“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.
Bob Tisdale (17:41:17) :
“And I find it interesting that some people continue to believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases can have any effect on SST and Ocean Heat Content when Downward Longwave (infrared) Radiation can only warm the top few centimeters of the oceans while Downward Shortwave (visible light) Radiation warms the upper hundred or so meters.”
And I find it interesting that some people continue to believe that the Earth can remain at 288 K if only heated by the 169 W/m2 from the Sun, which alone would give 234 K.
This animation of SST anomalies is enlightening.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif
From http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
Smokey, jorgekafkazar, Invariant:
Regarding ARGO: There are no mentions of the use of ARGO data in any of the papers associated with SST datasets (OI,v2, ERSST.v3, HADISST, HADSST2, Kaplan). But they also do not say ARGO data are excluded. However, they are mentioned in Rayner et al (2009), “Evaluating climate variability and change from modern and historical SST observations.”
https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1662927-1-Rayneretal_OceanObs09_draft4.pdf
Rayner et al discuss the many methods used to measure SST in section 2.1. Then in section 3.1 they go onto to mention ARGO: “As previously discussed, SST observations are collected from many different in situ platforms, including surface observations from ships (both VOS and research vessels), moored and drifting buoys. In addition, measurements of the temperature of the ocean skin are made by a range of infrared and microwave satellite instruments, and near surface temperatures are obtained from oceanographic profiles. Near surface temperatures (within the first few metres) from profiles measured by mechanical and expendable bathythermographs (MBTs and XBTs), conductivity temperature-depth instruments (CTDs), Argo floats and gliders, are beginning to be augmented by higher vertical resolution SST measurements from a subset of Argo floats. This information on near surface temperature structure will allow us to better reconcile SST from in situ and satellite platforms. We note though, that while Argo is essential for studies of ocean heat content, understanding sea level changes and the vertical profile of the near-surface ocean, it could not be a substitute for other in situ SST measurements with its current, relatively low, sampling frequency. A combination of VOS, drifting buoys (with and without thermistor chains) and Argo floats is needed.”
In other words, because ARGO floats spend so little time on the surface, they provide little input to SST measurement.
the earths loss of heat after an el nino event should be measurable in temperature.
does anybody know the net cooling [deg] of an el nino ?
Bob, I appreciate that some months ago you drew my attention to Southern Ocean patterns. Have you ever noticed that 60°S – 90°S sea surface temperature (SST) appears related to SAOT?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SO20a.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SO1a.png
Context here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
anna v (02:41:29) :
Thanks for a more detailed look.
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 5 20:25),
I keep harping on the difference between energy, heat, watts/m^2, temperature and temperature anomalies.
A graph like the trenberth graph you linked to, is a distorted representation of what energy is doing, and it is energy that is the conserved quantity: i.e. the budget should add up like the budget of input output in money for a household or a business. All the other representations, heat, watts/m^2 and par excellence temperature and temperature anomalies half sources and sinks that destroy any realistic budgeting.
Heat is a form of energy, it is scalar, but it is not conserved because it can be changed into kinetic energy ( winds, sea currents, evaporation, precipitation, biological take ups which are really chemistry etc which maybe I do not remember).
So already when we are speaking of heat, we cannot make a “heat budget”.
When we go to radiation in watts/m^2, we leave the realm of scalars, which at least can be added and subtracted one dimensionally, and we enter the realm of vectors. Thus any “radiation budget” has a directionality also. It only makes sense to speak of a radiation budget at the top of the troposphere where the only ( dominant, gravity also transfers energy but the values are too low in this game) way energy can leave the planet is by radiation. At that imaginary sphere, one can identify the radiation per meter square with energy without double counting or missing chunks of energy.
On and near the surface of the planet where the atmosphere has enough mass and heat capacity adding and subtracting radiation is a fool’s game, in my physicist’s opinion, because radiation is not conserved. It is like trying to find the content of a reservoir with water when one does not know how many holes and how many inputs there are.
Energy near the surface and in the oceans and on the ground can take other forms than radiation: currents, precipitation, evaporation, winds, biological cycle, conduction, etc if I have forgotten something. All these are not vectors described perpendicular to the surface to be made equal to watts/m^2. There are enormous transfers of energy with storms and hurricanes and all the pressure systems that are tangential to the ground.
Now to go to the ocean surface: It is fractal, so its dimensions are variable but certainly larger than 2. The surface few microns, as George said, absorb all the infrared ( long wave radiation) and either reflect it or use it in evaporation . It is true that the waves will mix a bit from the surface heat, when there are no waves the heat in the sea is stratified, when there are waves it is more uniform. But the few microns of distance that the infrared can go in water still holds . It is only the fractal surface that will give off whatever long wave energy has not been taken up by evaporation.
Go to http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
and find the “near surface layer” ( at the bottom of the panel)
The variations through the year are less than 0.5C, in contrast to the higher channels. The sea is very stable because of its enormous heat capacity.
I do not want to start on back radiation, which I believe is double counting riders and horses.
Kadaka
I have no website
‘Major’ La Nina event confidently predicted to commence late boreal spring into summer and well beyond. A generally cooling of the entire Pacific, and much of the Atlantic – forecast by the usually quite accurate JAMSTEC.
Will be interesting to see how global temperatures respond to the worlds largest ocean cooling by several degrees, and cooling quite rapidly.
lgl (01:26:42) : You replied, “And I find it interesting that some people continue to believe that the Earth can remain at 288 K if only heated by the 169 W/m2 from the Sun, which alone would give 234 K.”
Please run through though your calculations for the oceans, which are the topic of this discussion.
Cam (06:16:31) : YOu wrote, “‘Major’ La Nina event confidently predicted to commence late boreal spring into summer and well beyond. A generally cooling of the entire Pacific, and much of the Atlantic – forecast by the usually quite accurate JAMSTEC.”
Do you have a link?
anna v (05:32:22) : That comment with a few illustrations, some elaborations here and there for those who are not-so-technical, would make a great post here at WUWT. Please consider it. (Unless you’ve already written it and it’s been posted here, and I’m embarrassing myself for missing it) That was a great comment.
jack morrow (06:06:34) :
Kadaka
I have no website
Heh. That’s okay, and thanks for reading my post.
For your case, just in case, I was thinking of a possible “exception” in my post. Such linking amounts to advertising a site, and some people may want to promote a site that’s not their own but they like, as with someone who works with sea ice numbers a lot and links to an info page they use and they want others to see.
With you, “google” at least is something on the internet, and maybe you were trying to link to them, for a good reason. For all I know, in your “day job” you could work for them, or perhaps you just own their stock!
anna v,
Just to correct and clarify something erroneous you said: “Heat is a form of energy, it is scalar, but it is not conserved because it can be changed into kinetic energy…”
Actually, no, heat is really a “symptom” or a perception of kinetic energy. That is, heat/temperature is merely a measure of the vibrational and translational kinetic energy of molecules (primarily vibrational for solids, since they have no molecular translational energy, and translational for gases, where that energy greatly dwarfs vibrational energy, and a mix of both for liquids, depending on the substance and its temperature).
As such, heat is also an asymmetric measure of kinetic energy, in that, depending on the substance involved, at the same temperature two substances my contain very different levels of energy. The best example is water, which has a very high specific heat because it is eligible for a large variety of vibrational, rotational and translational energies, as compared to, for instance, O2, which cannot vibrate and has only two meaningful rotational degrees of freedom. As such, for water vapor to achieve the same temperature as O2, it must absorb a lot more energy.
This is part of the reason that O2 is a good insulator (and so down filled coats are warm, because they contain large pockets of air that do not heat easily) while one feels the air temperature more readily on a humid day, because the water in the atmosphere contains so much energy in so many different forms, and has that many more ways of transferring the energy to your skin.
Note that this doesn’t make anything else you say right nor wrong, and I mostly agree with what you said. Overall, I think most scientists agree wholeheartedly, and it’s the focus of Trenberth’s work, that it’s the earth’s energy budget and the net change at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not individual temperature readings at any spot.
Trying to figure out the actual increase in the earth’s energy by looking as SSTs, or ice melt, or air temperatures, or anything, is like herding cats.
Re: Bob Tisdale (Apr 6 07:09),
Thanks Bob, I am fine with comments but would feel that a lot more work is necessary for a coherent full post. In addition it would not be fair not to use my full name in a post , and for personal reasons I would rather not.
The Northern Atlantic and Arctic Ocean are both way down on their highest points, so where does the heat come from for the Highest March Satellite temperatures?
Previously for Jan & Feb Dr Roy has said it came from the Oceans.
anna v (02:41:29) :
This animation of SST anomalies is enlightening.
Is that animation from past to present?
If so it looks like a lot of heat has gone somewhere.
Re: Sphaerica (Apr 6 08:27),
Actually, no, heat is really a “symptom” or a perception of kinetic energy. That is, heat/temperature is merely a measure of the vibrational and translational kinetic energy
That statistical mechanics exists, and the molecular structure of matter, and mass behavior can be described by it, does not make classical mechanics and thermodynamics wrong.
The first law of thermodynamics defines heat:
du=dq-dw, where u is the internal energy of the system, q the heat and w the work done.
The atmosphere and the earth are macroscopic systems and classical mechanics and thermodynamics are sufficient for macroscopic systems, unless there are coherent phenomena.
I believe that the idea of sitting on top of the troposphere and playing games with watts/m^2 is wrong.
Bob Tisdale (06:58:56) :
It includes the mixed layer of the oceans as well, several tens of meters down.
Even if you look at 0-2000 m down the avg temp is 5 deg C, and you can’t get anywhere close to that temp with the 169 W direct sunlight.
Re: A C Osborn (Apr 6 08:48),
If you watch the dates come up sequentially, every week from december . It makes a small breathing stop on the current data.
Do not confuse anomalies with heat.
The temperature animation is closer to heat through the T^4 connection,
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_loop.gif
but a lot more energy is released at the high tropical temperatures than at the poles.
Paul Vaughan (04:34:17) : You asked, “Have you ever noticed that 60°S – 90°S sea surface temperature (SST) appears related to SAOT?”
Comparison graph of Southern Ocean SST anomalies and Sato Mean Optical Thickness data for Southern Hemisphere follows. Interesting. Are you implying the oceans integrate the effects of volcanic eruptions over decadal periods, with the Southern Ocean acting as a hub?
http://i43.tinypic.com/2pr7ald.png
Also consider the possible impact of ENSO on the portion of the Southern Ocean south of the Pacific. Its variability is significantly different than the portions south of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans:
http://i41.tinypic.com/qsjwwp.jpg
The second graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/closer-look-at-ersstv3b-southern-ocean.html
And then there’s this from today’s AcuWeather: <];o)
Rouge Wave Warnings For Oil Rigs From New Buoys
Apr 6, 2010; 11:18 AM ET
A system of smart buoys has been developed to give a 10-hour warning to oil platforms before rogue waves strike.
Do rouge waves reflect more IR radiation? Are they warmer or cooler?
Sorry for the cheap shot.
Tom
anna v (05:32:22) :
“There are enormous transfers of energy with storms and hurricanes and all the pressure systems that are tangential to the ground.”
So what? The surface still radiates around 390 W/m2 and it only receives 170 W direct sunlight.
Re: lgl (Apr 6 09:42),
says who?
I call it prestidigitation with watts/m^2
R. Gates,
You said, “AGW will be a signal mixed in with all the other naturally occuring climate signals. ”
I totally agree. The main difference is that I believe it is a bit of noise that is insignificant compared to all other naturally occurring signals, and you believe it is a significant signal compared to the naturally occurring ones.