Above: Sea Surface Temperature anomaly map from NOAA/NESDIS. Note the La Nina building in the Pacific.
By Dr. Roy Spencer
Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago.
The following plot, updated through July 29, 2010 shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific continue to be well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST, something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event (click on it for the large, undistorted version; note the global SST values have been multiplied by 10):
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was something of a dud. I wonder if we will see a repeat this year.
Scott in VA says: “Dr. Jeff Masters, an acolyte of AGW, asserted yesterday on his hurricane blog at WeatherUnderground.com that Atlantic sea surface temperatures are at a record high. Is this true? it sure doesn’t seem to be to me. Any clarification on this statement would be greatly appreciated.”
Still waiting for the July SST update from NOAA, but for June…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/07/june-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html
…North Atlantic SST anomalies are not at record levels:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2iln1ww.jpg
South Atlantic SST anomalies peaked in February at a new high:
http://i49.tinypic.com/zt97cn.jpg
However, that was after a 15 year period when South Atlantic SST anomalies were flat. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/200910-warming-of-south-atlantic.html
Also, keep in mind, the South Atlantic is the only ocean basin where heat is transported from high latitudes toward the equator. It then continues northward, so, in the wake of the El Nino and this additional warmth from the South Atlantic, tropical North Atlantic SST anomalies are also high, but I haven’t cranked out a graph of that.
The Great Lakes look really hot. My God, we’re all going to die!!! Pass Cap ‘n’ Tax before it’s too late!!!
David L. Hagen says: “The rate of decline for Nino 3.4 is particularly remarkable, at about 5 K/decade. This appears faster than all the declines since 2002.”
Just happened to have plotted the NINO3.4 SST anomaly transitions from El Nino to La Nina for 1988, 1998, 2007, and 2010.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-preliminary-sst-data-for-july-2010.html
This one’s not unusual yet.
Randall Hilton says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:36 am
Just curious — as the ocean temps drop might that also show up as a reduction in atmospheric CO2, assuming the cooler water sequesters more CO2?
______
There is no assuming.
A cooler ocean will always dissolve and therefore absorb more CO2 in the normal temperature range. There may be some tiny factors, like salinity, that could have an affect on the absorption rate though, either way.
If you are speaking of absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would depend on how much and fast the seas cool compared to rate being added. If you are speaking relatively and strictly on temperature, my very first statement stands.
Bob Tisdale says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:59 am
NINO3.4 SST anomalies are now well below -1 deg C.
__________________________________________________________
Bob,
In a guest post earlier this year, you discussed how unlikely a LaNina was (this year) following an El Nino Modoki, which the last one was. I am wondering if you have, or will be, preparing an update theorizing what is different this time, as it appears that a moderate or even a strong LaNina is virtually inevitable at this point.
How exactly is temperature correlated to the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere unless the the density of heat absorbing molecules are taken into consideration at same time and place? Desert temperatures over 100 degrees do not carry as much total heat energy as humid areas with a lower temperature, which contain multitudes more H2O molecules. Furthermore, the density of the latter can change within hours as cold fronts encounter warm humid areas. How can an accurate world heat energy be estimated with constant change?
Do these measurements do temperature or heat energy?
Geoff Sharp says: August 3, 2010 at 7:30 am
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/pdo.png
………………
Hi Geoff
Nice graphic. I am told that the cause for the Pacific oscillation is currently unknown.
One can speculate.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Philip Finck says: {incredulity on}“Hold it now! Let me get this straight. The first diagram of SST temp. anomalies….. the y-axis is multiplied by 10?”
You got it!! Just as it says on the graph: “Global Oceans (x10)”
“So the .5 degree is really .05 degree ……… is this clearly marked on the original graphic as it isn’t on this one?”
Yes, indeed. “Global Oceans (x10)” means the global anomaly has been multiplied by ten in order to more clearly show how the two parameter curves vary with each other.
“I’m not doubting you at all….. I’m just incredulous. Even if it is stated in text (metadata) it would never be allowed by our scientific editor yet alone our internal review yet alone an external review……. its bizarre!!!!!”{incredulity off}
The graph is quite clear and is obviously intended to allow easy comparison of the lag in peak temperatures and the relative slopes and paths of the normalized data.
“So the whole anomaly is really +/- .25 degrees! I could pee overboard on my fathers fishing boat and raise temperatures that much!”
If you wish to attempt to hide the decline in that manner, feel free to do so. I’d strongly suggest facing the lee side of the craft.
Does anyone have data on rate of Pacific or global sea level rise, i.e mm /y ? I would expect this to fall with decreasing SST and OHC down to a few hundred m depth.
Dr. Spencer,
What is the baseline period used for these SST anomalies? At http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/methodology/methodology.html , there’s a discussion of a baseline of “the time period of 1985-1993, with observations from the years 1991 and 1992 omitted”, but it isn’t clear to me that’s the baseline for the particular map and chart you’ve presented. Can you confirm or correct?
Thanks.
Philip Finck,
As I understand Dr. Spencer’s note, the temperatures shown in Figure 1 are not multiplied by 10. The spatial distribution of SST anomaly does range from -5 C to +5 C.
As to Figure 2, if you add up all the SST anomaly around the globe, you’ll get a number that is much closer to zero. To compare it visually with the NINO 3.4 index it is necessary to scale the global SST by a factor of 10.
Philip Finck says:
August 3, 2010 at 8:10 am
So the whole anomaly is really +/- .25 degrees! I could pee overboard on my fathers fishing boat and raise temperatures that much!
Where you live it would be an icicle before it hit the water!
Philip Finck says: “Hold it now!”
August 3, 2010 at 8:10 am
Graphs and charts are frequently plotted in a manner that illustrates a particular point. In this case the idea is to show how the “global” oceans that are massive and slow to change have a pattern-of-change often but not always similar to the Nino 3-4 region. With out the X10 factor this would be less clear. I commend the chartist for thinking of this and for making it clear, at least to me, what has been done. Others may not agree.
R. Gates says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:46 am
“…..we get that little extra boost in temps on top of the general upward trend in temps from AGW.”
Unless it becomes dark energy, or hidden heat.
Or just simply radiates into space, and is ….gone.
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
David L. Hagen says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:01 am
The rate of decline for Nino 3.4 is particularly remarkable, at about 5 K/decade. This appears faster than all the declines since 2002.
Will Alexander finds a strong correlation between the 22 year solar cycle and river flows in the Southern African region…..
Is there enough of a satellite record to check for a similar 22 year correlation?
__________________________________________________________
Yes the Nile river also shows a sun correlation:
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
“The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years. “
This is another interesting study: on Sun – Volcanoes and climate:
Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=57350009
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
Please help me!!!
1) Does GISS, etc. also adjust this raw temperature data??
2) SEA temperature are satellite based and accurate??
3) If the satellites are good for the SEA, why don’t we have accurate LAND based satellite measurements??
4) Why don’t we have “100,000s” of LAND based satellite temperature measurements??
5) Why do we need LAND and WATER based stations??
6) If LAND based measurements are so “inaccurate(need to be adjusted)”, why not just use “accurate” Satellite based SEA temperatures to measure AGW?? The planet is 70% water, we would at least be 70% accurate ;-).
WUWT???
_____________________________________________
Dr. Spencer explains the Satellite records on his blog. The home page is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
Please help me!!!
Oh, I forgot to say you can put Spencer in the search box on the upper right (WUWT) and get all sorts of good articles.
Philip Finck says:
August 3, 2010 at 8:10 am
Dr. Spencer;
Hold it now! Let me get this straight. The first diagram of SST temp. anomalies….. the y-axis is multiplied by 10?
_____________________________________________________________-
It is the SECOND picture -the graph, AMSR-E Sea Surface Temperature Variations. So the Y axis is actually [ -0.25 to +.30C]
And yes the CAGW crowd is jumping up and down screaming about tenths of a degree temperature changes. Changes based on data great great grand paw gathered from his cotton field or his son recorded from dumping a bucket over the side of a ship grabbing a sample of sea water and sticking a thermometer in it.
vukcevic says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:38 am
It is not an speculation. There are different levels of searching for causes: The shiest would only dare to say: “It’s the trade winds”…and so on.
Only the brave spirits will prevail!
Well I don’t know what sort of thermometers NOAA is using but they need to get some new ones.
Their SST map shows the entire Sea of Cortez as being somewhere between +0.5 and +1.5 deg C anomaly (I presume).
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the sea of Cortez is currently WAY BELOW its norm for July 29th; probably about 5 deg C cooler than normal; and I just made some measurments last week (yes in one region), and have other (also anecdotal) numbers from others who measured in an entirely different location; and if you remember ANOMALIES ARE GOOD FOR 1200 KM so between the two of us we have pegged the entire Sea of Cortez ANOMALY as being about -5 deg C. so NOAA is all wet.
wayne says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:20 am
Randall Hilton says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:36 am
Just curious — as the ocean temps drop might that also show up as a reduction in atmospheric CO2, assuming the cooler water sequesters more CO2?
________________________________________________________________
Do not expect to actually see the data showing this.
From Mauna Loa Obs.
“4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Check out this web site run by a couple of scientists. http://www.co2web.info/
This particular pdf looking at the dogma and politics behind the 70 years of CO2 measurement as well as the science. It is a very interesting read. http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
If you want the other side of the story so you can weigh both sides Willis discusses it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
It’s been said once ,its been said a thousand times. There is no experimental data that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exist,therefore Mann-made global warming is a hoax.
Now lets get some definitions on “climate and weather”
weather changes are not climate changes.
Definitions of the Climate Discussion
What is Climate?
Definition:A few thousand weather days end to end for a specific location.
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
GW says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:24 am
I remember the thread — where Bob went out on a limb, and predicted there wouldn’t be a La Nina this year. I took a coward’s bet, and said that while I wouldn’t bet on a La Nina, I wouldn’t bet against it, either. Looks like I won. But since I didn’t bet, I won nothing. 🙂
re: Bob Tisdale says: August 3, 2010 at 8:21 am
I love graphs like the jpg Bob included here – the old adage ‘a picture is worth a thousand words.’ The problem is that all too often with linked jpg graphs, as with this one, there is no attribution included. That makes the jpg graph alone virtually worthless for discussions with other folks, or for use as a link on comment sections, etc. It would REALLY help if folks included a graph title/footnote that contained the source of the graph.
Similar problem with the linked PDO chart – there we not only didn’t have source referenced, but no scale on the x axis either….