Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to looking at the numbers for how much energy is exported from the tropics each month by this great heat engine we call the climate. As I discussed in The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine, at all times the tropics are receiving more energy than they are radiating to space. The excess is exported from the tropics to the poles, and radiated to space from there. Ruminating about the numbers, I realized that I could use the satellite data to check the oceanographers data regarding the flow of energy into and out of the ocean. Here’s how.
The actual situation we’re looking at is that what is exported from the tropics is equal to what is radiated back out to space from the poles, plus what goes into storage in the ocean. From the CERES data we know how much is exported from the tropics, and we also know what is radiated to space from the poles. So the difference between what is exported from the tropics and the amount received by the poles must be the change in the ocean heat storage. What was surprising to me, however, was the amount of energy that goes into and out of the ocean every year. Seeing the size of that swing in ocean heat content, I realized that we should be able to use the CERES data as an independent check on the Levitus upper ocean heat content data. Figure 1 shows the results of the analysis:
Figure 1. Sizes of the flows (in 1022 joules/month), and the ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly (in 1022 joules). The top panel shows the total amount of energy exported every month from the tropics, in units of 1022 joules per month . Panel 2 shows the imports of energy into the polar regions. Panel 3 shows the change in storage for that month (exports minus imports). Panel 4 shows the annual changes in ocean heat content (OHC) in units of 1022 joules (NOT joules/month). Panel 4 is calculated from the flows shown in Panel 3.
In the top two panels, we see the amount of heat being exported from the tropics, and the amount imported into the polar regions. The third panel shows the storage, calculated as the exports minus imports. And the bottom panel shows the cumulative sum of the monthly changes in OHC, which gives us the ocean heat content anomaly.
The beauty of climate science is that I’m continually being surprised. I certainly didn’t expect that there would be two cycles per year in the imports and the exports (top two panels), but only one cycle per year in the storage (bottom panel). Nothing more fun than discoveries. I also would never have guessed that the storage cycle would peak in January and bottom out in June … is this related to the earth being closer to the sun in January? Who knows. In any case, it’s the fourth panel that lets us compare satellites and oceanographers. Oh, yeah … as I’m writing this, I still don’t know what I’ll find out.
Now, there’s an oddity about this method for calculating the OHC anomaly. You can’t use it to establish the trend in the OHC data (Panel 4). This is because even a tiny systematic error in one of the three datasets (solar, upwelling longwave, and upwelling reflected solar) results in a very large trend in the ocean heat content. So while the annual changes will be valid in terms of swing and timing, and they can be compared to the adjacent years, the overall trend is meaningless. As a result, all we can see are the relative sizes of the annual swings in OHC data. Because we don’t know what the trend is, I’ve set the trend in the OHC (Fig. 1, bottom panel) to zero.
However, this calculation of OHC from the CERES data is very interesting despite its limitations. We can extract the “climatology” (the average seasonal changes) of the OHC from the data. The CERES data establishes that we should see an annual swing in OHC of about 4e+22 joules … and that is large enough that I figured it should be quite visible in the Levitus ocean heat content data. We can also see the month-by-month changes in the ocean heat content, and compare the various years.
So I went and got the Levitus OHC climatology (quarterly average actual temperature) data so I could compare the Levitus and CERES data (see note below for data sources). The Levitus data is quarterly, so I have averaged the CERES OHC anomaly data shown in Panel 4 above to convert it to quarterly data. Figure 2 shows the comparison of Levitus and CERES OHC climatologies, the average changes from quarter to quarter in the ocean heat content:
Figure 2. Climatology. A comparison of the average quarterly changes in ocean heat content (OHC) climatology as given by Levitus oceanographic data, and by the CERES satellite data.
Now, I have long been critical of the Levitus data for a couple of reasons. One is the steep rise from 2001 to 2004 (see Fig. 3 below), which coincides with the full introduction of the Argo floats for collecting ocean temperatures. Another reason is that I don’t think that they have the kind of accuracy that they claim, as described here. Next, the large rise that they show at the end of 2001 seems unphysical. Finally, my sense overall is that they are claiming greater changes than are actually occurring.
Figures 2 and 3 show some of those difficulties. One of the problems with the Levitus climatological data (Fig. 2 above) is the very large change in OHC from the first quarter (Q1) to the second quarter (Q2) of the year. In Fig. 2, the Levitus climatology data claims that the OHC changes by 6.9 e+22 joules/quarter. This is a change in storage of 2.3 e+22 joules per month.
But as you can see in Figure 1 (third panel), the CERES data don’t show any monthly change in ten years that is much greater than 1 e+22 J/mo. This casts doubt on the accuracy of the Levitus data.
And things only get worse when we look, not at the climatologies, but at the actual quarter by quarter measured changes in OHC reported by both Levitus and CERES. Figure 3 shows those results
Figure 3. Measured quarterly OHC anomalies, Levitus (oceanographic) and CERES (satellite) data. I have adjusted the trend of the CERES OHC results to match the trend of the Levitus OHC data so that they can be compared. Levitus data is the sum of their anomaly data and the climatology.
Now, here’s the thing … as I mentioned above, we cannot trust the trend of the CERES OHC data. Even a tiny error in the underlying data, while not affecting the year-to-year changes, makes a huge difference in the trend of the results. However, there’s still a lot revealed by the CERES OHC data. Solely in order to be able to compare the CERES and Levitus data, I’ve adjusted the trend in the CERES actual OHC results so that the slope matches that of the Levitus data. Several issues are apparent.
The first issue is that the cycle of the CERES ocean heat content data doesn’t vary much from year to year. There are indeed variations year to year, but the CERES OHC data swings about the same amount from year to year. The Levitus data, on the other hand, shows huge variations from one year to the next.
Here’s the problem. The largest swing per quarter in the Levitus actual data is 7.3 e+22 J/quarter at the end of 2001, or about 2.5 e+22 joules per month max over the time. But where is that energy coming from? The annual average export of energy from the tropics is only about 5 e+22 joules per month … so the Levitus data is saying that somehow, half the average export from the tropics, which is a huge number, has been sequestered in the ocean.
Now while the CERES data is admittedly only accurate to a few W/m2, which is why the CERES calculated OHC trend can’t be trusted, a 50% error in the CERES measurements seems highly unlikely. And that is what the Levitus data is claiming, that somehow half the average tropical energy export was diverted into the ocean at the end of 2001.
My conclusion? Well, my main conclusion is that the satellite data are likely better than the ocean measurements.
My second conclusion is that the jump in the last quarter of 2001 in the Levitus data is not correct.
My final conclusion is that year over year, the variations in the energy flows into and out of the ocean are nowhere near as large as the Levitus data suggests. Where would the energy be coming from?
[UPDATE] There is another graph of interest. This is the graph showing the OHC data in the normal way. This is after removal of the average seasonal swings, leaving only the anomalies.
Figure 4. OHC data from the CERES (gold) and Levitus (blue) datasets. Both datasets have had the seasonal averages subtracted from the data. The trend of the CERES data is nominal, and has been adjusted to the trend of the Levitus data.
Figure 4 is one of the clearest examples of the problem with the Levitus data. The deviations in OHC in the Levitus data represent huge swings in energy … but these claimed swings simply are not visible in the CERES data.
Onwards, the world is a magical place.
w.
METHODS: Unfortunately, the Levitus data doesn’t seem to contain an OHC climatology (averages for the value for each month or quarter of a year). Instead, what they provide is a temperature climatology, in 33 depth levels from 0 to 5,500 metres of depth. This means we have to take a roundabout route to get to the OHC climatology.
First we need the data about the size and thickness of each of the levels at which the variables are measured (see data list below). The Levitus climatology data measures the temperatures at depth levels of 0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, metres and so on, with thicker layers as they go deeper, down to 9,000 metres. To get the volume of each layer, you need to average the area of the top and bottom depth levels that define the thickness. Then you multiply that by the thickness of the layer to get the volume. To convert that to tonnes, multiply by 62/60. To get the energy needed to raise the temperature of the layer by 1°C, multiply the tonnage by 4 e+6 joules/tonne of seawater/°C.
Then from the quarterly temperature climatologies, calculate the average temperature of each of the layers as the average of the temperatures at the levels at the top and bottom of each layer. Then calculate the quarterly change in temperature for each of the layers. Multiply those layer-by-layer changes by the energy needed to change each layer by 1°, add up the energy needed for each the layers for their particular temperature change, and that’s the change in OHC over the quarter given the temperature climatology.
DATA: Levitus climatology
CERES data (I note that the CERES folks have added another three years to the dataset, 2010-2013. This is good news, more data is always a good thing … except for the part where I need to redo my various previous analyses … not enough time in the day.)
Battling adjustments creating anomalous anomalies?
You’re on a roll, Willis.
There is no mid lattitudes on the Earth then? The equator exports some of the energy from the sun and the poles import all the energy from the equater and radiates it to space?
Willis, keep up the good work. There are a lot of eyes on it.
Possibly some weighting is needed to adjust for the size of the oceans in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Willis
Are you now seeing the light, namely, that due to the amount of solar irradiance received by the tropical oceans, the tropical oceans would not freeze even without DWLWIR?
Are you now begiinning to see that the excess energy received by the tropicial ocean, which gets exported polewards, is sufficient to stop the ocean at mid latitude from freezing?
About the storage cycle peaking in January – isn’t that just because there’s more ocean in the southern hemisphere?
Donald
Before the discoveries of Copernicus emerged,the conceptions of solar system structure and planetary motions had become so contrived,complicated and convoluted by adding ad hoc assumptions on top of others to save the geocentric appearances that when he introduced two simple motions of the Earth ,thereby redefining planetary motions and solar system structure ,that it blew away the few astronomers that realized what he had done.
The point here is instructive as sometimes people have to stand way back to see what is going on and then return to a more detailed view but few people are prepared to do this and especially when discussing the astronomical inputs that define global climate. In this respect Copernicus himself has the last word for his only fear was not Church censure but from those who won’t or can’t look at the bigger picture first and then work on the details as opposed to building a picture one assertion at a time –
“They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified.” De revolutionibus, 1543
It is imperative that researchers get the relatively simply astronomical inputs in order and then return to climate with a stable and intelligent narrative.
@donald penman
herein lies the problem.. of course he hasn’t looked at transfers at every latitude.
Is that even possible ??????
Do you really think ANY of the so-called climate models include any of this latitudinal energy transfer in any way. Of course not. The climate models are totally simplistic compared to real life.
Yet trillions of dollars have been wasted because of their output !!
Its sheer idiocy !!!
Willis is breaking new ground…………
RESPECT !!!!!!
The thing that keeps me nervous is the short time span of data. Get real. The usual and casual reference to short term data.
(possibly OT)
Transient ocean heat (from the equatorial to polar regions) is responsible for the British Isles having much warmer winters and cooler summers than similar locations on the N. Atlantic’s western coastal latitudes as the daily maximum/minimum temperatures in the comprehensively monitored CET area show
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
While December 2012 was month of two halves, December 2013 was positively mild affair with both daily max & min temps above the 20 year average
richard verney says:
January 2, 2014 at 12:42 am
Absolutely not. Average downwelling longwave in the tropics is more than half of the total downwelling radiation. At the TAO buoy on the equator at 165E, for example, the average downwelling longwave on a 24/7 basis is 400 W/m2, and the average downwelling shortwave is 270 W/m2.
Do the numbers next time before uncapping your electronic pen, richard. It keeps one from making foolish mistakes …
w.
donald penman says:
January 2, 2014 at 12:28 am
Donald, there are two kinds of gridcells—those nearer the equator that receive more solar radiation than they radiate to space, and those nearer the poles that receive less energy than they radiate to space.
Energy is transferred from the equatorial group polewards both north and south.
w.
This is the view of the Earth we would be seen by a hypothetical observer of the Sun apart from one really important and crucial detail that is left out. The Earth would appear to process an axial preccesion across it annual cycle where one polar latitude would come into view while the opposite polar coordinate existing at 23 1/2 degrees South or North of the face of the Earth that is always half in Sunlight would disappear from view.
This is how the annual motion of the Earth’s polar coordinates looks like from the Sun –
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
The energy budget across all latitudes is constant even if orbital distance from the Sun varies but latitudes experience that heat budget differently.The most important factor is the one contemporaries leave out,not inclination to the Sun organized around the Earth’s Equator but the length of time any given latitude spends in solar radiation or the orbital shadow of the Earth. You have these guys still talking about the ‘Sun overhead’ and receiving direct radiation while at the poles they receive solar radiation at an oblique angle in order to promote the idea that the Earth tilts towards and away from the Sun.If so then it should tilt towards and away from all the stars but it doesn’t !
The CERES data are already adjusted based upon OHC data. They pretty much have to be since the CERES data absolute accuracy is only good to about +/- 10 W/m2. Those adjustments are for the long-term averages, since the 3-monthly changes in OHC are very noisy and imply huge and (probably) unrealistic energy fluxes.
Increasing attention to annual & semiannual cycles is a step in the right direction, but one thing still missing in the recent series of wuwt articles tracing decades-old Russian & NASA knowledge of terrestrial heat engines is mention of consequent midlatitude westerly winds [http://imageshack.us/a/img850/876/f0z.gif] and their role in mixing.
Sun-Climate 101: Solar-Terrestrial Primer
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/sun-climate-101-solar-terrestrial-primer.pdf
Sun-Climate 101 outlines law-constrained geometric foundations of solar-governed “internal” (a counterproductive misnomer) spatiotemporal redistribution (stirring) of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity.
Those with sufficiently deep understanding will recognize this as a 4-dimensional geometric proof.
See particularly item #5 on page 3. The lesson: There’s stirring & accumulation even with a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity due to the shifts & persistence of terrestrial circulation that are an inevitable consequence of solar frequency shift.
It’s trivial and it’s geometrically proven.
The attractor (central limit) would be the same whether scrambled by white noise, spatiotemporal chaos, &/or lunisolar oscillations (the latter of which stand out clearly in observations).
The utility of these fundamentals extends beyond generalizing the role of stellar frequency in planetary aggregate-circulation to assessing the vision, competence, functional numeracy, honesty, & relevance of climate discussion agents, including those abusing authority.
” As a result, all we can see are the relative sizes of the annual swings in OHC data. Because we don’t know what the trend is, I’ve set the trend in the OHC (Fig. 1, bottom panel) to zero.”
Willis, does “’I’ve set the trend to zero” mean you’ve detrended the data? If so, what was the trend you subtracted.
I appreciate all the caveats about the data but I’d rather been shown what the data says than be told there’s a trend but I don’t need to know what it is because it doesn’t count.
When trying to reconcile two datasets and decide which is reliable it’s important to have the full picture.
re Jan peak , I would say the main factor is N/S water surface , it’s more likely to follow SH summer. You could look at the relative contribution of each hemisphere and compare to surface.
Perihelion will add to that as well.
Per Jan peak… NH has more snow. Wonder if that matters… SH has better “ozone hole” so clearer radiative window. June SH is radiating very well, Jan not so much… (closest to sun and lots of clouds then too…)
Nicely done, btw. I second the notion of wanting to see the bogus trend prior to removal.
Gerald Kelleher,
The issue you seem to have a hard time grappling with is that the world is round and is a three dimensional shape with a three dimensional atmosphere. Angle of incidence is created by the round earth and while the distance from different parts of the globe to the sun is trivial the angle created is not. This is demonstrated cleanly and clearly by the TAO buoys. I am not arguing with you merely pointing out the piece of information you seem to be missing.
v/r,
David Riser
Roy Spencer says:
January 2, 2014 at 3:22 am
The CERES data are already adjusted based upon OHC data. They pretty much have to be since the CERES data absolute accuracy is only good to about +/- 10 W/m2.
__________________
Thanks. you just answered the question I was going to ask Willis.
Dang, I hit the post button before I said: Another good job, WIllis. Many thanks.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 2, 2014 at 2:20 am
“At the TAO buoy on the equator at 165E, for example, the average downwelling longwave on a 24/7 basis is 400 W/m2, and the average downwelling shortwave is 270 W/m2.”
These values cant be treated the same. It likes a 270 W/m2 gamma beam against 400 W/m2 alpha beam. Which one would you prefer to be shot at you?
Energy W/m2 at different wavelengths are not the same thing they are at orders smaller. Let me know when you get sun burn in the shade outside, where the 400w/m2 downwelling longwave is hitting you all the time. The downwelling longwave is energy that is escaping from the atmosphere eventually, but is so weak it doesn’t penetrate anything on surface, including human skin.
This is so obvious when you think about it, when a values is apparently higher than the downwelling shortwave. It would mean the planet is losing energy all the time taking overall input and output. The oceans would already have frozen millions of years ago is this was the case.
“I also would never have guessed that the storage cycle would peak in January and bottom out in June ”
It makes [sense] really when the ocean surface is much bigger in the SH than the NH and June is the SH winter where the sun is at its weakest.
Typo – I know it should be sense, not “sence”
Willis: Thank you, another example of digging into the data rather than assuming some initial conditions and a fictional forcing and running models for centuries.
Tell me what kind of vitamins you take for energy, I want some!
@“… by this great heat engine we call the climate.”
Should CLIMATE not be defined accordingly?
“In the time-scale range from a few weeks to thousand years, the dynamics of climate is strongly controlled by the oceans.” Said Klaus Hasselmann, 1990,
[“Ocean Circulation and Climate Change”, Paper presented at Bolin –
65 Symposium, Friiberghs, Herrgard, 20-23 May, 1990,]
But neither he nor his colleagues never talked serious about it, neither did they ever made clear that any definition of CLIMATE need to have a reference to the oceans, for example:
“Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”, as done at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ .
Also sub-polar ocean regions store and release sun heat in great amount, in summer and winter, every hour as two examples from the Baltic Sea indicate:
__per month : http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com/4/b/4IV-16.jpg
__per day : http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com/4/b/4V-19.jpg