Bob Tisdale writes:
NINO3.4 SST Anomalies Make A Surge
NINO3.4 SST Anomalies have reached 1.5 deg C for the week centered on October 28, 2009.
http://i37.tinypic.com/nzoyvn.png
NINO3.4 SST AnomaliesSOURCEOI.v2 SST data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Here’s a look at the current global SST map:
Leif Svalgaard (14:24:18) :
Adam from Kansas (14:05:39) :
when I go outside when the summer sun is blazing, I at times feel quite a bit of warmth, I can’t really discount the energy the sun brings to everything on Earth, from your own skin to concrete to water.
Except that right now that warmth must come from the oceans according to tallbloke 🙂
Well, a good bit of it on my side of the Atlantic at the moment anyway. Maritime climate Britain has stayed pretty mild this autumn, whereas central Germany has been freezing hard.
Leif Svalgaard (14:13:01) :
tallbloke (11:03:19) :
Well the calculations I did which you verified showed a forcing 1993-2003 equivalent to 4W/m2 ‘excess’ energy, which is not exceedingly small compared to the radiative forcing attributed to co2, but rather, over twice as big.
It is nonsense to compare with something you yourself don’t believe in. The energy to compare with is the incoming energy over the time when you have the excess. How big is that?
You avoided this, so I try again.
You’re right Leif, I don’t believe co2 has a 1,7W/m^2 forcing, more like Lindzen and Spencers 0.4W/m^2 at the most.
So the solar forcing on the ocean during the late ’90’s was more like 10 times the climate forcing attribured to co2 rather than over twice as big.
Much as I like some of the ways that tallbloke interprets the real world I really can’t go along with the idea that somehow the oceans mainly or only go into energy release mode at solar minima.
Clearly the oceans do vary in the rate at which energy is released to the air and we clearly have two and possibly three timescales for which there is empirical evidence namely ENSO interannual variability, PDO multidecadal (30 or so years) variability and probably also a cycle of 1000 years or so.
Unfortunately none of those timings fit neatly enough to solar changes even though solar input to the system is the primary energy source.
The Svensmark idea has a similar problem in that the necessary correlations with the timing of the oceanic changes is missing so that even if it exists the GCR effect cannot be a primary driver. At most it can only have a minor modulating effect but there are also many other second order processes out there both positive and negative which most likely as not cancel each other out. The Svensmark effect is probably just one of those many.
The neatest and simplest solution is to accept that the oceans themselves have their own internal variability which leads to those several cycles during which the rate of energy release to the air changes.
The direction of net energy flow globally is always sun to sea to air to space. The phase changes of water involving latent heat transfers ensure it. That is why the temperature gradient in the oceans is from bottom (cold) to top (warm) yet the energy flow is mainly from bottom to top (excluding subduction from internal ocean movements). Normally energy flows from warm to cold but the sucking out of energy from the oceans by evaporaion reverses the ‘normal’ flow.
Those phase changes of water are variable rapidly over the entire globe and at multiple levels above the surface and so can suppress distortions in the energy flow from all other causes.
The effectiveness of those phase changes in cancelling out variation from other causes (say, from the oceans) in the flow of energy through the system is demonstrated by the apparent lack of significant variation between energy arriving at the Earth from the sun and energy leaving the Earth to space.
Whatever the oceans or anything else does to disrupt the flow of energy through the system the air circulations in both troposphere and stratosphere simply work together to retain overall stability.
There is a good reason for the existence of the tropopause. It is the point at which two competing processes meet.
It is the boundary between two competing forces, namely the circulations in the troposphere regulating the rate of energy transport from surface to tropopause and the circulations in the stratosphere regulating the rate of energy loss from tropopause to space.
Depending on which process is dominant at any particular time the height of the tropopause rises and falls.
We see the latitudinal shift in the tropospheric air circulation systems when the rate of energy flow from surface to tropopause changes.
We should be looking for a corresponding and opposing global pattern change in the stratospheric air circulation systems to ‘square the circle’.
And for those wondering about Solar Cycles versus ENSO, here’s a graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies and scaled monthly Sunspot Numbers:
http://i33.tinypic.com/m4vty.png
The huge flaw in Leif’s argument is the .1% variance in TSI he always leans on. We all now know that is not all about TSI alone, and how it might be measured in space.
There are modulators of TSI, they are called clouds.
tallbloke (15:15:25) :
If you really believe that there is little hope for any kind of sane discussion here.
As you conceded: “what goes in must go out”, hence the 0.1K.
tallbloke (15:24:04) :
You avoided this again [beginning to take count, now at 2], so I try again:
The energy to compare with is the incoming energy over the time when you have the excess. How big is that?
Stephen Wilde (15:58:08) :
Whatever the oceans or anything else does to disrupt the flow of energy through the system the air circulations in both troposphere and stratosphere simply work together to retain overall stability.
There is a good reason for the existence of the tropopause. It is the point at which two competing processes meet.
It is the boundary between two competing forces, namely the circulations in the troposphere regulating the rate of energy transport from surface to tropopause and the circulations in the stratosphere regulating the rate of energy loss from tropopause to space.
The loss to space is radiational not convective, the stratosphere is heated from above by UV and is inherently stable and doesn’t circulate vertically.
Geoff Sharp (16:11:17) :
There are modulators of TSI, they are called clouds.
A higher temperature [because of higher TSI] means more clouds [negative feedback as Spencer points out], so the effect of a 0.1% increase of TSI might be even less than 0.1K in the long run.
50 years of pretty precise ocean temp correlation to CRF
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
From the empirical data presented there, I see absolutely no indication that Oceans store heat, nor any reason to trust those who massage the ARGO data until it agrees with the models. Oceans absorb or emit heat in concert with CRF, with the coupling presumably being an amplification mechanism involving cloud cover, which also correlates with CRF.
Leif Svalgaard (16:47:24) :
Geoff Sharp (16:11:17) :
There are modulators of TSI, they are called clouds.
——————-
A higher temperature [because of higher TSI] means more clouds [negative feedback as Spencer points out], so the effect of a 0.1% increase of TSI might be even less than 0.1K in the long run.
You are grabbing at straws here, the greater modulation comes at minimum or low activity, more clouds from more GCR’s and less ozone. At higher levels of activity there is reduced cloud cover as well…as explained here.
“In order for such reinforcement to take place many small wheels have to interdigitate. The initial process runs from the top downwards: increased solar radiation leads to more ozone and higher temperatures in the stratosphere. “The ultraviolet radiation share varies much more strongly than the other shares in the spectrum, i.e. by five to eight per cent, and that forms more ozone” explains Katja Matthes. As a result, especially the tropical stratosphere becomes warmer, which in turn leads to changed atmospheric circulation. Thus, the interrelated typical precipitation patterns in the tropics are also displaced.
The second process takes place in the opposite way: the higher solar activity leads to more evaporation in the cloud free areas. With the trade winds the increased amounts of moisture are transported to the equator, where they lead to stronger precipitation, lower water temperatures in the East Pacific and reduced cloud formation, which in turn allows for increased evaporation. Katja Matthes: “It is this positive back coupling that strengthens the process”. With this it is possible to explain the respective measurements and observations on the Earth’s surface.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/ncar-spots-the-transistor-effect-small-solar-activity-fluctuations-amplify-to-larger-climate-influences/#more-10339
Geoff Sharp (17:40:20) :
As a result, especially the tropical stratosphere becomes warmer, which in turn leads to changed atmospheric circulation.
As pointed out upthread, the stratosphere is vertically stable and does not change the troposphere.
yonason (17:00:07) :
50 years of pretty precise ocean temp correlation to CRF
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
, which also correlates with CRF.
equally well with TSI or any other solar cycle indicator.
The neatest and simplest solution is to accept that the oceans themselves have their own internal variability which leads to those several cycles during which the rate of energy release to the air changes.
The direction of net energy flow globally is always sun to sea to air to space.
Stephen Wilde is correct on both counts here.
The oceans act as a heat/energy buffer between solar radiation and atmospheric heating/cooling. Whatever variations there are in solar radiation, the oceans will smooth those variation out and introduce a delay (likely between months and years) in any solar heating/cooling effect.
So even if Leif is out on his estimate of solar radiation variations (and I am confident his is the best estimate we have) the effect on atmospheric temperatures will be less than the solar variation itself, likely very much less. (Except over long time periods – decades?).
As SW states there are other variations/cycles at work on the Earth’s climate like ocean cycles. Some of which may have similar periods to variations in solar radiation and others of which may be influenced by solar effects (GCRs and clouds?).
However, these are NOT direct solar radiation effects.
Otherwise, Geoff Sharp may well be correct (I don’t know) about indirect solar mechanisms effecting climate and atmospheric temperatures. But I would need solid empirical evidence to be persuaded. Something that may be some time coming with the (rampant?) politicization of climate science.
Don’t know if it is related or not; perhaps Bob has an opinion ?
But the DMI temperature graph is still dooing crazy delaying tactics on its way to the bottom; and if that is real (why wouldn’t it be ?) that would be consistent (I like that turn of phrase) with the fact that the JAXA ice regrowth; which got off to a good start mid september; right about the time this silly yo-yo appeared in DMI, with the regrowth plot (JAXA) slowly working its way over towards the record low 2007 plot. That trend would certianly jibe with the delay of the temperature drop in the high arctic.
Could any of this be related to what Bob is referring to as regards SSTs ?
Just asking.
yonason (17:00:07) :
50 years of pretty precise ocean temp correlation to CRF
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
, which also correlates with CRF.
I’ve deleted the two graphs in between the CRF and detrended SST:
http://i37.tinypic.com/4lhms2.gif
I can’t say that I see the correlation. I see an influence.
Leif, do you have a the CRF data available in a spreadsheet on a monthly basis? If so, I’ll detrend Global SST anomalies and throw it and the CRF data onto the same graph.
Bob Tisdale (18:54:29) :
Leif, do you have a the CRF data available in a spreadsheet on a monthly basis? If so, I’ll detrend Global SST anomalies and throw it and the CRF data onto the same graph.
http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Monthly-GRF.xls
somewhat meaningless as all solar parameters follow the same curve, so if you see a correlation, you don’t know if it is CRF, SSN, TSI, CMEs. flares, UV, whatever.
tallbloke (15:18:05) :
Beyond that there is the fact that longwave radiation from the air cannot penetrate the surface of the ocean further than it’s own wavelength, whereas the longwave radiation from the ocean readily heats the air.
I still do not understand.
Are you saying that if a bath full of water at 17C in in a room heated to 18C then the bath water will cool and the air temperature will rise.
I’m sure I must be missing something, sorry.
“equally well with TSI or any other solar cycle indicator.”
But TSI is inversely correlated, and by all indications neither it or any other solar indicators are the direct cause, as far as I am aware. E.g., as you point out, there just isn’t enough of an energy change between max and min solar activity to drive climate. Yet climate responds to solar cues none the less. How?
CRF appears to be the only candidate for a direct cause, with the sun serving merely to modulate it. According to the theoretical model CRF isn’t sufficient to induce cloud nucleation, but in practice more clouds form when CRF is elevated. And now there is even “proof of concept.”
It would be nice if there were a good (i.e., objective and complete) state of the art review that laid out all the different scenarios, with their pros and cons. Does any such document exist? (something independent of the UN’s tree-ring circus, that is).
yonason (20:15:02) :
But TSI is inversely correlated
No CRF is inversely correlated. Note the scale is upside down.
Yet climate responds to solar cues none the less. How?
That is what is claimed, but not established. Now, there should be a small dependence, and there probably is. The issue is whether solar activity is a major driver, and it probably is not.
According to the theoretical model CRF isn’t sufficient to induce cloud nucleation”
A model is the expression of what we know form physical law.
Does any such document exist? (something independent of the UN’s tree-ring circus, that is).
Many exists, and that is the problem, as they are contradictory.
yonason (20:15:02) :
But TSI is inversely correlated
No CRF is inversely correlated. Note the scale is upside down.
Yet climate responds to solar cues none the less. How?
That is what is claimed, but not established. Now, there should be a small dependence, and there probably is. The issue is whether solar activity is a major driver, and it probably is not.
According to the theoretical model CRF isn’t sufficient to induce cloud nucleation
A model is the expression of what we know from physical law.
Does any such document exist? (something independent of the UN’s tree-ring circus, that is).
Many exists, and that is the problem, as they are contradictory.
The science of the clouds is an emerging area of science that cannot be ignored because all the science hasn’t been done yet.
It would be arrogant to suggest we know everything in this arena, just like another area of science I can think of.
Cream will rise to the top…..
Geoff Sharp (21:25:15) :
The science of the clouds is an emerging area of science that cannot be ignored because all the science hasn’t been done yet.
As Al Gore says: if you don’t know anything, everything is possible.
We base policy on what is known. And 99% of what people think is cream is actually junk, as in another area I know of.
Evaporation, conduction, and convection are the main factors in surface heat transfer. A hurricane will drop sea surface temperature by 10F in some cases, all from the above. Gray body radiation at these low ambiant temperatures is quite low. The evaporated water has a MW of 18, which is much lower than air, which has a MW of 28.9, so the “hot” water vapor rises. The vapor condenses on a cold nucleate site (dust) and radiates heat to space. However, it has much higher surface area plus the circumference increases with height * pi. CO2 is meaningless since it has a MW of 44 and will stay closer to the surface. Water vapor will rise as high as it needs to, until it condenses to water or ice.
If increased cosmic radiation causes more nucleation, then it will increase the heat transfer engine. The “shading” effect might be secondary compared to the 1000 btu’s per pound of water condensed that is released. Keep in mind that a pound of “cloud” has orders of magnitude more surface area than a pound of ocean, so the radiative increase is immense.
One more point, you may have seen a “cooling tower” on buildings, where water is sprayed over slats, and fans draw air up through the slats. On a 90F day, if you pump 100F water on the slats, it is quite possible to see the water at the bottom lowered to 78F. This is a concept most warming alarmists don’t grasp. Evaporation is very powerful at heat transfer.
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:57) :
As Al Gore says: if you don’t know anything, everything is possible.
You keep rolling out the same mantra’s as if its part of a script to your agenda. I am sorry I don’t go for your “the sun didn’t do it” story. Good science doesnt follow agenda’s, it searches for answers and takes on all areas with interest (dont give me your filter/pseudo science story)
Sometimes I think us Laymen can do it better, the politics are not involved.
JamesD (22:03:09) :
Evaporation is very powerful at heat transfer.
Brilliant post. And all of this is a result of a warmer ocean which has the Sun shining on it. There cannot be clouds around at that point, not rocket science really.