I’ve moved to WordPress. This post can now be found at Mid-October 2009 SST Anomaly Update
################The OI.v2 SST anomaly map for the week centered on October 14, 2009 shows that the tropical Pacific SST anomalies are still elevated, with a slight strengthening of El Nino conditions in the Central and West-Central Equatorial Pacific. The tropical Atlantic is still not showing any areas of exceptionally warm SST anomalies. Seasonally elevated SST anomalies in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are dropping. Within a few months, the elevated season component of the SST anomalies will shift to the Southern Hemisphere.
http://i38.tinypic.com/suv7n7.pngSST Anomaly Map
Global SST anomalies are still elevated, but they are approximately 0.05 deg C lower than the peak earlier this year.
Global SST anomalies are still elevated, but they are approximately 0.05 deg C lower than the peak earlier this year.
http://i33.tinypic.com/24c855e.pngGlobal SST Anomalies
NINO3.4 SST anomalies for the week centered on October 16, 2009 are still well into mild El Nino territory, and they remain near the same value where they have cycled for a few months.
http://i36.tinypic.com/16h9u38.pngNINO3.4 SST Anomalies
SOURCE
OI.v2 SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=
6 comments:
Hi Bob -
I know you've provided your knowledge of the relationship between Nino 3.4 changes and global temp changes (lag and magnitude), but do you know how the 3.4 measurements impact SST contemporaneously?
I'm just curious what component of the SST anomaly is due to the Nino anomaly (whether 3.4 alone or the entire Nino range of contemporaneous impact [cooling in West, warming in East]).
Just wondering if you had seen any studies on the topic.
Another question, as I looked over the OHC posts again.
You noted before that the AGW crowd has been using the von Schenckman et al paper.
If it matches up with your prior postings about natural variations moving OHC (as I saw in your recent comment to the last post), what about it are they latching on to?
Is there really any argument other than some sort of negative feedback is "temporarily" cancelling out the radiative effect of the co2 contribution? I.e. a negative feedback (or forcing) is, for now, balancing out the positive feedbacks (and forcing) related to the increasing co2 levels, and at some point, the co2 contribution will reach a high enough level (or the negative feedback/forcing will reduce) that it will again contribute to OHC levels?
John: With this comment, "I'm just curious what component of the SST anomaly is due to the Nino anomaly (whether 3.4 alone or the entire Nino range of contemporaneous impact [cooling in West, warming in East])," are you looking for a comparison of NINO3.4 SST anomalies versus Pacific Warm Pool SST anomalies?
Refer to this early post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/10/pacific-warm-pool-vs-enso.html
You asked, "If it matches up with your prior postings about natural variations moving OHC (as I saw in your recent comment to the last post), what about it are they latching on to?"
I haven't a clue. The 0-2000m depth show an increasing trend from 2003 to 2008, but so does 0-700m. But the majority of that paper is a discussion of natural variables on OHC. I've considered writing a post titled "Did They Bother To Read It?"
With respect to your comment on feedbacks, you're asking the wrong person. Sorry. But your question assumes there is a measurable contribution from CO2.
Bob -
My question was more how much does the .91c level in Nino 3.4 contribute to the .26c overall SST global anomaly. I'm sure the portion could be arithmatically derived from the map, but I was hoping there was a simple traditional measure you might have been aware of (like .05 x Nino anomaly or some such number).
It seems like pretty much every prominant scientist, even among skeptics (Spencer, Lindzen, etc) accepts some level of forcing from co2. The differences appear to be based on feedback (I believe Lindzen sees a .5c per doubling of co2 or so; Spencer from .5 to 1.5ish, maybe).
Is your belief that the feedbacks related to co2 are zero? I.e. there is no contribution?
Thanks, and I hope all is well.
John: I've referred to Trenberth et al (2002), “Evolution of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures” in older posts. J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D8), 4065, doi:10.1029/2000JD000298
Link:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
In it they found that global temperatures changed 0.094 deg C for a 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomalies.
Let me clarify the other point. I had at one time believed that CO2 made a noticeable contribution, but my findings of the El Nino-induced step changes in OHC, TLT and SST anomaly data changed that. I continue to believe it is likely that CO2 has a small effect (over land only?), but I endeavor to explain ALL of the variation without it and by doing so illustrate the shortcomings of GCM-based projections that fail to model ENSO and other natural variables correctly.
Thanks again, as always, Bob.
I always find your posts and comment responses illuminating.
Post a Comment