“Hot” on the heels (ahem) of the March UAH global temperature anomaly, we have the likely primary driver of that number, a persistent El Nino in the Pacific. WUWT contributor Bob (you want graphs with that?) Tisdale explains. – Anthony
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
MONTHLY SST ANOMALY MAP
The map of Global OI.v2 SST anomalies for March 2010 downloaded from the NOMADS website is shown below. Note the pattern of warm SST anomalies over the Southern part of the North Atlantic and cool SST anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico. If the pattern persisted through the summer months (big IF), how would it impact the hurricane season?
http://i42.tinypic.com/rur969.png
March 2010 SST Anomalies Map (Global SST Anomaly = +0.301 deg C)
Note: I was advised via email that the NOAA corrected the February OI.v2 SST data. It represents an upward change of only ~0.005 deg C globally, but since it was a correction in areas with sea ice, I decided to check those as well. The February Arctic Ocean SST anomalies rose ~0.02 deg C and the Southern Ocean SST anomalies ~0.03 deg C with the corrections.
MONTHLY OVERVIEW
There was a minor rise (0.012 deg C) this month in Global SST anomalies. SST Anomalies in both the Southern and Northern Hemispheres rose approximately the same amount. El Nino conditions remain in the central tropical Pacific (Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomaly = +1.14 deg C and Weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomaly = +0.97 deg C), but SST anomalies there are dropping. Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies dropped 0.10 in March. The North Atlantic, Indian Ocean and the East Indian-West Pacific Ocean datasets all show significant rises this month. They are partly offset by the drops in the Pacific and South Atlantic.
http://i40.tinypic.com/4rav48.png
Global
Monthly Change = +0.012 deg C
############
http://i44.tinypic.com/24yvcrt.png
NINO3.4 SST Anomaly
Monthly Change = -0.104 deg C
EAST INDIAN-WEST PACIFIC
The SST anomalies in the East Indian and West Pacific continue their lagged rise in response to the El Nino. Will they also rise, noticeably, in response to the La Nina as they have in the past?
I’ve added this dataset in an attempt to draw attention to the upward step response. Using the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events as references, East Indian-West Pacific SST Anomalies peak about 7 to 9 months after the peak of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, so we shouldn’t expect any visible sign of a step change for almost 18 to 24 months. We’ll just have to watch and see.
http://i41.tinypic.com/wsabg2.png
East Indian-West Pacific (60S-65N, 80E-180)
Monthly Change = +0.084 deg C
Further information on the upward “step changes” that result from strong El Nino events, refer to my posts from a year ago Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1 and Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
And for the discussions of the processes that cause the rise, refer to More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND…During Major Traditional ENSO Events, Warm Water Is Redistributed Via Ocean Currents -AND- More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO – Part 3 – East Indian & West Pacific Oceans Can Warm In Response To Both El Nino & La Nina Events
NOTE ABOUT THE DATA
The MONTHLY graphs illustrate raw monthly OI.v2 SST anomaly data from November 1981 to March 2009.
MONTHLY INDIVIDUAL OCEAN AND HEMISPHERIC SST UPDATES
http://i42.tinypic.com/nn03rs.png
Northern Hemisphere
Monthly Change = +0.013 deg C
#####
http://i42.tinypic.com/2myrggz.png
Southern Hemisphere
Monthly Change = +0.011 deg C
#####
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mm6yw3.png
North Atlantic (0 to 75N, 78W to 10E)
Monthly Change = +0.120 deg C
#####
http://i41.tinypic.com/330679u.png
South Atlantic (0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)
Monthly Change = -0.007 deg C
Note: The 2009 upward shift in South Atlantic SST anomalies is becoming very obvious. I’ll have to work up a post about it. I have yet to see a paper that explains it.
#####
http://i42.tinypic.com/2eve0lk.png
North Pacific (0 to 65N, 100 to 270E, where 270E=90W)
Monthly Change = -0.058 Deg C
#####
http://i44.tinypic.com/2s180tw.png
South Pacific (0 to 60S, 145 to 290E, where 290E=70W)
Monthly Change = -0.033 deg C
#####
http://i40.tinypic.com/6i901z.png
Indian Ocean (30N to 60S, 20 to 145E)
Monthly Change = +0.082 deg C
#####
http://i40.tinypic.com/e002s4.png
Arctic Ocean (65 to 90N)
Monthly Change = -0.092 deg C
#####
http://i39.tinypic.com/dza246.png
Southern Ocean (60 to 90S)
Monthly Change = +0.120 deg C
WEEKLY NINO3.4 SST ANOMALIES
The weekly NINO3.4 SST anomaly data illustrate OI.v2 data centered on Wednesdays. The latest weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are +0.97 deg C. They’re working their way down.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2ll10ye.png
Weekly NINO3.4 (5S-5N, 170W-120W)
SOURCE
The Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OISST) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh
or
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fishead: In the context of climate, anything (temp data) from 1980 to 2010 means nothing. Fortunately it seems the skeptics show all data such as this incredible warming. Next year could be cooling who knows? The current incredible arctic ice increase as well means nothing, as the 2007 ice decrease (in climate terms). The warmistas will ALWAYS promote the ups and hide the downs LOL We don’t as you can see.
R. Gates (16:49:41) :
Nothing like a hot cup of Anomaly, isn’t there?
Remind me not to jump into high-anomaly Arctic water, for despite the color on the graph, it’s still hypothermia in short order.
Ascending descending
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/ascension-decending/#comment-4167
Well I’ll be. If it isn’t Mike Roddy. You and David Benson might want to visit Bob Tisdale’s site. Lots of interesting stuff there. It’s one of those stubborn areas, like modeling clouds, that we clearly do not understand enough yet.
R. Gates (16:49:41) :
“fortuately many dedicated scientists are studying this very thing as we speak…”
Right, dedicated scientists like Richard Lindzen for example:
Climate Change is simply Natural and disaster isn’t imminent!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-change-is-simply-natural-and.html
Could the subtle rise in atmospheric global temps be directly caused from the relatively warm oceans? (Since H20 is a majority greenhouse gas?) Next question is…what is causing the oceans to be so warm? Does that come from gas emissions, cloud cover, or something else…like the sun?
George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
“””
Seems to me that discrimination between the LWIR warming of a thin surface layer versus the tens to hundreds of metres penetration of the spectral irradiance peak solar energy, must be one of the most overlooked factors of some people who simply think in terms of “forcings”.
This is fasinating to me, especially considering the possible influence of decadal changes in insolation and cloud cover possibly due to long term trends in the sun.
El Nino isn’t the “problem” in March. SSTs have decreased significantly since January. The Atlantic is killing us…
The ocean’s are warming because I like to have very hot baths!
🙂
I wish these maps would list their base years that they use to compute the anomalies. The Unisys maps that I follow on a daily basis is quite different in a number of places.
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.
George E. Smith,
I think the question on Argo is interesting too – no conspiracy theories here or anything – but I think the floats report in to the satellites.
It could be that they may not report in daily (due to cloud cover, etc) and the information comes in asymetric.
I can’t say that for sure, just conjecture based on the little I think I recall reading on it.
oh yeah… and since they’re floats it could also be that to provide a daily plot they would have to map all the float temps to locations and that doing this every day vs. once a month would require too much effort.
According to your diagram of energy buget:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg
Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.
If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.
So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?
/harry
Bob, Anthony, All,
I put up a new page on “60 year” cycles, not to defend them, but rather to help folks who might not necessarily be handy at translating “talk” (some might say “fast-talk”) into calculations & curves:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm
NickB. (20:18:07) :
Argo buoys
http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/buoywaterfall.html
In order to measure temperature and salinity of the upper 2000m (over 6500ft) of the ocean, the Argo buoys are designed to be neutrally buoyant at the “parking depth” which is typically 2000m. The buoys drift along at this level for many days, recording data before an external bladder on the buoy causes it to slowly rise to the surface over a six-hour period. During the ascent, measurements are continuously taken. Once at the surface, satellites are used to determine the buoy’s position and to receive the data transmitted by the buoy. After that has been completed, the bladder deflates and the buoy sinks back down to its parking depth. The whole cycle typically takes 10 days.
R. Gates (16:49:41) :
And fortunately enough stations survived with records long enough to show the current warming as nothing to write home about.
Pipe dreams of the Arctic warming 165 years ago being a ‘trend’ led to dashed hopes and death in the barren wastes of ice.
PS on the argo page I referenced the waterfall video is interesting and worth a 24MByte look!
I’m a fairly ignorant fellow so may be that this comment amounts to nothing more than noise, but seems to me that long wave radiation can influence SSTs in two ways – through direct absorption of LWR by sea water and through oceanic absorption of CO2 that has already absorbed LWR. Wave action stands to churn surface water layers to some extent and mix that surface water with water from deeper levels. So it seems reasonable to me that incoming LWR heats more than just the top few cm of ocean surface.
Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
I actually laughed at myself when I realized the number of buoys that had been deployed and wondered what color they were and if they were the cause of the lack of concentration records.
Silly thought given the scale but did the buoys also record the temperature and speed of the Arctic currents or were they design to do only one thing?
Best,
John
mike roddy (16:01:38) : “The global temperature upward march is more consistent in the oceans. NOAA has established a .97F increase in the last century in global ocean surface temperatures. December 2009 saw the second warmest ocean temperatures recorded since 1880. ”
Yes, I agree with an earlier post that El Nino etc are an effect and not a cause.
Where does the cool go to hide when it gets hot?
What is the fundamental driver of SST variation and with what does its time curve correlate?
There’s not much point getting hot in the tube if all we are seeing with SST is mild mixing of bits of different temperature at different depths. That’s not global warming, that’s global mixing. Maybe the upward march is simply a sampling artefact or a bit of agenda making.
I’m getting more and more amused by the will o’ the wisp 1998 hot year. Now you see it, now you don’t. Anyone have a credible mechanism to propose for 1998? Maybe the 1998 anomaly is simply a sampling artefact or a bit of agenda making also.
To Dave (20:51:03) (http://none/) and Phil. (http://deleted/):
It’s late, I’m tired, I hope this sounds diplomatic enough.
The “Website” line when commenting is optional, if you don’t have a site you want to link to then you can just leave it blank. If you know that and are putting in those addresses anyway, personally I find that irritating as it is giving a false impression that you have a site linked to your name (based on your name visually showing there is something linked to it) which yields an impression that you are “greater than your name” as there are several posters here who link their names to their own sites that they have spent considerable time and effort to setting up and running. While you, however, have done none of that and have no such valid address to link to.
Please stop doing that.
PS:
jack morrow (18:15:46) (http://google/), you’re missing the dot-com to make it an official address.
David A (19:13:19) (http://davidalananderson@hotmail.com/), does linking that to your name make it easier for you to find the log-in screen for your Hotmail account? 🙂
mike roddy (16:01:38) : “December 2009 saw the second warmest ocean temperatures recorded since 1880. ”
Unfortunately, we have the usual problem of a change in data collection methods leading to a potential use of data splicing.
The ARGO network provides a consistent method for measuring one facet of oceanic energy content; i.e. temperature sampling at a range of depths, spread across the world’s oceans. Assuming calibration is standardised this gives an accurate reflection of the same measurement over time; albeit a smaller time-frame than would be desirable when investigating climactic shifts, oscillations and so forth.
In 1880 it was a case of bunging a bucket over the side, hauling it back in and sticking a thermometer into it.
Now, are you really going to claim that you can compare those temperature samples…
Cheers
Mark
Thanks for the update Bob, and the excellent charts. It will be interesting to see where things go after the current El Nino finally drops away.
The ‘hot-spot’ on the anomaly map between Greenland and Canada is curious?
Harry Lu,
Thanks for the Argo info and link – I’ll have to check the video tomorrow, just calling it a hunch that it wouldn’t work so well from my mobile 🙂
Regarding ocean heating, I’m not too familiar with the subject but in complex situations like this sometimes it helps to seperate the mechanisms and behaviors to more manageable chunks – which in this case might look something like this:
1.) Ocean heating from the sun – primarily through visible spectrum which can penetrate very well and transmits energy through the first few hundreds of feet
2.) Ocean heating from atmosphere through radiation – appears to be quickly exhausted at the boundary layer (first few cm if even that)
3.) Transmission of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere – conduction and radiation (i.e. temperature), and evaporative effect (humidity) – facilitated by waves through increased surface area
4.) Transmission of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean by conduction – also facilitated by waves
5.) Transmission of heat inside the ocean – this is really, for me at least, the least understood. In general terms, because of convection, it would be expected that the ocean would be like a pond or lake in that it cools much more easily than it warms. Heating from the top down is very innefficient. With any type of wave activity at the top layer (which is the rule, not the exception) this would be expected to help facilitate the mixing and transmission of heat from conduction and atmospheric radiation (assuming it only affects the top layer). That said, the internal workings of the ocean seem to be very complex with circulations, currents and salinity levels playing a very big role.
There may be some confusion/debate on item 2 (i.e. how far can this radiation really penetrate, and what does that mean). Because of convection inside the water (which tends to hold heat at the top) it is an important question to get cleared up IMO.
In regards to 5, I can’t seem to tell if this has not been well studied, if there are contradictory theories, or if there is someone who really understands this stuff but it just hasn’t been made accessible on layman’s terms. Ocean currents and circulations are amazingly powerful, but what they do in regards to the levels in play for 1, 2 and 4 I can’t even begin to say.