SSTA'S in Atlantic are quite warm being november

[cycloneye]

Hmm very interesting data about how the sst anomalys are doing in the atlantic being november.Those temps are running between +1.0 and +2.0 and just off west africa almst at +3.0 above normal.We have to watch this factor in the next few months prior to June 1 2006 to see how warm the waters will be when the 2006 season rolls in.

[SouthFloridawx]

very interesting... we will have to monitor that through out the winter months!!!

[cjrciadt]

Why are they so high in N. Canada just noticed.

[Anonymous]

Matt Carrier and I spoke about this in May 2005. About how the ocean temperatures could be just as bad as they were this year come 2006, and if we were to add in a LA NINA in 2006...watch out.

[x-y-no]

Matt Carrier and I spoke about this in May 2005. About how the ocean temperatures could be just as bad as they were this year come 2006, and if we were to add in a LA NINA in 2006...watch out.

Why would this matter, if, as I understand you to have argued, higher SSTs caused by anthropogenic global warming cannot possibly have affected hurricane frequency or intensity?

Just trying to understand the logic here ... Does the cause of higher SSTs somehow alter the effect of higher SSTs?

[x-y-no]

Why are they so high in N. Canada just noticed.

To the extent that SST anomalies are related to GW, one would expect the effect to be most pronounced at high latitude.

It's more complicated than that, of course, since variations in ocean circulation and also in mean troughing and ridging will cause localized anomalies.

[cycloneye]

Matt Carrier and I spoke about this in May 2005. About how the ocean temperatures could be just as bad as they were this year come 2006, and if we were to add in a LA NINA in 2006...watch out.

About la nina in 2006 that is not the forecast so far from the ENSO models as they have neutral conditions thru june per latest update.Let's watch the waters in the pacific in the next 3-6 months to see how the ENSO conditions will be when the next season starts.



http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml

[x-y-no]

Matt Carrier and I spoke about this in May 2005. About how the ocean temperatures could be just as bad as they were this year come 2006, and if we were to add in a LA NINA in 2006...watch out.

About la nina in 2006 that is not the forecast so far from the ENSO models as they have neutral conditions thru june per latest update.Let's watch the waters in the pacific in the next 3-6 months to see how the ENSO conditions will be when the next season starts.



http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml

Yes, but as you know, there's a real barrier to effective forecasting of ENSO occurring in late spring. I predict at least a couple of kelvin wave watches this winter.

[cycloneye]

Yes Jan that is correct but the forecast of neutral ENSO was on target from the models for the summer of 2005.

[thermos]

It would be foolish to expect the waters to ever be normal again now that global warming is here.

[x-y-no]

It would be foolish to expect the waters to ever be normal again now that global warming is here.

Well, now, that's not really right either. If we accept the current state of the research, which says that approximately 0.3 degrees celsius warming of SSTs globally is due to AGW, and recognizing that there is a poleward bias in the distribution of that warming, then realistically only 0.2 degrees of the observed 1 to 2 or locally even more warm anomaly in this year's tropical Atlantic and Caribbean is likely to be due to AGW.

Even in several decades, when we're back to the negative phase of the AMO, that's unlikelt to be more than say, half a degree. So it's quite possible we'll have generally lower than average SSTs in the tropical Atlantic at that time, although not as cool as during the previous AMO minimum.

[thermos]

It would be foolish to expect the waters to ever be normal again now that global warming is here.

Well, now, that's not really right either. If we accept the current state of the research, which says that approximately 0.3 degrees celsius warming of SSTs globally is due to AGW, and recognizing that there is a poleward bias in the distribution of that warming, then realistically only 0.2 degrees of the observed 1 to 2 or locally even more warm anomaly in this year's tropical Atlantic and Caribbean is likely to be due to AGW.

Even in several decades, when we're back to the negative phase of the AMO, that's unlikelt to be more than say, half a degree. So it's quite possible we'll have generally lower than average SSTs in the tropical Atlantic at that time, although not as cool as during the previous AMO minimum.

True. Good points. Unless we have crossed a point where the Earth has a difficult time cooling off and then all bets are off. This is the warmest Sep, Oct, Nov I've ever seen. But... it could balance back out again and there could be a few closer to average or even below average cold years -- please let that happen!

[Jim Cantore]

Hopefully we get a cold winter or I dont want to think about 2006

[sponger]

Oh X-Y, you say it as if it is a fact that global warming is here. Most of the temperature readings used in "flawed" research is based on Urban readings. We would have to see a ton of warmer air to move the avg ocean temp even 1 degree.

I think its likekly higher solar output is responsible which makes a lot more sense than warmer air trapped by green house gases. I know we will never agree, but at least we know where each other stands.

Congrats on the V tech game, see you in Jacksonville.


Go Noles!

[x-y-no]

Oh X-Y, you say it as if it is a fact that global warming is here. Most of the temperature readings used in "flawed" research is based on Urban readings.

The heat island effect has been extensively examined and compensated for in the weather station records. Furthermore, that is only one of multiple data sets supporting GW.

The evidence is so good at this point that even most skeptical scientist are giving up on this claim, having shifted their focus to offering reasons why the observed warming is not anthropogenic, or why anthropogenic warming should be expected to be at the lower end of the predicted range.

We would have to see a ton of warmer air to move the avg ocean temp even 1 degree.

Since the estimated warming of global SSTs due to AGW is approximately 0.3 degrees C to date, I'd say that's true but not much of an argument.

I think its likekly higher solar output is responsible which makes a lot more sense than warmer air trapped by green house gases. I know we will never agree, but at least we know where each other stands.

I offered reasons why solar output is clearly not the cause of the bulk of observed warming in the other thread. Specifically, the total increase in solar irradiance in the last 50 years is less than 0.1 W/m2, which on its own would account for less than 10% of the observed warming in that period, and even if some hypothesized but not demonstrated feedbacks were in operation, would not account for more than 30% of observed warming. The contribution in the 1800 to 1950 period appears to have been higher, but still no more than 50%.

If you have any science you can offer to contradict this, I'd like to see it please.

Congrats on the V tech game, see you in Jacksonville.


Go Noles!

Thanks. Looking forward to it. I don't believe the result will be the same as last time!

Go Canes!