Click for larger image.
I don’t have tome to do a pixel analysis (anyone is welcome to do so and post in comments) but it appears by eyeball analysis that we may have about a 50-50 cool to warm anomaly over all of the oceans surface.
h/t to Bill Illis
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re Phillip_B of 9/03:
“*Nor do we know if climate values have a normal distribution. It appears there are a number of climate oscillations (PDO, AMO, etc) that have warm and cold phases. Therefore, values are only normal in the context of the warm or cold phase, ie as part of that population of values.”
Have a look at all the work on Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ home papge here:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk/
He answers this more comprehensively than anyone else on the planet.
In recognition of his paradigm busting work, he’s been awarded the Henry Darcy Medal 2009 by the European Geosciences Union for his outstanding contributions to the study of hydrometeorological variability and to water resources management.
In brief, he shows that climate values (geophysical variables in general) do not have a normal distribution.
They have, and these are the phrases in common use, Hurst phenomenon, long-term persistence, fluctuations on large scales, clustering, state and time scaling, and heavy (or long) distribution tails, Joseph effect, scaling behaviour, long-term persistence, multi-scale fluctuation, long-range dependence, long memory.
Demetris introduced the descriptor: Hurst-Kolmogorov pragmaticity.
You should read the Abstract of his Henry Darcy Medal address to be delivered in Vienna towards the end of April. You can access from his home page.
Richard
Bob T.
Unisys published data set origen;
CO-OPS Data Sets Offered through OPeNDAP http://www.nws.noaa.gov/noaaport/html/noaaport.shtml
Unisys; “At this time, the data used for most of the images on the site are from the National Weather Service via the NOAAPORT satellite feed. Other data sources include Colorado State’s hurricane archive and USGS elevation data.”
This is a listing of on-line data that is currently accessible through OPeNDAP and it is provided by the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.
opendap.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/dods- Cached -More from NOAA
Satellite info; http://www.nws.noaa.gov/noaaport/html/sat_loc.shtml
These folks serve a paying clientele. I doubt any fudging of the data.
I have observed the Unisys SST Anom for some ten+ years. The hot spot/s occurs quite regularly in the Barents, White, and Kara seas and can persist through-out the northern winter. My guess is that it represents a gyre of warmer water. Sea water temperature/densities differences are significant in that the water will not mix. A seasoned off-shore fisherman will work surface temperature differences of .1 deg. f. A 4000 ton submarine can float “all stop” “dead stick” on a .4 deg. f layer of cold water at any operational depth.
Bob T.
Unisys published data set origen;
CO-OPS Data Sets Offered through OPeNDAP [new window][preview][close preview]
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/noaaport/html/noaaport.shtml
Unisys; “At this time, the data used for most of the images on the site are from the National Weather Service via the NOAAPORT satellite feed. Other data sources include Colorado State’s hurricane archive and USGS elevation data.”
This is a listing of on-line data that is currently accessible through OPeNDAP and it is provided by the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.
opendap.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/dods- Cached -More from NOAA
Satellite info; http://www.nws.noaa.gov/noaaport/html/sat_loc.shtml
These folks serve a paying clientele. I doubt any fudging of the data.
I have observed the Unisys SST Anom for some ten+ years. The hot spot/s occurs quite regularly in the Barents, White, and Kara seas and can persist through-out the northern winter. It’s interesting to note that the northern warm anoms at times appear further to the west. My best guess is a gyre of warmer water. Sea water temperature/density differences are significant in that the water will not mix. A very discrete boundary forms with temperature differences a small as .1deg. f. A seasoned off-shore fisherman will work a .1deg. temperature “Break”. A 4000 ton submarine can float indefinitely “all stop, dead stick” on a .4deg. f layer at any operational depth. The temperature pools remain distinct and independent of current.
Bob Tisdale:”Now that that additional heat has disipated, the other indices have realigned again and are headed in the other direction, with help from the decade old decline in Southern Ocean SST anomalies.”
Does anybody know the energy balance of the pacific sea? Does it have more or less heat than in 1997-1998?
Though we know TSI it is inmutable, something happened years before the big El Nino (which, by the way, originated or was the pretext for all Climate Change agenda) that heated the pacific ocean, perhaps during five to six years.
If this issue becomes clarified and “settled” all the GWrs phantasies would become unsubstantiated.
Bob Tisdale. I understand the conventional wisdom is the ” Super El Nino of 1997-1998″. My observation is that since 1950, there have been many more El Ninos than La Ninas. Also El Ninos tend to be of steeper/shorter duration. The “Super La Ninas”, of 1954-1957, 1973-1976, and 1998-2001, were all more persistent than any El Nino during that time period. The sum of positive ONI, during 1997-1998 warm event was 22.0. The sum of the ONI, during the 1998-2001 cold event was -29.5. The net effect, as seen in the ONI was -7.5. The AMSU temps. tend to confirm that the rebound from that La Nina, in the subsequent El Ninos, was muted. Possibly due to the depth and length of that La Nina. Interestingly, we have gone 22 months without a positive ONI. Regards, Frank
Denis Hopkins
I couldn’t see your comments. Could you confirm their whereabouts?
Tonyb
Richard (04:32:40) :
Thanks for the tip
Abstract pdf: A random walk on water (Henry Darcy Medal Lecture)
Re: http://www.peep.ac.uk On each page there is a link at the bottom to add comments. They are only visible if you click on the “read the comments” link. I commented on a copuple of the pages on the Climate change section and on the computer modelling section.
Sorry that was for tonyb in response to his comment here 🙂
Denis Hopkins
There is the section on climate change then ‘next’ which leads to ‘How much climate change is likely’ at the bottom of this is the comments section but it contains no comments.
Can you go to the precise pages you have posted on, copy and paste the link and place it here. When I see it I will acknowledge it and have a look.
Tonyb
LA NINA is really gaining strength now.
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/laninamar09.gif
K.R. Frank
SSSailor: Thanks for the info you provided.
You wrote, “These folks serve a paying clientele. I doubt any fudging of the data.”
I wasn’t inferring that there was anything wrong with the Unisys data. I was just wondering who supplied their data.
While we’re discussing anomaly maps, it appears it’s the NOAA/NESDIS SST anomaly map (above) that has the errors at high latitudes. Especially that persitant hotspot in the Barents Sea. It does NOT exist in the OI.v2 SST data or their maps. Refer to my post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/barents-sea-hotspot-isnt-so-hot.html
Frank Mosher: You wrote, “The AMSU temps. tend to confirm that the rebound from that La Nina, in the subsequent El Ninos, was muted. Possibly due to the depth and length of that La Nina.”
You’ve confused me with that. Here’s a graph of AHU MSU Global Temp and Scaled NINO3.4 SST Anomalies:
http://s5.tinypic.com/14w844.jpg
I’ve scaled the NINO3.4 so that the peaks in global temp and scaled NINO3.4 were approximately the same.
In looking at the graph, if we assume a “Normal Response” of global temperature to an El Nino is dictated by the reaction to the 1997/98 El Nino, the global temp response to the 2002/03 El Nino was muted. I agree with that. However, the response to the NON-Nino of 2003/04 was exaggerated, as was the response to the 2004/05 El Nino. Afterwards, they appear to fall into line again.
Adolfo Giurfa: I preceded the comment that you quoted with “Speculation only.” In other words, it was conjecture.
You asked, “Does anybody know the energy balance of the pacific sea? Does it have more or less heat than in 1997-1998?”
Current OHC data is not available online. Or I haven’t found it. The keepers of the data keep it to themselves.
You wrote, “something happened years before the big El Nino (which, by the way, originated or was the pretext for all Climate Change agenda) that heated the pacific ocean, perhaps during five to six years.”
Let me ask, would the 1997/98 El Nino have happened if the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions had not occurred? More specifically, if those volcanoes had not erupted, would the 1982/83 and 1991/92 El Nino events have distributed heat poleward as El Nino events normally do and thereby eliminating the excessive build-up of tropical heat that was eventually released by the 1997/98 El Nino?
Latest image: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.12.2009.gif
Looks like the cold water takes a step to the west. This looks like a decent La Nina forming…
OT I know, but
Mike Strong (19:14:25) :
‘Are these people nuts? I just got this on CNN form the BBC:
More bad news on climate change
While the IPCC reports of 2007 were praised for their recognition of the causes of global warming, the slow, consensus-based nature of the process, meant more recent data was not included.
But with this meeting taking place outside the IPCC, it means it will have the very latest estimates, and the scientists will have no need to agree every word with the political masters.’
Where and what are these “Estimates”? All one sees everywhere at the moment is “It’s worse than we thought” alarm, alarm! I take it Estimates mean models and not new observations different to what I see here?