MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY MAP
The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for September 2015. It was downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer. The contour range was set to -2.5 to +2.5 deg C.
September 2015 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies Map
(Global SST Anomaly = +0.429 deg C)
Note how The Blob continues to relocate. The other hotspot west of Southern California and the Baja Peninsula (Blob Jr., Son of Blob, whatever) continues to intensify.
MONTHLY GLOBAL OVERVIEW
Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies rose, an increase of about +0.063 deg C, from August to September. Surface temperature anomalies rose in both semispheres. Last month, the only basin with a sizable decrease was the North Pacific, but it was countered by a rise in the South Pacific. As the El Niño continues to develop, we should expect increases around the globe. The monthly Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies are presently at +0.429 deg C, referenced to the WMO-preferred base years of 1981 to 2010.
(1)Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
Monthly Change = +0.063 deg C
THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC
The monthly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for September 2015 are well above the +1.5 deg C threshold of a strong El Niño and continuing to rise. They are presently at +2.27 deg C, another noticeable increase since the prior month…having increased about +0.22 deg C since August.
(2) NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
(5S-5N, 170W-120W)
Monthly Change = +0.216 deg C
####################################
The sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region in the east-central 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. We present NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies in monthly and weekly formats in these updates.
Also see the weekly values toward the end of the post.
INITIAL NOTES
Note 1: Because the NOMADS servers are off line, I’ve downloaded the Reynolds OI.v2 values from the KNMI Climate Explorer, using the base years of 1981-2010. The updated base years help to reduce the seasonal components in the ocean-basin subsets—they don’t eliminate those seasonal components, but they reduce them.
Note 2: We discussed the reasons for the elevated sea surface temperatures in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys.
Note 3: I’ve moved the model-data comparison to the end of the post.
Note 4: I recently added a graph of the sea surface temperature anomalies for The Blob in the eastern extratropical North Pacific. It also is toward the end of the post.
THE EAST PACIFIC VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD
NOTE: This section of the updates has been revised. We discussed the reasons for the changes in the post Changes to the Monthly Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Updates.
For years, we have shown and discussed that the surfaces of the global oceans have not warmed uniformly during the satellite era of sea surface temperature composite. In fact, some portions of the global oceans have cooled during that 3+ decade period. One simply has to look at a trend map for the period of 1982 to 2013 to see where the ocean surfaces have warmed and where they have not. Yet the climate science community has not addressed this. See the post Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans.
The North Atlantic (anomalies illustrated later in the post) has had the greatest warming over the past 3+ decades, but the reason for this is widely known. The North Atlantic has an additional mode of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. If you’re not familiar with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation see the NOAA Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) webpage and the posts An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2 and Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions. As a result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the surface of the North Atlantic warmed at a rate that was more than twice the rate of the surface of the rest of the global oceans. See the trend comparison graph here.
The East Pacific Ocean also stands out in the trend map above. Some portions of its surfaces warmed and others cooled. It comes as no surprise then that the linear trend of the East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) Sea Surface Temperature anomalies since the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 composite is so low. With the El Nino conditions in the eastern tropical Pacific, it has acquired a slight positive trend, but it’s still far below the approximate +0.15 deg C/decade warming rate predicted by the CMIP5 climate models. Please see Figure 19 in the post Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans. (Note that the region also includes portions of the Arctic and Southern Oceans.) That is, there has been little to no warming of the sea surfaces of the East Pacific (from pole to pole) in 32 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 doesn’t vary greatly between El Niño and La Niña events.
Notice how there appears to have been a strong El Niño event in 2014 in the East Pacific values, while there had only been a small off season event that year, and how the strong El Niño in 2015 is causing a further rise. Note also how there appears to have been a shift in 2013. Refer again to the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys. The other ocean basins, thankfully, have not yet responded with a sharp rise…yet.
(3) East Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(90S-90N, 180-80W)
####################################
That leaves the largest region of the trend map, which includes the South Atlantic, the Indian and West Pacific Oceans, with the corresponding portions of the Arctic and Southern Oceans. Sea surface temperatures there warmed 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 subset have made another upward shift in response to the 2009/10 El Niño and 2010/11 La Niña events. I further described the ENSO-related processes that cause these upward steps in the recent post Answer to the Question Posed at Climate Etc.: By What Mechanism Does an El Niño Contribute to Global Warming?
Again, as you’ll note, the values for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans do not show anything unusual this year. (And as you’ll see later, the North Atlantic is presently showing the “normal” range of seasonal variations.) The big surge is in the East Pacific, the eastern North Pacific to be specific.
(4) Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies For The South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans
(Weighted Average of 0-90N, 40E-180 @ 27.9% And 90S-0, 80W-180 @72.1%)
####################################
The periods used for the average temperature anomalies for the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific subset 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 South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans, then deleted the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific values that corresponds to those significant El Niño events. I then averaged the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans sea surface temperature anomalies between those El Niño-related gaps.
The “Nov 2010 to Present” average varies with each update.
You’ll note I’ve ended the updates for the period after the 2009-10 El Niño. That was done to accommodate the expected response to the 2015/16 El Niño.
The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean, or approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, have shown comparatively little long-term warming since 1982 based on the linear trend. And between upward shifts, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the South Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific subset (about 52.5% of the global ocean surface area) remain relatively flat, though they actually cool slightly. 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 regions discussed above 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 52% but only during the months of the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?
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 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. It’s now sale priced at US$5.00. Please click here to buy a copy. (Paypal or Credit/Debit Card. You do not need to open a PayPal account.)
STANDARD NOTE ABOUT THE REYNOLDS OI.V2 COMPOSITE
The MONTHLY graphs illustrate raw monthly OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomalies from November 1981 to September 2015, as it is presented by the KNMI Climate Explorer linked at the end of the post. While NOAA uses the base years of 1971-2000 for this product, those base years cannot be used at the KNMI Climate Explorer because they extend before the start year of the product. (NOAA had created a special climatology for the Reynolds OI.v2 product.) I’ve referenced the anomalies to the period of 1981 to 2010, which is actually 1982 to 2010 for most months. And I’ve added a 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 = +0.048 deg C
####################################
(6) Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
Monthly Change = +0.075 deg C
####################################
(7) North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(0 to 70N, 80W to 0)
Monthly Change = +0.245 deg C
####################################
(8) South Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(0 to 60S, 70W to 20E)
Monthly Change = +0.075 deg C
####################################
(9) Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(60S to 65N, 120E to 80W)
Monthly Change = +0.017 Deg C
####################################
(10) North Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(0 to 65N, 100E to 90W)
Monthly Change = -0.070 Deg C
####################################
(11) South Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(0 to 60S, 120E to 70W)
Monthly Change = +0.087 deg C
####################################
(12) Indian Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(60S to 30N, 20E to 120E)
Monthly Change = +0.088 deg C
####################################
(13) Arctic Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(65N to 90N)
Monthly Change = -0.015 deg C
####################################
(14) Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
(90S-60S)
Monthly Change = +0.116 deg C
####################################
WEEKLY NINO3.4 SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
Weekly NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies are at +2.4 deg C. They are above the +1.5 deg C threshold of a strong El Niño and have been above +2.0 deg C for over a month.
(15) Weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies
Note: With the NOMADS servers off line, I’ve used the weekly NINO3.4 values available from the NOAA/CPC Monthly Atmospheric & SST Indices webpage, specifically the listing here.
####################################
MODEL-DATA COMPARISON: To counter the nonsensical “Just what AGW predicts” rantings of alarmists about the “record-high” global sea surface temperatures in 2014 (and in 2015), I’ve added a model-data comparison of satellite-era global sea surface temperatures to these monthly updates. See the example below. The models are represented the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. For further information on the use of the model mean, see the post here. For most models, historic forcings run through 2005 (2012 for others) and the middle-of-the-road RCP6.0 forcings are used after in this comparison. The data are represented by NOAA’s Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature data, version 2—a.k.a. Reynolds OI.v2—which is NOAA’s best. The model outputs and data have been shifted so that their trend lines begin at “zero” anomaly for the (November, 1981) start month of this composite. That “zeroing” helps to highlight how poorly the models simulate the warming of the ocean surfaces…almost doubling the observed warming rate. Both the Reynolds OI.v2 values and the model outputs of their simulations of sea surface temperature (TOS) are available to the public at the KNMI Climate Explorer.
000 – Model-Data Comparison
Linked here is an illustration that compares maps of the simulated and observed warming rates of the global oceans from 1982 to 2014. It is from the post Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014.
This addition to the monthly update was further discussed in the post The Nonsensical “Just What AGW predicts” and Other Claims By Alarmists about “Record-High” Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014.
####################################
THE BLOB
After decades of no surface warming in the North Pacific as a whole, a prolonged weather event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific caused an unusual and unexpected warming there, raising sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific to new levels. That region of unusually warm sea surfaces in the eastern extratropical North Pacific has become known as The Blob. We’ve discussed The Blob in detail in the recent post North Pacific Update: The Blob’s Strengthening Suggests It’s Not Ready to Depart. There are links to numerous earlier discussions of the North Pacific in that post, some reaching back as far as the boreal summer of 2013.
I’ve added a graph of the sea surface temperature anomalies for The Blob region so that we can keep track of how it responds to the developing El Niño. Keep in mind, the The Blob covers a relatively small part of the North Pacific, so the anomalies will be volatile.
(16) The Blob
(35N-55N, 150W-125W)
Monthly Change = -0.543 deg C
INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT HOW AND WHY THE GLOBAL OCEANS INDICATE THEY’VE WARMED NATURALLY?
Why should you be interested? The hypothesis of manmade global warming depends on manmade greenhouse gases being the cause of the recent warming. But 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 32 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 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). You do not need to have a PayPal account. Simply scroll down to the “Don’t Have a PayPal Account” purchase option. It’s now sale priced at US$5.00.
SOURCES
The monthly Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies and model outputs used in this post are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations 
Thanks for this update, Bob.
Your wide vision is much appreciated.
And yes, the ongoing El Niño is strong. If the alarmists could make it appear as man-made they would try to.
Oh, they’re trying, Andres. There’s that series of nonsensical papers by Cai and others about El Ninos and La Ninas getting stronger due to global warming. See my brief comments on the La Nina version of the series here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/new-paper-claims-extreme-la-ninas-to-become-more-frequent-under-global-warming/
Yes, Bob. What a try! Being shown wrong by Kevin Trenberth must have hurt!
Pingback: “Global Warming” Reality Check September 2015 – Die globale Abkühlung seit 1998 dauert an: RSS 0,38 | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung
Being that over the past 10 or so years there has been what appears to be a rise in volcanism on the surface, how much of the ocean warming do you think might be actually coming from increased volcanism on the bottom of the oceans? The Blob has been around areas that are good candidates for numerous underwater volcanoes, after all, and certainly the area off the Baja could easily be home to a few, too. The heat is coming from somewhere, after all, and it isn’t just from sloshing the water around in the pool, if you will. It’s more likely coming from the pool heater, whatever that might be.
Hi Tom O. Numerous people have suggested a possible tie between subsurface volcanism and changes in ocean heat. First, there’s no subsurface volcano data to support the speculation. Second, the data we do have regarding the Blob indicates that it initially formed (2010/11) in the west/central part of the extratropical North Pacific and migrated east.
The animation is from the post here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/north-pacific-update-the-blobs-strengthening-suggests-its-not-ready-to-depart/
Third, the subsurface temperature data for the Blob suggests that the warming took place from the top down. Fourth, the Blob is associated with a persistent ridge of high pressure in the same location, which is also associated with the recent California drought. The ridge of high pressure has recently disappeared, and the Blob is dissipating.
The hotspot west of SoCal and Baja is supposed to be a response to (a) the Blob and (b) the original very strong downwelling Kelvin wave that crossed the Pacific early in 2014. But there was also a recent paper about the “California Nino” that, if memory serves, was caused by a seasonal shift in wind patterns that changed the upwelling of cool waters there.
Cheers.
Bob,
Any thoughts on the trends in the model forecasts for Nino 3.4 temperatures? Their behavior has become interesting, raising the possibility that this El Nino might not be “precedent breaking”.
* Through 2015 the peak of the CFSv2 average was > 2.5, peaking in June far above 2.5 (literally off the chart). Since then it’s dropped to ~2.5 (Oct is not yet posted).
* The averages of the IPI plumes of dynamic models and statistical models were both lower than the CFSv2 average, but rising. In August the Dynamic model rose to 2.5, equal to CFS.
* Since then the peak of CFS & Dynamic model averages have remained at 2.5 (both above the peak of the Statistical Model plume’s average).
A peak at 2.5 would be only slightly above the 2.3 peak in 1997 (OND NDJ averages). Might this El Nino be similar to 1998, rather than the expected “unprecedented” “Godzilla” cycle?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. It’s far over my pay grade.
Data sources (I could not find the past forecasts of the CFSv2 *PDF-corrected* model used in the weekly CPC reports).
http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/CDB_archive.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Hi Editor of the Fabius Maximus website. As I’ll show in the next ENSO update, while NINO3.4 anomalies are comparable this year to 1997, NINO3 and NINO1+2 sea surface temperature anomalies in 2015 are falling well behind the 1997 values, meaning this El Nino is not “precedent breaking”.
And, truth be told, I don’t pay attention to the model forecasts.
Cheers.
Bob,
Thanks for the brief. If you are correct there might be real tears among the climate alarmists, as Gaia disappoints them yet again. More important, how will the pubic react to yet another highly touted but blown forecast?
I look forward to reading your next ENSO update.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website, it’s still a very strong El Nino…just not quite as strong as the one in 1997/98.
Cheers.
Bob,
I agree. But the bar has been set in the public’s mind at “unprecedented” by articles describing it as a “Godzilla El Nino”, often with wild descriptions of what to expect. Even 10% above 1997-98 might be considered a FAIL.
Or rather, another FAIL, following predictions of increased frequency of hurricanes after Katrina and ice-free summer arctic by now.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Bob,
Here’s a thought-experiment: “What if this El Nino is a dud?” That is, what if it is not a precedent-breaking Godzilla event — but just another strong cycle (roughly like 1997-98)? That’s what NOAA and the WMO predict. That’s what the model averages predict.
That would be yet another blown prediction by alarmists who dominate the news headlines. How would this affect public opinion?
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/10/26/forecasts-of-a-godzilla-el-nino-90407/
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website, I don’t see there being any change in public opinion either way. ENSO models perform poorly in the first half of the year. Even the modeling agencies will tell you that. There are numerous discussions/papers about the Spring Prediction Barrier for both types of ENSO models.
And I don’t see this El Nino turning into a “dud”. It’s already one of the strongest El Nino events since 1950.
Cheers.
Bob,
My apologies, I should have posted the summary:
“Summary: After months of hype about this “Godzilla” El Niño, the peak approaches. The major climate models warn that it might be just another strong cycle, as NOAA & the WMO have predicted — not the precedent-breaking event predicted in the headlines. As a thought experiment, how might this — another blown forecast — affect the public’s confidence in climate scientists?”
The contrast is between the actual magnitude of the cycle (i.e., what extreme weather we get) and the expectations set by headlines during the past few months. A “dud” is a media term for an event that fails to meet expectations. For example, an all-star big-budget summer blockbuster that only nets $100 million is a “dud” (i.e., it loses money).
This thought-experiment illustrates the stakes from activists’ high-profile media strategy. They could win big if we get much extreme weather, which activists will use to increase public concern about climate change. But what if it’s just another strong El Nino, like 1982 & 1997?
It’s a timely thought-experiment since forecasts of both agencies (e.g., NOAA and WMO) and models predict something roughly like 1997-98.
Pingback: The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee | Pin Pick Me
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website, I don’t understand your attempt to downplay this El Nino. It’s monstrous in magnitude, comparable in many respects to the two largest on record. Stronger in some respects, weaker in others.
Bob,
I don’t understand your comment.
(1) I said “it’s just another strong El Nino, like 1982 & 1997?” You said “comparable in many respects to the two largest on record”? What is the difference?
(2) “I don’t understand your attempt to downplay this El Nino.”
What do you mean by “downplay”?
Do you believe that an event roughly similar to the previous two strong El Ninos is “precedent-shattering”, “record-shattering”, and a “Godzilla” event — as headlines have predicted for months? That is the comparison — actual with expectations — that I’m making. As will others afterwards, if current forecasts are correct.
Depending on the next few months, we might look back on three roughly-similar events over 4 decades (e.g., per Nino3.4 SST). So 1997-98 and this one might not even be 100-year events — just serious weather (much like Sandy hitting NYC), not the extraordinary event the news headlines have confidently predicted.
It’s important, I believe, to put these events in an accurate larger context beyond vague adjectives like “Godzilla” and “monstrous” that have no clear meaning to the public.
Bob,
Trivia note for clarity: I used monthly Nino 3.4 SST as a measure of El Nino’s strength — since that’s the metric NOAA uses in its ENSO Weekly for the CFSv2 graph. There are, as you know well (of course), other ways to do so.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website says: “What do you mean by ‘downplay’?”
Exactly what you wrote two sentences prior to that, which was, “(1) I said ‘it’s just another strong El Nino, like 1982 & 1997?’ You said ‘comparable in many respects to the two largest on record’? What is the difference?”
The difference is you’re downplaying the strength of this El Niño by saying “it’s just another strong El Niño…”. The threshold of a strong El Niño according to your own post is +1.5 deg C. Presently, the weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are at 2.5 deg C which is well above the threshold of “just another strong El Niño”.
If it hasn’t happened already, someone is going post the average of the NINO3.4 SSTa this year, or the values of the NOAA’s ONI for year-to-date and claim a record high. For 1997, the average of the first 8 ONI seasons is 0.46 deg C, and for 1982 it’s 0.48 deg C, while in 2015, the average for the first 8 seasons is 0.84 deg C.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website PS:
This El Nino has the potential to top even 1987 for the annual ONI.
Bob,
Wow. That’s strong criticism for one phrase — since I gave a specific (& accurate) explanation what I meant by it.
“This El Nino has the potential to top even 1987 for the annual ONI.”
Yes, that’s what an average means. As I said, the average peak in the IRI plume is 2.5 in Oct-Dec and Nov-Jan. So half the models predict lower than 2.5; half higher. 1997 was 2.3 in the same months.
“If it hasn’t happened already, someone is going post the average of the NINO3.4 SSTa this year …”
Yes, we’ve all seen the “record high” game played many times during the past decade — often by a small amounts over the previous record. It has not prevented climate change from dropping to bottom of polls about the public’s major policy concerns. So they can say this was a super monstrous precedent-shattering Godzilla El Nino — and claim to be right even if there is no corresponding extreme weather that the public can see. It’s “winning” the battle while losing the war.
Thank you for the discussion.
Pingback: The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee - Vox
Pingback: The House science committee is even worse than the Benghazi committee | Later On
Mr Tisdale besides the question that was asked about sub surface volcano activity what about the 2011 massive earthquake and tsunami? Is there a correlation similar in the Indian Ocean Basin after 2004 ( where would I find the same SST’s for that area, at KNMI?).Your graphs for the North and South Pacific seem to show a drop in SST’s that do not show up in the Atlantic and Indian basins. (I know your research is about The El’s and La’s and as an ex farmer they influenced my work) but seeing that we seem to know so little about singular events and their influence it was just a thought. Thanks again for all your work and generousity I am looking forward to (slowly) read your book
Pingback: “Global Warming” Reality Check Oktober 2015 – Die globale Abkühlung seit 1998 dauert an: RSS 0,44 | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung
Pingback: The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee – Vox | Slinking Toward Retirement