This is part 2 of a two-part series that provides links to 8 gif animations of the 1997/98 El Niño through the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña events. Refer to the general description of the maps in part one here.
YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ANIMATIONS TO VIEW THEM.
CONTINUATION OF COMPARISON ANIMATIONS
Sea surface temperature anomalies are compared to Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (not anomalies) in Animation 5. The sea surface temperature dataset is Reynolds OI.v2.
Animation 5
Animation 6 presents sea surface temperature anomalies versus Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) lower troposphere temperature (TLT) anomalies.
Animation 6
NORTH ATLANTIC
The first of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature animations is Animation 7. With the exception of the graph and the opening few cells which highlight the location of the North Atlantic data, the maps are the same as Animation 1. The graph is different. It includes North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly data for the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0.
Animation 7
Animation 8 presents only maps of the North Atlantic.
Animation 8
ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
SOURCE
All maps used in the animations were created at the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations 
bob,
What comprises the “western pacific ocean” (lon and lat)?
slimething: Longitude. Typically, west of 180 deg longitude is referred to as the Western Pacific. A researcher will specify the area with coordinates if it’s critical to the discussion.
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If I haven’t convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
That is so cool! Swear to God, I just spent a half hour watching that. It totally explains why ENSO signals global average surface temperature. El Nino is really the absence of upwelling. The only place any upwelling occurred during that cycle was off the coast of northern China (explaining the Shen PDO Index). Interesting that La Nina was foreshadowed in that cycle by upwelling off North America, followed by a resurgence of the Trades off Indonesia, and propogating eastward a la MJO.
Getting up to speed on the video available. Most is circa 2009 which leaves me inclined to redo it myself to see the further transition of PDO which began somewhere near the millenium. I think too few appreciate that the circum Antarctic vortex is a pump. Worthy of Scylla, this vortex extends from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere to the sea surface currents to the abyssal ocean and thermohaline circulation. It is an accident of geography, but a pump nonetheless.
The thermohaline circulation used to be thought of as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, MOC, largely because of a Euro-American seafaring bias. Actually this is but a small component, but the Atlantic is the only outlet for Arctic bottom water. It is actively pumped out of the Atlantic and into the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Atlantic is a meter lower than the Pacific, on average.
I believe that the higher elevation of the western Pacific, the hot spot, and probablythe Kelvin waves result from the geographic blockage by Indonesia of the warm surface thermohaline current from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean.
The SOI is strongly positive as it has been for over a year (on a monthly basis), which indicates another La Nina is coming.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
Pingback: Animations Discussed in “Who Turned on the Heat?” | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations