It would appear to the least educated eye that La Nina has dispersed off the South America coast, however the 'anomaly', it appears, is in the greater part of the Pacific Ocean; it is cooler and not just 'slightly' cooler than as shown to be in the previous four compilations. In fact, La Nina seems to be dispersing off South America and a much cooler much more huge central band and further expanse of water is now in place. Much cooler sea is in place in the Antarctic region.

According to AGW theory, this should not be happening. Let's wait for Hansen's next apologetic. On the other hand, Mother Earth gives not a flip about AGW theory, its a good thing Al Gore can't buy her off.

“Overall, it looks like the blues are beginning to win out a little bit over the warmer-than-normal yellows and reds,”

Whoa! Not so fast. Real Climate has pasted judgment on this and prove that the Oceans are not cooling but heating up!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=436

Real Climate has found the problem and adjusted the temps and now they agree with the computer models.
You can’t keep a good story down and now with 300 million in advertising…..they will continue to shout down rational discourse. The sad thing is many children in the world actually believe this no matter what the science shows.
Question!Is there any scientific instrument that the “climatologists use” that is NOT subject to later upward revision?

ted:

Am I missing something? The RealClimate report you noted is for April 18, 2007 back when it was easier for them to bewilder the masses. Let's see what old Gavin comes up with for the 2008 data.

Back at it, though, reading the comments section below the article is even more telling...Hit dass Gleichschritt!

Brett: I am extremely curious as to what is happening in the upper left quadrant.

tkx, srr

Reply: It looks like some type of false reading, esp.since you can see it there each of the past 4 years, but I am not totally sure.

I want to thank Ted for highlighting the realclimate analysis of the ARGO data and how the problems in that data led Willis et al to correct their erroneous paper:

Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

Brett, it's probably worth updating your recent thread-starter to reflect this correction. Reply: Thanks BT.

When the lead author of a paper issues a correction like this, it:
1. Demonstrates the integrity of the author
2. Highlights the process of good science
3. Demonstrates why peer-reviewed literature is far and away the most reliable source of scientific information.

The Contrarian Church of Saint Patrick (and its patron saint) would do well to emulate this behavior.

The NINO1+2 Forecast (ensemble mean) is for a drop then gradual rise over the rest of the year.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst_history/200804/images/nino12SSTMon.gif

The NINO3.4 Forecast (ensemble mean ) looks like a gradual rise but still remaining at or below the threshold of -0.5 into next year.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst_history/200804/images/nino34SSTMon.gif

Will NINO3.4 continue to drive global temperature down, or will the lag in global SST response to solar continue to force global temp lower for the next few years?

Ted:
Here's a graph of the number of posts at RealClimate since its creation in December 2004. Note the rapid decline in the trend. Does it correspond to the drop in global temperature?

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ciepae&s=3&capwidth=false

What's this a graph of? The curve resembles global temperature anomaly, but it's not temperature. Hint: Look at the units in the Y-axis.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=73o5xc&s=3

But it's not Solar:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=f0oltd&s=3

Brett: There is a connection to today's post.

In his recent press releases, Dr. Hansen has described 2007 as having been "in the cool ENSO phase." The 2007 map above does not support his claim. Reply: Which specific map?

Also, in late 2006, Dr. Hansen predicted that 2007 would be a "Super El NIno."

Whichever way the wind blows......

Ted,
It wasn't Real Climate that made the correction, but the study's author Lyman himself. The correction was substantial as there was a change in the way bathy readings of the ARGO equipment. In the end, the 2003-2005 oceanic cooling was substanitally lowered.

The co-author of the 2006 study, Willis just completed a second round of readings, and reports that the slight global oceanic cooling continued into 2007.

Looks like March was the "Nth warmest month on record" in the US. Proving Gavin's claim that the world is heating up - even if it is cooling down.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

Brett,

Kristen Byrnes at PondertheMaunder has commented elsewhere that this warming off the West coast of S. America is seasonal and La Nina will again gain strength in the fall.

Yeah, I know, she's just a high school kid, so much for our manly hubris. We're not in her league, friend.

BTW, congrats on your daughter. We also were so blessed March 11. Getting the flash cards ready. Reply: Congratulations to you!

Headline: April 8, 2008?

Is this a projecton of April 1st?

;-)

Reply: Whoops, my mistake, but hey, it's April Fools Day so I give myself a pass.

Hi Brett,

I took the most recent image and digitally removed all of the colors in the +/- 0.5 degree range. I personally don't believe anyone knows know what "normal" is within that precision.

The result looks very different. The vast majority of the ocean is below normal.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d3nhg5b_0ddz7swdc

Reply: Interesting Patrick, can I use the image in the blog? I will credit PH of course.

Yes, it does appears to be a "whole earth" effect. The poles of course, are tiny compared. Also if you look at land COLA has not changed much and most continents appears consistently cooler. The AMSU data for March at 4.4 and 7.5km is impressively cooler compared to all past data (yes March even more so) but let's wait for the official UAH RSS data
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Prediction: 2008 =year Global warming theory ended
This 300 million thing might bankrupt the AGW crowd in the end LOL

As Steve R pointed out, the Realclimate blurb is old news. The more recent data takes this adjustment into account and it still shows cooling to flat.

Hi BLT,

You say that peer reviewed literature is the most reliable source of information and in general I would agree with you.

But remember it does not a priori mean that the information is correct. I am sure you are aware that the consensus of hundreds (?thousands) of peer reviewed articles was that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and diet. Scientists could just not believe that bacteria could survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. But they were wrong!!

In other words the science is never closed and consensuses don't mean an awful lot.

The �What�s This?� graph is a function of total solar irradiance (TSI). Enter two sets of TSI data (I used Lean et al without background and ACRIM tacked on the end) in a spreadsheet and shift one down five years to represent the lag between LST and SST. (See, Brett, there�s the reference to oceans, so it�s not too far off topic.) Then average the two.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=9bg48o&s=3&capwidth=false

Looks close to global temp anomaly.

Then area-proportion the data (30% for land and 70% for oceans) and run the graph again.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2a6l65v&s=3&capwidth=false

Note: The first three major spikes since 1950 could�ve been reduced by volcanic aerosols (2 volcanoes in 1962, 3 in 1983 though we only hear of El Chichon, and Mt Pinatubo in 1991). Kinda creepy that there�s even a remote correlation.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=vdg4y9&s=3&capwidth=false

Here�s the correlation between Global Temperature Anomaly and the TSI average that�s been land- and ocean-proportioned and shifted 5 Years. Not bad.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=10moi1d&s=3&capwidth=false

There�s no way I can account for the differences in land and ocean albedo, and there�s no way I want to try since land albedo changed over the term of the data.

What does it prove? Nothing. Makes you think, though.

BT,
you forgot 4) overpriced government sponsored thermometers are inaccurate, prone to error and subjectively adjusted 5) if the subjective corrections are in favor of warming, pontificate it proves AGW, before someone figures out the manipulation 6)place faulty and incomplete data into a crystal ball biased computer program and predict imminent doom 7) convince yourself you really think you have a clue about predicted the future 50 years from now based on above 8) propose idiotic solutions to solve the "consensusized" man induced Armageddon while lining your own pocket 9) sleep well at night in your make-believe carbon footless mansion, convinced you have saved the world, no matter how much suffering is caused by the SCAM...

Hi Brett,

Of course you can use the image.

BTW - I should have said that "the area of below normal temperatures is much greater than the area of above normal" rather than "The vast majority of the ocean is below normal."

My original statement was not correct.

I hope that I'm not stealing any of Bob Tisdale's thunder by referencing this plot of total solar irradiance and northern hemisphere surface temperature anomalies:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg

BT:

In their 'peer reviewed' paper published September 20, 2006, Lyman, Willis, and Johnson made note:

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2x 10/22 of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 to 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate of the entire 13 year is .33W/m2. A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significantly and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

In their 'peer reviewed' paper revised and resubmitted July 10, 2007, Willis, Lyman, and Johnson made note:

Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0-750m)ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA)between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. (2006) appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. (2006) carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. The error will be ultimately corrected . However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OCHA estimates. Another bias was caused by expendable BathyThermograph (XBT) date that are systematically warm compared to other instruments(Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007). Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.

I checked Argos and the float profile data is there.

Exactly what IS the data then? IN this age of advanced technology, is the most we can do to get a correct reading of temperature to walk outside and stick our fingers towards the sky to get outdoor readings or (excuse me) stick it where the sun don't shine to get a bodily reading? We can't make reliable instruments?

So, what are you actually saying about the article Bret put up recently on the robots? Is that data to be set aside? Curious that revisions and errors Always phase the data upwards.

It appears to me that the data is worthless in both temperature readings and your climete models.
Neither are worth a damn.

"A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significantly and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling." .....error 'much larger' than estimated....

Your 'peer reviewing' make make for integrity, but as far as reputability it isn't worth rolling up and stickling it on the bathroom paper holder. I certainly hope to see that this is not so.

Hi Steve Rowland. I wonder if you could answer a question on your first comment. I was under the impression that La Nina was a weather event and not considered part of any climate theory [I'm probably wrong on this]. You state that, " According to AGW Theory , this should not be happening ....." I guess I'm not understanding your point, so could you please reiterate what exactly is it that's not supposed to be happening and more importantly could you be more specific as to why it should not be this way. Thanks a bunch , Dave.

Bob Tisdale,

Could you put together another graph plotting the temperature (HadCRUT) vs CO2 concentrations? I think many on this blog might find the correlation (or lack thereof) quite interesting.

Thanks, in advance.

Re the temps in the far upper left quadrant, that area of the ocean had historically been covered with ice (over most of the 20 year average period used to develop the figures). Since the ocean is warmer than ice, the area shows up as a high positive temperature.