|
|
| Contact: Christopher Vaccaro FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
202-536-8911 (cellular) July 9, 2009 |
El Niño Arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10
NOAA scientists today announced the arrival of El Niño, a climate phenomenon with a significant influence on global weather, ocean conditions and marine fisheries. El Niño, the periodic warming of central and eastern tropical Pacific waters, occurs on average every two to five years and typically lasts about 12 months.
NOAA expects this El Niño to continue developing during the next several months, with further strengthening possible. The event is expected to last through winter 2009-10.
“Advanced climate science allows us to alert industries, governments and emergency managers about the weather conditions El Niño may bring so these can be factored into decision-making and ultimately protect life, property and the economy,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
El Niño’s impacts depend on a variety of factors, such as intensity and extent of ocean warming, and the time of year. Contrary to popular belief, not all effects are negative. On the positive side, El Niño can help to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. In the United States, it typically brings beneficial winter precipitation to the arid Southwest, less wintry weather across the North, and a reduced risk of Florida wildfires.
El Niño’s negative impacts have included damaging winter storms in California and increased storminess across the southern United States. Some past El Niño’s have also produced severe flooding and mudslides in Central and South America, and drought in Indonesia.
An El Niño event may significantly diminish ocean productivity off the west coast by limiting weather patterns that cause upwelling, or nutrient circulation in the ocean. These nutrients are the foundation of a vibrant marine food web and could negatively impact food sources for several types of birds, fish and marine mammals.
In its monthly El Niño diagnostics discussion today, scientists with the NOAA National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center noted weekly eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures were at least 1.0 degree C above average at the end of June. The most recent El Niño occurred in 2006.
El Niño includes weaker trade winds, increased rainfall over the central tropical Pacific, and decreased rainfall in Indonesia. These vast rainfall patterns in the tropics are responsible for many of El Niño’s global effects on weather patterns.
NOAA will continue to monitor the rapidly evolving situation in the tropical Pacific, and will provide more detailed information on possible Atlantic hurricane impacts in its updated Seasonal Hurricane Outlook scheduled for release on August 6, 2009.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit http://www.noaa.gov.
On the Web:
Forecast: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
NOAA’s El Niño site: http://www.elnino.noaa.gov
###
Now why is this an El Nino, and not a PDO shift; what happened to all the Eastern Pacific Blue of the cool PDO ?
What is it that kicks in at 0.5 degrees change; why not 0.45, or 0.55; what is the physical significance that makes it an El Nino at + 0.5, but not at + 0.499
And how does the moon affect it through the three month persistence.
And what means this piece of gobbledegook; “””By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode,these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons. “””
What exactly is “at least 5 consecutive overlapping three month seasons ” ? Does that mean that it ain’t El Nino if it only last a year; I thought the 1998 El Nino only lasted 8 months.
Well now I’m confused; but is PDO still in cooling phase; so where has all the lbue gone ?
George E. Smith (18:31:16) :
What you are seeing is a typical El Nino condition. Warm water suppresses the upwelling of cool water off the Peruvian coast which occurs during a neutral condition (with even greater upwelling during a La Nina.
Ninos and Ninas both occur during either positive or negative PDOs. During a negative PDO, it is more likely that there will be “unanswered” La Ninas and El Ninos will be less likely to be intense. But both will occur.
Since 1950 (according to my “file card”)
El Nino
8/51-12/51
4/57-7/58
7/63-1/64
6/65-4/66
11/68-6/69
9/69-1/71
5/72-3/73
9/76-2/77
9/77-2/78
5/82-6/83
9/86-2/88
5/91-7/92
7/94-3/95
5/97-4/98
5/02-3/03
7/04-2/05
8/06-1/07
La Nina
(pre)1/50-3/51
3/54-1/57
4/64-2/65
7/70-1/72
5/73-5/76
10/84-9/85
5/88-5/89
9/95-3/96
7/98-2/01
8/07- (disputed)
Few points….
1. If the Anchovy catch is reduced off the coast of Equador,this may be a good as indicator as any of El Nino intensity. Is this recorded somewhere?
2. I would like to see temp measurements extend eastward to 80 degrees.
3. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub-surf_anim.gif
Check the anomalies approaching the last date recorded, at this stage it looks weak.
The lack of a good NOAA pregnancy test worries me.
evanmjones (18:47:33) :
Those Nino years -particularly in the 50’s 60’s and early 70’s were some of the nastiest winters I’ve experienced in the Pac NW. 63-64 was a heck of snow followed by
flooding. 69-74 were all nasty winters wet summers, with some dry. PDO cool then
too ..Hmmm…
However so were some of Nina years too…
I just announced the arrival of one billion dollars to my bank account.
While I was at it, my barber, the guy at the gas station, and I all agreed that we should keep the skies blue and sunny everyday.
However so were some of Nina years too…
Actually, Ninos seem to outnumber Ninas. But Ninas seem to last longer.
“No, I think the AGWiers will say that if things cool down for the next 10 years, its climate variability, but if things warm up in the next 10 months, its definitely Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Human Race is fully responsible.”
I’m not talking about what the AGWers will say. I’m talking about what a reasonable inference would be. Obviously the two things aren’t not necessarily the same.
is it possible that because it is cooler that theirs lest ice melt thus lest cold water going into the sea ,thus letting the sea in the tropics warm up more??.
frank (00:25:09) :
is it possible that because it is cooler that theirs lest ice melt thus lest cold water going into the sea ,thus letting the sea in the tropics warm up more??.
At the height of the warming last century, Greenland was losing 265cubic kilometers of ice per year. Since 2004 it’s been losing 240 cubic kilometers per year. That’s a difference of 20 cubic kilometers per year.
The worlds oceans have a volume of approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometers.
So the change in melt of greenland’s icecap is about 0.000000015% of the volume of the oceans. The Antarctic has been getting colder not warmer, so we can forget that for now.
In fact, just forget the whole idea. 😉
brazil84 (00:16:34) :
I’m not talking about what the AGWers will say. I’m talking about what a reasonable inference would be. Obviously the two things aren’t not necessarily the same.
A reasonable inference would be that since El Nino’s occur roughly every five years and the last one was a few years ago, there’s nothing very surprising about getting another one.
The ocean oscillates.
George E. Smith (18:31:16) :
to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode,these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons. “””
What exactly is “at least 5 consecutive overlapping three month seasons ” ? Does that mean that it ain’t El Nino if it only last a year; I thought the 1998 El Nino only lasted 8 months.
It poorly expressed. What it means is
July, Aug, Sept – Aug, Sept, Oct – Sept, Oct, Nov – Oct, Nov, Dec – Nov, Dec, Jan
The average temp has to remain above the threshold taken as an average for each of the three month periods, for the sequence of five three months periods.
From NOAA Weekly Enso Update: Historical Pacific warm (red) and cold (blue) episodes based on a threshold of +/-0.5 oCfor the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v3b SST anomalies in the Nino 3.4 region (5N-5S, 120-170W)], calculated with respect to the 1971-2000 base period. For historical purposes El Niño and La Niña episodes are defined when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive over-lapping seasons
Now given that the current reading for the AprilmayJune (amj) is +2 .. they are calling El Nino a bit early arent they? It just seems a little desperate to MAKE mother nature conform.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
>>there is no link between the CO2 concentration and
>>global temperature
Indeed, they have been looking at the wrong forcing agent for AGW. It is clear from the rising trends in these graphs …
http://www.umass.edu/agcenter/census/charts/f_17-total-milk-production-in-MA,NM,AZ.gif
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/offset:-.2/trend
…. that a warming climate is driven by milk production. You can clearly see the correlation.
If we could only close down some milk parlours….
brazil84 (00:16:34) :
“No, I think the AGWiers will say that if things cool down for the next 10 years, its climate variability, but if things warm up in the next 10 months, its definitely Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Human Race is fully responsible.”
I’m not talking about what the AGWers will say. I’m talking about what a reasonable inference would be. Obviously the two things aren’t not necessarily the same.
What can we infer from the solar/climate link if things continue to warm?
I printed out the Unisys SST chart from July 5 and compared it to today’s chart:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
The El Nino HAS WEAKENED over the last 5 days.
And looking at SSTs in the Atlantic right where most hurricanes are generated, the water at this spot looks cooler than normal.
the season…
One shouldn’t forget the years 1976-1978. Two very hot summers (77 and 78) for North America, and 3 very nasty winters as well. The beginning of the warm phase of the PDO (1976) didn’t initially mitigate North American winters. But one wonders exactly how strong this El Nino will be, and if it will mitigate the formation of deep artic air masses in northern Canada. And if it doesn’t, will this El Nino keep the northern branch of the Polar Jet north of the border?
What is fascinating is the continued formation of very cold air masses in central Canada. June blizzards, heavy rains, and temperatures in the 50s and 60s in July are rather startling. One would have to go back to 1816 in New England, where snow still fell in June and frosts occured in September to find such a cool summer over such a large area of the globe. Mt Tembora explains the 1816 cold summer. But what about today?
Bob Tisdale
Thanks for your reply. My query is related to this paper, which I could not recall in my previous post:
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
As the oceans contain more heat in the first few meters than the entire atmosphere, it would seem it is the oceans that regulate surface temperature. A change in cloud cover can account for virtually all changes in OHC regardless of what the sun does. That said, I fail to see how anything but the sun’s direct radiation can account for ocean warming.
I have yet to see a mathematical relationship given to explain how small increases in atmospheric CO2 can raise OHC to even a measurable degree. Where are the thermodynamical physics that explain how a few PPM increase in CO2 can cause oceans to gain heat?
Don’t take the above as a lecture. I’m merely asking questions because as El Nino is related to SST increases, is that heat coming from above or below the surface? If it is welling up from the deep, and the sun is not replenishing that heat, logic dictates land surface temperatures must fall (on average) at some point in the future. If OHC continues to rise, so will surface temperatures.
In other words, as I see it, OHC is the most important metric. Both SST and to a lesser more variable extent, surface temperatures are merely a reflection of deep ocean processes. As is the case with any data set, accuracy and precision are the key. With the ARGO system in place, we should be able to get a better picture of things now that is fully operational. Personally, I don’t have much confidence in the XBT data or SST for that matter. It has been massaged and reanalyzed too many times to be credible IMO.
right…
visit,
http://doomsdayarriving.worpdress.com
So what’s the bottom line? Should I book two weeks in Majorca in September or can I stay here in Britain and still enjoy the late summer?
Feel the burn
THis agency needs to be renamed the National Disasturbationist Administration
“”” DR (06:38:09) :
As the oceans contain more heat in the first few meters than the entire atmosphere, it would seem it is the oceans that regulate surface temperature. A change in cloud cover can account for virtually all changes in OHC regardless of what the sun does. That said, I fail to see how anything but the sun’s direct radiation can account for ocean warming.
I have yet to see a mathematical relationship given to explain how small increases in atmospheric CO2 can raise OHC to even a measurable degree. Where are the thermodynamical physics that explain how a few PPM increase in CO2 can cause oceans to gain heat? “””
I can’t say I disagree with you DR; I have been harping on aspects of that relationship, since I started posting at WUWT. There’s a bit more to it. The energy content of the atmosphere is of course peanuts compared to that of the oceans, as you say; but, the mass of the atmosphere is also much less than the mass of the atmosphere; about equal to 10 metres of water in fact, and as a result, small changes in the energy content of the atmosphere can cause a significant change in the temperature of the atmosphere; which is more accurately where we live; but as you say, the effect of that energy change in the atmosphere can have but little change in the ocean energy content, or temperature.
By anybody’s standards, thermal conduction from the atmosphere to the surface, whether land or ocean, has to be a rather minor effect, since the convective transport of warmed air tends to move energy away from the surface to higher altitudes.
The principal remaining influence is the effect of downward long wave infra-red radiation that strikes the surface. This is in addition to the essentially solar spectrum energy that reaches the surface from the sun.
Unl;ike the solar energy, the long wave IR is absorbed in the top ten microns of the ocean, which is 73% of the total surface area; but considerably more of the surface area where the bulk of the solar energy impinges. The prompt result of this surface absorption, is evaporation of these more energetic IR heated surface molecules; and that in turn immediately removes much of the energy contained in that downward IR, which becoems latent heat of evaporation of the surface waters.
So only a fraction of that downward IR radiation is even available to try and influence the temperature of that more massive ocean water body.
Solar energy, on the other hand penetrates deeply into the oceans (tens to hundreds of metres); where it is eventually absorbed by something. Some of it enters the biological food chain; but the majority is eventually thermalized as increased local water temperature. Salt water (>2.47 % salinity) always has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion, and that expansion of warmer water sets up a vertical convection, which eventually brings much of that captured solar energy back to the surface; where it too can be transferred to the atmosphere, by the assortment of surface thermal processes. Of course, turbulence and circulations disturb this one-d image of convection; but they don’t stop its inexorable influence.
It is also instructive to consider the properties of thermal continuum radiation from the atmosphere; as everybody knows gases don’t emit thermal radiation of the black body spectrum type, like solids do. The sun being the center of the Universe has special dispensation from the Pope to emit nearly black body thermal continuum radiation; otherwise we would have no free clean green renewable energy; but that’s another story.
We still believe (some of us) that greenhouse like processes do go on in the atmosphere,and delay the loss of long wave IR emissions from the surface, which results in the surface remaining a tad warmer than it otherwise would be; but the notion that the ephemeral atmsophere can heat the massive oceans, or land masses is a pretty hard story to sell.
George