Skip to comments.Global Warming Reversal: Sea Surface Temperatures Plunge to Coldest Temperatures in Six Years.
Posted on 06/08/2007 11:22:45 AM PDT by dangus
As of May, 2007, the temperature at the surface of the Earth's seas reached the coolest have cooled off about .18 degrees since October, 2003. That month had been the warmest even recorded, except for in December, 1997, when an anomalously strong El Nino created the warmest seas ever recorded. Most of the cooling has occurred since November, 2006. The oceans are currently .08 degrees warmer than they were in 1944, following massive de-industrialization caused by war and economic depression, and .7 degrees warmer than they averaged in the first decade of the 20th century, before pollution controls removed particulates from the sky. Particulate pollution creates cloud seeding, and clouds reflect radiation back into space before it can warm the Earth. Scientists debate the extent to which particulate pollution may have offset "greenhouse gas" pollution during the 20th century.
Average Sea Surface temperatures bounce around less than Average low-altitude atmospheric temperatures because the oceans are slower to cool or warm, but also because the oceans are less susceptible to short-term, localized human effects, such as heat islands. Also, because the sea surface is a larger and more uniform surface than land surfaces, short-term weather occurences cause lesser effects.
The following temperatures are readings from the National Climatic Data Center, expressed as deviations from the 20th-century mean.
May, 2007: +.3722
April, 2007: +.4099
November, 2006: +.5166 (cessation of gradual warming trend.)
February, 2001: +.3236 (last time oceans were this cool)
January, 2000: +.2380 (short-term anomaly caused by La Nina effect, after the Super-El-Nino.)
December, 1997: +.5597 (the highest recording ever, a short-term anomaly, the Super-El-Nino.)
December, 1975: -.1814 (bottom of cooling trend, which had created the media hysteria about the "New Ice Age.")
January, 1969: +.2255 (temperature peak prior to the cooling trend of the "new Ice Age.")
Early 1950s: +.1000 (approximate average)
(This is a listing of monthly average Sea Surface Temperatures since 1880, generated by the National Climatic Data Center. It could not be linked to as the Source URL, since FR links must be an http-prefixed URL, rather than an FTP. It is merely a text listing.)
There you go again...using facts instead of politics.
This cooling was predicted, incidentally, by studies which had discovered lower-level cooling.
Oh no! It’s worse than I thought. We’ve gone so far past the tipping point for global warming, that we now have global cooling. Another ice age is coming! Quick, park all the cars, ration gas and electricity, now, before we freeze. </ very heavy sarcasm>
They’ll just say the polar ice cap is melting and dang, that polar ice is cold......cooling the oceans of course.. LOL
So when did facts ever get in the way of the global religion and government taxation and regulations?
So cleaning the air causes global warming. Talk about unintended consequences. But I'm sure that fixing global warming won't have any unintended consequences... /s
At least global Warming lover, Cogitator, has not shown up to parrott al gore.
Whoever is responsible for this heretical data will be ruined..........
You can’t beat facts like this with a hockey stick!
Actually, this is more significant than just trading factoids with the global-warming crowd:
There HAS been global warming. The catch is that the amount has been so infinitessimal that it took until the late 1990s to be able to detect it. There’s been about one degree Farenheit of global warming in the past century. Contributing factors to this warming may include carbon emissions, but also a reduction in cloud cover caused be reducing particulate emissions, natural fluctuations in solar output, and the heat island effect.
Anybody who believes that they have detected global warming is deluded. The effect is 1/7th the effect of urban heat islands, for instance, except that the effect is global instead of local.
The catch is that the left leads people to make outrageous suppositions about the effects of global warming. For instance, they point out that if all the world’s glaciers were to melt, the effect would be that the sea levels would rise 66 feet. Then they scream that the glaciers are melting. Well, to cause that sort of flooding, the Earth’s temperature would have to rise ONE HUNDRED DEGREES for TEN THOUSAND YEARS!!!
Nonetheless, it has been a fact that as harmless as it has been, apparently the Earth has warmed slightly.
Ocean cooling is an unexpected phenomenon of entirely unknown (but safely presumably non-life-threatening) factors.
Climate Change Continues! What’s YOUR footprint?
Must be all that melting ice is cooling things off.
And some people think God has not sense of humor.
I read yesterday, that the Earth’s temperature has dropped .09 degrees since 2001. Doesn’t sound like global warming is heating up very quickly.
I upped my carbon footprint!
“Global Warming Reversal: Sea Surface Temperatures Plunge to Coldest Temperatures in Six Years.”
Further proff of global warming./s
Global “warming” will now be said to be bringing about a new ice age.
EGADS! Global Cooling, just after I got use to the idea of Global Warming. Sigh, there goes my dreams of a beachfront house.
It’s global warming that is causing this coming Ice Age, don’t ya know.
The sky has been falling for years, and one of these years it will. The important thing is to worry constantly about something you have no control over. The next thing to do is to obey whatever it is the MSM tells you to do.
You can see that colder water off the west coast of South America. This was much hotter last year and especially with El Nino (spelling).
Maybe the climate hasn’t changed — maybe someone just moved the barbeque away from the thermometer.
Al Gore is deeply saddened.
That is my problem with this, they can talk all they want but when they want to change the weather, I get a bit nervous.
WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Question for you since you sound like you actually have data.
I had a strange thought the other day but did not know the answer. Since the glaciers have been melting somewhat for the last 100 years (which I THINK is accurate, please correct me if I am wrong) and melting glaciers causes sea levels to rise, shouldn’t we see coastal flooding problems now?
Thanks in advance!
It’s too early to tell if this is a reversal in global warming, or merely the cessation of a warming trend; the 12-month moving average is only down since February. There was a 30-year cessation in the trend ending in the early 1980s! But global warming hystericists have been insisting on accelerating global warming as the reason to panic. This pretty much shoots the acceleration notion to hell.
The interesting thing is that, until this month, there had been an anomalous warm spell over land masses, primarily Eurasia, following what seemed to be the development of a huge El Nino. Was the recent relative temperature maximum of late 2006 actually a blunted El Nino? Could a developing La Nino (they tend to follow El Ninos) cause a continued cooling trend severe enough to break the (non-existent) hockey stick?
(The “Hockey Stick” is an artifice of statistical uncertainty. Deceitful statisticians had created a graph of global temperatures which looked like a sudden spike in temperatures after centuries of stable temperatures. But what was presented as if representing stable temperatures was merely the inability to statistically demostrate unstable temperatures; what was presented as a sudden, recent surge in temperature was merely a miniscule uptick in temperature, combined with a surge in asserted confidence.)
Source here: http://newsbusters.org/node/13282
Also, as the earth warms, particularly at the poles, you get more snow fall, partially offsetting the loss of glacial ice. This is happening today in the Antarctic.
What the left is doing is playing on poorly defined terms.
“Glaciers” describes ice coverings on mountains or ice shelves, dozens of feet thick. It also describes mountains of ice several miles thick and thousands of miles across.
99% of the Earth’s ice is contained in the second type of glacier, found principally inland on the continent of Antarctica. That ice is not melting.
The remaining glaciers are melting, but they simply do not have a volume significant enough to cause an increase in sea level. Not only that, but all Arctic sea ice, and the ice shelves of Antarctica, are already floating on the ocean. If they melt, they will not displace any ocean water at all.
See, ice is less dense than water. This makes it float above water, so ice shelves can extend hundreds of miles from the nearest land, without breaking. But most of the ice shelves are actually under the surface of the ocean. As the ice shelves melt, the above-ocean-level portion of the ice disappears into the ocean. But the ice, including the portion held under the ocean level, also becomes more compact. The result is that the ice can melt without raising the ocean level.
You can test this yourself: Put ice in a glass, and then fill the glass to the very top with water. Even though the ice raises above the top of the glass as you fill the glass, when the ice melts, it doesn’t cause the surface level of the water in the glass to rise.
Just about every plant, insect, and animal alive today that lives above ground can survive a wide range of temperatures. There's an 80 degree delta between winter and summer and a 30 degree swing between morning and night. One degree average increase is not detectable without statistical analysis of millions of readings or by using a natural computer such as a geographic area on Earth that averages around the freezing point. It's very hard to see evidence of warming changes outside that very narrow latitude.
Now that we've removed the soot from the air I wonder if sea salt might be a good replacement for recreating the lost clouds. By spraying seawater into the air, maybe using free wave energy, we get low level salt nucleotides and water vapor that might be useful for manufacturing man-made low clouds. These would reflect sunlight during the day but burn off and allow surface radiation at night. We could probably cost effectively manage the local climates in the oceans to be whatever temperature we want.
Wow! That’s impressive!
Global warming??? bump
Why are the Great Lakes so low?
To get the right kind of clouds in the right place, you really need to get the particulates into the stratosphere. With a high soot level, normal circulation EVENTUALLY does that. But, if you want to do it in a hurry, it seems to me that the easiest way is to use a jet fuel formulated to have a high sulfur content. You might want to have tanks of low sulfur fuel for takeoffs and landings. Burning the high-sulfur fuel at cruise altitudes will deposit sulfur oxides directly in the stratosphere, where, being highly hygroscopic, they will rapidly accumulate any surround water vapor and form coulds, thus changing the earth's albedo (and cooling it).
He was also detailing how the entire solar system was going haywire referencing a continuous storm on Saturn’s south pole and polar melting on Mars. Anyone know who I’m speaking of?
“Even though the ice raises above the top of the glass as you fill the glass, when the ice melts, it doesnt cause the surface level of the water in the glass to rise.”
Water in solid form (ice) makes a greater volume displacement than itself in liquid form. This is why pipes burst when they freeze. (just to further your point in layperson terms)
Why can’t our planet just be like it used to be? :o(
From the Ad Hoc Committtee Report on the "Hockey Stick" global climate reconstruction (PDF) by Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, and Yasmin H. Said:
Two principal methods for temperature reconstructions have been used; CFR (climate field reconstruction) and CPS (climate-plus-scale). The CFR is essentially a principal component analysis and the CPS is a simple averaging of climate proxies, which are then scaled to actual temperature records. The controversy over Mann's methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998 and Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1999) is to produce a "hockey stick" shape. Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to (McIntyre and McKitrick, who published a critique of the "hockey stick" findings). This recreation supports the critique of the (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998) methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean of zero.CV of Dr. Edward Wegman.
Yasmin H. Said was a grad student of Dr. Wegman's, and has probably torpedoed his career by having his name associated with a document debunking a key tenet of the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
I vote for it to be like it was 50 million years ago (about 13 degrees warmer than it is now). :-)
Sure you can. You just call it ClimateChangeTM instead of GlobalWarmingTM, insist it's still caused by human activity and eureaka! You've got all the bases covered!
Not really because as the ocean water evaporates (like all other bodies of water), it is then transformed into rain, some of which falls on land. Some of the rain enters the soil and does not return to the ocean. I am not sure that anyone has ever attempted to quantify the volume of net ocean evaporation, the volume of rain just on land, the volume of rain that does not run off back into the ocean, etc.