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.
Stephen Wilde (12:24:26) :
I see that reply as confirming your doubt that solar variations drive global temperature changes on ANY timescale.
No, just on the timescale where we have reasonably good proxies, e.g. that last 10,000 years. Clearly, on the timescale of billions of years [covered by your ANY], things must be different [yet, there are the Gaia crew…]
Human sourced CO2 cannot have been a serious issue until after WW2. even the IPCC accepts that.
So what? The temps have varied in the past unconnected with CO2. Now, there must also be some small but unknown CO2 effect.
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 ?
The correlations are not all that good, and you make the standard rhetoric of asking what would happen if we turned off the Sun [‘no other energy source’]. You cannot imagine that even with constant external input, a system can oscillate. One can move the problem up one notch: what makes the Sun vary? it has no access to another energy source [discounting Jupiter shine]. What makes you so willingly accept that the Sun varies from internal oscillations while you seek quite strenuously to deny that the climate system could do the same?
I think the Earth has within its atmosphere, its land masses and channels between them, and its slowly mixing oceans, the wherewithall to be the source of the variation in temperatures we see from year to year, decade to decade, century to century, and inbetween the long orbit wobble cycle. It varies the amount of energy we get from the Sun by using it in different amounts, storing it in different amounts, and exhaling it in different amounts, while the relatively constant Sun does what it can to refill this rather leaky planet.
It’s “interesting” to compare the UAH day-to-day satellite temperatures for 1998’s El “Supero” Nino to this year’s (2009’s modest El Nino) satellite temperatures:
For almost every day this year, satellite temperatures have been higher by .15 to .20 more than 1998.
We may face a Copenhagen-hyped “hottest year ever” by the time he meeting begins!
Leif Svalgaard (03:15:24) : Walter Dnes (23:20:30) :
“Adjusted” means adjusted for the variable distance to the Sun to refer the flux to a fixed distance [the average distance].
So Walter I was wrong about presuming that it was the flux as it came out from the sun. It is at a fixed distance, that is 1 AU, FROM the sun.
Which is more meaningful? To me the “observed” flux is more meaningful if I try and correlate it with temperature, because that is the net effect felt here, at the time.
Because the time of observation changes [1700Z or 1800Z, depending on time of year, same for 2300Z], I only use the noon value [2000Z]. It does not makes a significant difference, though.
I presume all that is at 2800 MHz?
The key to whether the Earth is warming or cooling lies in the reflective capacity of tiny particles of ice suspended in the atmosphere. So far as the tropical and subtropical latitudes are concerned the warming and cooling of the sea is particularly evident in those locations where outgoing long wave radiation is heaviest. These are the ‘apparently’ cloud free downdraft areas. Here the air warms by compression. Here the transmission between warming and cooling occurs on daily and monthly time scales.
And Leif’s re-iteration of my ideas is a classic illustration of the how a story gets changed in the retelling. Sadly, meaningful discussion is not possible.
Stephen, Bob Tisdale has been at pains to show that the long period oscillations in the ocean are simply a product of short term change that is so clearly seen in the tropics. I, on the other hand want to demonstrate how that changes at the equator are simply a somewhat muffled derivative of what is happening elsewhere. A pan of water will warm whether it is located centrally over a heat source or not. The Ocean can warm very effectively if the exchange of energy changes in such a way that its coolest parts become slightly warmer. The oceans circulate between a warm equator and a cold pole and it is frequently the temperature of the in-feed water on the eastern margins of the ocean that drives small changes in temperature at the equator.
The Pacific is just one of several theaters of activity. The temperature of the water in the ENSO 3.4 region is unrepresentative of the global tropics and the global tropics are in fact unrepresentative of the oceans as a whole.
The focus on ENSO 3.4 suits the warming brigade. It’s a red herring and a very effective one at that.
Invariant 13:54:43
Even more embarrassing for me our ‘similar figures’ from different analyses are of different objects of the analysis. Oh, well; my math was right anyway.
====================================
Stephen Wilde (12:24:26) : 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.
It is not an “either or” situation. It could be simple oscillation of physical systems (i.e. ocean currents) or it could be an artifact of broken thermometers ( http://www.surfacestations.org ) or it could be that the temperature calculation code is broken ( http://chiefio.wordpress.com ) or who knows what other possible drivers could be involved (cosmic rays, whatever).
The bottom line is that the temperature record in GIStemp is not consistent with either solar or CO2 since it has seasonal variations that they do not have while it also has a geographic distribution of the data that are not consistent with a “global” driver. So you must look elsewhere.
FWIW, I would still like to hold out hope that the solar system center of rotation changes might have some long term impact (i.e. Bond Events, Volcano cycles, etc.); but that can “at best” be rampant speculation at this point, and is not related to the AGW thesis nor the observed temperature record in GIStemp.
Some of us kicked around possible mechanisms of action here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
down in the comments, but could not reach any reasonable conclusions. There are some tenuous potential mechanism, but they hang by delicate threads, are obscure things (some involving relativistic effects) and are not subject to easy “armchair verification”…
At this point, I’m content to just watch the next 20 years unfold and see what really happens (presuming I last that long 😉
Leif Svalgaard (18:01:19) :
Richard (17:38:03) :
How then is this tied up with solar activity?
You are correct, it is not.
You have a severe case of tunnel vision Leif when it comes to solar – climate and it’s built around your misguided schooling and your inability to let go of preconceived notions.
What about the new research out trying to tie in the ENSO with the solar cycle which some have already known about. (But they did get some things wrong.) Or do you think they are grasping at straws ?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/ncfa-sus082509.php
Richard (15:56:19) :
Which is more meaningful? To me the “observed” flux is more meaningful if I try and correlate it with temperature, because that is the net effect felt here, at the time.
The radio flux itself has no effect [being extremely tiny energetically]. The flux is but a proxy for other solar activity, such as the Total Solar Irradiance, or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or such. now, I would actually agree that for all these measures one should use the ‘observed’ values. This is ordinarily NOT done, because people work with anomalies, that is deviations from [say] monthly means so that the annual variation of the distance is subtracted out.
I presume all that is at 2800 MHz?
yes.
Equatorial heat moves air (vertical).
Planetary rotation moves air (horizontal).
Wind moves oceanic surface water.
Water moves heat.
Coriolis effects modify all of the above.
Add in the haline driven circulation at depth.
Each variable exhibits a different temporal rate of change profile.
Nudge the entire ensomble, with apparent minute changes in TSR
That is the multivariate process attempting reach equilibrium in each of the four primary ocean basins.
In my humble opinion the jet changes are the most visible, though most volital peice of the processes. I suspect that velocity of the air and water movement profoundly affect the rate of transfer/dissipation of thermal energy to and from the atmosphere. With regard to the jets, location, location, location. It appears that global circulatory systems are slowing and if true, will affect cooling or warming of all componemts of the atmosphere.
At this point in the timeline, oceanic thermal energy is in dissipation mode.
It is difficult to conceive that minute differences in TSR can affect significant changes in the planetary atmospheric thermal budget yet it may well be. Human intervention into these vast natural systems doesn’t comport with the physics reported.
If I have inadvertantly purloined verbage from other commentors, I offer my apolgies.
J.D. Lindskog
erlhapp (16:23:21) :
I, on the other hand want to demonstrate how that changes at the equator are simply a somewhat muffled derivative of what is happening elsewhere.
[…]
the global tropics are in fact unrepresentative of the oceans as a whole.
To me, this is a contradiction, but your language is, as usual, so muddled that [as you point out] “meaningful discussion is not possible.”
Well the SOI (sitting around 0 for 30 & 90 days) is currently decoupled from an El Nino which according to SOI definitions isnt happening. Darwin is having low pressure systems pop up frequently. The models predicting an El Nino seem to be based on climate history from solar grand maximums as well as, as many have said the biggest effect on climate science seems to be Copenhagen – Id have to agree! This isnt about facts but policy.
Something has happened as Humbolt squid have made an appearance in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009859494_apwahumboldtsquid1stldwritethru.html?syndication=rss
Jim Hughes (17:18:41) :
You have a severe case of tunnel vision Leif when it comes to solar – climate and it’s built around your misguided schooling and your inability to let go of preconceived notions.
35 years ago, I did a lot of work on sun-weather relations, e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/4082/185
so you can lay off the schooling and preconceptions.
What about the new research out trying to tie in the ENSO with the solar cycle which some have already known about. (But they did get some things wrong.) Or do you think they are grasping at straws ?
They are trying to see if they can build a sun-climate relation into their models [which everybody here always badmouth when it comes to AGW]. This is different from actually showing observationally that such an effect exists [and as you point out, there are inaccuracies and mistakes in the work].
Invariant (10:33:52) ” http://i25.tinypic.com/fb97ph.jpg “
Interesting.
You might next toy around with inclusion of an ENSO term in your model.
“Leif Svalgaard(1452:36)
Stephen Wilde (12:24:26) :
I see that reply as confirming your doubt that solar variations drive global temperature changes on ANY timescale.
Leif Svalgaard:
No, just on the timescale where we have reasonably good proxies, e.g. that last 10,000 years. Clearly, on the timescale of billions of years [covered by your ANY], things must be different [yet, there are the Gaia crew…]
Stephen Wilde:
Human sourced CO2 cannot have been a serious issue until after WW2. even the IPCC accepts that.
Leif Svalgaard:
So what? The temps have varied in the past unconnected with CO2. Now, there must also be some small but unknown CO2 effect.
Stephen Wilde:
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:
The correlations are not all that good, and you make the standard rhetoric of asking what would happen if we turned off the Sun [‘no other energy source’]. You cannot imagine that even with constant external input, a system can oscillate. One can move the problem up one notch: what makes the Sun vary? it has no access to another energy source [discounting Jupiter shine]. What makes you so willingly accept that the Sun varies from internal oscillations while you seek quite strenuously to deny that the climate system could do the same.”
Stephen Wilde:
That’s a very helpful reply.
You will see from my many posts that I do place a lot of weight on various internal oscillations of the climate system, primarily within the oceans, and have likened the development of those oceanic oscillations to those generated by a tuning fork.
At the moment we have the interannual ENSO signal and the recently noted multidecadal phase shifts at 25 to 30 year intervals which in my view deal adequately with everything observed during the 20th century.
The next step is to deal with longer term background trends and there the only difference between us is the length of time at which internal climate oscillations give way to solar variations.
It may be that even on multicentury time scales there is another level of oceanic variability which we have not yet observed and if so then that defers the need for a solar influence to timescales of thousands of years which I think you would find just about acceptable (correct me if I’m wrong).
The historical correlations with solar variations may be ‘not all that good’ but if one takes into account the lagging effects of oceanic variability the correlation is persuasive and should not be dismissed. On balance I judge the correlation such as it is to be better than we would get if solar variability were as insignificant as you suggest. I support those who are trying to resolve that oddity by closer investigation of the solar/climate interaction.
On grounds of scale and the correct sequence of events as revealed by observation my opinion is that the sun and oceans are in full control and all that is needed is to tease out the entangled process at an appropriate timescale.
The whole question of climate variation is to get the sequence of events right and then deal with matters of scale. Any ideas that rely on changes in the air alone driving the system get both those aspects wrong from the start.
Perhaps Lief needs a larger net. The measurement of radiant energy of the sun would seem to me to be as effective as measuring the radiant energy of a large pot of water over a camp fire to discern the energy output of the pot. The radiant output would not change as long as the water lasts. Whether the pot simmers or boils, the radiant signature would stay nearly the same. The boiling pot would release a lot more energy then the simmering pot.
We know at this time that the solar wind is at a very low point, maybe the earth is encountering less energy as it transits the solar wind.
Finally as an old refrigeration man, I know that a very small change in input or output of energy into a vacuum sealed container, as the earth, can cause considerable changes in energy inside the container.
The animation is interesting:
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif
looks more like dissipation than build up.
p.g.sharrow (00:05:37)
With that analogy the extra energy loss when the pot boils is in the form of the latent heat of evaporation (which speeds up) and so is not discernible as part of the energy radiated.
To be fair to Leif I don’t see how the sun can take advantage of some other process similar to the evaporative process in order to get more energy to the Earth than is represented by the measurement of radiative energy.
Even the variations in the magnetic flux and the solar wind seem to be directly related to TSI.
The answer seems to be a fine balance within the Earth system with that balance swinging above and below the changes one would expect from the observed changes in TSI and of course I favour the oceans as the source of those irregularities with the air having to counter them to restore stability. The Earth system is apparently very sensitive to small changes in input and as a result of that sensitivity of response (always a fast and powerful negative response) it is very insensitive to anything that tries to disturb it’s internal equilibrium.
The air circulations always provide a fast negative feedback to the slow oceanic forcings arising within the Earth system. Otherwise we would see much bigger differences between incoming solar energy and outgoing radiative energy.
The issue to be resolved is the time scale at which the small solar variability takes over from the much larger internal Earth system variability. I see it in the historical record on century time scales but Leif and other solar scientists seem to be moving to longer and longer timescales as they further reduce their estimates of past solar variability.
As we more finely tune our solar knowledge there are two main issues:
Are the solar scientists being over enthusiastic in the extent to which they are applying what they do think they know to their guesses about past solar variability ?
Are there internal Earth system oscillations at longer timescales than we have yet been able to reliably observe ?
The answer must be a balance between those two parameters. Either way it’s a much bigger effect than anything CO2 can achieve as we have seen from the size of the pre industrial age changes in global climate.
AGW theory is firmly dependent on late 20th century warming being faster and bigger than anything the natural forcings can achieve and then they go on to extrapolate it indefinitely.
The past 12 years or so is good evidence that their extrapolations are unfounded and the past 2000 years shows that the natural forcings are far larger.
Additionally they have failed to show that changes in the air alone have any effect on ocean energy content the variable release of which is our most direct climate driver. Sceptics relying on changes in the air alone have the same problem.
well i dont really see a strenghtening here..
http://weather.ninemsn.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
http://weather.ninemsn.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi
Just to clarify one point.
The oceans provide either a negative or positive response to variations in solar input depending on whether the oceanic oscillations are in phase with the solar variations or not.
The air circulation systems combined with the speed of the hydrological cycle always provide a fast and very variable negative response to whatever the sun and oceans do to vary the speed of energy flow through the Earth system.
The same system in the air deals very effectively in neutralising changes that occur in the air alone so that changes in the air alone can never alter the equilibrium temperature set by sun and oceans at any given moment (and it is always changing).
p.g.sharrow “PG” (00:05:37) :
We know at this time that the solar wind is at a very low point, maybe the earth is encountering less energy as it transits the solar wind.
The energy in the solar wind is a million times smaller than that of solar radiation [TSI].
Stephen Wilde (00:00:12) :
if so then that defers the need for a solar influence to timescales of thousands of years
For the current debate about climate change, that timescale is not too relevant, and we don’t need to speculate on it. Perhaps we need ice cores from the Moon, Mars, or Europa to settle what is solar and what is not, but that is not for now, so let’s defer the speculations until we have some.
Leif Svaalgard (21:31:15)
35 years ago, I did a lot of work on sun-weather relations, e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/4082/185
so you can lay off the schooling and preconceptions.
And you obviously found no connection for the most part and I am basing this off of the manner in which you usually speak. So this tells me you are not an expert within this field and that you have looked in the wrong areas. And I am also going to assume that most of your research was done early on in your defense. So you were younger and the available atmosphere- oceanic data was much more limited. As was the space weather data. (Solar included in this term)
They are trying to see if they can build a sun-climate relation into their models [which everybody here always badmouth when it comes to AGW]. This is different from actually showing observationally that such an effect exists [and as you point out, there are inaccuracies and mistakes in the work].
The mistakes in their work are based about them broadbrushing the variables within the solar cycle. Which even you know are different from cycle to cycle. So they are not seeing the forest through the trees. And you can have El Nino’s at solar maximum because of this, like with Cycle 19 & 20.
Map of the 14th is out
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.9.14.2009.gif