"Of course this year the American desert southwest suffered through La Nina "superdrought" and forecasters are calling for another La Nina next year too."

Yes, I forecast a double dip La Nina a while ago, unlike James Hansen, who forecast an El Nino for this year.

The drop in cloud cover has held up surface air temperature over land well, though I'm not sure of the maritime situation in the Pacific, SST's are falling according to Roy Spencer's AMSR-E satellite data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_SST_2002_thru_July_31_20112.gif

NOAA's global SST map is definitley looking like La Nina is setting in.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif

Edited by tallbloke on 08/22/2011 10:58:42 MDT.

Skots said (two years ago):
I think I understand it now, Rog,

When you say that "the air doesn't warm the ocean", what you really mean is " the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun".

I guess my next question is, what do you mean when you say, "the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun"? :)

Do you mean that any long wave generated heat transfer into the ocean is insignificant, without comparing it to the sun? That it can't or doesn't penetrate below the boundary layer? By the way what is significant? Two watts per sq. meter?, over fifty years? Two hundred years? Six hundred years?

Considering that the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the planet 33 degree C or 91 degree F warmer than it would otherwise be, ( You do accept that basic physics, don't you?), and assuming the full 33 degree C is due to long wave, would you say that the an atmosphere that warmed the earth some 30 degree C, instead of 33C, would affect average atmospheric temps. more than average ocean temps.? And over several millennium?

I think I have a better developed and more complete answer for Skots than the one I provided back then.

Using Trenberth's figures:

‘Local’ Energy Equilibrium of the ocean (W/m^2):
Solar in = evaporation out + conduction/convection out + net radiative flux out = input to atmosphere
170 = 78 + 24 + ~66-70 = ~170

‘Local’ Energy Equilibrium of the atmosphere (W/m^2):
Input from the ocean below + Direct absorption from the Sun above = radiation out to space
170 + 67 = ~235-239

The upward and downward components of the radiative flux in the atmosphere cause convection within the atmosphere which inflates it and supports the adiabatic lapse rate. This is partly why the surface air temperature and ocean surface are at a temperature ~33C warmer than an atmosphere devoid of radiatively active gases would be (There would still be some adiabatic lapse due to the thermal difference between equator and poles which would drive a reduced atmospheric circulation, according to some).

Surface conduction, pressure, humidity, convection, and the adiabatic lapse rate supported by the radiative flux, over the course of several billion years, has kept ocean and atmosphere in a dynamic thermal equilibrium whereby the ocean surface is slightly warmer than the surface air, to enable the rate of energy loss the ocean needs to maintain in order to remain in local energy equilibrium.

Both the ocean surface and surface air are warmer than the upper atmosphere where radiation to space takes place at the rate demanded by solar input and the Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body equation because of the dynamic equilibrium demanded by adiabatic lapse. The radiative flux plays an important role in that equilibrium, but small changes in the balance of the components of the flux will not measurably change the bulk temperature of the ocean at the multi-decadal scale because the thermal inertia of the ocean and its evaporation rate lies behind the longwave radiative flux component’s differential of ~66-70W/m^2. The net radiative balance is involved in the differential between air and ocean surface temperature, but small changes in the net balance of the IR flux can only change the bulk temperature of the ocean very, very, very slowly; like, thousands of years for a measurable difference.


The tail does not wag the dog.

Infra-red longwave radiation downwelling from the atmosphere towards the ocean surface can't do anything significant to change the temperature of the ocean directly, because the ocean is opaque to IR, absorbing it in the first 0.05mm, the ocean 'skin' temperature is cooler on the surface than in the next mm so conduction downwards generally won't occur, and surface eddies are not significant enough in average open ocean conditions to turbulently convect heat downwards either.

On the other hand, the Sun's short wave radiation warms the oceans top layers very effectively and directly, penetrating many metres into the sea, and the ocean’s response time to solar input is much quicker, on the order of hours. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the empirically measured reduction in low tropical cloud cover 1980-1998 (ISCCP data) is far more likely responsible for the increase in ocean heat content and sea surface temperature (and marine air temperature) measured by buoys, satellites and engine coolant intakes over the same period.

I stumbled across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

George Carlin's Perspective

Oops! Language was too rough for BPL so I deleted it.

Edited by lyrad1 on 08/26/2011 09:56:09 MDT.

This is a very well written and clear explanation of what the greenhouse effect is, and how it works to make the surface of our planet a lot warmer than it would be without radiatively active gases such as water vapour and carbon dioxide in the air:

http://climateclash.com/2010/11/28/g2-greenhouse-gas-effect/

This would be a good primer for anyone who wants to understand my own hypothesis on why changes in co2 levels won't make much difference to the environment we live in, and why they weren't responsible for much of the change in global surface temperature in the last 60 years, which I'll try to summarise here soon.

Editor resigns, admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change, by Roy Spencer, should not have been published.

Edited by redmonk on 09/02/2011 16:11:31 MDT.

The hoo-ha surrounding the publication of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 paper rumbles on. With the Ad-Homs and libels starting to fly from the lips of prominent alarmists it's time to calm the troubled waters with some common sense.

Why all the fuss?

All Spencer is demonstrating is that the amount of the temperature change due to unforced changes in cloud albedo in relation to the amount of cloud change being caused by temperature is not able to be determined by regression of the satellite data on surface temperature against measures of outgoing longwave radiation. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute. The ocean overturns on a 1500 year timescale, and has a heat capacity 4000 times bigger than the atmosphere. It tends to thermally stratify, but 'folds' and mixings of those layers occur due to changes in Earth rotation speed etc. As a consequence, the energy of past warmings can pop out of the ocean back into the atmosphere on various timescales and in quantities which don't directly relate to current forcings and feedbacks within the climate system. These energy releases affect cloud amount, which then affects current amounts of insolation. Because we can't model the ocean's history and overturning activity or predict/quantify ENSO well enough, we can't model cloud behaviour solely as an outcome of algorithms based on parameters underlying current climate states.

No amount of huffing and puffing by Trenberth, Abrahams or Gleick changes that. Nor does the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner over the paper's publication.John Christy has already responded to their libellous and vindictive article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/04/the-science-is-scuttled-abraham-gleick-and-trenberth-resort-to-libeling-spencer-and-christy/

Wolfgang Wagner, the resigning editor of journal 'Remote Sensing' is a fine scientist in his own right. He needs to concentrate on his valuable contribution of global soil moisture models and metrics and stop worrying about the sensibilities of his over-reaching colleagues who integrate such remotely sensed data into their GCM's and then make inflated claims about their ability to represent the Earth's systems. Roy Spencer responded to the resignation with an article on his blog.

The Forbes article is wrong in that what Spencer is telling us is not that he has 'blown a gaping hole in mainstream climate theory'. He has merely and correctly pointed out the *uncertainty* in our assessment of the magnitude of cloud feedback. That's what Trenberth and the other mainstream guys don't like, because it makes a mockery of their assertion that we can know the extent of human contribution to temperature change at the probability levels they claim we can. And that casts doubt on the principle parameters used in the GCM's, the computer models which provide the predictions about the future course of climates around the world.

Trenberth: Get over it. Stop telling us "the data are surely wrong". The data are the data. If it means your model has missing heat you can't account for, sort it out. Stop trying to destroy the reputation of scientists who are trying to help get the science right.

Sheesh!

Edited by tallbloke on 09/05/2011 03:32:17 MDT.

What about Wagner having three reviewers of Spencer's article that were partial to his ideas rather than having an objective set of reviewers?

Bet you were expecting a different response, eh Cameron? This sandbox is too full of brown crayons to play in.

Cheers,

Rick

Slowly collects up favorite blanket, smudgepot, and plastic dinosaur action figure, trudges sulkily down basement steps...

"Slowly collects up favorite blanket, smudgepot, and plastic dinosaur action figure, trudges sulkily down basement steps..."

;=)

Jerry Asks:

"What about Wagner having three reviewers of Spencer's article that were partial to his ideas rather than having an objective set of reviewers?"

Wagner notes the reviewers were approved by the managing editor of Remote Sensing. He speculates that they may share some 'skeptical notions' with Spencer (Oh noes! Thoughtcrime!), and at the same time emphasises that they are three top academics in a relevant field with impeccable publication records...

Funny that we don't see any complaints from the warmist side about reviewers of warmist papers who have 'warmist notions' isn't it? Given that 97% of all scientists prefer their co2 hypothesis, you would think that warmist papers being reviewed by warmist scientists would be the rule rather than the exception wouldn't you?

"Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on line 3 for you"

By the way, Steve McIntyre has a nice article on the rebuttal of the Spencer and Braswell paper from Dessler. There's a lovely kick in the tail too.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/

Roy Spencer's initial thoughts on Dessler 2011
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

Edited by tallbloke on 09/08/2011 06:10:22 MDT.

NOAA press release below.

Here's the Sea surface temperature update from Roy Spencer:

.

SST continues to trend downwards as La Nina returns.

Contact: Susan Buchanan FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

301-713-0622, ext. 121 September 8, 2011

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center: La Niña is back

La Niña, which contributed to extreme weather around the globe during the first half of 2011, has re-emerged in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is forecast to gradually strengthen and continue into winter. Today, forecasters with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center upgraded last month’s La Niña Watch to a La Niña Advisory.

NOAA will issue its official winter outlook in mid-October, but La Niña winters often see drier than normal conditions across the southern tier of the United States and wetter than normal conditions in the Pacific Northwest and Ohio Valley.

“This means drought is likely to continue in the drought-stricken states of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico,” said Mike Halpert, deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center. “La Niña also often brings colder winters to the Pacific Northwest and the northern Plains, and warmer temperatures to the southern states.”


Climate forecasts from NOAA’s National Weather Service give American communities advance notice of what to expect in the coming months so they can prepare for potential impacts. This service is helping the country to become a Weather Ready Nation at a time when extreme weather is on the rise.

Seasonal hurricane forecasters factored the potential return of La Niña into NOAA’s updated 2011 Atlantic hurricane season outlook, issued in August, which called for an active hurricane season. With the development of tropical storm Nate this week, the number of tropical cyclones entered the predicted range of 14-19 named storms.

The strong 2010-11 La Niña contributed to record winter snowfall, spring flooding and drought across the United States, as well as other extreme weather events throughout the world, such as heavy rain in Australia and an extremely dry equatorial eastern Africa.

La Niña is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon located over the tropical Pacific Ocean and results from interactions between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. During La Niña, cooler-than-average Pacific Ocean temperatures influence global weather patterns. La Niña typically occurs every three-to-five years, and back-to-back episodes occur about 50 percent of the time. Current conditions reflect a re-development of the June 2010-May 2011 La Niña episode.

http://weatheredge.blogspot.com/2011/09/australia-nina-seasonal-forecast.html

Friday, September 9, 2011
AUSTRALIA: NIÑA - SEASONAL FORECAST

After last year´s worst Australian Niña episode in recent memory (only our grandpas remember the 1954 or 1973 episodes), shall we now forecast what´s next?

We believe last year’s Niña episode had no good analogues and many forecasters missed the target. This coming Niña episode seems to have more history on its back, as we will now try to make a forecast for the coming season.

This next Niña episode seems to start impacting across SE Pacific along the last couple of months of 2011.
We foresee higher than normal precipitations across most of Eastern and N/NE Australia only by the end of the spring into the coming austral summer.

.

Figures on the left:
Historical correlation between precipitation and past Niña episodes (source KNMI)
Red circles indicate that during La Niña there was, on average, more rain than normal, blue circles indicate drought during La Niña. The size of the circles is a measure of the strength of the relationship.

Figures on the right:
Seasonal precipitation forecast (source ECMWF)
Blue scale refers to higher than normal precipitation expected.

Pacific approaches La Niña. Positive Indian Ocean dipole develops.

Issued on Wednesday 14 September | Product Code IDCKGEWWOO

Steady cooling of the central Pacific Ocean since early winter has increased the chance of La Niña returning during the last quarter of 2011. Current ENSO indicators are approaching values typically associated with La Niña events.

However, ocean temperatures are yet to reach critical thresholds, while climate model guidance about their future trends is mixed. Some models predict only modest cooling resulting in a borderline-La Niña event, but others predict stronger cooling beyond La Niña thresholds during the southern spring. A minority predict little or no cooling. Taken as a whole, there is an expectation that the trend towards La Niña will continue.

If a La Niña does form, current indicators are that it will be weaker than the strong 2010-11 event. La Niña events raise the odds of above average rainfall across the north and east of the country, but don't guarantee it. The Bureau's National Climate Centre will monitor the situation closely and issue regular updates via this summary.

The latest observations from the Indian Ocean show the development of a positive dipole event, as predicted over the last few months by climate models, including the Bureau's POAMA. Typically peaking in spring, positive dipole modes increase the chance of below average rainfall over southeastern and central Australia.

Alarmist scientists with an agenda and axe to grind try to make the loss of arctic ice appear to be more than a natural cycle.

Edited by redmonk on 09/30/2011 13:44:00 MDT.

Rog T,

Believe you seem to have correctly forecast this year's Winter if the current trend continues in USA.

Yesterday there were leaves on the trees collecting sleet. Don't recall that happening ever here.

I guess we'll sing: I'm dreaming of a white halloween : )

Dr Roy Spencer put up his monthly update a fortnight ago, apologies for the tardiness of this bulletin. Since the sad demise of the satellite instrument relaying sea surface temperature a couple of months ago, we are now reliant on observations of the lower troposphere. Here is the graph to end oct 2011:



A rapid fall in temperature in October is likely to be followed by a cold end to November after a fornight of stability, if the emulation of 2010 continues:

.

There could be a lot more snowfall for the northwest at the start of December.

Stay warm stay safe.

Wow! Rapid decrease in temperature in October, cold November, snow in December

I'm impressed with that predicition : )

Haven't heard from you for a while, thought maybe you had given up on being skeptical about global warming

David Koch funded a scientist to prove the globe wasn't warming, but the scientist ended up changing his mind and actually confirming global warming http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/11/02/north/scientist-global-warming-is-real.html

Jerry, I think you better look a little deeper into that study. You will find it is nothing like the headlines claim. Especially look into the what the second lead author Dr. Judith Curry has to say about BEST.