Global Warming Reversal: Sea Surface Temperatures Plunge to Coldest Temperatures in Six Years.

Data from National Climatic Data Center ^ | 6/08/07 | Dangus (FReeper find)

[I got the rope]

climateaudit.org

[I got the rope]

ROTFLMAO...I just saw the graph on the site you posted. It looks like they lowered the past temperatures again...LOL.

[cogitator]

You do remember that there was a mild El Nino last year, right? It was strongest in November 2006.

This is the sea surface height ANOMALY image in November 2006. Sea surface height anomalies are in the same place as sea surface temperature anomalies. El Nino kinda fell apart after this (dashing the predictions of 2007 being the warmest year in instrumental temperature history, I think), but very consistent with your well-researched cooling trend since then. We might even be in a mild La Nina now; there's a lot of low anomalies and cool water in the Pacific. (Image below for May 22.)

[cogitator]

I’m sorry, I didn’t see your later post until after I posted the SSH images. My answer is no, this isn’t enough to affect decadal trends. The 1997-1998 El Nino was notable because it was so strong it pulled the 1998 temperature 0.2 C above the warming trend line.

[cogitator]

See my profile, point 4.

[GOPJ]

Great post, dangus. Thanks.

[JustDoItAlways]

The May 2007 lower troposphere temperatures are LOWER than the October 1979 temperatures.

So that makes 26 and a half years of no warming.

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt

[dangus]

I do recall the El Nino, and I presume that there is a La Nino right now. But the El Nino was cooler than three previous El Ninos, while the current La Nina is the coolest since the one following the mega-Nino.

The result is that even if we swing immediately into another El Nino of the scale of the Nov., 2006 El Nino, the 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year trend lines will all be trending down. To prevent the first significant downward trending in the 10-year trend line, sea temperatures will have to swing to record-breaking warmth in just a couple months.

For nearly 30 years, the 10-year trend line has been very constant slope. The present downturn will not break it out below the bottom of the range of variations from that slope, because 2000-2004 saw it trend slightly above that slope. But it shoots to hell the expectation that the 2000-2004 trend represented some sort of acceleration.

Lastly, I’d acknowledge that land temperature anomalies have deviated above sea temperature anomalies. But I’d also point out that sea temperature shifts from the trend lines anticipate land temperature shifts, and last month, land temperatures began to drop sharply. This month, there are record lows being set from Patagonia to Colorado.

[cogitator]

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

See Figure 3 and Figure 7 (top, CH TLT). If what you say is correct, why is the trend +0.183 K per decade? Why are there hardly any cold regions in the global decadal trend map?

[cogitator]

Check with me on this next January (when the NOAA and GISS annual summaries come out).

[dangus]

They’ll say: 3rd warmest year ever. (tied with 2003, 2004, 2006.) And that’s it. They won’t even mention it’ll be 9 years since the last high.

[dangus]

>> See Figure 3 and Figure 7 (top, CH TLT). If what you say is correct, why is the trend +0.183 K per decade? <<

Why cut off the range between 70 and 82 degrees South, where the maps plainly show temperatures plunging? Discarding data that doesn’t support your hypothesis is the hallmark of corrupt, lying, pseudo-scientists. They could’ve balanced off their globe by chopping off the 70-82 degrees North region, but that would have also sent their trend data plunging.

[dangus]

>> Why are there hardly any cold regions in the global decadal trend map? <<

What you are really asking seems to be why the data differs, even though JustDoItAlways includes only your sources’ cherry-picked range. I seem to recall an awful lot of “upward revisions” because of “normalizing issues” and “statistical methods.”

Of course, if a slow, steadt, building trend is suddenly reversed, a straight-line trend-line will fail to show the reversal.

[JasonC]

"One researcher noted that the Earth tends to have ice age cycles when there’s a continent over one pole, but couldn’t explain why that would cause an ice age, or why the ice ages came in cycles" Milan. cycles change the average energy delivered over a year in the two hemispheres. If there is land at one of the poles and a Milan. cycle reduces the energy delivered to that pole to a minimum, a thick ice cap can form over that pole. In itself, not yet any big deal, because average energy delivered to the other pole rose, net energy was unchanged. There was just an energy transfer between the hemispheres, and some of the shortfall side was "stored" as thickened ice over one pole.

But now, go through the cycle until inclination is high, rather than "standing upright". The iced pole is now rotating through effectively lower solar latitudes. The ice is much shinier than the rest of the earth, so it reflects a large portion of its solar inflow to space immediately. Let the whole cycle go through with maximum energy hitting the iced hemisphere, but failing to melt the thick ice cap.

Then the other hemisphere was cooling, as it was the opposite end of the Milan. cycle. And the integral of incoming energy that "faced" the highly reflective portion of the surface was at its height. Thus there is a net energy loss to the whole earth, not just a shift of which hemisphere it went into, when.

We have an albedo feedback. Ice at very high latitudes with the earth standing upright has no serious effect on net incoming solar over a year, because the incoming energy is weighted towards the equator. But let there be persistent ice at lower latitudes with the earth tilted, and the icey regions pass through serious solar and seriously reduce the net energy coming in.

That is the connection I can see between Milan. cycles, land at a pole, and ice ages.

FWIW...

[GOPJ]

bump

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[ModelBreaker]

Deceitful statisticians had created a graph of global temperatures which looked like a sudden spike in temperatures after centuries of stable temperatures.

You are right that the hockey stick is bogus. But it appears to have been a software bug in computing Principal components. The result was software that would find a hockey stick in any random data.

While that suggests sloppy work, I haven't seen any evidence that the bug was deliberate. Have I missed something.

[dangus]

A few problems with your charitable naivete:

1. The proponents of the hockey stick still publsh it, cite it, promote it, defend it, and attack as holocaust deniers anyone who questions it.

2. It was a formula not a “bug” or logic flow that is the issue here, and it’s a work of considerable statistical expertise. Saying that it’s an accident is like saying you’ve accidentally assembled a nuclear reactor.

[ModelBreaker]

A few problems with your charitable naivete: 1. The proponents of the hockey stick still publsh it, cite it, promote it, defend it, and attack as holocaust deniers anyone who questions it. 2. It was a formula not a “bug” or logic flow that is the issue here, and it’s a work of considerable statistical expertise. Saying that it’s an accident is like saying you’ve accidentally assembled a nuclear reactor.

You have obviously looked at this more closely than have I. I know the problem was with calculating principal components. That is a well known algorithm; so I assumed the problem was a bug in the author's implementation. Did they change the PCA algorithm and, if so, what was their justification--was it ever peer reviewed and published or did they keep it secret?

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The leftist-controlled media will suppress this.