Polar air mass source regions will warm, thus eliminating or weakening a major variable in the dyamic climate model. The presentation barely attributed AGW as the source of our "extreme weather", and the evidence actually went against the AGW thesis.

I think it is relatively easy to link both ENSO and the AMO to our seasonal weather variations. The positive AMO is obviously having an affect on Western Europe, and we are in a classic La Nina winter for North America. Central and Western Asis is downright frigid. The prevalence of winter storms this season can be linked to the "fire hose effect" caused by cold Pacific waters coupled with warm Atlantic waters (which produces very high baroclinicty in the southern branch of the polar jet). I think the author of the slides did a poor job linking AGW to synoptic variability (If that was his intention to begin with). He did do an excellent job in highlighting the complex upper level synoptic patterns of the atmosphere.

China is having it's coldest and snowiest winter in 50 years, and the latest Met Office forecast for western Europe indicates the party is over for them too

Climate IQ quiz for the day.

The reason for record snows and cold all around the globe this winter is :

1. Steadily rising CO2 levels causing global warming
2. George Bush, who is responsible for everything bad in the world
3. The gods making favor with us for acknowledging global warming
4. Low solar activity
5. Contrails from Al Gore's private jet blocking the sun

Patrick,
Thanks for the slide. We may have to wait until to summer, to see if the positive AMO pattern persists. Normally, the AMO changes phases every 25 years or so. Currently, we are in the middle of the positive or warm phase. I believe 1995 was the year that most scientists believe the AMO went positve. Dr Grey, if you remember, got himself in trouble by linking the AMO to Atlantic Tropical Storm activity. I think if you wait until August, and do a 12 month anomally analysis of the Atlantic, you will get a better idea of the Atlantic is actually warming or cooling.

What is interesting, is the effect the AMO is having on Western Europe. Normally, the NAO has a bigger influence. This winter however, the persistent sub-tropical ridge of high pressure stretching from the Central Atlantic has prevented very cold polar air from Western Asia from invading Western Europe. This obviously has had an impact on the Middle East, as thier winter could be one of the coldest in 100 years.

"Some very interesting data showing that perhaps the rising atmospheric C02 is derived from the oceans has been proposed by certain eminent."

Spencer is embarassing himself. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is human caused, as evidenced by isotope ratios and the fact that when you burn fossil fuels, you get CO2 (and lots of it. Only about half ends up in the atmosphere). Spencer's credibility is gone--he doesn't even appear to be aware of the literature on the subject.

Patrick:
As you know, these are weather phenomenon, not Climate. While the graphs are interesting, you can draw no AGW conclusions from them either way because
1. It is too short a time scale
2. No factoring out of natural influences like AMO, PDO, ENSO etc..
3. Little understanding of other unknown factors affecting Climate sensitivity
Having said all tha