From NASA JPL:
The Sentinel-6 is the latest satellite contributing to a 30-year sea level record that researchers are using to compare this year’s El Niño with those of the past.
Not all El Niño events are created equal. Their impacts vary widely, and satellites like the U.S.-European Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich help anticipate those impacts on a global scale by tracking changes in sea surface height in the Pacific Ocean.
Water expands as it warms, so sea levels tend to be higher in places with warmer water. El Niños are characterized by higher-than-normal sea levels and warmer-than-average ocean temperatures along the equatorial Pacific. These conditions can then propagate poleward along the western coasts of the Americas. El Niños can bring wetter conditions to the U.S. Southwest and drought to regions in the western Pacific, including Indonesia. This year’s El Niño is still developing, but researchers are looking to the recent past for clues as to how it is shaping up.
There have been two extreme El Niño events in the past 30 years: the first from 1997 to 1998 and the second from 2015 to 2016. Both caused shifts in global air and ocean temperatures, atmospheric wind and rainfall patterns, and sea level. The maps above show sea levels in the Pacific Ocean during early October of 1997, 2015, and 2023, with higher-than-average ocean heights in red and white, and lower-than-average heights in blue and purple. Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich captured the 2023 data, the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite collected data for the 1997 image, and Jason-2 gathered data for the 2015 map.
By October 1997 and 2015, large areas of the central and eastern Pacific had sea levels more than 7 inches (18 centimeters) higher than normal. This year, sea levels are about 2 or 3 inches (5 to 8 centimeters) higher than average and over a smaller area compared to the 1997 and 2015 events. Both of the past El Niños reached peak strength in late November or early December, so this year’s event may still intensify.
“Every El Niño is a little bit different,” said Josh Willis, Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich project scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “This one seems modest compared to the big events, but it could still give us a wet winter here in the Southwest U.S. if conditions are right.”
Launched in November 2020, Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich is named after former NASA Earth Science Division Director Michael Freilich. The satellite is one of two that compose the Copernicus Sentinel-6/Jason-CS (Continuity of Service) mission.
Sentinel-6/Jason-CS was jointly developed by ESA (European Space Agency), the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), NASA, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with funding support from the European Commission and technical support on performance from the French space agency CNES (Centre National d’Études Spatiales).
To learn more about Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/sentinel-6
unlike SLR, at least an El Niño rise of 7 inches in a few months is significantly more than the Sentinel 6 detection threshold of ~3cm/year. So real, unlike SLR acceleration.
You mean 3mm/yr ?
Not sure, but I presume Rud is referring what the instrument is set up to be capable of quantifying, within certain upper and lower limits, not what actually happens.
NO—see my old posts here on Jason 3 and Sentinel 6. The former resolution is about 3.8 cm/year, and the latter is about 3.4cm/year. Both useless for SLR acceleration. That is why the NASA SLR acceleration stuff is scientific nonsense. Nonsense that does not close even on their own current website, by a factor of 2. See old guest post ‘SLR, acceleration, and closure’ for more fun details,
So you mean it is resolution (precision), not dynamic range?
Instrument accuracy is 3.2cm.
https://database.eohandbook.com/database/instrumentsummary.aspx?instrumentID=1723
Right. So SLR is measured at 2-3mm +/- 32mm pa. Yup it sure is accelerating, or slowing down, or reversing or whatever.
This is why no-one will admit to a correct error range; they daren’t or their scam will collapse completely.
TAO project buoys across the tropical Pacific, (where El Nino events occur) have been in place since the early 1990s, measuring a multitude of air and sea surface and subsurface variables.
Pacific Ocean – TAO | Global Tropical Moored Buoy Array (noaa.gov)
What will satellite measurements add to that?
Regards,
Bob
The buoys operate in tough conditions and have spectacular data gaps. Satellite instruments tend to be functional until the end of life with the possibility of some drift through life.
I believe the NOAA/Reynolds SST record is the best for global temperature trends because it uses satellite data to interpolate between the buoy data. So gives the accuracy of a surface reading and reliable as well as the spacial coverage of the satellite.
Maintaining the buoys looks to be running into trouble because the data has deteriorated in the last decade.
The first buoy, 110W,0N, went into service in the early 1980s. You could say that its trend is inconvenient:
stack0n110w_19790120_20231102_hf__tt_eps281t_2023110315.png
In what way has the data deteriorated and why, Rick? To whom is the buoy’s trend data “inconvenient?” The trend looks flat. That is consistent with Bob Tisdale’s observations over the years of the Eastern Pacific’s lack of a warming trend. [Thanks, Bob! I’m glad you’re back. Dave]
In a lake, 7″ rise might be noticeable. But, on ocean coasts, how would 7″ be noticeable? The occasional king?
Local meteorological conditions would swamp it, so no.
Still, a 180mm rise when annual rises are only 1-2mm is pretty impressive. Sure to be called absolute proof of AGW acceleration by those who like to cherry pick their data!
Does PSMSL remove these El Nino events from their records somehow? Must be tricky…
One notes that ENSO NOAA website predicts Neutral by autumn 2024 which if true makes this El Niño jolly sight shorter than the preceding La Niña. Is that significant? Back to Holocene cooling, eh?
The link is dead. It’s a JPL run show so this is the correct link.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/sentinel-6
I remember well the rains we had here in California in 2017. Here at 2500’ elevation we had over 100” of rain. The same year when the Oroville damn came close to complete failure.
As written, the words damn and came need to be swapped – or this; ‘…the Oroville dam came damn close to complete failure.’
The dam wall itself was in no danger..
…. the spillway, or more correctly, the secondary emergency spillway was the real issue.
When they shut the main spillway because of its collapsed surface, the water flowing over the secondary spillway was undermining the whole front of that spillway’s wall.
It would still have been a major catastrophe downstream if that wall had gone and all the ground below it was also rapidly eroded.
I remember, I believe it was touch and go for a time.
Not to mention where atmospheric pressure is abnormally low, nor to mention the effects of steady winds pushing the water. But I suppose they don’t want to confuse us peasants by overloading us with information.
The rapid rise of the current El Niño, coming after an unusually long multi-year La Niña, might explain the recent sudden, record-setting jump in UAH MSU data. This current spike only began four months ago. This current El Niño is probably venting a lot of built up heat in the oceans. It would be interesting if the ensuing sea level anomalies this winter are only in line with prior warm ENSO events and not reaching record or near-record levels in the Pacific.
‘Not all El Niño events are created equal. Their impacts vary widely, ”
That’s why the anomalies vary. A different part of Earth’s surface is briefly brushed with a brush of warm wind.
It’s rocket science really.
A different part of Earth’s surface is briefly brushed with a brush of warm wind.
In this case, the whole of the tropics has felt that warm brush.
(See charts below)
This series of charts also shows quite well how this particular EL Nino has developed.
Slightly warmer tropics around the whole globe.
That will have a very large impact on the global average.
After Josh Willis’s escapades with the ARGO data… someone needs to keep a close eye on what he does with the data !!!!
You write: There have been two extreme El Niño events in the past 30 years: the first from 1997 to 1998 and the second from 2015 to 2016. Both caused shifts in global air and ocean temperatures,
El Nijo is not causing permanent shifts in the global temperature. This may be seen by looking on the global temperature in the periode 1880 – 1930. The temperature is almost completely flat. For fifty years there are no shifts due to El Ninjo.
Erik Bye, Norway
“For fifty years there are no shifts due to El Nino.”
Solar input was consistently a lot higher from the mid 20th century.
Sort of like leaving a hotplate on high…
I am first of all considering the standard measurable globel atmospheric temperature, showing up as the ENSO-responses. The Hot spot still seem to be questionable?
“The temperature is almost completely flat.”
That is a FALSE statement. !!
There was a lot of warming from 1900-1940 until the AGW scammer “adjusted” it away.
Do you have documentation for «a lot of warming»?
You might observe this
https://realclimate.science/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/#gsc.tab=0
The adjustments make this quite uncertain. However, no sign of ENSO-pattern.
So, is it fair to say that this iis a comparatively tiny El Niño?
Seems to have released a lot of energy, that has travelled around the whole of the tropics.
(see chart about 3 posts up)
Why am I feeling tedious about the El Nino banter. Perhaps it’s because it seems to always prove to be mostly worthless?
Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy? But I seem to be yearning for more interesting certainties, or close to it, than the vast variabilities in the yearly chatter on what Nino is bringing.
Yep, I’m grumpy.
The powerful argument that El Nino and not human CO2 is driving “global warming” is highly valuable science.
I realize you are not interested in learning more about ENSO, but, in case someone reading here is, here is one of Bob Tisdale’s excellent (free) e books (another one is Climate Models Fail):
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf
You said: The powerful argument that El Nino and not human CO2 is driving “global warming . . «. But, neither is the ENSO-system. This is verified with the stable global temperature in the periode 1880 – 1930. Based on a normal ENSO-situation in this periode, the situation of no increase in the global temperature defintely exclude the Influence of the ENSO-system.
Yep….
Certainly no evidence of any human CO2 causation.
You keep proving that by your total inability to present any.
«total inability», How do you know?
Solar input has been since the mid 1900’s
“stable global temperature in the period 1880 – 1930.”
Only because GISS et al want you to see it that way. ! 😉
Certainly NOT what was shown in pre-scam data or any historic description..
… which all show a rapid rise up to the 1940s.
Brilliant… so i looked up the person referenced in your article. A Hubert Lamb.. this is what he had to say before he died in the 1990’s “an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by ….” Seems before he died he was in fact a supporter of the now well accepted fact that CO2 will warm the atmosphere if released by burning fossil fuels. So ….we have another own goal from the resident chihuahua (yapper) here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb
Hilarious.
Totally unable to counter the FACT of warming before 1930s.
So tries to totally change the subject
Can you attempt an even more PATHETIC ploy ?
Only yapping mincing poodle is YOU, slimo !
Let’s use HadCrut3 then..
Same thing… Strong warming from1900-1940s.
There are a large number of temperature measurements all showing exactly the same thing.
And there is ZERO evidence that human enhance atmospheric CO2 causes warming
You keep proving that by your pathetic inability to produce any.
I know the guy you referenced wouldn’t agree with you and that makes you look silly. That’s enough for me to sleep well tonight……
Sorry I should have said it makes you look “sillier”….. if that’s possible.
Poor Simion.. LOSER as always.
Cannot counter the fact of warming from 1900 -1940.
So tries his “slimo” route, and fails utterly as always.
“the situation of no increase in the global temperature defintely exclude the Influence of the ENSO-system. “
Sorry, but NO, it doesn’t.
1… There was definitely a large rise in temperature up to the 1940s in pre-AGW-scam data..
2… Solar energy input was higher during the grand solar maximum in the latter half of last century.
This NOAA graph reveals no ENSO-events in the time periode 1880 – 1930.
You should also look at Mickey Mann’s hockey stick
The blade starts at around 1900 and climbs sharply up to around 1940.
Who is wrong… Mackey Man or GISS…. (or both, but in different ways.) 😉
Now there is a quandary for the AGW scammers…
Always hard to keep LIES straight, isn’t it !! 🙂
Are you serious? The Hockey Stick by Mann has been demonstrated to be false by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Mann used the same data set for calibrating his model twice. Removing one dataset, the hockey Stick-profile disappeared!!
Basically every station with unadjusted data has a large warming trend from around 1900-1940.
Yes, Mann’s hockey stick is totally bogus.
But so is GISS. !
It was the discrepancy I was drawing attention to.
Also drawing attention your statement ….
“This is verified with the stable global temperature in the period 1880 – 1930.”
Which is manifestly FALSE..
Did I mention GISS?
1. Provide some data proving your assertion (there is NO data proving human CO2 causes any meaningful warming — at all). That we have little sea surface data for ENSO in the time frame you bring up doesn’t prove ANYTHING.
2. “Stable” = UP and down UP and down (See sea surface temperature data).
This NOAA graph reveals no ENSO-events in the periode 1880 – 1930.
Published today on my blog <a href=http://www.gujaratweather.com/wordpress/?page_id=30268>El Nino status dated 4th November 2023</a>
Here is only English version of El Nino update dated 4th November 2023 on my blog http://www.gujaratweather.com/wordpress/?p=30299
El Nino Status end October 2023
Come back ! Come back little La Nina…we love you!
I don’t know about loving La Niña, the 3 major floods in the Mary Valley (Sunshine Coast Hinterlands, Qld) were pretty devastating and some of the rainfall events were massive.
The ‘rain bombs’ were blamed, possibly, correctly on the Hunga Tonga underwater volcanic eruption, but the ‘Flash Drought’ that has eventuated since late November 2023 when the rains suddenly stopped has been equally devastating.
It always seems to be too much or two little wet weather in Australia. Rather than always experiencing the extremes of the range, it would be nice to have a year near the monthly 30-year average rainfall calculations. Just to see what ‘normal’ is like.
We stand with one foot in drought and one foot in flood … on average we’re ok 🙂
I am amazed after skimming thru all comments that NOBODY has quoted that the 30 Day SOI has been moving away from El Nino conditions ALL OCTOBER and carrying on into this month – https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
currently the 30 day SOI is minus 5.75
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=7194