I'm 15 posts into my investigations of Smith and Reynolds SST data. Click on link attached to my name for the cover page.

Here's a SST anamoly loop and SST loop.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif

http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_loop.gif

And, ENSO weekly update.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Looks like claims of negative PDO and AMO are, like most of the rest of climate science, completely unsupportable.

Interesting piece in the BBC. Proves that bad weather is caused by SUVs.

The climate record suggested that at around 560 to 650 AD - the time the Moche were thought to have collapsed - there had been a 30-year drought in the mountains, followed by 30 years or so of heavy rain and snow.

If the weather on the coast was the opposite, then it suggested a 30-year El Nino - what climatologists call a mega El Nino - starting at around 560 AD, which was followed by a mega drought lasting another 30 years. Such a huge series of climatic extremes would have been enough to kill off an civilization - even a modern one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/peru_prog_summary.shtml

Are the data sources for the above maps gridded data from NOAA ocean bouys and has it undergone the same statistical treatment as the NCDC global temp data? Does anyone know how many actual data points are contributing to this analysis?

In looking at the UAH MSU data, it shows both the NH and SH oceans to be significantly below normal for several months now. Do the MSU sensors measure SST directly or do they measure lower trop temps above the oceans? I would think that SST and lower trop temp above the ocean are two very different things.

Finally, it would be very interesting, indeed, to see how the above analyses compare to the ARGO data. Anyone know?

Since SST is only a small piece of the ocean heat content story, I am keenly interested in following temp trends at various depths - like ARGO. If the alleged radiative imbalance truly exists, the excess heat energy has to be accumulating somewhere - that would be the ocean. It is my understanding that the ARGO data actually shows a slight cooling trend for the top 3,000 meters in the last five years. Doesn't ARGO create a major problem for the fundamental AGW theory? Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any cogent attempts to reconcile the ARGO data with AGW.

D Caldwell,

Do the MSU sensors measure SST directly or do they measure lower trop temps above the oceans? I would think that SST and lower trop temp above the ocean are two very different things.

From my understanding, that is the case. MSU data takes a weighted average from all the air in the lower troposphere and does not measure sea surface temps directly as the buoys do. I think there are actually fewer data sources in the ARGO network than what goes in to the Smith and Reynolds SST analysis, but I could be wrong. I'm not sure how the data compares.

Patrick Henry: The AMO appears to have peaked in 2005. If (BIG IF) it stays on a 60-year cycle, the changes won't be really apparent for another 5 to 10 years.

The PDO is not an SST residual like the AMO. The blunt explanation of the PDO is that it's a remnant of ENSO that's retrieved from the North Pacific using statistical devices. It's worthwhile since it helps explain North American and East Asian weather variations, but it's not what most people think it is. The "North Pacific Residual" (calculated the same as the AMO) appears to have peaked in 2006.

Ooops!
A correction to my 8:23PM post above. ARGO measures the temp in the top 2,000m of the ocean - not the top 3,000m.
Sorry about that.

Patrick Henry,

I had a post directed to you in the recent Artic Melting thread. It must have gotten lost in the spam. (Spam seriously challenges my libertarian philosophies. I know they're xercising their economic rights, which are sacred to us wackos, but I still want to beat them with a wet noodle.)

Anyway, it is good to see you posting again. I was worried that you had quit this blog.
I was wondering why you seemed down on speculations of a negative PDO. I know that many people skeptical of AGW suspect that much of the observed warming from about 1980 on may simply be due to a long-temr positive PDO (at least in Northern North America.) What's your beef with the suppoesed shift to a negative regime?

No proof of glo-bull warming here....The oceans are colder than last year.

G.W.Steve: I am not a scientist, and my English may be inferior, but isn't this how global warming works.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates, which is in fact our current situation. As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. The barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise. In this scenario, can you see that at 380 ppm of CO2 and all the other positive forcing, Global Warming would be the result. KIPP

Hi cmbclean,

I don't put much credence in the PDO idea. It is based on a small amount of empirical data with apparently little theory to back it up.

You could just as easily make the argument that we are in the positive phase as the nagative phase.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900

The more I read and analyze, the more I come to the conclusion that no one really understands the climate. Mainly a bunch of arm-waving on all sides. No one seems to have a clue why the earth cooled from 1945-1970, other than my favorite one from the Met that some canvas buckets on submarines were cooling down thermometers in Chicago.

What an annoying excuse for a science. They should all go back to college and get real jobs.

Steve McIntyre has a great post today highlighting how laughable climate science is.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3249

Wait we have a major hurricane out in the Atlantic and the ocean temperature isn't 20 degrees above normal? Go figure... Gee, I thought hurricanes were strictly caused by global warming from human made C02. Not.

Brett you know Croft? Reply: Yes, I know a Paul Croft. He was my TA one year.

GW Steve:
I agree, as much I can comprehend, that you find it remarkable that CO2 at it's present level cold cause such an increase in temperatures. My point is with all the other gases and positive radiative forcing, could this cause the warming that is absent in your thesis. I agree that CO2 itself could only cause an insignificant amount of heat, but as a blanket over the Globe couldn't even a piece of paper block out the Sun. I read your blogs and know you believe that a certain amount of CO2 is required to maintain even temps on Earth. I think I understand that given the bands that CO2 excite in, that you don't feel that it is sufficient for Global Warming. Could you extrapolate.
Thanks KIPP

Didn't that Bastardi guy made some silly prediction that the last La Nina was going to be so big and last so long that we'd have global cooling by now.

Wrong again Joe!

No wonder. Now try to understand that rising CO2 levels provide plenty warming. It's got to do with infrared radiation, water vapor feedback and seasonal snow cover extent.

Maybe it's all that oil money is clouding the forecasting ability.

I'm sure most of us are aware that it takes 5 consecutive three-month running indicies of El Nino, Neutral, or La Nina conditions to declare such a state to be in sway.
MJJ was still at a La Nina (-5). It is too early, with winter in the Southern Ocean, to declare this La Nina spent.
Do not sell the snowblower.

Patrick,

The PDO is tracked usuing statistical variations of North Pacific SSTs over many years and evend decades. There are certain signs that statisticians use to determne what mode the PDO is in. The 1976 PDO change was a "classic" change in which large sections of the North Pacific went to a positive SST variation. This occured during an EL Nino year and was reflected in warmer than normal SSTs for both the equatorial and mid lattitudes. This wasn't a permanent "flip" as a La Nina event occured shortly there after. Biologists also track the migration of certain temperature sensitive fish, and these fish migrate north or south depedning on the SSTs. Fishermen were the first to realize something was up.

The phases of the PDO are just marked by changes in ENSO. During the positive PDO cycles El Nino events dominate in both strength and duration; during negative phases La Nina events do likewise. The equatorial pacific waters still oscillate between Kelvin Waves and Rossby Waves; warm to cold; cold to warm. No one knows why some decades are dominated by El Nino events, while others are dominated by La Nina. Most scientists see a direct connection between global surface temps and the state of the PDO. For North America (especially the Far West), ENSO events drive most of thier precip patterns.

There is currently something going on in the Atlantic that needs some attention regarding the abnormally warmer eastern Atlantic Ocean waters.

The following comes directly from the Jeff Master's hurricane blog site:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=978&tstamp=200807

"Hurricane Bertha put on a remarkable burst of rapid intensification Monday afternoon, reaching major hurricane status--Category 3--with 120 mph winds and an estimated central pressure of 948 mb. Among early season hurricanes that have formed before August 1, Bertha is the sixth strongest early-season Atlantic hurricane on record. Only 12 early season major hurricanes have formed since record keeping began in 1851, though several were no doubt undocumented before the advent of the aircraft reconnaissance in 1944. Bertha holds the record for the farthest east a major hurricane has formed so early in the season (52W longitude), easily beating the mark set in 1996 (67W) by a previous incarnation of Hurricane Bertha. This year's Bertha now holds the record for farthest east formation as a tropical storm, hurricane, and major hurricane, so early in the season."

Bertha will just be a fish storm out over the Atlantic and will not make much mainstream news since it will not be affecting us here in the U.S. But the records being set by this storm are remarkable on a scientific level.

Hi JP,

As you know, I respect your opinion. What in your estimation is the cause of the PDO?

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't that Bastardi guy made some silly prediction that the last La Nina was going to be so big and last so long that we'd have global cooling by now.

Wrong again Joe!

No wonder. Now try to understand that rising CO2 levels provide plenty warming. It's got to do with infrared radiation, water vapor feedback and seasonal snow cover extent.

Maybe it's all that oil money is clouding the forecasting ability.

Can you clue the rest of in on what your sources are for these conclusions? It certainly isn't the Ocean Temperature Anomalies images above, as those don't show any net warming. There's been a cooling trend lately. Please try to keep up.

And BTW, where do I sign up to get that oil money? CO2-induced climate change is a complete and total fraud (check the actual climate v. the computer models for starters) without any scientific evidence to back it up. I've been saying that for years and it's still true, not matter how you try to slice and dice it. I haven't been paid a thing.

Is there some card I can apply for that pays at the pump or something? It seem the environmentalists haven't come up with any alternate energy sources but have managed to interfere with the oil supply and prices are really high right now.

Patrick: Your right!
The ice cores drilled in the Greenland suggest a pattern of cold spells based on two cycles: 80 years and 180 years. This fits all the cold spells since 1200 A.D., except that we should now be in a cold period that should have started about 1950 and continue until about 2000 A.D. There should have been a miny ice age.
At about the same time,global warming was becoming more evident and they did not consider the natural climate cycle. This natural cooling cycle has been replaced by Global Warming. AGW is here, so say goodbye to your cooling weather reports.
KIPP

Dennis Hlinka:
In Connecticut this winter it was extremely cold.
Fierce winds, and cloudy, but with only one snowfall. This summer has been humid every day and the summer started off with record temps in the high nineties. Although it is less hot, the humidity persists. This is called AGW.
KIPP

GW Steve:
The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up.
KIPP

Anonymous:
"Didn't that Bastardi guy made some silly prediction that the last La Nina was going to be so big and last so long that we'd have global cooling by now.

Wrong again Joe!"

Better stick with the bathroom walls, friend. Joe won't be wrong until October, at the earliest.

Patrick,
Here's my take on the PDO. Like Bob, I believe the PDO is actually a representation of long term variation in the ENSO cycle(s). Since the Pacific is the largest body of water, and the equatorial Pacific is the stretches from South America to SE Asia, I would bet that most of our global ocean currents have thier genesis in the Pacific. The Pacifc Ocean moderates like a thermostat the heat content of oceans. Heat is transported through our oceans poleward and to opposite parts of the globe. During El Nino Cycles, Kelvin Waves push excessive heat eastward towards the S. American coast; eventually these waves rebound off the coasts of the Americas as Rossby waves and push "cooler" waters westward. If I am correct, there've been 2 very strong El Nino events that had corresponding moderate to strong La Nina events (I use NOAA's MEI to guage intensities). The 1999-2000 La Nina was even stronger than this past years La Nina.

In the past, I always assumed that La Ninas usually depended on the strength of the previous El Nino events. However, during the last decade, many researchers say this isn't true. The Negative PDO event from the late 40s to mid 70s showed many La Ninas without corresponding strong El Ninos. If oceanic heat content is the driving force of ENSO patterns, I would think that the period of positive/negative PDOs are driven by either a deficit in the ocean heat balance or a surplus. The obvious question then arises what determines the deficit/surplus of deep ocean heat content? Like Travis said, the temperature of the North Pacific is more likely a signal of what the Equatorial Pacific is doing; however, this signal does have a fairly strong correlation to global surface temps.

Some people have tried to correlate the PDO/ENSO cycles to solar cycles. From what little I've read, this is probably a dead end. Unless someone can positively link long term solar cycles like the Gleissberg Cycle to changes in ocean heat content, they could be wasting thier time.

The one thing thats looks to be true is that the oceans in the northern hemisphere seem to have warmer anomalies than in the southern hemisphere. I have also been reading that the southern hemisphere was -.31 degrees in June and the northern hemisphere was -.5 degrees in June. It seems like a very consistent thing no matter where you look.

Kipp Alpert:

"The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers."

By some, you mean very little. As you seem to have just implied, most of the vibrational energy is shared as kinetic energy with all the molecule's neighbors. So the CO2 molecule has, on average, no more energy to transfer by radiation than before.

The molecule radiates energy only in discrete quantities--its preferred wavelengths.

Convection of heated and cooled (by condensation and evaporation of H2O, respectively) gas envelopes provide most the the heat transfer in the atmosphere.

Snow radiates 1000 times more readily than
CO2 at 0 degrees C and 1 Atm. The solid surface has its vibrational energy available through the bonds maintaining its lattice. Its radiation frequency depends on its temperature only.

A gas' energy for radiation, however, is available primarily through conduction; the energy is available dependent on Pressure and Temperature.

At 600 degrees C, CO2's ease of radiation improves nearly 100 times.

The radiation earth-directed therefore, will always be neligible in comparison with that from the surface.

Temperatures decline through the Mesosphere and then increase radically in the outer Ionosphere.

Kipp Alpert: In this part of Connecticut, other than the two- to three-day 90 deg F June heat wave you mentioned, spring and early summer temperatures have been cooler than recent years. It's always humid here in Connecticut during the summer. This is called weather.

Dennis Hlinka:

The area of the East Atlantic off the west coast of Africa is one of many thermohaline circulation upwelling areas. Temperatures in upwelling areas oscillate quite nicely. The extreme East Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are the only hurricane development areas that have warmed over the past year or so. Since 2005, SSTs in the tropical North Atlantic have dropped 0.5 deg C and the SSTs in the Caribbean have dropped more than 1.0 deg C, both in what appear to be consistent downward trends.

Gulf of Mexico SSTs are still lower than they were in 1938. The other point to consider about the Gulf is there was a 0.3 deg C upward step change that occurred in 1998, a response to the El Nino. Temperatures in the Gulf were declining prior to that; now they're increasing.

There's a new post, as of today, on my blogspot about hurricane development areas. I started working on it about a week ago. I thought it would be timely.

Anonymous, Ever since the beginning of 2007 when the most recent La Nina was being born the global temperatures has been dropping resulting in a global cooling. The global temperature is below the 0 degrees Celsius mark meaning that this is global cooling and not just a weakened warming. You might have known that already if you could get with the times.

John Galt:
Do you have a single scientific reason to believe that global warming is a hoax. I would like to hear one. Tell me why Global warming is bull. Prove it or at least postulate a theory. Otherwise wouldn't you be better not to mention it, since you can't back it up, proving ZERO.
Also, since oil doesn�t grow on trees where are you going to find the price of oil going down? Sell your SUV and buy a hybrid or Japanese car. But please don't complain anymore, or at least justify your remarks. Our next president will not only tax big oil, but tax unfair profits. The middle class needs a boost, not the 5% of this country, who have too much. I lived in Mexico for two years, and there are the very rich as well as the very poor. They have no middle class. It's a sad place. You should think more about the poor and disenfranchised. Greed is a bad thing.
KIPP

Unfair profits? What are those?

Microsoft makes more in profits than an oil company does.

Instead of taxing oil companies excessively, why not go after Wall Street and Microsoft?

Gary Gulrud:
You are saying then; that H20, is the largest greenhouse gas. I believe that CO2 excites from heat as other GHGs do and that water vapour, is the major gas in this scenario.
KIPP

Bob Tisdale:
You naturally left out half of my post. Last winter extremely cold and one snowstorm. That is called Global warming. IN the summer we ususually have days that are not humid. 95 today, and very humid. Like the IPCC predicted.
KIPP

Mark-Denver,Co.
Yes I agree all windfall profits taxes. Why stop with OIL. KIPP

Gary Gulrud: Polyatomic gas molecules absorb long IR and microwave energy when they tumble. CO2, with 3 atoms per molecule does this. So does methane (CH4) and water vapor (H2O). These gases in the air adsorb IR energy that the earth would otherwise radiate into space. They act like a blanket.
"Greenhouse gases do not "absorb" heat. They make the atmosphere less transparent to the infrared."
Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes in one side (here the bottom) and does not come out the top. It has been "absorbed". The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer". The transfer of IR energy (commonly called "heat") into the earth's atmosphere will change in the energy distribution of the atmosphere. More heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere would mean less made it to the upper atmosphere: the lower would be warmer, but the upper would be cooler.
KIPP

Anonymous:

"The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow."

Seagalstad has a paper on CO2 atmospheric residence estimates over at IceCap. The score that he lists top out at 12 years and average around 7.

Comparisons of 14C isotopes peaks of production against their peak in abundance suggest that every carbon atom in the atmosphere cycles through the ocean in 60 years.

They are produced at high latitudes in the upper stratosphere so mixing is delayed with surface layers.

Not batting for average, 'eh. Then you're hoping to connect with a high hard one?

Tell me how vector quantities like the CO2 flux from various sources to their sinks balance. Just how is that managed with arithmetic? Do you tag the CO2 with PostIts or what?

"Kipp Alpert:
Bob Tisdale:
You naturally left out half of my post. Last winter extremely cold and one snowstorm. That is called Global warming. IN the summer we ususually have days that are not humid. 95 today, and very humid. Like the IPCC predicted.
KIPP
"

Kipp,

Madison WI received record snowfall this winter. They are on the globe. Was that Global Warming?

The Bluegill hadn ot yet spawned up near Hayward WI until after the 1st of July, which is pretty late and is driven by temperature. It was a cool May and the water temps were way behind. Was that Global Warming?

You are foolish to honestly believe that those weather events are from global warming.

I dont understand how very cold translates to global warming. If it would have been a very warm winter, it would be blamed on global warming too. If it had been a perfectly normal winter, it would have been global warming.

That is ridiculous when global warming is the cause for both extremes and everything in between.

Kipp Alpert:

The importance of H20 as a GHG relative to CO2 is:

H20 is very roughly 100 times more abundant, but this of course varies widely. It also emits/absorbs about twice as easily, i.e., has many more "preferred" frequencies with which to drop energy.

I still think the state change of water, taking up 70 calories per cubic centimeter of liquid on evaporation and, vice versa, releasing 70 cal. in condensation of the same cc. is more important by far than the GHGs.

Because the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium all the energy it absorbs is shared equally by all its component gases. This means it has to rely on the random bumps it gets from neighbors to emit, and it emits when it has the energy available of a 'preferred' wavelength.

Gary Gulrud: Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand. Another words it doesn't matter which GHG is excited at it's given bands, but when a given GHG is excited and it's availability for H20 exists, there you have absorption, You do believe that the nature of CO2 and other gases is that they do not let heat escape the atmosphere to a large degree. Thus creating the so called greenhouse effect. Thanks so much for your input. I hope you can lead me. I took Akio Morita's Potraits for sony before he passed, but I love the universality of science.
Thanks Kipp

Brett you know Croft? Reply: Yes, I know a Paul Croft. He was my TA one year.

Ok cool! He is one of my meteorology professors. I brought your name up in a converstation about this blog and he said you were one of his students. What a small world...

Reply:Yes it is!

Kipp Alpert:

Yes, you have some of the elements in play but the problem is putting them together.

Of the wavelengths of near IR, about 1/4 are not absorbed by the GHGs and pass thru though they can scatter.

Most of this narrow spectrum however is absorbed in the first few hundred meters above the surface. It does indeed heat the air, which means the kinetic energy has increased; the rate of collision and the velocity of the molecules each having a mass. Average kinetic energy is temperature.

Here convection comes to dominate the transfer of energy within the atmosphere. Warm air rises and when the water contained condenses the energy is released higher in the troposphere.

Eventually, in the Ionosphere the temperature rises into the thousands of degrees and radiation again becomes important.