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 tr