New NASA satellite data indicate the current La Niña event in the eastern Pacific has remained strong during November and December 2010.
A new Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean that averaged 10 days of data was just released from NASA. The image, centered on Dec. 26, 2010, was created at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.
“The solid record of La Niña strength only goes back about 50 years and this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this time period,” said Climatologist Bill Patzert of JPL. “It is already impacting weather and climate all around the planet.”
“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña’s effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year.”
The new image depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is near-normal, higher (warmer) than normal and lower (cooler) than normal. The cooler-than normal pool of water that stretches from the eastern to the central Pacific Ocean is a hallmark of a La Niña event.
Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate. Only from space can we observe our vast ocean on a global scale and monitor critical changes in ocean currents and heat storage. Continuous data from satellites like OSTM/Jason-2 help us understand and foresee the effects of ocean changes on our climate and on climate events such as La Niña and El Niño.
The latest report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) noted that “A moderate-to-strong La Niña continued during December 2010 as reflected by well below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean.” The CPC report said that La Niña is expected to continue well into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2011.
Read the latest ENSO forecast here (PDF)
I like to try to stay one step ahead of Alarmists by inventing cooling-is-caused-by-warming theories before they can. I was a bit annoyed I didn’t come up with the delayed-freezing-in-Hudson-Bay-is-causing-Europe’s-cold before they did. However I did come up with a La-Nina’s-are-caused-by-warming theory, and have always been surprised no Alarmist has ever drempt it up (and used it with a voice of severe authority in a newscast.)
I suppose the problem with my audacious theory is that it cuts both ways; it would also mean El Nino’s were caused by cooling. In other words, recent warming may have occurred because the ENSO was jarred by cooling. I postulate it may actually be cooling which sets off oversized El Ninos, with their world-wide warming.
I don’t like cold, and the idea of the recent El Nino being a sign of cooling makes me uneasy, and therefore I would like someone to shoot my audacious theory down in flames.
I know cooling-causing-warming sounds backwards, but I keep reading that a delayed reaction to big, tropical volcanic eruptions is an El Nino. In other words, the initial cooling of ash in the atmosphere, after a lag, triggers a warming El Nino.
Of course, there hasn’t been that sort of eruption recently. So why am I uneasy? I guess it is because there HAS been a quiet sun. Perhaps a quiet sun has the same effect as ash in the atmosphere: A cooling that, after a lag-time, triggers an El Nino.
In case you wonder how cooling can trigger a warm El Nino, consider how much energy is used up hauling cold water from the depths, in a La Nina. Imagine you had to pay the electric bill to pump all that heavy, dense, cold water up, and spread it out over the top of the Pacific. Then imagine something pulled the plug on all your pumps. You wouldn’t have to pay that energy bill any more, and the ocean would warm.
I theorize that in essence a La Nina is an air-conditioner. More energy is used running that tropical air-conditioner than in shutting it off. More energy is involved in a La Nina than an El Nino. Cut off the “power,” (whether it be with volcanic ash or a quiet sun, ) and the tropical ocean isn’t “air-conditioned,” and warms.
OK. I have expressed my audacious idea. Now give me a few moments to put on a helmet and get into my bomb shelter, before you respond.
The problem with this debate is the quality of data. Generally, the required data is either not available or there are reasons to suspect that the quality of data is poor so that it is difficult to make trustworthy extrapolations.
In my post of 15th Jan 09:00 hrs when I made the comment is parenthesis that the oceans do not apear to be warming, I had in mind the ARGO data. I accpet that that data is open to question in that it is over a very short span and that temperatures to the entire depths of the ocean are not recorded.
The sea level data is also questionable (on a number of grounds) but even if correct, it is not clear precisely what is being measured given plate techtonics. For example Southern England is rising whereas Scotland is falling. As the earth has come out of the ice age, some of the land which was covered by glaciers that have since receded is still moving upwards as a result of the reduction in weight. I have never seen a proper calculation of displacement caused by land mass/plate movements. Sea water levels are also displaced in other ways such as rock/soil erosion (I haven’t checked but believe that the delta area in Bangladesh has grown significantly in area), new atols (admittedly miniscule) and water is being added by ice melts.
If anyone considers that sea level rise is due to CO2, I would like to see their calculation as to the amount of energy required given the volume of the ocean to raise sea levels by say 2mm and compare that to the energy that they claim CO2 imparts to the ocean by back radiation.
Materially, during the last 150 years, the rate of sea level rise has remained fairly constant and there is eveidence to suggest that the rate of rise has been slowing for the past 30 or so years. If the rate of rise since 1940 has either not altered or more significantly has even slowed, it demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere is not actually warming the oceans (to any measurable extent). It has not added one measurable iota to the rate of change that was occuring between 1850 to 1940 due to natural variation.
When in my post, I suggested that only solar (or geothermal) energy could (effectively) heat the oceans, I had in mind not simply the total energy being emitted by the sun (in whatever forms that energy may take) but also how much of that energy is received by the earth (ie., I include changes in albedo due to cloud changes and also changes in the transparency of the atmoshere due to reduction in aerosols and any effect that changes in the magnetic field may have).
PS. I am not sure that the hand in a swimming pool is a good analogy. A better an analogy would be if you were to place your hand fractions of a mm above the water would this effectively heat the swimming pool?
R.Gates,
while the La Nina-related flooding has sadly in this instance caused tragedy and damage for humans in the short term in Australia, it is part of the cycles that make up for hardships caused by El Nino droughts. I sincerely hope we are heading for another period similar to what took place between the 1940s to late 1970s. It is essential for recharging the water tables that supply watercourses and underground supplies… supplies that have become depleted in the last 30 years. Instead of sparse ground cover, leading to more topsoil loss and dirty flows, we will have better ground cover and cleaner flows that will end up removing decades of accumulated silt from rivers and streams. While at times it causes pain for humans, the improved conditions only benefit them in the long term through improving the “health” of the country.
I’ve downloaded ENSO weekly data from http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards. I got the same graph as Bob Tisdale at http://i51.tinypic.com/2ivn3n8.jpg I’ve noticed a 12-year cycle. Let’s start from late 1994 to get past the effects of the Pinatubo explosion…
peak late 1994
peak late 2006 – check
minimum late 1995 / early 1996
minimum late 2007 / early 2008 – check
minor peak mid 1996
minor peak mid 2008 – check
minor minimum late 1996 / early 1997
minor minimum late 2008 / early 2009 – check
peak late 1997
peak late 2009 – check
minimum late 1998 / early 1999
It looks like a minimum in late 2010 / early 2011
So much for “predicting the past”; predicting the future provides more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn’t go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4 shouldn’t go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013. That’s my prediction for what it’s worth.
It is apparently measured by satellite these days so wouldn’t be influenced by changes in ground movement.
@- crosspatch says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm
If the argo buoys suggest a decreasing heat content and sea level measurements indicate an increasing level, one may well question the argo buoy data. OTOH one may also question the sea level measurements.
It doesn’t look to me like there has been any sea level rise since late 2005: -LINK-
———
The ARGO system is new, has known error problems and covers a very short time. It is also uncorroborated by any independent source of measurement of the OHC.
Sea level rise is derived from two independent sources – at least since satellite measurement began.
The link you provided was to the satellite record that included a large amount of short-term variation from seasonal temperature changes and air pressure changes. It is possible to exclude these effects and the CU does that here :-
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
Sam Glasser says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed.
———
But since the oceans are being heated both by the sun directly and by IR radiation from the atmosphere and not by conduction from the air it appears your understanding of the process is poor.
rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am
….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm
——–
The primary driver for these weather events is la Nina, but exactly how much worse they are due to AGW is hard to fathom at this stage.
I am waiting for some decent state-wide rainfall figures to pop up so some proper historical comparisons can be done. Also the rain may not be finished yet.
Pamela Gray says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:44 am
Right on Pamela. All over the world you see people building and farming on flood plains.
Why are they called flood plains for Heavens sake? And then they bitch and say
“Give us money.” And other stoopid people do give them money. You can’t win!
Walter Dnes says: “I’ve downloaded ENSO weekly data from http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards. I got the same graph as Bob Tisdale at http://i51.tinypic.com/2ivn3n8.jpg I’ve noticed a 12-year cycle.”
What appears to be agreement between ENSO and the Solar Cycles looks better when one uses NINO3.4 SST (not anomalies). But the apparent relationship falls apart when one goes back further in time.
Izen
The Argo data set may be short in duration and have some problems but it is still the best data we have and suggests no increase in OHC since 2003. WHy did you claim that OHC is increasing? Can you refer me to a contradictory reliable data set? If so please provide a link, I am genuinely interested. Sea level is a proxy for heat content and we know how unreliable proxy measurements can be!
Was this claim based on the continuing slow rise in sea level which apparently started hundreds of years before AGW and hence cannot be used to support the AGW hypothesis? Again, providing data that suggests the rate of change is increasing would be helpful.
The Argo floats do not drop down to the deepest parts of the ocean but the top layer is where we would expect to see increases since the mass and thermal transfer to the Abyss is so low. Presumably that is why they were designed to only sink to 2000m in the first place. Are you suggesting that the top water OHC is going down only because cold water is circulating upwards from the deep?
In my opinion OHC is the critical parameter in attempting to prove that the planet is warming. If you could demonstrate that OHC is increasing you would have strong support for the AGW meme.
LazyTeenager says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Sam Glasser says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed.
———
But since the oceans are being heated both by the sun directly and by IR radiation from the atmosphere and not by conduction from the air it appears your understanding of the process is poor.
Hi Lazy, What is the ocean residence time of any LWIR energy which manages to enter the oceans instead of being converted to latent heat, verses the residence time of SWR entering the oceans, and how much does this residence time differnce in energy spectrum affect the ability of a flux change in energy to accumalate over time?
crosspatch says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The sea level data is also questionable (on a number of grounds) but even if correct, it is not clear precisely what is being measured given plate techtonics.
It is apparently measured by satellite these days so wouldn’t be influenced by changes in ground movement.
Crosspatch, this raises a curious question. the earth surface is slowly changing everywhere. I would think these changes average out with very minor exceptions. Is the mean altitude of all land , and or all ocean floor known, and is it changing?
edbhoy says:
Sea level is a proxy for heat content and we know how unreliable proxy measurements can be!
Mercury in thermometers is a proxy measurement, seems quite reliable to me…..and virtually everyone else…..unless you disagree?
Audacious Idea #2
The excellent observations of Bob Tisdale and others has increased our understanding of what goes into El Ninos and La Ninas. I think these observations will eventually make people aware things simply are not adding up, and that a missing component is involved.
A La Nina in some ways is a chicken-or-the-egg dynamic, for La Ninas influence trade winds, and trade winds influence La Ninas. Which comes first?
Another way to look at it is that trade winds cause upwelling off the coast of Peru, but the upwelling also causes the trade winds. At certain times there is more upwelling than should occur, if we measure the effect of the trade winds alone. This suggests a missing component, and my audacious idea begins by suggesting the missing component involves the thermohaline circulation actually speeding up, like the rate of flow through a hose when the spigot is turned up. Something other than trade winds is causing the upwelling.
At this point I look back to the origins of thermohaline circulation, which is the formation of ice at the poles. We have heard much about how melting ice creates fresh water which “floats” atop the salt water, and reduces the thermohaline flow, however the formation of ice increases the salinity of adjacent water, and must increase the flow. In other words the flow isn’t even, but occurs in pulses, as ice forms. Water is injected into the thermohaline flow off Greenland, (and likely also off Antarctica,) in a pulse, as ice increases in the autumn and early winter. How does this pulse translate downstream?
Thermohaline circulation is often discounted because the flow itself is very slow, and it takes centuries for the actual water to move from place to place. However water, unlike air, cannot be compressed, and the moment water is injected into the thermohaline flow a reflection of that compression must occur elsewhere.
In a sense it is like squeezing the bottom of a toothpaste tube. Much of the pressure will push out the dents at the side of the tube, but a small amount of the pneumatic pressure will force toothpaste out the opening of the tube. The sides of the tube, in this analogy, represent the thermocline, which likely is deformed by the injection of an abrupt pulse of water into the thermohaline flow. Perhaps waves form in the thermocline. However the opening of the toothpaste tube, in this analogy, represents the upwelling off the coast of Peru.
Pneumatics means that the moment you press your brake pedal, the brakes grab in a far part of your car. In the same manner, the moment water is injected into the thermohaline flow, the rate of upwelling changes in far parts of the globe.
It is an outrageous, audacious idea, I admit. So I now will return to my bomb shelter and await replies.
This one’s a keeper for me.
Thanks
Just The Facts says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
#comment-574922
“Mercury in thermometers is a proxy measurement”
No, its relation, via thermal expansion, is direct.
Take a few, slow breaths.
Caleb says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:46 am
WUWT regular M.Vukcevic has found the cause behind the effects we see in La Niña/El Niño:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC19.htm
The Nino 3.4 Index or Klaus Wolters MEI aren’t breaking any records in this La Nina event.
A comment above about the high differential between sea surface temperatures in the Nino regions in the Central Pacific versus the Pacific Warm Pool north of Australia are something to take note of but this is common when a La Nina follows an El Nino.
The Pacific Trade Winds, however, were the highest on record in December (going back to 1979) and Outgoing Longwave Radiation in the equatorial Pacific were the highest on record (going back to 1974).
What is also unusual about the past month is that temperatures are falling at the fastest rate we will see in this event. Water Vapour is falling at its fastest rate that we will see in this event. These high rates will continue for a few months yet. There is falling temperatures and then there is the rate at which those temperatures are falling and that is peaking now.
The atmosphere is cooling at a fast rate and it is dumping water vapour at a fast rate (hence all the snow and rain in the areas usually affected by this scenario – a strong La Nina following El Nino. For most places on the planet, there is not much difference – it is just the specific areas which are the most affected by the scenario).
This has been seen before in this scenario so it is not unusual. Its just that this scenario only happens two or three times in a decade and it only lasts for several months at a time in those rare periods.
And then, the impact patterns can shift several hundred kilometres from scenario to scenario. Twice or three times a decade, Australia really gets dumped on for a few months. But it is only every second decade that Brisbane gets hit this hard. The other times it is Darwin or Cairns or some less inhabited region. Hope that all makes sense to you.
gary gulrud says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:55 am
“Mercury in thermometers is a proxy measurement”
No, its relation, via thermal expansion, is direct.
Take a few, slow breaths.
Your rather unfortunate attitude aside, with a mercury thermometer you are not measuring temperature directly but observing the expansion of the metal and comparing the expansion to previous results….a proxy. The same is true of sea level rise and ocean temperatures….levels go up would suggest that ocean temperatures have increased. This is of course the original point which in your attempted snideness probably missed.
I just hate it when nature is meddling in our climate.
Caleb says: January 16, 2011 at 4:46 am
“At this point I look back to the origins of thermohaline circulation, which is the formation of ice at the poles. We have heard much about how melting ice creates fresh water which “floats” atop the salt water, and reduces the thermohaline flow, however the formation of ice increases the salinity of adjacent water, and must increase the flow. In other words the flow isn’t even, but occurs in pulses, as ice forms. Water is injected into the thermohaline flow off Greenland, (and likely also off Antarctica,) in a pulse, as ice increases in the autumn and early winter. How does this pulse translate downstream?”
This is an interesting line of thought. NASA’s Ocean Motion page offers some good insights;
http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
as does this page;
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html
this page;
http://www.womenoceanographers.org/Default.aspx?pid=28EF75D5-D130-46c0-947E-5CCBC627B0EE&id=AmyBower
and on this page;
http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/toprak/ani4083.html
these visualizations were helpful;
http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/toprak/den41.gif
http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/toprak/den40.gif
http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/toprak/den39.gif
This map shows where cold ocean water is sinking;
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/&/bbc12/gulf_stream.gif
this one shows where heat is released to the atmosphere
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
and this animation is helpful in visualizing the process:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewVideo.do?fileid=46592&id=32693
In addition to temperature and salinity Earth’s rotation comes into play, especially around Antarctica;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg
which is also called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
and is “the largest ocean current.” “at approximately 125 Sverdrups”. Given that “The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1 sverdrup.”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdrup
this circulation is of an amazing scale. Also Figure 2 about two third down this page;
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Currents.html
offers another perspective. And this page offers technical insights on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter13/chapter13_04.htm
These maps seem to indicate an interesting circulation at the North Pole as well:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg
“my audacious idea begins by suggesting the missing component involves the thermohaline circulation actually speeding up, like the rate of flow through a hose when the spigot is turned up.”
An interesting hypothesis, but do you have any data to back it up? According to this reference “The comparison suggests that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has slowed by about 30 per cent between 1957 and 2004.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04385.html
In this presentation on the Atlantic Meridinol overturning circulation, the chart Slide 4 seems to indicate a slight slowdown, but the alignment between data sets appears awful and the resultant divergent predictions laughable:
http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/meetings/oopc-9/presentations/monAM/Bryden_rapid4oopc.pdf
On the other hand, this article from November 29th, 2008 in Nature, is titled, “North Atlantic cold-water sink returns to life – Convective mixing resumes after a decade due to massive loss of Arctic ice.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081129/full/news.2008.1262.html
The claim that it resumed “after a decade due to massive loss of Arctic ice.” seems dubious considering that there does not appear to have been a “massive loss of Arctic Ice”;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
but this article from January 9, 2009;
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
also asserts that “One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.
The “pump” in question is in the western North Atlantic Ocean, where pools of cold, dense water form in winter and sink beneath less-dense warmer waters. The sinking water feeds into the lower limb of a global system of currents often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor (View animation (Quicktime)). To replace the down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.”
Do you have any additional data that suggests an acceleration in the Thermohaline Circulation?
Thanks ‘Just the Facts’ for the extensive list of links, WUWT at its best.
“levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century”
Why do people persist with this incredibly poor way of describing probabilities? It’s rubbish on almost all accounts.
1) We don’t have anywhere near enough data to do odds on “one in a century” events. We’d need millenia before we could do that accurately. Certainly our less than 200 years of data won’t start to be enough to even give a rough guide. They’re probably doing some extrapolations based on a normal variation (in the technical use of “normal”), when climate is notoriously not normal at the extremes.
2) The events aren’t independent. So a “one in a century” event is likely to be followed by another as the underlying causal conditions are still similar. You can’t do individual probabilities with dependent events – it’s the first thing you are taught in high school statistics.
3) “One in a century” where? Queensland? Australia? Brisbane? There is never a boundary condition given. If it is “once in a century” in any given town, say, then you would expect that it would occur every year if there are 100 towns. (Except, of course, because these things are dependent, it will occur everywhere or nowhere.) You need to specify boundaries to your events.
4) Even if the events were independent, and their frequency well known, and the boundaries well set, it doesn’t help people one jot. People are incredibly poor at judging what truly random behaviour is. They expect that “once in a century” events will basically occur on average one time in any century, which they almost never will.
5) The margin between extreme and merely high is statistically important, but usually practically worthless. If the flood was a bit lower, so that it was now only “once in a 75 year period” it would still be a disaster. Often from a practical point of view, two slightly smaller floods are worse than one really large one. What you need is flood prevention schemes for all floods, not fretting that “this was a big one”. (The recent Christchurch earthquake, similar in level to the Haiti one, shows how preparedness is the key, not the size of the event.)
So I would really like meteorologists to stop using the bollocks “once in a century” type descriptors. Get them to a statistics class if need be. Even if it is right, it is unhelpful.
Rushmike
Some proxies are better calibrated than others and have fewer interfering signals. I would consider mercury thermometers to be an example of a good proxy measurement of temperature, tree rings a bad one.
Sea level rise has not accelerated since the proposed beginning of AGW, hence you should be wary of claims that it provides evidence of increased OHC due to global warming. Why do you think the Argo temperature data is misleading us? The sensors are meticulously calibrated and have suggested cooling of the oceans since 2003.