>PRELIMINARY October 2010 SST Anomaly Update

>The October 2010 SST data through the NOAA NOMADS website won’t be official until October 8. Refer to the schedule on the NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Frequently Asked Questions webpage. The following are the preliminary Global and NINO3.4 SST anomalies for October 2010 presented by the NOMADS website. I’ve also included the weekly data through October 27, 2010, but I’ve shortened the span of the weekly data, starting it in January 2004, so that the wiggles are visible.


Based on the preliminary data, monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are continuing to drop, but the rate has slowed. Presently they’re at -1.62 deg C.
Monthly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

Monthly Global SST anomalies, according to the preliminary data, have dropped considerably. The preliminary global SST anomaly is 0.15 deg C. As noted last month, with the step up in the South Atlantic and its effect on the North Atlantic, it will be interesting to see how much global SST anomalies will decline in response to the La Niña. Refer to the post The 2009/10 Warming Of The South Atlantic
Monthly Global SST Anomalies


The weekly NINO3.4 SST anomaly data have risen again over the past week. They are at -1.4 deg C.
Weekly NINO3.4 SST Anomalies

Weekly Global SST Anomalies have increased again slightly, approximately 0.02 deg C.
Weekly Global SST Anomalies


SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:

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.

4 Responses to >PRELIMINARY October 2010 SST Anomaly Update

  1. >11/02/10: I saw Roy Spencer's graph on "AMSR-E Global Average Sea Surface Temperature Variations", with data through Oct. 27th, several days ago. That data doesn't show the new rise shown in your (NOAA) data, and indicates a full 0.3 C drop in SST since March/April, not the 0.2 C drop in yours.

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    >Hi Harry: Roy uses a different satellite that NOAA for measuring SST. Roy's can see through clouds while the NOAA AVHRR satellite does not. Roy also excludes the poles, only uses 60S-60N so that he doesn't have to deal with sea ice, and that may help explain the greater variability. The other difference is Roy calculates anomalies against a relative short span of years, while NOAA uses a calculated climatology, which is not the average monthly or weekly values over a given time period.

  3. Anonymous says:

    >Bob,I left this comment over at WUWT, but I figured I would also leave it here, since you may not be monitoring the WUWT post. Can you clarify one thing?Are you saying that the accumulated effects of the El Nino cycle *could* account for all (or nearly all) of the observed warming of the last 100 years, or are you saying that the accumulated effects of the El Nino cycle definitely are responsible for all (or nearly all) of the observed warming? If it is the later case, then why do think El Nino has dominated La Nina during this period?I think your efforts are very helpful in understanding the evolution of sea surface temperatures over the last century, especially the causal link between ENSO and the AMO, since this explains why there is a cyclical appearance in the temperature record which is closely correlated with the AMO index. I also agree that solar cycle’s and volcanic aerosol effects account for much of the shorter term variation. But I do not think that the analysis can be used to exclude the possibility of a contribution of increased GHG forcing.A regression of AMO index, Nino 3.4, solar cycle, and total GHG forcing against the Hadley global temperature record shows very good overall correlation (R^2 of about 0.9) as well, and suggests both strong correlation of temperature to the AMO index and a low sensitivity to radiative forcing (about 1.2C per doubling of CO2). But low sensitivity does not mean zero sensitivity. Are you really suggesting zero sensitivity to radiative forcing?Steve Fitzpatrick

  4. Bob Tisdale says:

    >Steve: Here's a link to my reply at WUWT:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/#comment-535059But to save you the trouble (and for all those reading this thread, here's my reply:Steve Fitzpatrick says: Are you saying that the accumulated effects of the El Nino cycle *could* account for all (or nearly all) of the observed warming of the last 100 years…” I have presented nothing in this post that would allow me to state that “the accumulated effects of the El Nino cycle definitely are responsible for all (or nearly all) of the observed warming.”You asked, “…then why do think El Nino has dominated La Nina during this period?”There's a low-frequency component to ENSO and we’ve been luck to catch two of them when El Nino events dominated.You asked, “Are you really suggesting zero sensitivity to radiative forcing?”I’m suggesting that ENSO represents more of the rise in global temoperatures than its linear component, which is what studies like Thompson et al (2008) would like us to believe. How much more? Dunno. Could the accumulated affects of ENSO in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans represent a major portion of the rise in global surface temperatures? Yes. And regardless of whether or not the AMO is driven by THC/AMOC or by ENSO, it’s still a natural form of variability and it also contributes significatly to the overall rise in global temps from the trough in the early 1900s to present.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s