Here is the current SST map:
From NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center:
EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO) DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION issued by CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP/NWS
10 September 2009
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-2010. A weak El Niño continued during August 2009, as sea surface temperature (SST) remained above-average across the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1).
Consistent with this warmth, the latest weekly values of the Niño-region SST indices were between +0.7°C to +1.0°C (Fig. 2).
![Figure 2. Time series of area-averaged sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies (°C) in the Niño regions [Niño-1+2 (0°-10°S, 90°W-80°W), Niño 3 (5°N-5°S, 150°W-90°W), Niño-3.4 (5°N-5°S, 170°W- 120°W), Niño-4 (150ºW-160ºE and 5ºN-5ºS)]. SST anomalies are departures from the 1971-2000 base period weekly means (Xue et al. 2003, J. Climate, 16, 1601-1612).](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/noaa_enso_fig2.png?quality=75 "NOAA_Enso_fig2")
Subsurface oceanic heat content (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean, Fig. 3) anomalies continued to reflect a
deep layer of anomalous warmth between the ocean surface and the thermocline, particularly in the
central Pacific (Fig. 4).
Enhanced convection over the western and central Pacific abated during the month, but the pattern of suppressed convection strengthened over Indonesia. Low-level westerly wind anomalies continued to become better established over parts of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. These oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect an ongoing weak El Niño.
A majority of the model forecasts for the Niño-3.4 SST index (Fig. 5) suggest El Niño will reach at least moderate strength during the Northern Hemisphere fall (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index of +1.0°C or greater). Many model forecasts even suggest a strong El Niño (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index in excess of +1.5°C) during the fall and winter, but current observations and trends indicate that El Niño will most likely peak at moderate strength. Therefore, current conditions, trends, and model forecasts favor the
continued development of a weak-to-moderate strength El Niño into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2009, with the likelihood of at least a moderate strength El Niño during the winter 2009-10.
Expected El Niño impacts during September-November 2009 include enhanced precipitation over the west-central tropical Pacific Ocean and the continuation of drier-than-average conditions over Indonesia. Temperature and precipitation impacts over the United States are typically weak during the Northern Hemisphere summer and early fall, generally strengthening during the late fall and winter. El Niño can help to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing the vertical wind shear over the Caribbean Sea and tropical Atlantic Ocean (see the Aug. 6th update of the NOAA Atlantic Seasonal Hurricane Outlook ).
This discussion is a consolidated effort of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s National Weather Service, and their funded institutions. Oceanic and atmospheric conditions are updated weekly on the Climate Prediction Center web site (El Niño/La Niña Current Conditions and Expert Discussions). Forecasts for the evolution of El Niño/La Niña are updated monthly in the Forecast Forum section of CPC’s Climate Diagnostics Bulletin. The next ENSO Diagnostics Discussion is scheduled for 8 October 2009. To receive an e-mail notification when the monthly ENSO Diagnostic Discussions are released, please send an e-mail message to: ncep.list.ensoupdate@noaa.gov
(source: PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
erlhapp (09:25:19) :
the greatest fluctuation in stratospheric temperature
The temperatures in the mesosphere and stratosphere have nothing to do with the temperature at the surface, except for possible weak upwards-traveling influences.
Leif Svalgaard (09:51:53): What about the cold period in the 1840s-1870s that coincided with the strong cycles 8 to 11?
I speculate that the instant value of HMF B makes little sense. It is the accumlated HMF B that influences global temperature. See:
http://i25.tinypic.com/fb97ph.jpg
The green curve is accumulated HMF B.
Mr. Alex (01:42:40) :
I know many readers here are skeptical about Landscheidt’s papers, but they are an interesting read nonetheless
But, as many like Landscheidt have discovered cycles that really correspond to actual phenomena, wouldn´t we expect from real scientists to put aside all “pride and prejudice” so as to not to reject the challenge but to search for the real physical causes behind all these peculiar “coincidences”?, otherwise we are not witnessing rational discourse but subjective and emotional arguments.
In relating solar cycles and temperature, are we not supposed to consider a time lag of about six years, as many times has been posted here in WUWT?
It could very well be that oceanic influences on temperature and weather over land is quite rapid, but I am intrigued by the issue of this noncompliant jet stream stubbornly refusing to drop into its El Nino position. Could it be that it also lags with the warm oceanic pool? Stephen, it would make sense that the jet stream is more affected by exactly where that El Nino warm pool is at and how strong it is. Could it be the cause for this jumbled jet stream behavior?
Leif Svalgaard (09:51:53) :
Leif, always like your comments.
Nevertheless, when I look on Armagh, CET, Uppsala, De Bilt, Hohenpeissenberg,
locally (Europe), it cuts both ways.
There were cold years and warm years in the 1840s and 1870s. When using centered
averages over several years, generally the 1836 to 1840, 1875 to 1882 and the 1886 to 1890 are the timeframe with lowest averages. It differes a little bit from dataset to dataset. However, I couldn’t say it would support Invariant’s (09:33:40) nor you.
Best Regards
KlausB
oops, have to correct my (11:28:19)
there were cold years and warm years BETWEEN 1840 and 1870
Pamela Gray (11:22:27)
I think one should take the average net latitudinal position of the jets globally. However I don’t think that is being done at the moment.
Additionally that position will depend on the average net contribution of all the oceans at any one time (often ocean phases are out of phase with each other). That is not being done at the moment either.
At any given moment there is a huge range of possibilies for jet stream positions in relation to individual locations. I am sure those possibilities vary according to the distribution of warm and cold pools as you say.
On top of that is normal day to day chaotic variability.
The word ‘jumbled’ is appropriate in this case.
We need the rain here in California.
erlhapp (09:25:19)
I can see the logic but can also see alternative ways to get the same observations.
You clearly see that the northern hemisphere has a lot more land so solar heating of the land especially in the northern summer would provide a larger contribution to stratospheric air temperatures than would the contribution from the seas.
Thus I don’t see a larger variability in northern hemisphere air temperatures as significant as ocean temperatures.
Turning now to the greater variability of ocean temperatures in the polar regions as opposed to tropical regions then it seems clear to me that where energy is being lost to space faster i.e. at the poles then the waters nearest the poles get a far greater opportunity to lose energy than do the tropical waters where solar energy arriving always exceeds the rate of energy lost to space.
Thus tropical waters vary hardly at all but polar waters would vary greatly depending on how much energy filtered to them from equatorial regions. The degree of variation seems to be dependent on the supply of warm waters reaching the polar seas and that in turn seems to depend on partly the ENSO cycle but more substantially the 25 to 30 year ocean phase shifts.
It is those phase shifts which need explaining if events in the air are to qualify as drivers of anything. As far as I know there is no correlation between those phase shifts and anything that happens in the air or involving the sun (at least directly).
The northern polar regions would vary more than the southern polar regions because the warm water flow gets right into the Arctic Circle whereas in the south it can only circulate around the Antarctic continent.
So, whilst seeing what you are saying I come to a different opinion and conclude that the oceans drive the air and the air cannot drive the oceans or the climate in the way you suggest, but it’s only my opinion.
I see all the air based phenomena you describe as entirely consistent with oceanic forcing.
It would be interesting to look at jet stream patterns over time that correspond to high summer wind direction out through Fram Strait (2007 and parts of 2008 come to mind), and compare that to jet stream position when winds along Fram Strait are blowing ice INTO the Arctic instead of OUT like in 2009.
Leif Svalgaard (09:19:56)
I see that reply as confirming your doubt that solar variations drive global temperature changes on ANY timescale.
My problem with that is the absence of any other supply of energy to the system.
I had the impression that you were doubtful about the AGW hypothesis but if one excludes solar variability completely as an adequately large driver then of course one is driven to conclude that something else is responsible and that something else could be increasing CO2 in the air.
Please could you explain how you are still able to doubt the CO2 AGW hypothesis whilst considering that solar changes are insufficient to produce observed climate changes.
The reason I cannot accept CO2 even as a provider of a background rising temperature trend is that we clearly see a slow cyclical background rise and fall in past global temperatures over several centuries at a time when human sourced CO2 could not have been an issue.
I’m sure it doesn’t apply to you but wouldn’t it be useful for the AGW lobby to have the assistance of someone who SAYS he does not believe in the hypothesis but who works tirelessly to eliminate or debunk all possible alternatives.
It boils down to a simple issue,
There have always been slow cyclical global temperature variations in the background even throughout interglacials.
Human sourced CO2 cannot have been a serious issue until after WW2. even the IPCC accepts that.
How does one exclude solar variability as a driver of those changes when many historical sources show a correlation (which you seek quite strenuosly to deny) and when there is no other energy source for the climate system ?
Leif Svalgaard (09:59:20) :
erlhapp (09:25:19) :
the greatest fluctuation in stratospheric temperature
The temperatures in the mesosphere and stratosphere have nothing to do with the temperature at the surface, except for possible weak upwards-traveling influences.
what about this publication, given in the Svensmark thread by
Ron de Haan (10:50:28) :
Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
Seems as if a model can be made where there is amplification of the sun input influence from the stratosphere downwards, in conjunction with that from surface upwards.
Nogw (10:39:52): In relating solar cycles and temperature, are we not supposed to consider a time lag of about six years, as many times has been posted here in WUWT?
This makes perfectly sense in my toy model, as I have made the assumption that the temperature is the time integral of the solar cycle. Assuming that Qout is constant and Qin is sine function with period 11.1 years due to varying solar activity we obtain
m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout
Qin ~ sin (2π•t/11.1)
T ~ cos (2π•t/11.1)
Everybody knows that sine and cosine are the derivative of each other and are out of phase by half the period, meaning that the time lag would be 11.1/2 = 5.55 years which is almost the value proposed by Mogw. I should listen more to Mary Poppins that once said:
“Why do you always complicate things that are really quite simple?”
Sorry sine and cosine are of course a quarter period out of phase, meaning that my toy model is quite far from what Mogw states:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sine_cosine_plot.svg
In my model the time lag would be 11.1/4 = 3.7 years.
Stephen Wilde 7:47:40
Pretty clearly the earth is a heat engine that pumps heat poleward from the equator. My figure for the lag is about three years, the time it took for the peak of temperature around 2004-2005 to melt the Arctic Ice in 2007. Just as the globe has cooled since 2005, the Arctic has been freezing back up for the last two years. NB, this is highly speculative.
====================================
Hmmm, invariant @ur momisugly 12:54:24, similar figures from entirely different methods of analysis.
================================
kim (13:15:47)
I agree with that but think the 2007 melt was also componded by residual energy in the oceans from 30 years of dominant El Ninos and favourable synoptics blowing ice out of the Arctic.
Hmmm, but 11.1/4 is 2.8 years. Even closer to my 3.
=================================
Invariant (12:54:24) : Don´t worry, there are cycles that lasts 13 years, so….
Invariant (12:54:24) : However, as I have cited before: In 1991.3 there was a low in GCR and afterwards the 97-98 big El Nino (See H. Svensmark “The chilling stars”, p.77)= 6 years lag.
I have a question for Dr. Svalgaard,
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
If you go to a cabin in the Norwegian mountains in wintertime the first thing you do is to make a fire in the fireplace. In the beginning the cabin is freezing cold below zero, but after a few hours the temperature starts to increase and within a day or two the cabin is comfortable. While the air in the cabin is quickly heated, the cabin itself may take a couple of days to heat.
Let us imagine that the fireplace resembles the sun and that the cabin resembles our planet. My main point is that we do not need to see that the output from the sun (fireplace) increase in order to see that the temperature in our planet (cabin) increase. The only requirement is that heat from the fireplace (Qin) is larger than the heat dissipated through the walls (Qout).
To make the analogy complete we can assume that the initial freezing state of the cabin resembles our planet during the little ice age. So I argue that the heating of our planet since the last ice age is perfectly possible without any increase of the output from the sun in that period. I do not want to speculate what caused the little ice age, but do you agree that our planet will heat even if solar activity is constant as long as Qin > Qout?
My second question is how much reduction in the output from the sun is required to get a similar temperature fall as we had during the little ice age?
Sandy: You wrote, obviously disagreeing with my earlier reply, “Satellite and ship don’t contribute to depth data so we just have the buoy grid.”
I won’t dispute the ship data, but I will disagree with you on the satellite altimetry data. The TOPEX/POSEIDON sea surface altimetry satellite was replaced by the Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. (The NOAA webpage I originally linked is out of date. Sorry.) Those satellites are not measuring sea surface temperature. They’re measuring sea level. A major component of sea level is the temperature of the water column. By computing sea level anomalies, the powers that be can find subsurface temperature anomalies and supplement the TOA buoy array. Refer to the most recent Sea Level anomaly map available through a JPL website. The sea level anomaly is in the same location as the one in Figure 4 above:
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/jason1-quick-look/2009/images/20090821G.jpg
And of course, since it’s a pool of subsurface warm water, it does not appear in the surface temperature map:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2rcbdx2.png
Regards
kim (13:32:52) : Hmmm, but 11.1/4 is 2.8 years. Even closer to my 3.
Great. Yes it should be 11.1/4. I divided by 3 instead this is embarrasing, no wonder I sometimes find bugs in my FORTRAN code.
anna v (12:30:52) :
Seems as if a model can be made where there is amplification of the sun input influence from the stratosphere downwards, in conjunction with that from surface upwards.
This is not what Erl had in mind and my comment was in direct relation to his ideas]. As far as I can understand [from his tens of thousands of words on the subject] he want the mesosphere/upper stratosphere heated by geomagnetic activity and such and then having that heat propagate downward to heat the sea. That does not happen [for once, because the density decreases by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km you ascend so there is not many Joules up there].