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.
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
Humbolt Squid are not unusual to be found that far north. they seem to follow a Nino
outbreak. Nasty and tasty at the same time…
I’m surprised that the AGW daemon wasn’t invoked in the article…
Ready with the Tartar Sauce!…
Jim Hughes (06:00:47) :
And you obviously found no connection for the most part
On the contrary, our early papers are credited with reviving the sun-weather/climate field back in the 1970s [when it was basically dead]. Unfortunately, with 30 years more data, the correlation breaks down [as often happens in this field], although Brian Tinsley is trying to keep it alive by asserting that aerosols from volcanoes are necessary in addition to the solar sector boundaries.
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)
The newer data have, unfortunately for the field, rather than bolstering the relationship showed it to be spurious. You see, with more data, the correlations have to be really good to survive, and they haven’t.
And you can have El Nino’s at solar maximum because of this, like with Cycle 19 & 20.</i?
You can have El Ninos any time: solar max, min, or in between.
Leif Svalgaard (07:47:39) :
Jim Hughes (06:00:47) :
And you obviously found no connection for the most part
On the contrary, our early papers are credited with reviving the sun-weather/climate field back in the 1970s [when it was basically dead]. Unfortunately, with 30 years more data, the correlation breaks down [as often happens in this field], although Brian Tinsley is trying to keep it alive by asserting that aerosols from volcanoes are necessary in addition to the solar sector boundaries.
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)
The newer data have, unfortunately for the field, rather than bolstering the relationship showed it to be spurious. You see, with more data, the correlations have to be really good to survive, and they haven’t.
And you can have El Nino’s at solar maximum because of this, like with Cycle 19 & 20.
You can have El Ninos any time: solar max, min, or in between.
As Warwick and others have pointed out the SOI is “near zero”. In fact, it is banging, rail-to-rail, like a disconnected Tach.
Significant cloudiness, inreased H20 vapor aloft(even Accuweather’s GW blog has had the equatorial satellite photos), means no heat entering or leaving. Despite the untimely El Nino SSTs this is a neutral regime.
Leif,
Do you currently subscribe to the view that all we need to explain observed climate variability is oscillations internal to the Earth system ?
If so, then would you think the oceans could be sufficient or do you favour a combination of elements ?
If a combination, then which aspects should we be looking at ?
Paul Vaughan (22:56:00): You might next toy around with inclusion of an ENSO term in your model.
Ideally a model would not need to include ENSO, as ENSO would be something that a good model should predict. There is always a danger in science to “add epicycles” which is a sign of bad science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycle#Slang_for_Bad_Science
Our climate is a transient boundary value problem of the same type as the heat equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation
With all the required transient initial and boundary conditions available it should in theory possible to calculate the climate accurately without any assumptions about ENSO, PDO and the other oscillations that are just a redistribution of heat within the ocean – atmosphere system.
Stephen Wilde (08:37:46) :
Do you currently subscribe to the view that all we need to explain observed climate variability is oscillations internal to the Earth system ?
No. But it could be like this [as it may be for the Sun as well]. We don’t know. My view is that we cannot tell at this point what it is, and that we therefore cannot [should not] say “it’s the Sun, stupid” or “it’s the Oceans, stupid” or whatever categorical statement one likes to make.
Leif Svalgaard (11:38:04) :No. But it could be like this [as it may be for the Sun as well]. We don’t know
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
I sincerely subscribe to your point of view. A couple of years ago I studied buoyancy forces in great detail and I was in contact with the best people on the subject. The lesson learned is indeed we do not know. In particular since chaotic buoyancy forces both dominate the oceans, the atmosphere and the interior of the sun, the prediction of the future climate seems nearly impossible. On the other hand, this situation is terribly interesting, and I suspect that human capabilities may outperform computers in predicting the future climate – buoyancy forces almost always leads to wildly diverging solutions in a numerical simulation.
Just for the record, I’ve found this PDF with a fairly complete listing of explosive volcanic eruptions from the past 500 years (not updated).
Major explosive volcanic eruptions over the past 500 years.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1992b.pdf
Erl Happ; You wrote, “The focus on ENSO 3.4 suits the warming brigade. It’s a red herring and a very effective one at that.”
Would you explain that for me? If it suits them, it’s because they misunderstand it, or misinterpret it, or misrepresent it. Obviously, they’re missing something.
Jim Hughes: You wrote, “But they did get some things wrong.”
I’ve got a copy of the paper, but haven’t read it yet. I’m curious. What did they get wrong?
Leif Svalgaard (11:38:04)
I think it’s legitimate to consider the direction that observations and simple logic are taking us.
The effect of solar variability is being pushed to longer timescales than some would like but it is still there as the provider of background trends on one timescale or another.
The recent observation of that 25 to 30 year oceanic phase change cannot be ignored either and as the solar effect is pushed back into longer timescales that oceanic effect becomes more and more influential.
The observation of latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems is highly significant because it happens in tune with and always follows the ocean phase changes and to a lesser extent the ENSO cycle.
One has to formulate a scenario that accommodates all those observations and yet complies with basic physics and a plethora of other climate phenomena.
That is what I have made an attempt to do and it is not simply a matter of ‘“it’s the Sun, stupid” or “it’s the Oceans, stupid” .
In fact my approach is what the climate professionals should have done at least two decades ago but they failed to respond to real world evidence preferring to rely on inadequate models and an ideological decision as to the effect of extra human sourced CO2.
There are certain key facts that cannot be denied:
1) All the energy in the system is originally from the sun (discounting geothermal for the moment)
2) The oceans redistribute that energy in time and space releasing it at variable rates to the air.
3) There is no other potential climate forcing agent anywhere near the size of sun and ocean variability and such other potential forcings as there are simply constitute single components of a plethora of such second and third order forcings that as often as not just cancel each other out.
4) The speed of the hydrological cycle clearly changes in response to ocean energy release variability as evidenced by those latitudinal shifts.
5) Air cannot heat oceans.Only the sun can do that.
6) The energy flow is one way from sun to sea to air to space.
7) The latitudinally oscillating air circulation systems provoked by those oceanic changes explain all observed regional climate changes.
Putting all that together with various other facts and observations the position must be that there is a natural mechanism that prevents changes in the air from changing the equilibrium temperature of the globe which is in fact set by sun and oceans together and not by the composition of the air.
Tyndall was right about the effect of more GHGs in the air but wrong about the effect on the equilibrium temperature. Instead of heating the oceans all that happens is that the rate of energy transfer from surface to space is increased to a miniscule extent compared to the natural swings induced by the oceans.
The more I debate this on these boards the clearer it is becoming and as yet I see no one in a position to contradict where observations and logic have led me.
Paul Vaughan (22:56:00) “You might next toy around with inclusion of an ENSO term in your model.”
Invariant (08:48:04) “Ideally a model would not need to include ENSO, as ENSO would be something that a good model should predict. […]”
I agree wholeheartedly.
Including the ENSO term would only be of intermediate value in sharpening your HMF B / temperature model communications & stats (but that’s not an issue if you have a climate-literate audience).
Re: Bob Tisdale (14:32:07)
Compare their model-maps with their observation-maps. It will be interesting to track their progress as time passes.
Stephen Wilde (14:40:27) :
I think it’s legitimate to consider the direction that observations and simple logic are taking us.
Observations and simple logic do not tell us that the Sun has any influence. An absolutely constant Sun would still provide the energy the climate system works with. You are claiming logic tells you that the climate system does not vary on its own, but that the Sun does. That does not follow from logic. Logic would only tell you that they both vary, one varies, the other varies, or none vary. Now, you can fervently believe that climate change is due to a varying Sun, that is another matter, and you are, of course, entitled to that belief. But we cannot [should not – although it happens every day] base policy on somebody’s belief.
If you claim that observations show that a varying Sun changes the climate, then you must be able to separate the various causes. How would you know that a variation at a certain time is due to cause A, B, C, or D? So, pick your best correlation, provide the data, and we can all analyse the correlation. Remember, it is the one who claims an effect, who has to show the effect.
Stephen Wilde (14:40:27) :
there is a natural mechanism that prevents changes in the air from changing the equilibrium temperature of the globe which is in fact set by sun and oceans together and not by the composition of the air.
I’m reasonably sure that if you changed the composition of the air to 100% Methane, that the temperature would change dramatically.
Well I have it right from the mouth of Sharon Noguchi; climate expert ordinaire at the San Jose Mercury News for Monday Septempber 14th (tax day -24 hrs).
“Could early storm herald El Nino year ? ” on Page B2.
So a “serious Alaskan storm” blew into the Bay Area last night; trust me it was a ho hum event in Sunnyvale down the Peninsula; but yes I did get some water droplets while out shopping around sunset.
Actually I had been watching cloud patterns change all weekend; first some scattered small cotton ball puffs with relatively crisp boundaries; then some wispy layers with edges that just petered out in streaks, some solid but still white layers, and mixtures of those depending on whether it was over the hills or above the valley. Eventually it got relatively solid and darker as the sun had to penetrate the clouds to get underneath.
The thing that dawned on me; and you Meteorologists can confirm or deny this; there is no GCM or climate or weather model that can predict the exact morphology or shapes of all those cloud types. OK some general categories of high school cloudology can be associated with noctilucent or cumulo-nimbus et al; but nobody can explain why each of those exact cloud structures I saw, came and went. Well presumable some moist air got down to dew point, and somethiong or somebody caused water droplets or ice crystals to form, and start scattering visible light so I could see it; but exactly why the edges just seem to fade out in streaks; or just flat stop dead as in a big old thunderhead; nobody can predict (IMHO).
Well I shouldn’t say nobody; because Gaia knows; she knows everything; we don’t.
Gaia also knows what the exact global surface mean temperature of planet earth is too. Yes there is one; but we can’t measure it.
I would define the earth surface as being the boundary between the gaseous atmosphere, and the non-atmosphere whatever that consists of, say +/- 1mm in radius. If I choose mathematically to use a spherical co-ordinate system for the earth, then reasonably my theta and phi angles are robust, but the r variable is a bit noisy and waves up and down with the waves and tides over the ocean; but also with the plants wafting in the breeze over land; not to mention the animals stooping down at an oasis or stream to drink. Well I can accept that; Gaia keeps track of all of that.
So I can define T(s,t) as being the Temperature measured at any instant of time at any location s defined in my spherical co-ordinate frame.
I can also define $$T(s,t) as being the summation over all planet earth s locations at all possible times t of all the data that Gaia measures; she has enough thermometers; but we don’t.
Then we can easily state with our mathematician tassle on the mortar board that the global mean surface temperature Tm = $$T(s,t) / $s . $t ; where s is summed over all of Gaia’s thermometers at every point on earth’s surface, and t is summed from t1 to t2 perhaps for a complete sun orbit, or any other long term climate interval we might be interested in.
So you see measuring the earth’s surface temperature is trivial; any 8th grade physics student could do it (in principle).
Now since we have the math hat on, we can observe that it matters not wheither I evaluate $$T(s,t) by integrating the time variable first or the spatial variable; we end up with the same result.
So for example, If GISStemp wants to do this, they can integrate over time first, at each owl box, and then report a single daily number, to sum up with all the other owl boxes, to eventually arrive at the globals mean for whatever time interval. Well of course they don’t have enough owl boxes by a long way; and even the satellite folks can’t see the whole pseudo static surface at the same time; but apart from that it oughta work; either way I do the integrations or summations; and the result should be good so long as I comply with the Nyquist criterion for both s and t variables.
Well of course GISStemp can’t do that but Gaia can, and does.
But hang on a minute; remember that we have the math tassle exposed on the mortar board; not the physics tassle; so let’s switch hats to get from the completely fictitious mathematics environment to the actual physical reality of Gaia’s habitat.
Now we have an immediate problem. If we observe Gaia in action, we see that she is acting in real time, and she is reacting at ANY instant to the spatial variations in T(s,t), and she is doing stuff in response to what she sees; like moving air around in response to temperature differntials from one point to another. OOoops !!
I didn’t allow for any of that in my definition of the global mean surface temperature; I did a purely mathematical operation on a large set of sampled data, without any regard to the fact that stuff happens as a result of the differences of those data numbers form place to place, and from time to time.
So to get to the bottom line; here is the problem. Mathematically we can compute the mean of T(s,t) doing the summation in any order, and GISStemp, Hadcrut, even RSS, and UAH cannot sample the whole field simultaneously, so they are driven to do some summation over t first, and then gather that up to sum over s to compute whatever it is that they compute.
And there’s the rub, because whatever they come up with is quite meaningless; since they don’t even consider (the climatologists) what to do with the result (in the way of “stuff”) untill they have completed the whole summation and actually done it in bass ackwards order from what Gaia does; and without doing anything at all in real time like Gaia does.
So please Peter Humbug; don’t come to me bragging about your climate models or GCMs or whatever it is you have on your Playstation; because one thing is for sure; they are NOT models of what Gaia does in real time; and she always gets the right answer; you never will, because whatever it is you are modeling, it certainly isn’t this planet or its climate.
George
To follow on from Stephen Wildes’ and Pamela Grays’ threads and add my questions are the Polar Vortex or other artic highs effected by solar cycles. I am intrigued by the lack of discussion in energy loss from the Earth as this would seem to be the crux of why the atmosphere cools or heats. Is stratospheric heating at the poles varied by the changes is UV insolation from solar max to min (sometimes of the order of a 400% change)? Does lack of stratospheric heating produce stable high pressue zone as we have seen across the artic this summer (Environment Canada has had most of the low pressure systems crossing the Canadian Arctic at above 1000mB this summer and the North has been characterised by a constant stream of high pressure systems). If these changes affect jet stream stability over Northern lattitudes, I can concieve that stable, cold and intensly dry arctic air allows heat to be radiated to space faster than the reverse situation so that the global climate is varying not so much by how much heat is entering the system but by how much heat is being distributed to the poles mainly by the oceans and lost. I can also conceive that if a positive phase of ocean currents is pumping more heat to the poles whilst at the same time stable southern jets streams and lack of stratospheric heating were to occur simultaneously (Winter 08/09?) the atmosphere cools dramatically and artic air breaks out periodically to deep freeze North America and Eurasia. So these short term solar changes will interact with medium period oceanic cycles sometimes positively or neagatively or marginally. Is anybody looking at these questions, can we see any trends that follow a solar signature? I hope not, I live in Canada. Heres to solar minimum.
Paul Vaughan: You wrote, “Compare their model-maps with their observation-maps.”
Thanks. There is little to no correlation between the observed SST and precipitation patterns (Fig 1 Cells A and B) and the coupled-model output (Figure 1 Cells G and H). It was a stretch to find the correlations they claim.
Leif Svalgaard (11:38:04) :
My view is that we cannot tell at this point what it is, and that we therefore cannot [should not] say “it’s the Sun, stupid” or “it’s the Oceans, stupid” or whatever categorical statement one likes to make.
By an extension of the same logic, one cannot [should not] say “it’s not the Sun, stupid” or “it’s not the Oceans, stupid” or whatever categorical statement one likes to make.
Leif Svalgaard (15:39:15)
Of course. 100% methane means no hydrological cycle.
My comment was about the world as it is not some fanciful invention designed to confuse.
Leif Svalgaard:
“Observations and simple logic do not tell us that the Sun has any influence.”
Of course they do. All the energy in the system comes originally from the sun.
Your summary of what I said is surprisingly adrift considering how clearly I put it.
Anyway you have previously accepted some solar variability and have accepted some climate effect. The only issues are , the size of the variability, the size of any climate response and the timescal on which the solar effect eventually overcomes any climate response whether it be hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years.
My opinion is that ANY solar variation will slowly alter the global equilibrium temperature over enough time via it’s effect on the oceans.
Nick Britnell (17:25:08)
” So these short term solar changes will interact with medium period oceanic cycles sometimes positively or negatively or marginally.”
Exactly. I’ve been saying that for 18 months.
As far as I know the climate establishment is not considering such matters and in particular is continuing to ignore the energy budget implications of the latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems that I keep banging on about.
Nick Britnell (17:25:08) “I am intrigued by the lack of discussion in energy loss from the Earth as this would seem to be the crux of why the atmosphere cools or heats.”
I share your interest in the role of Arctic highs. Thank you for your stimulating comments.
–
Re: Bob Tisdale (17:37:57)
Meehl seems to be a clever character (both scientifically and politically). I’ll be watching how he plays his hand with great interest.
I wonder if anyone here will have the answer to this question:
–
When was the last time Drake Passage (between Antarctica & S.America) froze over?
–