UPDATE: There’s some question about NCEP’s communications intent with this paper. While they cite “La Niña conditions” in the language, and the visual imagery lends itself to that, the numerical threshold of ONI hasn’t been reached, as has been pointed out in comments. Yet NCEP made no mention in the summary that the threshold had not been reached. I’ll see if I can locate the authors and get a clarification. – Anthony
In a document published January 19th, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (NCEP) has officially put the stamp on the cold water conditions we’ve seen growing in the equatorial mid and eastern Pacific. I first reported on this on December 4th, 2008. This does not bode well for California’s drought conditions, which are likely to continue due to this renewed La Niña event.
Sea Surface Temperatures as of January 5th, 2009. Click for a larger image
In the document, which you can see here, NCEP says:
•Atmospheric and oceanic conditions reflect La Niña.
•Negative equatorial SST anomalies persist across the central and eastern Pacific Ocean.
•Based on recent trends in the observations and model forecasts,La Niña conditions are likely to continue into Northern Hemisphere Spring 2009.
Here is a map provided that shows the precipitation departure for the last 90 days. Note that while the Pacific northwest (notably Seattle) is taking a bath, California gets nearly nothing. The jet stream pattern has been pushed far north this past year.
I also found this time series graph of equatorial Pacific ocean heat content anomaly for 180 to 100 degrees west of particular interest:
They also say that:
A majority of ENSO forecasts indicate below-average SSTs in the central equatorial Pacific through Northern Hemisphere Summer 2009, with about half of the models suggesting La Niña conditions will continue through February-March-April 2009.
Place your bets now.
There is also a wealth of information in the PDF document NCEP has prepared. I’m sure our readers can draw some interesting conclusions and analyses from it.
A hat tip to WUWT reader Alan Wilkinson for bringing the NCEP document to my attention.
To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.
If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.
Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.
If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air. If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally. The mechanism which maintains the equilibrium is the latitudinal position of the weather systems.
Don’t ask me why this is not all obvious to the climate professionals
at least until the data is homogenized and adjusted…
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
Pearland,
That story is incomplete. It covers pages 1 and 2 of this article: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
But it’s at page 3 where it gets interesting.
Neven
According to NASA:
The Oceans are cooling!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
“” Just want truth… (22:20:16) :
in regards to
George E. Smith (17:32:18) :
“The rain forests on the plains around Kilimanjaro, were all cut down centuries ago (by the natives),”
A study done by some French fellows says it’s continental lift caused by tectonic plate activity that makes there to be less snow on Mount Kilimanjaro, not from global warming and not from deforestation “”
None of which negates my assertion that the local natives did in fact cut down all that forestry, to use for whatever they needed it for. Who knows; maybe the rmoval of all that wood weight was the reason from the tectonic uplift that Frechie asserted.
However it is established that the snow/ice on Kilimanjaro sublimes because of low humidity, and does not melt due to high temperatures. Kilimanjaro is 20,000 feet high.
There is some rain forest on the lower slopes of the mountain which does create local moisture and rain in some streamlets; but it is too small an area to maintain the envirinment that was there thousands of years ago.
In any case in recent years, K has been as snowy as ever so is in fine shape.
So the sun is less active and less energy is going into the oceans.
At the same time the weather systems have moved equatorward so that there are increased areas where polar air is attempting to extract energy from the oceans to compensate for the negative ocean oscillations withholding energy from the atmosphere.
That sounds like the most likely explanation for observed ocean cooling but, hey, the problem has gone away after ‘reinterpreting ‘ the results.
“” Stephen Wilde (10:19:40) :
To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.
If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.
Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.
If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air. If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally. The mechanism which maintains the equilibrium is the latitudinal position of the weather systems. “”
The downward radiation from the atmosphere is long wave IR due to the temperature of the atmosphere. The capture of 14.77 micron band IR from the earth’s surface by CO2 or other GHG and other wavelengths (water vapor too) is part of what warms the atmosphere.
That downward IR is all absorbed in less than the top 10 microns of the ocean surface (73% of planet’s surface), so it leads to immediate prompt evaporation.
The solar spectrum radiation propagates tens of metres deep in the ocean, and is only slowly returned to the surface by convection.
But evaporation occurs because the kinetic energy of the surface molecules is increased, and it is the higher energy tail of the statistical distribution, of molecular velocities, which escape the surface attraction into the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere is, the more receptive the atmosphere is to accept the water molecule, but the energy of the molecule came with it right out of the water. The density of water molecules in the boundary layer, will determine how many of them return to the water; so there is a dynamic exchange going on. If the air is warmer, then atmospheric convection will transport the water vapor away from the surface so those molecules can’t return to the ocean.
The loss of that high energy tail of velocity distribution, is the reason why the average temperature of the water surface decreases due to evaporation.
The atmosphere may be the source of the energy that heats the water surface, but the energy transported with the water molecule, comes right out of the water.
George
And yes I agree; why don’t they know this?
Pearland and Aggie,
I can’t prove this but you might want to compare the article you posted with the article I posted. Here they are again:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
and
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
I couldn’t help but notice that the Baltimore Weather Examiner article follows the NASA article almost exactly (though not literally copying from it) and the graphs on on the BWE article are also present in the NASA article. But the strange thing is – besides some misquoting, ie Takmong Wong never said the cooling could be due to melitng Arctic ice – that the BWE doesn’t finish the story that it turned out there was a problem with the measurements and thus there was no global cooling. He just leaves the most important thing out!
So, my take is that the Baltimore Weather Examiner wanted to make a point and that whatever didn’t fit this point would simply be left out. I think it’s even conceivable that he wanted guys like you, Pearland and Aggie, to post links to his article to spread misinformation. So, please be careful what articles you link to. Do some research first.
Neven
of course you glazed over the part about how they came to decide the data needed “correction”…that, of course, is okay as long as the measured cooling goes away.
no need to get preachy with me, mr. palindrome.
oh, and never mind the fact that a second, independent study corroborates the uncorrected NASA data…
you know, after reading them again, i’m going to apologize for posting that article. it does appear that some information was left out, but i think the point about the rationale behind correcting the data was glossed over and appears somewhat subjective.
if you hadn’t been so pontifical in your second post, i may have responded differently…
Not sure where to put this, so it’s landing here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm
Quotes from the article:
“The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according to a new analysis.”
” Most of Antarctica’s scientific stations are located along the peninsula, and scientists have known for many years that this portion of the continent is getting warmer.”
“”We have at least 25 years of data from satellites, and satellites have the huge advantage that they can see the whole continent,” said Eric Steig from the University of Washington in Seattle.
“But the [land] stations have the advantage that they go back much further in time. So we combined the two; and what we found, in a nutshell, is that there is warming across the whole continent, it’s stronger in winter and spring but it is there in all seasons.”
Now I go look at globalwarminghoax, and find this from Feb, 2008:
“the Antarctic is now at record levels of ice extent, ice concentration and the growth continues. You don’t have to believe us you can see the data yourself at The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Simply compare January 1980 (the first January after satellite measurements began) with January 2008. The difference is striking, 44.1% greater ice extent and 30% greater ice concentration in January 2008 compared to 1980. So much for “global” warming, if it occurred the Antarctic definitely missed out on it.”
And I recall an article here on WUWT from last summer sometime, maybe August?…
So frankly, I’m confused.
Anyway, seems there are some pretty big discrepencies regarding whats up with the antarctic…
JimB
Does evaporation occur when the water beneath is frozen? As an example, water levels on the great lakes tend to be higher after a cold winter when there has been a great amount of the lake surface covered in ice. Liquid water cannot evaporate through an ice covered surface. Is this accurate and are there any implications to the rest of the planet as it relates to the poles and the amount of ocean covered in ice?
Reply: Ice can evaporate directly without ever changing to liquid water. The process is known as sublimation ~ charles the moderator
George E. Smith (14:52:44) :
“” Stephen Wilde (10:19:40) :
To clarify the significance of evaporation:The loss of that high energy tail of velocity distribution, is the reason why the average temperature of the water surface decreases due to evaporation.
The atmosphere may be the source of the energy that heats the water surface, but the energy transported with the water molecule, comes right out of the water.
George
And yes I agree; why don’t they know this?
————————————————
George or Stephen, thanks for all of that. I think I followed it all but, being a bit new to this, I need the final loop closed in my thought processes on this specific aspect of energy transfer: If I’m understanding it correctly, the downward radiative transfer from the GHG is essentially transferred to water molecules which then become airborne via evaporation (adding no energy to the ocean). How much of this energy is lost from the atmosphere before the molecule comes back down in a raindrop, and presumably a slightly more energy-containing raindrop than it would have been without the GHG (unless the answer is 100%) ??
Isn’t the answer to your last question – they do know this, which is why they had to invent positive feedback mechanisms ??
HI Anthony et al,
” JimB (17:17:12) :
Not sure where to put this, so it’s landing here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm
”
probably deserves it’s own thread.
Cheers
Richard
Pamela Gray (20:13:16) :
What is extraordinary about my last post is that the above farmwest online publication is for Canada. Putting into place a vineyard in Canada is just plain stupid (there is currently about 7500 acres in British Columbia). It is a one-generation or less, short sighted farming practice that will not put good quality low priced food on the table year after year, much less a stable year in and year out quality wine.
There is an saying here that the way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one and buy a vineyard in England. 🙂
The Romans grew grapes in Northumberland (55N) in 250AD. The Norman invaders did the same in around 1100AD. Today, not a chance, the English vineyards are all south of Watford (51:30N). On the basis that 200 miles is worth about 1C, we are 1.5C cooler than the MWP.
philincalifornia,
Raindrops are usually at the temperature of air higher up and so usually carry less energy than the ocean surface.
The professionals should also know that positive feedbacks don’t work either because the weather systems just change their positions to maintain an equilibrium between sea surface temperature and surface air temperature without disturbing the balance between energy arriving at the Earth from the sun and energy leaving the Earth to space. Because those movements balance the energy budget no temperature rise can occur.
The latitudinal movement of the weather systems thus cancels out the variability in energy flow from the oceans and any disturbance in the energy budget of the atmosphere alone.
Just an update to the Pacific Equatorial SST’s. The latest map is out and is showing pronounced anomolous warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific, mid equatorial Pacific waters are alos warming. Compare the below to the header map.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomp.1.22.2009.gif
Pearland Aggie,
Sorry about the preachy tone, I am one of the ‘alarmed’ after all. 😉
It’s just that pieces like that on the website you linked to get on my nerves. I think that a ‘skeptic’ side to the debate such as WUWT has a part to play in the near future but this part is heavily undermined by misinformation such as the piece by the Baltimore Weather Examiner and even more so by sites like Icecap that give such stories a prominent place. Of course, only undermined inasmuch people research the background and provenance of these stories. Otherwise the purpose of dishing out misinformation is well-served of course.
I might be wrong about this but I have a feeling some time soon there will have to appear a dividing line in the ‘skeptic’ community between the part that deliberately misinforms for financial reasons (for instance Fred Singer) and egotistical reasons (such as Tim Ball and all those other old men that IMO systematically fail to show any wisdom corresponding to their age), and the part that is honestly questioning everything surrounding AGW.
Actually, in that light I have high hopes for WUWT, entirely based on the picture I have of Anthony Watts based on how he responded to me in the recent past (on the question what the moral implications of (un)deliberately spreading misinformation are) and the fact that he’s a proponent of renewable energy (or at least he has solar panels on his roof). But it’ll take a few more years of science rolling in to see which way things’ll be progressing.
Neven
The issue of Great Lakes ice coverage came up recently in various threads. The Canada Ice Service has produced the latest graphs for Great Lakes ice coverage and I thought I might pass along links to these:
Weekly Ice Coverage for 2008/2009 Season
Historical Date Ice Coverage for 01/22/09 (compares January 22 of 2009 with January 22 of past years)
Total Accumulated Ice Coverage 12/04 – 01/22 (start of “ice season” to most recent date”)
Oh, and more information from the service is here.
Just a comment or two. I’m just now reading some of the blogs and found this discussion interesting, so I thought I would throw in my $0.02!
Just a quick background on me so folks know where I am coming from: by training I am a climatologist (degrees in Physical Geography) from a large university in the south. I spent a few years at one of the 6 Regional Climate Centers here in the US as well as running a statewide mesonet for two years. For a total of four years I have worked (and still am working) in operational weather/hydrology for the agency that does the weather & water forecasting for the U.S (including a year in the Arctic). I have walked in the academic, research, climate and operational sides of this insanely broad field, so I get the viewpoints of many of the sides. My opinions are of course my own.
As far as the main part of this post…CPC issues a weekly ENSO briefing no matter what the conditions. I too read the brief this week with some curiosity, but saw what CPC was trying to say. The atmosphere and ocean are responding and the temperatures are in the right range, but the NOAA definition of an LA Nina event has not been met (three consecutive three-month periods of -0.5C SSTA’s in the Nino 3.4 region). It is a technicality, but it is one the folks at CPC have to make.
As far as the survey of meteorologists not buying into ‘global warming’ (I hate that term), I’m not surprised. Part of it is training- many climatologists couldn’t forecast their way out of a paper bag, but many mets don’t have the broad training in the climate system (or stats!) either. Scale is another issue as well…long vs short. Finally, I think alot of it comes back to faith in the data. We see data all the time in operational weather/hydrology that frankly is poor for hydromet use. So how can we believe the data for longer terms? On the other hand, a station that is poor for operational met may be excellent for climate because it hasn’t moved in decades (or in a few cases globally, 100’s of years). I liken the difference to engineers and physicists. I trust a physicist to make the big discovery, however I would never get on a bridge he designed!
All in all…great blog and some great and excellent comments! Keep up the work Anthony!
Cheers folks! 🙂
To update the ENSO situation. The latest SST shows rapid warming of Eastern Pacific equatorial waters and continued slower warming of the rest of the equatorial waters. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.26.2009.gif
This is also shown by the NINO charts showing warming throughout the range. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
SOI is down to is lowest value since September http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/soi30.png
This should confirm that there will be no La Nina, indeed the rapid warming of the Eastern Pacific and the Southern Pacific suggests an intense El Nino later this year is becoming more probable.