Global Oceanic Climate Update for August 2009
Dr. Roy Spencer September 1st, 2009
This is the first of what might turn into a series of monthly updates of some maritime climate parameters monitored by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite. All monthly statistics have been computed by me from daily global gridpoint data produced and archived by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) under the direction of Frank Wentz, a member of our U.S. AMSR-E Science Team. Since Aqua was launched in 2002, the data are available only since June, 2002. A description of how these products were derived, and where they reside, is provided here.
There are 5 “ocean products”: sea surface temperature [SST]; near-surface wind speed; vertically-integrated water vapor; vertically integrated cloud water; and rain rate. I will present time series of monthly anomalies averaged over the global, ice-free oceans (56 deg. N to 56 deg. S latitude), and separately for the deep tropics (20 deg. N to 20 deg. S latitude). ‘Anomalies’ are departures from the average seasonal cycles in those parameters, which will be recomputed as each new month of data is added.
GLOBAL OCEANS
In the first figure below are plotted the 5 ocean products for the global ice free-oceans (56N to 56S). As can be seen in the top panel, SSTs in August cooled slightly from the unusually warm conditions experienced in July.
I have added linear trend lines to each time series, which you are free to misinterpret as you wish. 
Since the AMSR-E period of record is only 7.25 years long, a calculated trend won’t have much meaning…although it will be interesting to see how long it takes before the climate system obeys the UN’s command to warm, and the SST trend line begins to go uphill again.
How these different variables change relative to each other is illustrated in the following lag-correlation plot of SST versus the other variables. “PDO” is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index, while “SOI” is the Southern Oscillation Index (negative for El Nino, positive for La Nina). A discussion of these curves is provided later, below.
TROPICAL OCEANS
The next figure shows the ocean product anomalies for just the deep tropics, 20N to 20S latitude….
…and the lag correlation plot for the deep tropics is next:
DISCUSSION
Using the 20N-20S lag correlation plot as an example, you can see that total integrated water vapor is highly correlated with SST, which in turn is highly correlated with El Nino conditions (negative SOI values).
Also note that sea surface temperature tends to peak after months of anomalously low wind conditions, then falls as wind speeds increase.
Cloud water and rain rates increase as SST increases, reaching a maximum 1 to 3 months after the SST peaked.
Not that it adds on iota to the conversation but I’ve always viewed “anomaly” as equating to “outlier” , something outside the normal range of variability. What I see measured here is simple variation about the mean, but then no one is paying me for my conflation of the anomalous use of English hyperbole in science. (just to be clear, that wasn’t a slight directed at Dr. Roy. As for the rest in climate science, yeah, well…:)
3×2 (17:44:05) : Comparing different months [sea temperatures] is pretty meaningless. Anomalies are only valid compared to themselves. Even then the absolute anomaly has little value…
I dont know what you mean by “absolute anomaly”.
The average global air temperatures are always warmer in July than Jan because there is more land in the NH and its heats up more in their summer than the SH does.
The sea does not follow this pattern.
I am pretty sure that the anomalies of that graph are against one single value. It is meaningful to me, and it would indicate that global sea temperatures in August were less than in July
LarryOldtimer (10:13:56) :
Once again, the use of the word “anomalies” instead of the proper word, “variability”.
You’re right. “Anomalies” with respect to what (?). If we take into account that for the Holocene period the fluctuations of temperature fit into a range of -3 K to 3 K), a fluctuation of 0.6 K to 1.6 K is not “anomalous”.
This posting inspired me to go back and move the GIStemp evaluation forward One More Step. Little did I realize that the result would be an evaluation that tied directly to that large part of the planet full of oceans and islands:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/gistemp-islands-in-the-sun/
Turns out that in the last “land” step; STEP3, islands end up being very important. STEP4_5 is all that is left and it is just merging the “land” data in with a SST anomaly map from Hadley. STEP2 does the “anomaly” map reference station UHI adjustment, and STEP3 takes that data and creates “grid boxes” of temperature data.
One Small Problem. It uses a 1200 km radius for impact of a thermometer. So a single thermometer on a single island can “create” an entire box worth of data far far away. And where are the thermometers at a lot of those islands in the sun? Well, at the airport. In the sun.
Think about it…
And any tendency for islands to be non-equally distributed around the planet (i.e. lots of them in the South Pacific Ocean; Arctic Ocean not so much…) will give them an excessive impact on the “grid boxes”…
So now we have to add IHI – Island Heat Island to the lexicon…
E.M.Smith (19:15:57) – “…a single thermometer on a single island can “create” an entire box worth of data far far away….”. That seems pretty significant. Would it account for the difference in trends between the Satellite temps and GISS? ( and thus a good bit of global warming)
Nice blog post. Very much appreciated the lag graphs. I have to say that I have less and less patience with global warming theorists. I am just not capable of much patience anymore. Time is ticking away and if idiots want to throw themselves off the cliff in a mad lemmings dash to what they think is nirvana, so be it. Call me retired and soaking in a hot springs in the Cascades or mountains of Idaho, far, far away from the maddening crowd.
3×2 (16:18:09) :
Jeff in Ctown (15:07:26) :
So if the sun heats the water, and wind cools it, what creates the wind?
Chickens and Eggs me suspects.
Or just maybe the fluctuating UV level interacting with the Stratosphere causing pressure and temperature changes.
I have enjoyed all this discussion, but I have yet to see anyone talk about the fact that this is a classic example of a strong negative feedback:
Increase in SST = increase in wind rain and clouds
high wind rain and clouds = lower SST
No positive feedback amplifications here!
When people talk about the climate on a knife edge like Big Al in “Life in the Balance” I always have to ask the question: How did the climate get put up onto that knife edge in the first place?
As a geologist and student of geomorphology I see very few boulders resting on knife edges, instead most have long since rolled off the ridge.
Negative feedbacks are the way of this world, it has to be that way, otherwise life would not exist here.
Thank you Dr. Spencer for your very informative post.
In astronomy, the word ‘anomaly’ is widely and officially used about planetary motions (Keplerian elliptical motion): there we have angles called mean anomaly, eccentric anomaly, and true anomaly. See any textbook on mathematical astronomy.
Tom in Co (21:43:18)
Just so , Tom.
Increase in SST = increase in wind rain and clouds
high wind rain and clouds = lower SST.
Decrease in SST = decrease in wind rain and clouds.
less wind rain and clouds = higher SST.
So the oceans change their rate of energy release independently of anything that happens in the air and the air circulation systems respond with a proportionate latitudinal shift thus altering the speed of the hydrological cycle and the rate of energy transfer from surface to space until the effect of the oceanic change is neutralised.
The significance for AGW being that since air cannot heat water significantly the SSTs control the air temperatures and any temperature change that is limited to the air alone gets dealt with by the same mechanism but on a miniscule scale.
Extra CO2 thus can warm the air a miniscule amount but not the oceans and to deal with it the system provides a miniscule increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle and a miniscule( probably unmeasurable) latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.
Gaia rules and humans are acquitted.
Thank you very much for your answers, Dr. Spencer.
Just two more questions (and then I ll start to think a bit by myself… never too late)
– the emissivity of the land being an issue for the retrieval of land temperature. Does it mean than in fact all satellites measurements (meaning the different satellites systems used to measure the surface temperature since the beginning of the satellite era) are for the sea surface only? Never land surface temperature has been measured?
– for the sea surface temperature representing few millimeters (or centimeters, this is not very important for this question), I remember having read that this thin layer of water behave in a very different way compared to the 1 meter and more layer of the ocean, and that the temperature of the very thin layer is very sensitive to the amount of radiations received (sun for example). Is it right understanding and does it mean that the SST measurements from satellite can not be used (or perhaps not directly) to have an idea of the energy content of the ocean?
Thank you in advance for the clarifications.
Great analysis, thanks Dr Roy!
we really need to reiterate on a consistent basis that “normal” is not a set point but a range of variability, so “anomaly” should only be calculated as a departure from standard deviation of variability in data. Calling any departure from one set point as “anomaly” is Orwellian doublespeak that inherently supports the stasist world view of the alarmists.
The oceans would change their rate of energy release to the air as a result of an interaction between solar variations and the fluid mechanics within the oceans.
Somewhat like a tuning fork setting up oscillations in the flow of sound waves through air the solar/ocean interaction would seem to set up oscillations in the energy flow through the Earth system.
It is then left to the air to smooth out the discontinuities in the energy flow that have been set up within the oceans.
The circulations in the air operate as a powerful and highly flexible negative feedback for whatever happens within the oceans in terms of solar energy flow through the Earth system.
Those air circulations also prevent the oceanic variability from destabilising the entire system by adjusting energy flow from air to space so that over time it continues to approximately match the energy flow from the sun into the system.
My assertions would appear to be supported by the data presented by Dr. Spencer in this thread. The sequence of events laid out in his ‘ocean products’ fits my expectations perfectly.
Unless someone can point out an error on my part ?
I am amused that Dr Spencer’s data series start a point of ‘maximum’ ‘global temperature’, which is a useful counterpoint to all this 1979 is an average point in the temperature cycle nonsense.
No doubt the warmers will jump on that with alacrity.
It’s like Sir Alex Ferguson becoming a rabid opponent of diving.
It usually only happens when his big opponents can be castigated over it.
Philip_B (13:53:43) :
“So, what heats the Oceans?”
“”Sunshine.””
Don’t forget geothermal energy too – all those 300C+ superheated black smokers all along the mid ocean ridges. For example, the mid Atlantic oceanic ridge runs through Iceland, north between Spitzbergen and Greenland and over the pole towards Siberia.
Richard, RE anomalies. Dr Spencer says in the second paragraph above that “‘Anomalies’ are departures from the average seasonal cycles in those parameters, which will be recomputed as each new month of data is added.”
If I were peer reviewing this paper, I would ask for an unambiguous mathematical description of this procedure since the definition of an anomaly is critical to understanding the paper.
In Dr. Spencer’s statement I find the phrase “which will be recomputed as each new month of data is added.” confusing since it could be interpreted that the average seasonal cycles are being recomputed each time new data is added.
Perhaps Dr Spencer has some time to clarify the definition of anomaly.
“””” Tom in Co. (21:43:18) :
I have enjoyed all this discussion, but I have yet to see anyone talk about the fact that this is a classic example of a strong negative feedback:
Increase in SST = increase in wind rain and clouds
high wind rain and clouds = lower SST “””
Tom see my post:- “”” George E. Smith (15:28:09) :”””
Note the last paragraph. This is at least the tenth year that I have been harping on cloud negative feedback (ALL clouds). Prior to that it just seemed self evident to me; but I didn’t start commenting till I realized the rubbish that was being palmed off as science.
So your theseis is wrong; people have been talking about robust cloud negative feedback for eons.
George
Stephen,
Unless someone can point out an error on my part ?
Perhaps not an error but did you miss this?
“Also note that sea surface temperature tends to peak after months of anomalously low wind conditions, then falls as wind speeds increase.”
This appears not to support your assertions.
lgl (11:35:28)
Thanks but I did look at that most carefully which is why I am hoping for a longer graph either side of the peak ocean surface temperatures and deepest SOI.
In fact the data presented is ambiguous in that the reduction in winds could just as likely be a consequence of lower SSTs as a cause of higher SSTs hence my comments about chicken and egg.
Look at this again:
Increase in SST = increase in wind rain and clouds
high wind rain and clouds = lower SST.
Decrease in SST = decrease in wind rain and clouds.
less wind rain and clouds = higher SST.
Now that doesn’t tell us which starts the process either but it does show that there is a powerful negative (never positive) feedback whatever happens.
So going back to basics the oceans are a far more powerful heat sink than the air so is it likely that the air drives the oceans or that the oceans drive the air ?
I plump solidly for oceanic variation as the primary driver with the air following and anything that happens in the air whether it be UV changes or cosmic ray changes will only ever be a second order modulating factor.
It’s got to be one or the other, ocean or air, so I have a 50/50 chance of deserving a Nobel prize (getting one is another matter!!!).
Because all the factors that enter into the determination of total power fluxes in the air-sea interaction are being measured by the Aqua satellite, this is very important data. The question I have for Roy Spencer is whether the monthly compilations for the tropics (as shown in this post) are available anywhere for download, or do we have to compile afresh from the gridded data?
I too dislike the term “anomaly,” preferring “departure” in its place. But at least it’s not as wrongly suggestive a term as “normal random deviates,” printed tables of which were commonplace before the advent of computer-generated random number sequences.
Bob Tisdale (12:59:19)
Some time ago, on a different thread, you had asked for some modern references that quantified the air-sea interactions I was describing. None came to mind immediately. Since then I have found that there’s a new edition of Eric Kraus’ old classic “Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions” (Oxford, 1994) that might fit the bill. Also, Wilfried Bretsaert’s monograph “Evaporation into the Atmosphere” (Reidel, 1982) treats that process in great depth. Hope these two references prove useful to you in understanding the complex physics underlying the phenomena that Wang et al. merely describe geographically. And you’ll find no servile bow to AGW orthodoxy in either of these brass-tacks treatments.
Stephen,
You must see something in these graphs that I’m unable to see.
What I’m seeing is that SST and wind anti-correlates with a 3 mth lag (tropics), wind drops>>SST peaks 3 months later.
Decrease in SST = decrease in wind rain and clouds
When?
The multiyear trend is quite clear, you don’t need longer graphs. Between 2005 and 2008 wind increases and SST drops. After 2008 this is reversed.
the oceans are a far more powerful heat sink than the air ??
Why are you so hung up on heat store? Close to nothing of the radiation entering the oceans is stored, and the air without ghgs is a perfect heat sink (‘radiation sink’).
lgl (01:18:50)
Refer to the lag correlations not the ‘anomalies’ themselves. SST rises to a peak then winds increase, SST falls and wind decreases both with a three month lag. The charts do not reveal whether wind or water initiates the process but going back to basic principles it must be the water.
I now try to avoid use of the term ‘heat store’ . The oceans alter the rate of flow of formerly solar energy through the system rather than storing anything although the word ‘store’ could be applicable in the sense that total energy content rises and falls in tune with variations in the rate of energy flow.
Do you deny that there is more energy in the oceans than in the air ?