I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html

Graham
Penzance

On Monday 09 August 2010 19:08, Graham Easterling scribbled:

I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html


I've found a few warm Augusts - and checking all months generally threw up
August as the warmest month (which suggests a problem with the normals?) -
but I don't think they quite measure up to this year. They are for years
'98, '99, '01,'03 and '05. The first two also have similar North Pacific
patterns. 2003 also followed a weakening cold pool off Newfoundland.

I've been using the charts at
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: "newsman", not "newsboy".
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl
Sagan

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 at 11:08:46, Graham Easterling
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html

You'd think that'd allow the air to hold more moisture - but very little
of it seems to be finding its way here...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Aug 9, 7:35*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Monday 09 August 2010 19:08, Graham Easterling scribbled:

I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html

I've found a few warm Augusts - and checking all months generally threw up
August as the warmest month (which suggests a problem with the normals?) -
but I don't think they quite measure up to this year. They are for years
'98, '99, '01,'03 and '05. The first two also have similar North Pacific
patterns. 2003 also followed a weakening cold pool off Newfoundland.

I've been using the charts athttp://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. *E-mail: "newsman", not "newsboy".
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl
Sagan

I was trying to see if there was any coloration with rainfall for
those years here in the SE, but the 98 was a dry August and 99 was
wet. 01 wet, 03 dry then 05 wettish. Next ;-)

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"

Paul Hyett wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 at 11:08:46, Graham Easterling
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html

You'd think that'd allow the air to hold more moisture - but very
little of it seems to be finding its way here...

You must have got at least a couple of mm earlier on this
morning, surely?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Graham Easterling wrote:

I don't recall seeing so much of the north Atlantic with above normal
SSTs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ni-weekly.html

Graham
Penzance


While, at the same time, much of the Pacific Ocean has below average SSTs. Such
large scale SST anomalies must have an influence on broadscale weather patterns
but what the result of that will be I haven't a clue:-)

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On 10 Aug 2010 08:28:13 GMT
"Norman" wrote:
While, at the same time, much of the Pacific Ocean has below average SSTs. Such
large scale SST anomalies must have an influence on broadscale weather patterns
but what the result of that will be I haven't a clue:-)

I've always found it curious that on the one hand weather and climate
scientists are quite happy to quote the famous chaos theory butterfly effect
whereby a little insect could in theory cause a hurricane the other side of
the planet, yet when you press them on whether abnormal heating/cooling in a
large body of water a few thousand miles across could affect climate elsewhere
they start umming and ahhing.

B2003

On Aug 10, 9:39*am, wrote:
On 10 Aug 2010 08:28:13 GMT

"Norman" wrote:
While, at the same time, much of the Pacific Ocean has below average SSTs. Such
large scale SST anomalies must have an influence on broadscale weather patterns
but what the result of that will be I haven't a clue:-)

I've always found it curious that on the one hand weather and climate
scientists are quite happy to quote the famous chaos theory butterfly effect
whereby a little insect could in theory cause a hurricane the other side of
the planet, yet when you press them on whether abnormal heating/cooling in a
large body of water a few thousand miles across could affect climate elsewhere
they start umming and ahhing.

B2003

That is because they don't know what the insects are doing on the
other side of the planet :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2010 08:28:13 GMT

I've always found it curious that on the one hand weather and climate
scientists are quite happy to quote the famous chaos theory butterfly
effect
whereby a little insect could in theory cause a hurricane the other
side of
the planet, yet when you press them on whether abnormal
heating/cooling in a
large body of water a few thousand miles across could affect climate
elsewhere
they start umming and ahhing.

B2003



That's because the first is a theory without detail, the latter requires
some specifics. Perhaps you should ask about effects on the weather
rather than the climate.

Tom

On 10/08/2010 10:39, d wrote:
On 10 Aug 2010 08:28:13 GMT
wrote:
While, at the same time, much of the Pacific Ocean has below average SSTs. Such
large scale SST anomalies must have an influence on broadscale weather patterns
but what the result of that will be I haven't a clue:-)

I've always found it curious that on the one hand weather and climate
scientists are quite happy to quote the famous chaos theory butterfly effect
whereby a little insect could in theory cause a hurricane the other side of
the planet,

The problem is that chaotic systems are *extremely* sensitive to initial
conditions and so even the tiniest difference can grow exponentially
with time. It makes weather prediction pretty difficult.

yet when you press them on whether abnormal heating/cooling in a
large body of water a few thousand miles across could affect climate elsewhere
they start umming and ahhing.

They can make rough predictions about vapour pressure and available
energy above warmer surface water, but it has to be a huge perturbation
before there is any real certainty in the predictions that can be made.
Otherwise it could be swamped by one of those awkward butterflies.

Regards,
Martin Brown