Forgot to mention the North Atlantic, Arctic and Indian Oceans all have large areas with above normal SSTs.

Reply: I did not forget anything. I just did not mention it.

Also, the period 1971-2000 is the warmest 30 year period of the century. The only warmer 30 year periods have been since that time because of all the additional CO2 warming with positive feed backs of greater H20 levels in the atmosphere and less spring and summer snow cover.

Is this site publicly available?

The thing that is missing with anomaly charts is an indication of the normal range of anomalies.

Are there any animations of these charts?

Reply: yes........

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/plots.php

Brett,

Way off topic -

You have been doing this blog for more than a year, and your bio above left still reads "18 years experience." Maybe you should update it?

Reply: Yea, I thought about that. I will update it when I get a chance. No rush, especially since it would make me feel older.

Brett:
I think this is the website where you got those images from. If you look at the site you will see they have a comparison of the Arctic in 1980 until today. You will evidence much less ice today. That is not because the Earth is cooling. In Fact it replicates exactly what the IPCC has said all along. Every National Academy of Science from every industrialized country in the World including America has accepted their findings. Think about it. The deniers, and their corporate sponsors, don't even have an alternate scientific opinion about this. They just need their special financial interests, and are afraid to innovate. At least Pat Boone Pickens, who is building the largest wind farm in the world, has a plan to sell his natural gas. He owns the most, in the World. By getting a subsidy for his farm he will now try too get a subsidy for his natural gas. He will get it too. He's not stupid. But America is a free country,yes?
KIPP
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere

It varies from year to year and spot to spot, ex..west coast of Africa, hot-cold-hot,artic ocean & Hudson Bay area cool-hot-cooler, that climate stuff just won't stay the same, what are we going to do. Another Hurricane forming{Gustav} already to g and thats not too long after they said, "global warming means less storms" they better switch that back before some might get confused and think climate change is over. I still have them questions bothering me from the open forum, I wish Andrew would go back and answer them and plus one more, the extent of the last ice age ended? The ice has been retreating since then, so every year since then there has been less and less ice with slight diviations, but all of this started occuring way before man made co2, why, and is this not still part of that cycle? Again I hope you find the time to help me.

Last nights low 47, that now is 10 out of the last 11 nights with lows in the 40's.

Andrew: Why pick a 30-year period that everyone knows was influenced by Thermohaline Circulation/Meridional Overturning Circulation in the North Atlantic and North Pacific and by the higher frequency and magnitude of El Ninos versus La Ninas? Why haven't you commented on the last 30 years? SSTs are declining in all oceans. Click on my name. It just so happens I plotted raw Smith and Reynolds SST data for the last 30 years for each of the oceans, with the Atlantic and Pacific on hemispheric bases. Based on the data: North Atlantic SSTs peaked in 2003. The South Atlantic SSTs have been relatively flat since 1985. North Pacific SSTs peaked in 2004. Excluding the 97/98 El Nino, South Pacific SSTs peaked in 2006. Indian Ocean SSTs have been declining steadily since the 97/98 El Nino. (I enjoy the way the large El Ninos of 82/83, 86/87/88, and 97/98 appear to cause step changes in the SSTs of the Indian Ocean.) Arctic Ocean SSTs peaked in 1990. And Southern Ocean SSTs have been declining since 1985.

You have been doing this blog for more than a year, and your bio above left still reads "18 years experience." Maybe you should update it?

This reminds of an allegedly true exchange between a guide at the Chicago Museum of Natural History and a schoolchild, in front of a large dinosaur fossil.

Guide: This skeleton is seventy-five million and twelve years old.

Visitor: I understand the seventy-five million, but how do you know the "twelve"?

Guide: It was seventy-five million years old when I started working here twelve years ago.

hey, Brett: Off subject: A follow up of the El Rushbo comments I had on a previous post and in a different part of the Sahara: This was published back in 2007 by the author below:
Jeremy Watson

GLOBAL warming is one of the greatest threats to present day civilisation but work by a team of Scots scientists suggests the ancient Egyptians may have been earlier victims of climate change.

The pharaohs ruled their empire for hundreds of years, spreading culture, architecture and the arts before it collapsed into economic ruin. Why that happened is one of the great mysteries of history.

Now a team of scientists from Scotland and Wales believe the answer lies beneath the waters of Lake Tana, high in the Ethiopian Highlands, and the source of the all-important Blue Nile.

Samples taken over the past two years from sediments beneath Tana, which supplies the water which makes the lower Nile valley so fertile, reveal the lake may have almost dried up during the critical period around 4,200 years ago due to climate change.

According to the team's theory, the flow of water on which the farm-based ancient Egyptian economy thrived would have slowed to a trickle, causing a devastating famine that lasted for 200 years.

That would have been enough to destroy the Old Kingdom and its people, leaving only the pyramids and the Sphinx at Giza as their legacy to history. The research is being carried out by a geological team from St Andrews University and the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Dr Mike Marshall, from the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences at Aberystwyth, said that when the project began in 2003, the drought was only a theory, but the pieces of the jigsaw are now being unearthed.

"We have found evidence of drought events at several levels in the lake's sediments. That correlates with 4,200 years ago. Lake Tana at that time could have been at a very low level.

"It wasn't completely dried out, but the lake became less extensive. Parts of the fringes of the lake bed could have been exposed completely and so the water flow may have been much less than normal for long periods. This could have had a severe effect on water flows further down the Nile."

The Old Kingdom flourished between 2575BC and 2150BC and bequeathed the world some of its most iconic stone monuments. But historians have argued over what was to blame for the Kingdom's demise.

Theories include invasion from Asia or internal political conflict, but more likely are the consequences of repeated and damaging drops in the level of the Nile over decades. Although written archives from the era record famine resulting from drought, proof of what stopped the annual Nile floods from occurring has been hard to find.

Lake Tana feeds the Blue Nile, which joins the White Nile at Khartoum in Sudan. The Blue Nile provides two-thirds of the water in the Nile proper, which flows through Egypt to the Mediterranean. Annual monsoons in the Ethiopian Highlands have led to the yearly flooding of the Nile, which was so important to ancient civilisations in the area.

But although 53 miles long and 41 miles wide, the lake's greatest depth is 50 feet, which scientists believe would make it highly vulnerable to climate change.

Working from fixed and moving barges, the academics, backed up by Ethiopian drillers, have taken core samples from bore holes in the lake bed sediments dating back at least 18,000 years.

At that level, 79 ft down from the lake bed, they found strong evidence that Tana had completely dried out, suggesting a dramatic change in the Earth's climate.

Seismic surveys carried out by Dr Richard Bates from St Andrews' School of Geography and Geosciences have revealed the sediments are much deeper than previously considered.

"What we now know is that the lake dried out 18,000 years ago, which corresponds with the end of the last Ice Age. As we get better at what we are doing we should be able to detect the nuances of what went on in the lake after that time," Bates said.

The team returned to Ethiopia last month to continue their research.

Bates said: "The opportunity to establish such a long and detailed record of climate change at the heart of Africa has important implications, not only for trying to understand past, present and future climate change, but as we delve back into the past, it will also have important implications for the study of human development and the migration of early man from the cradle of mankind."

Heating planet: the theories

THERE is little debate that the globe heated up significantly during the 20th century - between 0.4� and 0.8� Celsius - but the reasons why vary.

The dominant theory, the greenhouse effect, is based on so-called 'greenhouse gases' such as carbon dioxide and methane trapping radiation from the sun below the earth's atmosphere.

A minority of researchers argue there is no conclusive proof that man is to blame, since the evidence is circumstantial. Some argue the warming is a result of natural variation, primarily due to cycles of radiation from solar flares. Others recognise the greenhouse theory , but note the high emissions from natural phenomena such as volcanoes. Most scientists agree man's impact has accelerated the process. Ordo Magni Operis

Posted by Aonach Dubh at 10:07 AM

Once again we can go back to the exact quote by ElRushbo: Where did all the man-made CO2 global warming come from 5000 years ago??

I'm skeptical that SST by itself really is a meaningful signal of persistent radiative imbalance. There exists a much more complex ocean heat story if only we had a reliable long term record of ocean temps at various depths.

I wish we had a regular report of ARGO data to look at along with the existing monthly SST reports. The (unadjusted) ARGO data to date doesn't seem to support an increasing upper ocean heat content.

Where's the heat that is supposed to be accumulating?

GSN:
I truly appreciated your correction to our friend. Science is more important to me than politics. I react politically some times to remind people that we are all Americans, and we have differences, but Science should be free for discovery and the advancement of the human race. I don't like Dr. Hansen's duplicitous nature, but he did carry the ball forward for a couple of years. Like Bob Tisdale, a real skeptic, we need to hold our rifles close to our chest and bravely move forward, learn, and grow, and avoid the mine fields laid down by others for a higher purpose.
It's not about us. I want my son and daughter to have the enjoyment and fulfillment in their lives, that was afforded my wife and myself. It's not about me anymore, it's about all of us!
KIPP

Kipp,

If this verifies the IPCC prediction, why did they change their prediction? Or perhaps I should ask: Which prediction is verified?

It takes the ocean a while to respond to both warming and cooling. I recently read that if the sun were to click off today, after a solid year the seas would have cooled a single degree.

It is a bit much for both Alarmists and Skeptics to expect the oceans to respond immediately to every slight twitch of the weather. For all we know the responces we see in the oceans may be responces to solar events that occurred decades or even centuries ago.

However it is fascinating to watch the ocean warm and cool, and to try to figure out how the sea will effect the air temperatures and storm tracks. This is far more immediate.

One thing that fascinates me about the current map is the warm water off Peru. I'm sure if you asked fishermen down there, they would call it a El Nino. However it doesn't extend that far west, and is too stubby to be a true El Nino. Perhaps it deserves a name all it's own, such as "La No-No." To just call it "neutral" doesn't describe its uniqueness. And what weather patterns will it sponcer?

All that red area in the north polar area is translating into massive ice melt.
We may yet have a record sea melt. Now officially the second greatest melt (sea extent minimum, passing 2005).

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

As has been stated here, it doesn't matter if we have a record ice melt. We have a historic change that indicates just how rapidly AGW is accelerating.

I have noticed an unfortunate tilt to what Brett allows on this site in the comments section. Kipp Alpert, Steve Bloom, or David Benson can accuse all the "deniers" of being many things that would be considered derogatory. When they make an ad hominen attack, it appears here, but anything I try to post in a similar vein about them is never posted. You see, people of good will can have differing opinions on AGW but the attacks on the opposite side about peoples character are weighted heavily to those who represent the pro AGW side. Why is that?

Reply: Michael, I honestly do not remember what I have edited out in terms of your posts, but if I see specific name-calling I normally remove it regardless of what side he or she is on. Just ask Kipp. BTW, I do not recall Steve Bloom ever making any derogatory comments.

Brett:

The 1/4 degree resolution refers to grid cell (spatial) resolution, not temperature resolution. The in-press paper at the link you provided is an interesting read. The temperature resolution appears to be on the order of 0.5 C.

Reply: Thanks Paminator, I should have looked at that more closely.

Caleb: Honestly, like you I see the IPCC as a work in progress. All of science should be seen as an ever changing reality. Also I don't get how they are able to predict with any certanty the weather in 100 years. What if there were another one or two volcanos. What if they discover a way to divert or diminish CO2 trends as I understand them. The ozone layer can close, so why can't we find some way to divert,alter, or diminish the inherent nature of CO2, or it's relative effect on water vapor.
El Nino does effect the Atlantic, like the other SO, La Nina. El Nino from what I have interpreted from Bob Tisdale may be a factor in the present warming of the Arctic. I think we could both read from a couple skeptic and believer posts, that they could be the EL NoNo you are Referring to. NO, Yes?
KIPP

Michael Jennings: Brett speaks the truth! If you will be here for a little time you might see who is fair and who is political. By the way, the complaint you just made was partisan. Just read for a couple of weeks and you will see the bed bugs biting from both positions. So why is AGW wrong. It's your choice. Fact or fiction.
Thanks,KIPP

"BTW, I do not recall Steve Bloom ever making any derogatory comments." - Brett

Surely you're joking, right? That's just about the funniest thing I've ever read on this blog.

Reply: Steve has been critical of several of my blog comments on many occasions, but I never saw it as deogatory.

It looks like natural cycles are over taking the so called evil co2. If the sun doesn't wake up soon, the earth will cool even more. The sun will shut the AGW crowd up for good!!!! Pray for warming not cooling. Global warming is DEAD!!!!

Michael Jennings --- Can yoou locate a single 'derogatory' comment from me on this site?

"BTW, I do not recall Steve Bloom ever making any derogatory comments."

You cannot be serious! Example: Steve Bloom accused me of lying about my credentials during his unfortunate "power of large numbers" fiasco. This is not derogatory?

Not sure about mr. Benson, but I am sure if I took the time I could find some derogatory remarks from Steve Bloom. I am not going to take the time, since I dont care all that much, but he was banned from the forums for a reason, aint that right former member Steve Bloom?

Reply: What forums was he banned from?

Brett,

This year was a leap year so you should be using Aug 23rd, 2008

Reply: You are correct, and I should have remembered that, but in this particular case (sea surface temps) I don't think one day will make much difference, unlike sea ice coverage.