November 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update

INITIAL NOTE

I’ve added the Pacific Ocean (the basin) to the group. Refer to Model-Data Comparison: Pacific Ocean Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.  Thanks, Jennifer.

MONTHLY SST ANOMALY MAP

The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for November 2012. It was downloaded from the NOMADS website. The contour levels are set at 0.5 deg C, and white is set at zero.

November 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies Map

(Global SST Anomaly = +0.243 deg C)

MONTHLY OVERVIEW

The sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region in the eastern equatorial Pacific (5S-5N, 170E-120E) are a commonly used index for the strength, frequency and duration of El Niño and La Nina events. We keep an eye on the sea surface temperatures there because El Niño and La Niña events are the primary cause of the yearly variations in global sea surface temperatures AND they are the primary cause of the long-term warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 30 years. See the discussion of the East Pacific versus the Rest-of-the-World that follows.

Monthly NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures made a minor rebound (warming about +0.08 deg C) to +0.47 deg C. That’s still below the +0.5 Deg C threshold of “official” El Niño conditions. Also refer to the discussion of the weekly NINO3.4 data near the bottom of the post, because sea surface temperatures are presently approaching zero.

Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies cooled a little (-0.02 deg C) in November, with both hemispheres cooling. The South Atlantic and both the North and South Pacific were the only basins that warmed in November. The monthly Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are presently at +0.243 deg C.

(1) Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies

Monthly Change = -0.022 deg C

####################################

(2) NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies

(5S-5N, 170W-120W)

Monthly Change = +0.084 deg C

####################################

THE EAST PACIFIC VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD

The East Pacific and the Rest-Of-The-World (Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific) datasets were first discussed in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, and were discussed a few months later inHow Can Things So Obvious Be Overlooked By The Climate Science Community?

They were also discussed in great detail in my recently published book Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation. The Updated Free Preview includes the Table of Contents; the Introduction; the beginning of Section 1, with the cartoon-like illustrations; the discussion About the Cover; and the Closing. Also see the blog post Everything You Every Wanted to Know about El Niño and La Niña… for an overview. The book is only US$8.00. Please click here to buy a copy. (Paypal or Credit/Debit Card. You do not need to open a PayPal account.)

In the following two graphs, both datasets have been adjusted for the impacts of volcanic aerosols. I’m considering eliminating the volcano adjustments, because they add very little to the discussion. In fact, some persons use those adjustments as an excuse to disregard the obvious.

The global oceans were divided into these two subsets to illustrate a couple of facts. First, the linear trend of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) Sea Surface Temperature anomalies since the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset is basically flat. That is, the East Pacific hasn’t warmed in 30+ years. The East Pacific is not a small region. It represents about 33% of the surface area of the global oceans. The East Pacific linear trend varies very slightly with each monthly update. But it won’t vary significantly between El Niño and La Niña events.

3 East Pac

(3) Volcano-Adjusted East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(90S-90N, 180-80W)

####################################

And second, the volcano-adjusted Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) rise in very clear steps, in response to the significant 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño/La Niña events. It also appears as though the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of this dataset may have made another upward shift in response to the 2009/10 El Niño and 2010/11 La Niña events. For those who are interested in the actual trends of the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niño events and between the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events refer to Figure 4 in Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming? I further described (at an introductory level) the ENSO-related processes that cause these upward steps in the post ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature. And as noted above, it is discussed in detail in my recently published book Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

(4) Volcano-Adjusted Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies For The Rest of the World

(90S-90N, 80W-180)

####################################

The periods used for the average Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies between the significant El Niño events of 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10 are determined as follows. Using the original NOAA Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) for the official months of those El Niño events, I shifted (lagged) those El Niño periods by six months to accommodate the lag between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the response of the Rest-Of-The-World Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, then deleted the Rest-Of-The-World data that corresponds to those significant El Niño events. I then averaged the Rest-Of-The-World SST anomalies between those El Niño-related gaps.

The “Nov 2010 to Present” average varies with each update. As noted in the post Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies – East Pacific Versus The Rest Of The World, it will be interesting to see where that Sea Surface Temperature anomaly average settles out, if it does, before the next significant El Niño drives them higher.

Of course, something could shift. Will the upward ratcheting continue when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) decides to turn around and start its decline? The upward steps would not continue in the North Atlantic, but would the AMO impact the upward steps in other portions of the globe? For more information about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, refer to the post An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2.

The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean, or approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, have decreased slightly since 1982 based on the linear trend. And between upward shifts, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the rest of the world (67% of the global ocean surface area) remain relatively flat. As discussed in my book, anthropogenic forcings are said to be responsible for most of the rise in global surface temperatures over this period, but the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly graphs of those two areas prompt a two-part question: Since 1982, what anthropogenic global warming processes would overlook the Sea Surface Temperatures of 33% of the global oceans and have an impact on the other 67% but only during the months of the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?

STANDARD NOTE ABOUT THE DATA

Other than the East Pacific and Rest-of-the-World data shown immediately above, the MONTHLY graphs illustrate raw monthly OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomaly data from November 1981 to November 2012, as it is presented by the NOAA NOMADS website linked at the end of the post. NOAA uses the base years of 1971-2000 for this dataset. I’ve added the 13-month running-average filter to smooth out the seasonal variations.

MONTHLY INDIVIDUAL OCEAN AND HEMISPHERIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATES

(5) Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

Monthly Change = -0.044 deg C

####################################

(6) Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

Monthly Change = -0.005 deg C

####################################

(7) North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 70N, 80W to 0)

Monthly Change = -0.114 deg C

####################################

(8) South Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)

Monthly Change = +0.079 deg C

Note: I discussed the (now apparently temporary) upward shift in the South Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature anomalies in the post The 2009/10 Warming Of The South Atlantic. Prior to that shift, the South Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies had been relatively flat for about two decades. It looks as though the South Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies are returning, or have returned, to the level they were at before that surge, and where they had been since the late 1980s. We’ll have to see where things settle over the next couple of years.

####################################

(9) Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(60S to 65N, 120E to 80W)

Monthly Change = +0.009 Deg C

####################################

(10) North Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 65N, 100E to 90W)

Monthly Change = +0.062 Deg C

####################################

(11) South Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(0 to 60S, 120E to 70W)

Monthly Change = +0.020 deg C

####################################

(12) Indian Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(60S to 30N, 20E to 120E)

Monthly Change = -0.036 deg C

####################################

(13) Arctic Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(65N to 90N)

Monthly Change = -0.277 deg C

####################################

(14) Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

(90S-60S)

Monthly Change = -0.056 deg C

####################################

WEEKLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

The NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies based on the week centered on December 5, 2012 are approaching zero. They are presently at +0.042 deg C.

(15) Weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

####################################

The weekly global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are continuing to appear as though they may have peaked for the season—at least temporarily. They are at +0.188 deg C. Will rise again in response to that recent temporary warming signal from the equatorial Pacific?

(16) Weekly Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies

####################################

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA AND THEIR LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES?

Why should you be interested? The sea surface temperature record indicates El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not manmade greenhouse gases. Scroll back up to the discussion of the East Pacific versus the Rest of the World. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

I’ve recently published my e-book (pdf) about the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña. It’s titled Who Turned on the Heat? with the subtitle The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño Southern Oscillation. It is intended for persons (with or without technical backgrounds) interested in learning about El Niño and La Niña events and in understanding the natural causes of the warming of our global oceans for the past 30 years. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural as well. The book is the product of years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet. It presents how the data accounts for its warming—and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all.

Who Turned on the Heat? was introduced in the blog post Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about El Niño and La Niña… …Well Just about Everything. The Updated Free Preview includes the Table of Contents; the Introduction; the beginning of Section 1, with the cartoon-like illustrations; the discussion About the Cover; and the Closing.

Please buy a copy. (Paypal or Credit/Debit Card). It’s only US$8.00.

You’re probably asking yourself why you should spend $8.00 for a book written by an independent climate researcher. There aren’t many independent researchers investigating El Niño-Southern Oscillation or its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures. In fact, if you were to perform a Google image search of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, the vast majority of the graphs and images are from my blog posts. Try it. Cut and paste NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies into Google. Click over to images and start counting the number of times you see Bob Tisdale.

By independent I mean I am not employed in a research or academic position; I’m not obligated to publish results that encourage future funding for my research—that is, my research is not agenda-driven. I’m a retiree, a pensioner. The only funding I receive is from book sales and donations at my blog. Also, I’m independent inasmuch as I’m not tied to consensus opinions so that my findings will pass through the gauntlet of peer-review gatekeepers. Truth be told, it’s unlikely the results of my research would pass through that gauntlet because the satellite-era sea surface temperature data contradicts the tenets of the consensus.

SOURCES

The Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data used in this post is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:

http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

or:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in SST Update. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to November 2012 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update

  1. Kristian says:

    I’d just like to commend you, Bob, on your massive (and tremendously patient) effort to illuminate what Tallbloke once called ‘the computer weenies’ on the ENSO thread at SkS. Those people will always refuse to follow your specific line of argument of course, only try to deflect and detract from it, so as never having to face it directly. Likewise they will always deny the validity or significance of any data you present, no matter how explicit and unambiguous, until they have properly statistically analyzed (i.e. manipulated) it or even better, concocted a model (naturally, constrained by all their preconceived strawman assumptions) to show whether what the data says is really true or not – which, it turns out, without exception it is not.

    The signal is right there before them in the data, as blatantly obvious as fiery, two-storey high letters screaming out ‘ENSO DID IT!’. And yet they still absolutely need those models to see if they can accept it. And of course their particular models will always tell them: NO!

    A wise man (and a statistician at that) once said: “We do not have to model what we can see.” (William Briggs)

    We do see the data. We see that it’s changed. We see HOW it changed. We see WHEN it changed. We see WHERE it changed. We can track it. We can pinpoint it. We can observe it happening. And we understand the mechanisms behind it. It’s right there in the scientific literature. So how much more clear-cut can you get?

    Yet, the intuitive truth in the statement above seemingly bears no meaning whatsoever within the AGW community. That’s of course because the AGW signal is nowhere to be seen in any actual data from the real world. So they HAVE to manipulate it and model it in order to ‘find’ it.

    Well, just leave them to their denial of reality, floating downstream in their little pink CO2 propaganda bubble. Those roaring rapids are drawing ever nearer …

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks for the kind words, Kristian. I am always amazed at how anthropogenic global warming proponents are willing to expose their biases and ignorance during an online discussion, especially when the answers are staring right back at them from their screens.

  3. Pingback: citizen scientists wanted … Western Australia | pindanpost

  4. Doug Proctor says:

    Re: graph 1, global SST profile, 1980 to 2013.

    I’m fascinated by how warmists and skeptics can come to diametrically opposed positioned based on the same data. I try to see how it happens and I see that it is easy IF you hold that the year-to-year variation is so great that the underlying signal is not determinable by a simple mathematical analysis of the combined data. So in the 1980 to 2013 data above, I can say that we rose from -0.14C to a peak of +0.22 in 2000, after which we have been dropping to the present-day at +0.18. OR I can say that from -0.12 in 1980, we are accelerating, to +0.14 today. It all depends on whether you think the trend is reflected in the mid-points, the peaks or the troughs, and whether all parts of the period should be treated the same. I.e: if you think the 1980 – 2000 is trough-dominated, your starting curve is low, while if you think 2000-2012 is peak dominated, your ending curve is high, so your temperatures are increasing AND accelerating, in just one, example combination.

    Since I’ve been following the CAGW debate since 2009, I’ve seen that the “consensus trend” is to use a linear trend, presumably because the alleged forcing, CO2, is supposed to be (in the shorter-term) linear in its effects. Some writers have argued for polynomials, or (like me) called what they see quasi-sinusoidal, meaning there is some wandering about a general cyclicity. Others have said the temperature profile is non-cyclic, generating a stochastic curvilinear movement through chaotic interactions of other, semi-cyclic parameters. Such fundamental differences in looking at the same data/profile let the analyst to determine almost anything.

    Through the middle all the time, through the middle some of the time, along the bottom some of the time, along the top some of the time? Isn’t this how we get to interpret data differently? Let me bring in my personal experience.

    I’m an oil and gas geologist, working hard to keep all of us warm in a bright place we got to in a car made in great proportion with plastic. Professionally, I look at geologic datapoints that are not determined randomly (you don’t purposely drill bad areas) and not distributed in a statistically valid way (you drill densely areas you already found oil and gas, and leave alone areas where nobody has yet found any oil and gas). The climatologists’ data looks similar to mine, (sited in cities near coasts, rivers and in low places). The result looks similar: data that, subjected to computer analysis, tells you best what you already know well, but poorly what you don’t know yet (i.e., the future weather/climate or where I could drill to find new oil and gas).

    In geology (or geophysics) data is neutral. But this is not a good thing. If you “let the data speak for itself”, as young geoscientists like to say, you find that past discoveries and “dry holes” are equally obvious. The dry hole next to a discovery or a discovery to come next to a dry hole, is not obvious. In order to find anything new, you have to impose a vision, i.e. a model, onto the data. Then you have a reason not to drill off the discovery and one to drill off the dry hole. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it: big chill or big heat, gee, I think …

    And this is science?

    Yes. That is the point. It is science. The IPCC/warmists treat science the same way some treat looking for oil and gas, as an industrial process. Put in X and Y comes out. The fact that I still have a job after 34 years working the same three provinces shows this simplicity to be false. Even visions/models, regardless of how detailed they are developed, work only intermittently and locally. If they didn’t, the first few years my colleagues and I would have the sedimentary basin figured out, and we’d be in the souplines. Looks like the same thing in climatology.

    The IPCC and their adherents have what I call in my business the Unique Solution Syndrome. It is particularly well developed in an PEng mind: all problems have a “best” or correct solution, which, once found, means that all other considered solutions are less-best or incorrect. Engineers love procedures because of the Syndrome: It Has Been Figured Out, so Don’t Do Anything Different Because Changes Cause Failures! In oil and gas this syndrome comes from the mistaken belief that the data we geoscientists gather is complete, correct in what it infers, and uniquely positioned relative to other data. So, here, we have Mann with his minimal Yamal bristlecones and the like, suffering from what looks to me like the hallmark of the Syndrome: all information points inevitably to the same place.

    Which is doesn’t.

    I’m sure there is some statistical axiom that attends to what I see here, some “law” that says you have to have a repeating, predictable series for one, and enough of a portion of the new series to determine the likely outcome of the series you are in. Which I, as a geologist, don’t really have, and I suspect the climatologist doesn’t have, either. I have a fixed “scenario” in the ground that is the culmination of various, ongoing processes over time. There are local patterns emplaced on a larger, but different set of patterns. My position is like that of the blind men trying to describe an elephant from touching different parts: the trunk can be described clearly, but it doesn’t help you much in predicting the tail.

    Is that what we are seeing for climate records? The elephant in the room really is an elephant, not a ball?

    Are we really, as skeptics, fighting a battle with those who, like my professional co-workers, seize upon a mapping style or idea and apply it everywhere with grand ambition and passion, in a world that only minimally adheres to any pattern, not just the one they like? That “anomalies”, which we geologists call prospects and seek to drill, are the dominant feature that controls our climate lives, but which we determine exist mainly by living long enough to experience them?

    CO2 as a dominant forcer is not standing up to robust questioning. I’m betting sunspot cycles won’t, as well. Mann and Hansen might think they are smarter, equal to their task more than I and my colleagues who routinely scratch their heads as they wonder what happened to their fortune-making oilwells. I’m betting they aren’t.

    (P.S. The average success rate of true exploratory drills in oil and gas is something like 1:7. Might be 1:10, 1:15, depending on how you define “success”. Even the smartest have to be lucky, as well, despite working with a very, very energetically studied “science”.)

  5. Pingback: dopey, or doped up … not the sharks | pindanpost

  6. Tom Harley says:

    Hi Bob, have a look and see if I am wrong here, I have used your post to show that there is not an ocean ‘heat wave’ off Western Australia in the Indian Ocean.

  7. Kristian says:

    Happy Holidays to you, Bob, from a wintry Norway.

    I hope you’ve made yourself aware of the latest contrivances by the folks at SkS.

    It involves the ENSO thread, where they’re now showing proof once again of their incorrigible willingness to utilize deceit and subterfuge to ‘win’ their arguments by changing the course of discussions after the fact. Similar practices has previously been documented e.g. here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%e2%80%93-rewriting-history/

    This time it’s all about making it seem like you didn’t answer ‘valid’ questions and rather evaded ‘difficult’ criticisms to your ‘hypothesis’. When in fact you did answer those questions one by one, comprehensively and in-depth.

    They even deleted their own non-replies to (reflexive dismissals of) your extensive final expositions, to make the vanishing act complete.

    Regards.

  8. Kristian says:

    Hehe, my bad. It’s apparently there anyway …

    Well, all the best anyhow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s