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.
The Southern Oscillation apparently has not heard the news.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
Positive readings correlate with La Nina, negative readings with El Nino. On Sept. 15, the running thirty day SOI was exactly 0, while the 90 day average has been weakly positive for a week
Leif Svalgaard (15:36:58) : 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.
Yes. Strictly speaking a constant Sun may still be able to increase the temperature here.
m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout
With both Qin and Qout constant T will still increase for any Qin > Qout. Here T is global temperature, Qin is heat added from the sun and Qout is heat dissipated. If Qin – Qout is positive but sufficiently small T may increase very slowly. Let us imagine that something else than the sun caused the little ice age – what is the main explanation to reject the theory that a small, but constant and positive Qin – Qout may be the main explanation for the heating from the little ice age?
Perhaps climate science could move forward quicker if it is stopped assuming that a single cause like the sun, ocean currents or CO2 are responsible for climate change and start to look at how multiple small nudges to the different climate mechanisms can alter the Earth’s energy balance over different time-scales.
Dynamic chotic systems like our climate only need multiple small changes to cause massively different observed outcomes. Seems like Edward Lorenz theory has been forgotten.
“”” Paul Vaughan (02:24:30) :
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? “””
Is that even possible Paul; well without major orbit change.
Unlike the Arctic Ocean Which is pretty much land locked, Antarctica is water locked, and there is nothing to stop the Atlantic Ccean and the Pacific Ocean from sloshing back and forth twice each day through that Drake Passage; which is pretty much whyice shelves aren’t too successful at hanging on to the sides of the Antarctic Peninsula which sticks up into the Drake Passage.
So freeze all the way across that passage, the entire coast line of Antarctica would have to build up frozen ice shelves.
Now the tip of South America is at about -55 degrees latitude, and there is more water between South America, and the South Pole, than there is land area between south America and the South Pole.
I know that is not a popular belief among those who believe the Arctic is mostly water (ice) and the Antarctic is mostly land; actually it is just the reverse. The Arctic is mostly land, while the Antarctic is mostly water (or ice).
So to ice over the Drake Passage, would require growing more sea ice shelves than there is ice area on Antarctica. It has to freeze all around the coast, or else the twice daily tides will simply sweep the sea ice off the coast, and break it all up as it heads north.
Well that’s my story, and I am sticking with it.
George
Tenuc (10::17)
Actually the real issue is how the potential for catastrophic changes that would remove our liquid oceans has been avoided since the sun was 30% weaker.
I nominate the hydrological cycle which has the ability to vary it’s speed and thus the rate of energy transfer from surface to space.
The power, speed and flexibility of that process has maintained liquid oceans despite a 30% increase in solar power and can shrug off the effect of human CO2 by such a miniscule adjustment that we could never measure it.
The observation which tells us the current speed of the hydrological cycle at any given moment is the average global latitudinal position of the main air circulation systems.
Note however that it is constantly changing in response to the current rate of energy release from the oceans (again, averaged globally).
No one is currently paying any attention to those two most crucial parameters.
In an earlier post I said the following:
“My opinion is that ANY solar variation will slowly alter the global equilibrium temperature over enough time via it’s effect on the oceans.”
I have now changed my position on this point thanks to a helpful post from Richard S. Courtney on another thread.
It appears that the Earth has retained liquid oceans since the sun was 30% weaker so there must be a mechanism that can preserve liquid oceans despite such a huge change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth.
Hence my reference to the speed of the hydrological cycle in my reply to Tenuc.
Invariant (08:32:19) “[…] what is the main explanation to reject the theory that a small, but constant and positive Qin – Qout may be the main explanation for the heating from the little ice age?”
Interesting question.
–
Invariant (08:32:19) “Let us imagine that something else than the sun caused the little ice age”
I applaud your efforts to raise awareness. So few in our current society make the effort to think conditionally. The mainstream education system has poisoned conventional thinking with excessive-linearity; the mainstream media has reinforced this almost-beyond hope. Most in our society wouldn’t recognize a paradox if it smashed them in the face with a baseball bat. (Hence other societies are overtaking us.)
There is such cultural insistence on dumbing everything down to:
a) “If A goes up, B goes up.”
b) “If A goes down, B goes down.”
…and at the mainstream extreme, it is:
c) “If A goes up, B goes down.”
d) “If A goes down, B goes up.”
There is nothing illogical about paradox – and yet we see it ridiculed day after day after tiresome day on these discussion boards by those who (perhaps inadvertently) advocate the preservation of intellectual-blindness.
With educational reform we might increase the future (decades out) pool of intellects in our society who might be capable of independently succeeding at challenging tasks such as the generation of an ENSO-table (that works like a tide-table).
The education system could be immersing our children & mature students in the challenges of (logical) paradox, rather than succumbing, in fear, to an inadequate preference for “soundbite logic”. (“If C goes up, we blow up.”)–[Imagine future security with this hopelessly-linear “logic” dominating the masses.]
Re: George E. Smith (11:20:30)
Thank you for your comments George, particularly the cautionary note about paradox (beliefs about what is beyond 55N&S [vs. 66N&S]). I encourage you to read up on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC); Bob Tisdale’s recent post on the Southern Ocean is a very good read. I welcome an answer to my question [Paul Vaughan (02:24:30)] from anyone who can provide it.
Paul Vaughan (12:25:15) : I applaud your efforts to raise awareness. So few in our current society make the effort to think conditionally.
Thanks for the nice comments Paul Vaughan! I wonder why Dr. Svalgaard has not commented the idea that a small, but constant and positive Qin – Qout may be the main reason for the heating from the little ice age. I am really uncertain whether this is a good idea. On the other hand, if it is a bad idea I would very much appreciate to know why.
Of all the threads on this site that I have followed ( I try to read all posts ) this one has exchanged the most intelligence. I would guess that this group could writ a useful climate model.
I would propose that the atmosphere should be primarily treated as an insulation factor. Oxygen and Nitrogen are steady state and water vapor is the primary changeable constituent that also works to transport energy from the ocean and land.
The “R” value better out then in. There is should now be enough satelite data from the earth and the sun to measure energy in and out. Even better the sun’s extended quiet spell after a maximum and hopefully a ramp up later should yield good data on it’s variabitie’s effect on the system..
Bob Tisdale (14:15:46) :
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.
Sorry Bob, missed this question because I have been away.
My Answer:
As I see it ENSO is a response to a change in insolation received at the surface of the Earth. That change can occur at any latitude and given the amount of cloud at the ITCZ is hardly likely to be confined to the zone of study between 5°N and 5°S. It is the high latitudes that show the most extreme short term variation in temperature and in the northern hemisphere in particular. The ocean temperature at the Equator and the ENSO 3.4 zone in particular responds to change of insolation at any latitude. This is so because the temperature of the waters of the in-feed zone is affected.
The amount of volatility (extent of change in the short term) that one observes in a temperature trace increases with latitude. The temperature trace at 5°N to 5°S has little volatility and poorly reflects the change in insolation occurring at higher latitudes.
I believe the big El Nino of 1997-8 had its origin in the sustained warming of waters in mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere from about 1995.
The ‘expert’ on ENSO is Trenberth. He is an ardent warmer and is in charge of quantifying the various greenhouse forcings for the US Government and the UN. I see no acknowledgment in Trenberth’s writing that ENSO is due to a change in the insolation received at the surface.
The simplistic ideas of ENSO being due to ocean- atmosphere energy redistribution effects are a barrier to improving our understanding of the sources of natural climate variation. People take refuge in mumbo jumbo. If energy is released into the atmosphere it is rapidly lost to space. There is no reason to expect that the surface, whether it be land or water, varies in the rate at which energy is released into the atmosphere. That idea is ‘unphysical’.
Leif Svalgaard (18:03:06) :
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,
I hope that the foregoing assists.
Speculation (with details omitted):
~1911-1942 the interannual-timescale geomagnetic aa index oscillation or something confounded with it largely hijacked the hydrologic cycle from ENSO in some regions that have a major influence on global dynamics.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GA_MapXL.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PPT_SOI.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PPTaa(IA).png
Something similar-in-some-regards but different-in-others started happening ~1970. (More comment at a later date…)
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumDJFMwinterNAO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ClimateRegimeChangePoints.PNG
We can’t generalize about how the solar cycle affects global temperature oscillations. We need to take into account global-scale flows. The hydrologic “fire-hose” isn’t always pointing over the same terrain during different ENSOs & solar cycles (since circulation patterns vary), so global temperature response can seem paradoxical if the qualitative modes of the phase relations of the lunar nodal cycle, solar system dynamics, and terrestrial polar motion are not taken into consideration.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Phase(2r..-Pr)MorletPiLin(3.5,9.5)Chandler.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Pr,JN4,r..,m4..png
See Yu.V. Barkin’s work on moving towards more realistic modeling of celestial shells.
I base the preceding speculation on deepening insights gleaned from weather/climate/geophysical records for the whole globe & selected regions. The insights would not necessarily be possible with global-scale integration alone.
The bright-streaks of time-integrated cross-correlations at lag=0 do not look very random here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CCPxXTR.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ccM4Py.png
For contrast, here is an example of what a time-integrated cross-correlation color-contour plot looks like when an important conditioning variable has been missed:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ccTMeanXTMax.png
Here’s a relationship of intermediate complexity:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CCLR1LPPT1.png
More details at a later date.
erl happ:
“There is no reason to expect that the surface, whether it be land or water, varies in the rate at which energy is released into the atmosphere. That idea is ‘unphysical’.”
Reply:
I can see the sense in saying that a variable rate of energy release is ‘unphysical’ in relation to a solid such as land.
However I don’t see it as being at all ‘unphysical’ in relation to a liquid such as water.
A body of liquid as great as an ocean has a good deal of movement within it. Furthermore light penetrates to varying depths before it is all converted to heat energy.
It must be the case that the oceans absorb or release energy to the air at variable rates depending upon movements within the body of the water.
That certainly seems to be what happens at the 25 to 30 years phase changes
and is probably what happens during ENSO changes.
I see this as a critical issue because the idea of variable oceanic energy release puts the oceans firmly in control of changes in the air rather than
our having to go to greatly convoluted lengths to explain how changes in the air alone can change the energy flow to or from the oceans.
If the source of variation is indeed the oceans so that the air is forced to then respond (as I propose) then any theory, either AGW or of a sceptical nature, that relies on changes in the air alone as a primary climate driver must fail.
erlhapp (09:25:19) [Sept. 13] “Finally, let me observe that within the period of record stratospheric temperatures increased strongly up till the late 70’s climate shift and declined till about 2003 and now seem to be increasing gently.”
Erl, an interesting question was asked in a recent thread, but I noticed no one answered it – maybe you can. The commenter was wondering aloud why global SST & tropospheric temperature are phased with NH while, in contrast, stratospheric temperature is phased with SH – such as:
http://i41.tinypic.com/29zxus7.jpg
[credit: Bob Tisdale]
My impression, from what I’ve read, is that a considerable portion of the deep-ocean bottom-water is phased with the SH.
I don’t want to speculate as to whether the commenter’s question was well-formulated, but I do find the contrasts interesting and I’m curious to know if you have any related notes to offer for the non-climatologists / non-oceanographers in the audience. Specifically, what would you say (perhaps to straighten out conceptualization) to someone who suggested the stratospheric & deep ocean patterns are extensions of the SH into the NH while the sea-surface & tropospheric patterns are extensions of the NH into the SH?
erlhapp (09:25:19) “[…] the flux in stratospheric ozone is due to the change in flow of oxides of nitrogen from the mesosphere where the concentration of these chemicals is dependent upon solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity.”
Question for anyone:
Is there consensus on this (across all groups) or is this disputed?
Request for Erl Happ:
Please double or even triple the size of the text on your graphs.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
Your work is interesting, but exceedingly tedious to read. Some of the text remains illegible even when heavily magnified. (The text is blurred due to image degradation (e.g. figure 9) – but more importantly, it should not be necessary to use heavy magnification to try to read figure-text.)
Thanks if you can go easier on eyes! I really do want to (with your help) be empowered to consider your graphs.
Stephen,
Re: “It must be the case that the oceans absorb or release energy to the air at variable rates depending upon movements within the body of the water.”
Warmest water will always be at the top because it is less dense and the energy transmission rate will vary with wind strength because of its effect on evaporation. Wind strength does not, as far as I know, vary on thirty year time scales.
The atmosphere can not function as a variable inhibitor of the loss of surface warmth.
“The atmosphere can not function as a variable inhibitor of the loss of surface warmth.”
Have you looked at the effects of the ITCZ cumulo-nimbi?
Paul Vaughan
Re: the locking of sea surface temperature with the stratosphere. Here, off the top of the head, are some of the factors I consider relevant.
Ozone levels are much greater in the northern stratosphere than the southern and this relates to more continuous vortex activity in the south.
It is now generally recognized (even the UN) that ozone levels over the poles relates to ‘dynamical factors’ determining the supply of nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere than the chemistry of ozone in the stratosphere including the supply of degradative compounds emanating from below.
The presence of a varying level of ozone is the factor that accounts for temperature change in the upper troposphere/stratosphere without change in irradiance levels. It is the northern vortex rather than the southern that turns on and off between summer and winter. The northern vortex waxes and wanes over the years and that factor gives rise to the phenomenon of the ‘Arctic Oscillation’ whereby the major area of downdraft over the Arctic varies in strength over decadal and longer time (perhaps 30 year) scales. It is also noticeable that SST varies more in the northern high latitudes than it does in southern high latitudes. There is a particularly strong variation in the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
Variation in the strength of the northern vortex affects ozone levels and hence upper atmosphere temperature and precipitant levels at all latitudes. Any variation in ozone levels in December to March in the height of southern summer has a strong impact on SST in the southern hemisphere. Irradiance levels peak at 10-20°S because the sun is closest to the Earth in early January.
The southern oceans are much larger than the northern. Though the flux in temperature may be inferior the bulk is much superior.
The thirty year cycle is much more obvious in the Northern Hemisphere than the southern. The Arctic was warmer in the forties than it is today.
The global atmosphere has about 3% less cloud in July than in January due to the effect of radiation from the land masses of the northern hemisphere.
Paul, Thanks for your comments on the graphs. I will take that on board. If WordPress allowed larger graphs I would be right into it. Perhaps someone might have some useful hints in that respect.
RE the flux in stratospheric ozone is due to the change in flow of oxides of nitrogen from the mesosphere where the concentration of these chemicals is dependent upon solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity.”
Google: “ozone, nitrogen oxide, mesosphere”.
Sandy (03:45:51) :
No, and I am willing to learn.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
=====================
There are so many potential mechanisms leading into multiple feedbacks for albedo and unfathomed turbulences of convection and thermodynamics. I’m particularly struck by the centrality in it all of the phase changes of H2O.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
======================
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/tropical-tropospheric-amplification-an-invitation-to-review-this-new-paper/#more-9005
I find this a very credible feedback mechanism.
Sandy (06:08:49) :
Kims comment seems apt.
Your feedback mechanism and the way it is related to ocean heat dissipation is obscure to me.
In relation to the post you referred to and the question of ‘Amplification’ there is a question to be asked and answered. When the temperature at the surface rises is it a response to a change in the temperature aloft? Alternatively, does the temperature aloft simply change in response to a change in the temperature of the surface? Is the temperature aloft and at the surface mutually dependent with complex influences working in both directions?
In the tropics the temperature at 200hPa changes by a factor or two or more in relation to the temperature at the surface. But if you look at the relationship in a different place the ratio is different. And the ratio changes over time. The moisture content of the upper atmosphere changes over time. Over the last thirty years it appears that the tropical upper troposphere has dried out whereas the moisture content of the stratosphere has increased. Under that circumstance a rise in the temperature of the upper troposphere will produce a smaller change of temperature at the surface because the cloud cover albedo response is smaller. In a moister stratosphere any change in ice cloud density for a given change in temperature should become slightly greater.
If the change in moisture content affects ozone concentration in the stratosphere then the temperature response in the stratosphere will be damped.
Not sure whether this is related to what you are talking about or not.
Much more important than the albedo of clouds is the evaporation caused by trade winds feeding the ITCZ cu-nims which is then pumped up into the stratosphere by the super-cells, where it then falls back to the ocean as cold rain. Thus while they don’t have the cooling effect of a hurricane, everyday, starting sooner or later, they start the process of ripping heat from the ocean and continue into the night. I’m not sure what you mean by higher level drying, it’ll be wet/icy in the cu-nims as we suspect the Airbus that went down found out.