May 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update

by Bob Tisdale

THE EAST PACIFIC VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD

This month I’m going to start the update with the two graphs that represent the East Pacific and the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies. These datasets were discussed in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World.Both datasets have been adjusted for the impacts of volcanic aerosols, and both are smoothed with 13-month running-average filters to reduce the seasonal noise. The global oceans were divided into these two subsets to illustrate two facts. First, the linear trend of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) SST anomalies since the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset is basically flat. The East Pacific linear trend varies with each monthly update, so with ENSO-related SST anomalies varying from La Niña toward zero, that trend will also rise slightly each month. But it won’t rise significantly up through the next El Niño.

(3) Volcano-Adjusted East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W)

####################################

And second, the volcano-adjusted SST anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rise in very clear steps, in response to the significant 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño/La Niña events. It also appears as though the SST anomalies of this dataset are making another shift in response to the most recent ENSO event.

(4) Volcano-Adjusted Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180)

####################################

The “July 2009 to Present” average varies with each update. As noted in the linked post, it will be interesting to see where that SST anomaly average settles out, if it does, before the next significant El Niño drives them higher.

The SST anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean, or approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, have risen very little since 1982 based on the linear trend. And between upward shifts, the SST anomalies for the rest of the world (67% of the global ocean surface area) remain relatively flat. Anthropogenic forcings are said to be responsible for most of the rise in global surface temperatures over this period, but the SST anomaly graphs of those two areas prompt a two-part question: Since 1982, what anthropogenic global warming processes would overlook the sea surface temperatures of 33% of the global oceans and have an impact on the other 67% but only in response to the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?

Back to the monthly update.

MONTHLY SST ANOMALY MAP

The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomalies for May 2011 downloaded from the NOMADS website. The contour levels are set at 0.5 deg C, and white is set at zero.

May 2011 SST Anomalies Map (Global SST Anomaly = +0.132 deg C)

MONTHLY OVERVIEW

Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are within ENSO-neutral conditions and continuing their rise toward zero. The Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomaly is -0.34 deg C.

The SST anomalies in Northern Hemisphere rose (about +0.07 deg C) this month. That rise was countered by a drop (approximately -0.04 deg C) in Southern Hemisphere SST anomalies. Global SST anomalies rose slightly (+0.009 deg C). The Global SST anomalies are presently at +0.132 deg C.

(1) Global

Monthly Change = +0.009 deg C

####################################

(2) NINO3.4 SST Anomaly

Monthly Change = +0.322 deg C

####################################

EAST INDIAN-WEST PACIFIC

The SST anomalies in the East Indian and West Pacific rose slightly this month.

I’ve added this dataset in an attempt to draw attention to what appears to be the upward steps in response to significant El Niño events that are followed by La Niña events.

(5) East Indian-West Pacific (60S-65N, 80E-180)

Monthly Change = +0.038 deg C

####################################

Further information on the upward “step changes” that result from strong El Niño events, refer to my posts from a year ago Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1 and Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2

And for the discussions of the processes that cause the rise, refer to More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND…During Major Traditional ENSO Events, Warm Water Is Redistributed Via Ocean Currents -AND- More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 3 – East Indian & West Pacific Oceans Can Warm In Response To Both El Nino & La Nina Events

The animations included in the post La Niña Is Not The Opposite Of El Niño – The Videosfurther help explain the reasons why East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies can rise in response to both El Niño and La Niña events.

NOTE ABOUT THE DATA

The MONTHLY graphs illustrate raw monthly OI.v2 SST anomaly data from December 1981 to May 2011, as it is presented by the NOAA NOMADS website linked at the end of the post.

MONTHLY INDIVIDUAL OCEAN AND HEMISPHERIC SST UPDATES

(6) Northern Hemisphere

Monthly Change = +0.067 deg C

####################################

(7) Southern Hemisphere

Monthly Change = -0.037 deg C

####################################

(8) North Atlantic (0 to 75N, 78W to 10E)

Monthly Change = +0.050 deg C

####################################

(9) South Atlantic (0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)

Monthly Change = -0.150 deg C

Note: I discussed the upward shift in the South Atlantic SST anomalies in the post The 2009/10 Warming Of The South Atlantic. It does not appear as though the South Atlantic will return to the level it was at before that surge, and where it had been since the late 1980s. That is, it appears to have made an upward step and continues to rise. Why? Dunno—yet.

####################################

(10) North Pacific (0 to 65N, 100E to 90W)

Monthly Change = +0.083 Deg C

####################################

(11) South Pacific (0 to 60S, 120E to 70W)

Monthly Change = +0.042 deg C

####################################

(12) Indian Ocean (60S to 30N, 20E to 120E)

Monthly Change = -0.006 deg C

####################################

(13) Arctic Ocean (65N to 90N)

Monthly Change = +0.047 deg C

####################################

(14) Southern Ocean (90S-60S)

Monthly Change = -0.071 deg C

####################################

WEEKLY SST ANOMALIES

WEEKLY NINO3.4 SST ANOMALIES

The weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies have risen well above the threshold of a La Niña, and are quickly approaching zero. The NINO3.4 SST anomaly based on the week centered on June 1, 2011 is -0.207 deg C.

(15) Weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

####################################

The weekly global SST anomalies are at +0.105 deg C.

(16) Weekly Global

####################################

SOURCE

The Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OISST) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sea Surface Temperature and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to May 2011 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update

  1. Gary Krause says:

    It will be interesting to watch the southern hemisphere winter after a what on the surface (pun?) seemed to be a cold northern hemisphere winter killing live stock and crops.

  2. RR Kampen says:

    Some work. Kudos! A monthly reason for a look at WUWT added.

  3. Patrick Davis says:

    To me the first graph suggests SST’s were possibly negative in the time before the 80′s. And as I recall, we were heading towards an iceage then.

  4. Steve Schaper says:

    I’m struck by the way the v pattern in the temperature anomalies on the globe resemble the cloud structures of Venus. I suspect they are the same thermal-hydrodynamic phenomenon.

  5. dbleader61 says:

    Perhaps of interest and relevance to Mr. Tisdales’s post.

    Analysis by Dimitri Gutierrez at the Marine Research Institute of Peru shows the ocean off Peru in a sharp cooling trend.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/full/nclimate1129.html

    But being his work is covered an article in the Nature ezine “Climate Change”, the cooling is attributed to climate change/warming.

    Yes Nature let me become a subscriber to “Climate Change” as Anthony encouraged to try to attain a few months ago.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/new-journal-from-nature-so-good-theyre-giving-it-away/

    The above link is a teaser. To get the full article you do have to have a subscription.

    Never did hear whether they accepted Anthony’s “application” for a subscription or not.

    [Reply: Anthony finally got a subscription, but it wasn't easy. ~dbs, mod.]

  6. Arno Arrak says:

    Interesting comparisons. The most important is Eastern Pacific SST because global temperature follows it. Unfortunately these bozos give us “volcano-adjusted” values which distort reality. What they have done in the first graph is to raise the temperature for the Pinatubo and El Chichon periods to compensate for an imaginary “volcanic cooling” that does not exist. Read pp. 17 to 21 in my book.

  7. phlogiston says:

    What is striking about the Arctic ocean anomaly is that starting in 2007 there is much larger annual seasonal variation, apparently representing some kind of change in phase or regime. The same is evident in the Northern hemisphere sea ice anomaly (sea ice page). Accompanying this is a levelling off of previous temperature increase and sea ice decline. WUWT? Lets wait for some friendly smartass to tell us its a new sensor or some instrumental discontinuity…

  8. phlogiston says:

    dbleader61 says:
    June 7, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Analysis by Dimitri Gutierrez at the Marine Research Institute of Peru shows the ocean off Peru in a sharp cooling trend.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/full/nclimate1129.html

    This title is priceless, you just couldn’t make this stuff up!

    “NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
    Snapshot: Warming world stirs up cold waters

  9. SteveSadlov says:

    There seems to be a grand cycle for nearly all locales other than the East Pacific. The East Pacific seems to often run contra all the rest even outwith the shorter term ENSO pattern.

  10. SteveSadlov says:

    The East Pacific and Southern Ocean may be somewhat in synch.

  11. ferd berple says:

    “volcano adjusted” is a worring feature. adjustments give rise to experimenter bias problems we see evident in other climate data. what steps were taken to ensure that no adjustment depended on the subjective judgement of the experimenter? our subconcious influences all decisions we make without our awareness. even wikipedia recognizes that human beings are incapable of being objective.

    “The inability of a human being to be objective is the ultimate source of this bias.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter's_bias

  12. Dave Wendt says:

    Mr. Tisdale;

    As someone who obviously spends a great deal of his time working with data related to the world’s ocean’s I’m hoping you can help me with a question that has nagged me for some time now. Aviso has a webpage where you can access daily Sea Level Anomaly maps as well as other data

    http://bulletin.aviso.oceanobs.com/html/produits/aviso/welcome_uk.php3

    If you review the daily sea level anomaly maps which are archived back to 1994, there is a pattern which persists in all of them, at least all that I’ve looked at, for which I have not been able to find an explanation. It is most apparent as a line that runs from south of Africa around the globe to past the southern tip of South America. It consists of globular areas of bright red highly positive anomalies closely interspersed in a band of very dark blue negative anomalies. The phenomenon is also present, if somewhat less distinctly so, in bands from the mid Atlantic US toward the UK following the path of the Gulfstream, and from central Japan due east to the antimeridion at about Last 35N.
    I assume I’m not the first to recognize this pattern, but I have not been able to construct a search enquiry to locate any information about it. Do you know if this pattern has a name or of any work that offers an explanation of why it is so persistently present?

  13. ew-3 says:

    If we were to view the actual temperatures rather then the anomolies and had a proper y axis temperature scale, my suspicion is that it would cause us to see no substantive changes.

  14. Jon says:

    Any comments on Arctic sea ice?

  15. tallbloke says:

    “Since 1982, what anthropogenic global warming processes would overlook the sea surface temperatures of 33% of the global oceans and have an impact on the other 67% but only in response to the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?”

    The crickets gently chirrup

    Great post Bob, thanks for the updates and analysis. Great new blog you have over at
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com too. I’ve updated my link.

    My answer to your question is that the East Pacific is where Earth shifts heat from. It goes elsewhere, and the rise of the North Atlantic OHC gives a clue where to.Since water is a highly mobile fluid, and Earth finds the most efficient way to lose heat, I can only conclude that it’s easier for warm water to get to the arctic via the Fram Strait than through the Bering Strait.

    http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/geology-processes/images/clip_image002_000.jpg

  16. don penman says:

    I think that the 33% that you refer to consists of almost complete ocean,you have even removed Australia in the southern hemisphere.The Pacific is the biggest ocean in the world but I don’t know why that would make it less likely to warm perhaps it absorbs less energy than the continents and reflects more sunlight.

  17. Bob Tisdale says:

    ferd berple says: “what steps were taken to ensure that no adjustment depended on the subjective judgement of the experimenter?”

    Refer to the post I linked to the opening paragraph of the section you’re referring to:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-%e2%80%93-east-pacific-versus-the-rest-of-the-world/

    Under the heading of ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACTS OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, I noted, “To determine the scaling factor for the volcanic aerosol proxy, I used a linear regression software tool (Analyse-it for Excel) with global SST anomalies as the dependent variable and GISS Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness data (ASCII data) as the independent variable. The scaling factor determined was 1.431. This equals a global SST anomaly impact of approximately 0.2 deg C for the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption.”

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    Dave Wendt: As you noted, the high concentrations of positive and negative anomalies in the North Atlantic appear to be along the Gulf Stream. On the Gulf Stream…
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/es/data/data-access-services/live-access-server-las/lively-data/2010/june-10-2010-gulf-stream-variability/index.html
    …AVISO notes, “The Gulf Stream is a turbulent western boundary current with strong variations caused by an intense eddying.”

    The other at high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere appears to be located where the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) might be strong. AVISO has a couple of discussions on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. One that may help answer your question is about Circumpolar velocities:
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/data/data-access-services/live-access-server-las/lively-data/2006/apr-21-2006-circumpolar-velocities/index.html

    I hope those links might lead to the more answers for your observations.

  19. Bob Tisdale says:

    Arno Arrak says: “Unfortunately these bozos give us “volcano-adjusted” values which distort reality. What they have done in the first graph is to raise the temperature for the Pinatubo and El Chichon periods to compensate for an imaginary “volcanic cooling” that does not exist. Read pp. 17 to 21 in my book.”

    Since I performed the volcano adjustment of the two datasets in this post, you’re calling me the bozo. That should explain the tone of my reply: I’ve replied to your volcano-adjustment comment every time you write one of your nonsensical commercials for your book. If you can’t find the volcanic aerosol signal in the global land and sea surface temperature records, I’m not sure there’s any value to whatever it is you’ve written in your book.

  20. red432 says:

    Of course the most interesting part of the graphs are the left hand axes. Such tiny fluctuations. What’s the big deal?

  21. RoHa says:

    O.K. So what is my take home from all those wriggly lines?
    Do I say:
    (a) The seas are getting warmer overall.
    (b) The seas are getting coolercoverall.
    (c) The seas are neither warming nor cooling overall.
    (d) No-one really knows what is happening to sea temrperatures.

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    What ON EARTH could be causing Tisdale’s Steps?

    Maybe nothing…
    1. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
    2. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png
    3. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/vaughn_lod2_fig7.png

    Solar max interrupts the semi-annual heat pump. The frequency of pump outages controls multidecadal oscillations (via hydrology). Interannual spatiotemporal chaos (including ENSO) makes this difficult or impossible to see using linear methods.

    SEMI-ANNUAL Solar-Terrestrial Power: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/

    The quickest way to develop &/or reinforce necessary conceptual foundations:

    a) Exposition of p. 433 [pdf p.10]:

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
    http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf

    b) Figures 8, 11, 13, & 15 (not the paper as a whole – just these specific figures …& perhaps best ignoring the article title, which distracts from what is essential for understanding LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)):

    Leroux, Marcel (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change 7, 69-93.
    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    How humorous would it be if someone came on here vehemently & intransigently denying the existence of diurnal (daily) temperature variations, absolutely refusing to entertain the possibility that they exist?

    Analogously severe misconceptions mire WUWT discussions in paralysis…

    Flow is driven by ABSOLUTE pole-equator heat differentials, which vary ANNUALLY & SEMI-ANNUALLY.

    “…can you hear the wind blow? …stairway lies on the whisperin’ wind.” — Led Zeppelin

    1. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vaughn_lod_amo_sc.png
    2. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_northpacificsst.png
    3. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_0-90n.png
    SCL’ = solar cycle deceleration

    There’s an interannual stick-in-the-wheel, obscuring the view of linear-thinkers…
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png

    “And it’s whispered that soon, …” — Led Zeppelin

  23. tesla0x0 says:

    Almost looks like something hit the sun: http://tinyurl.com/HUGE-CME

    Lots going on down here too: http://tinyurl.com/Chile-Eruption (among several recently)

    Looks like something is cooking?

  24. Noelene says:

    I’m guessing RoHa understands all the wriggly lines on graphs put out by Jones.
    How about you go with D RoHa?
    In fact,D would be a good option on any graphs purporting to understand global climate.

  25. Manfred says:

    Arno Arrak says:
    June 7, 2011 at 9:48 am
    “What they have done in the first graph is to raise the temperature for the Pinatubo and El Chichon periods to compensate for an imaginary “volcanic cooling” that does not exist. Read pp. 17 to 21 in my book”

    Could you expalin in a few words, why it does not exist ?

  26. tallbloke says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 7, 2011 at 8:48 pm
    Flow is driven by ABSOLUTE pole-equator heat differentials, which vary ANNUALLY & SEMI-ANNUALLY.

    As well as decadally over the solar cycle. And centenially over the Gleissberg cycle. And over the course of iceage/interglacial cycles coinciding with changes in Earth’s orbital and orientation parameters which affect levels of solar input to key georaphical areas.

    We see similar oceanic behaviour at vastly different timescales as it responds to similar external stimuli.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/interglacial-elnino.jpg
    Including some hiccups caused by reversals in multidecadal trends in LOD, solar activity, and the interactions of Milankovitch cycles along the way which cause phase shifts:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1930/to:1980/mean:37/scale:0.002/offset:-0.3/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1980/mean:37

    Climate is complicated. No wonder there are plenty of ways it can be interpreted, with those interpretations giving rise to a number of differing hypotheses.

    Which is maybe why Bob takes the Newtonian approach.

    “I frame no hypotheses” Newton famously said. No wonder, given the lack of an underlying physical mechanism for the law for which he is most famous, that of gravity.

    Bob describes what he sees, not what he thinks causes what he sees. So we get a value free analysis we can use for our own purposes, for which I’m grateful.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Manfred says:
    June 7, 2011 at 11:06 pm (Edit)

    Arno Arrak says:
    June 7, 2011 at 9:48 am
    “What they have done in the first graph is to raise the temperature for the Pinatubo and El Chichon periods to compensate for an imaginary “volcanic cooling” that does not exist. Read pp. 17 to 21 in my book”

    Could you expalin in a few words, why it does not exist ?
    Because the ocean compensates for them by releasing a tiny amount more of the vast reservoir of heat it contains.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/volcanos-dont-cause-global-cooling/

  28. tallbloke says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    If you can’t find the volcanic aerosol signal in the global land and sea surface temperature records,

    I’m sure we can find some. Just as we can find solar signals as well. In the case of Pinatubo, there was a huge drop in solar activity (TSI levels not just sunspots) at around the same time. I think you should acknowledge there may be a conflation of causes here. Big Lulls in solar wind coincide with cold spells, as Ulric and Piers keep telling us.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/pinatubo-temp-tsi.png

  29. Bob Tisdale says:

    Paul Vaughan says: “What ON EARTH could be causing Tisdale’s Steps?”

    The upward steps occur primarily in the East Indian-West Pacific Ocean and in the North Atlantic. For the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, it’s the warm waters released by the corresponding El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98. I first discussed this in the two-part post:linked under the heading of East Indian-West Pacfic:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-1/
    And:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-2/

    And for the processes that cause the upward steps, refer to:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-part-2-%e2%80%93-la-nina-events-recharge-the-heat-released-by-el-nino-events-and/
    And:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/more-detail-on-the-multiyear-aftereffects-of-enso-part-3-%e2%80%93-east-indian-west-pacific-oceans-can-warm-in-response-to-both-el-nino-la-nina-events/

    For the North Atlantic, it’s those same El Nino events imposed on the AMO-induced high trend.

  30. Bob Tisdale says:

    Manfred and Tallbloke: Arno Arrak claims the dip in surface temperatures in 1991 was caused by a La Nina event, not the eruption of Mount Pinatubo:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/10/on-the-differences-between-surface-and-tlt-datasets/#comment-505650

    And as I’ve discussed with him on prior occassions, there is no evidence in the instrument record of a La Nina event occurring then. The Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, Sea Level Pressure, Thermocline Depth, etc., all indicate a multiyear El Nino event.

  31. John Marshall says:

    Anomalies all lie within the measurement error bands so are not reliable as indicators of climate or any other change.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Paul Vaughan (June 7, 2011 at 8:48 pm)
    “Flow is driven by ABSOLUTE pole-equator heat differentials, which vary ANNUALLY & SEMI-ANNUALLY.”

    tallbloke (June 8, 2011 at 12:03 am)
    “As well as decadally over the solar cycle.”

    It’s not a gentle ongoing push that occurs smoothly all-year-round, as regions are hammered seasonally with cloudiness, monsoons, snow, & ice.

    The decadal patterns aren’t in the mean but rather in the amplitudes of the annual & semi-annual variations (OBSERVATION, not conjecture). There’s a hierarchy of organization. The semi-annual features are organized into clustered bundles that vary in character decadally (OBSERVATION, not conjecture).

    Freeze/thaw cycles heave roadways & cause rocks to exfoliate. When I was a kid, I rode a rural school bus. We used to fight for the back seat in spring so we could have fun flying into the air as the bus bounced over frost-heaves in the road. The frost heaves were in the same locations every year (for example where the road went through a swampy area).

    The discussion cannot advance if discussion participants refuse to do anything other than think in anomalies. Heat pumps & hydrology are functions of ABSOLUTES hammered annually & semi-annually by orbital parameters. During solar maxima, hammering amplitude is reduced (lower pole-equator heat-differentials).

    We can’t just “smooth over” the annual stuff if we want to understand the dynamics, as water’s behaviour changes both dramatically & abruptly with changes of state.

    Observation has drawn attention to variations in hammering amplitude.


    tallbloke,

    I request clarification on the following:

    1) You assert (your analogy – not saying I agree with its accuracy) that the tail (atmosphere) does not wag the dog (oceans), but then you [seemingly inconsistently] go on to emphasize the role of the sunshade in the sky (clouds) in controlling the sea.

    2) What is represented by the 2 curves in the LOWER panel here?
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/interglacial-elnino.jpg

    Regards.

Comments are closed.