<div>There is a tendency to focus on the temperatures on land masses when discussing climate change. Of course, this is because most people live there, and not on the oceans. More record setting land lows than highs, or vice versa, mean either climate is cooling or warming, we hear some assert. But global average temperatures are a more critical figure when examining global climate change. It is possible to have a large number of record setting highs in various locations, but overall to have a cooling global climate, or a large number of record setting lows, but a warming global climate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface. The past two months have set records for the warmest average global ocean surface temperatures, according to NOAA. This is too short a time span to call this a long term trend (it might be hard to precisely define how long a time period is required to note a long term climate trend in climate science, but at least decades, if not centuries, of data is required, I am certain most climate scientists would agree). But the past two months of global ocean surface temperatures do not support the claims coming from some in the anthropogenic warming is doubtful camp that the Earth is entering a long term cooling trend. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would not be convinced this theory is supported by evidence unless annual average global combined land and ocean temperatures dropped to the twentieth century average or below for several years. We are at a solar minimum, but the cooling impact is not enough to overcome the climate forcing from increased atmospheric CO2 (and other human impacts), over decades, even if this minimum persisted. Info below from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="PADDING-LEFT: 4px; FLOAT: right; WIDTH: 404px">
<p align="center"><a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif"><img height="241" alt="Line plot of solar irradiance since 1980" src="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4_s.gif" width="399" border="0"></a> </p>
</div>
<p class="caption"><b>Figure 4, at right.</b> Solar irradiance through November 2008 from Frohlich and Lean [ref. 8]. (Click for <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif"><font color="#006699">large GIF</font></a> or <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.pdf"><font color="#006699">PDF</font></a>.) </p>
<p>However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO<sub>2</sub> increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years. </p>
</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div>Defining a climate trend for warming or cooling can easily be manipulated by how data is charted in graphs (especially time start and stop points for plotting), a common tactic to bend data to suit an agenda, which you will find often on many climate "science" websites and blogs, both local and otherwise, suggesting that anthropogenic warming is doubtful or outright false or a hoax. Consider that out of the past 12 years, the coolest are 1999 and 2000, according to the NOAA website immediately below. The years from 2001 though 2008 all fall within the ten warmest years on record (since the late 1800s) for global average temperatures, according to the data below from NOAA. The graph below from NOAA charting global temperatures for over the past 120 years might put the issue of global warming into proper perspective. Is NOAA involved in the global climate science conspiracy to create a hoax (tongue in cheek here) about anthropogenic climate change?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><img height="393" src="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif" width="760"></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>---------------------</div>
<div><a href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html">http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<h2>NOAA: Warmest Global Ocean Surface Temperatures on Record for July</h2>
<p id="releaseDate">August 14, 2009</p>
<p>The planet’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for July, breaking the previous high mark established in 1998 according to an analysis by <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/">NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center</a> in Asheville, N.C. The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in 1880.</p>
<p>-------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>