March Global Sea Surface Temperatures

Smokey (15:08:25) :I don’t know why ARGO doesn’t show them in real time.
Good point. In principle it would be possible to update ARGO every day just like UAH temperatures from satellites http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/. Anybody know why ARGO doesn’t show temperatures in real time?

Perhaps I’m reading these incorrectly. Under a global-warming scenario, would we expect these anomalies to continue getting larger every year? Secondly, if these anomalies are avg. differences from an accepted mean, and they are only a few tenths of a degree in value, what’s the big deal?

The global temperature upward march is more consistent in the oceans. NOAA has established a .97F increase in the last century in global ocean surface temperatures. December 2009 saw the second warmest ocean temperatures recorded since 1880.
References here to spikes caused by El Nino or even a claim of ocean cooling are therefore a bit puzzling.

Mike, please remember that longwave re-radiation very weakly affects water temps and only water skin deep. So something other than CO2 is causing SST changes. The most likely candidate is a change in the Easterly trade winds. This is BY FAR a much stronger source of increased SST than CO2 can ever hope to be. The trade winds then orchestrate SST’s. So yes, El Ninos have a very strong affect on SST’s but trade winds are the true driver of ocean temps.

no conflict of interest in this study?
AP: Bob Salsberg: Study: Northeast seeing more, fiercer rainstorms
BOSTON — The Northeast is seeing more frequent “extreme precipitation events” in line with global warming predictions, a study shows, including storms like the recent fierce rains whose floodwaters swallowed neighborhoods and businesses across New England…
“It’s almost like 1 inch of rainfall has become pretty common these days,” said Bill Burtis, spokesman for Clean Air-Cool Planet, a global warming education group that released the study Monday along with the University of New Hampshire’s Carbon Solutions New England group.
The study’s results are consistent with what could be expected in a world warmed by greenhouse gases, said UNH associate professor Cameron Wake. He acknowledged it would take more sophisticated studies to cement a warming link, though.
“I can’t point to these recent storms and say, that is global warming,” he said…
Global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, said it would be unfair to use the recent floods as an example of what’s in the study.
“You can’t take an individual event and say it’s a product of a certain trend,” Michaels said…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hW1_ATBmak7oS-hT4X6eZYI7zJeQD9ET6AMO0

pat (16:34:43) :
I agree with the last paragraph and I’m being overly simplistic with SST vs deep currents but it is interesting seeing the SST forces play out in the image and nearly define the North Atlantic Current as well as the possible consequence of this winters El Nino effect/run-off into the Gulf.
The image isn’t detailed enough to confirm this but doesn’t it look like the Mississippi run-off is the coolest portion in the Gulf SST in the image? It would be interesting to compare this with a similar time frame from former El Nino events.

The RSS global maps are now available and if you check the TLT map for March it matches the SST map. I’m not set up to do a world 180 degree rotate, sorry.
At the bottom I’ve just added one of the in development time maps and you might find that interesting.
daedalearth.wordpress.com
UAH publish gridded data a few days after RSS, will be similar.

Arctic Ocean SST Anomalies
The map http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/data.php was extremely interesting, the first time that I have come across Arctic water temperatures. And what did I notice most of all? The temperature for 2007-8 was a very sharp warm spike, coinciding nicely with the low ice recorded that year. Previously I have read that the winds were also unusual that summer and blew ice down into the Atlantic. So now we have two reasons for the low ice area that year.
I went to http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/data.php but was unable to find the arctic SST map. I was hoping to find how many temperature measurements were made and where.
And I wish that something could be done to prevent postings from being sent if we accidentally click the Tab key twice, as I did a few minutes ago…..
IanM

Izzat all the graphs you got ?
Well now I’m hoping that someone (Bob, Anthony, Steve Goddard, Phil) can maybe explain what we can tell from this assortment of graphs.
I shoudl ask are thes SSTs read by satellite or are they buoy data ? If satellite, are they somehow direct sea surface temperature readings (somehow) or do they infer SSTs from sea height expansion.
Not that I’m quibbling; just natuirally inquisitive.
I guess I’m getting to recognise that Westward pointing red arrow on the Pacific Equator. The Galapagos Islands seem to always have a hot SST zone around them. I sometimes wonder if that has any relationship to their bio-weirdness.

“”” Bob Tisdale (17:41:17) :
R. Gates (16:49:41) : You wrote, “I find it most interesting that some posters feel that saying “El Nino” did it, or the PDO, or the AMO, or any other cyclical ocean heating/cooling event, somehow negates the overall influence of AGW on top of these naturally occuring cycles.”
And I find it interesting that some people continue to believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases can have any effect on SST and Ocean Heat Content when Downward Longwave (infrared) Radiation can only warm the top few centimeters of the oceans while Downward Shortwave (visible light) Radiation warms the upper hundred or so meters. “””
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns wavelength, and three microns is right where H2O has its highest absorption coefficient of about 9-10,000 cm^-1, which puts the 1/e attenuation depth at 1 micron; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.
Seems to me that discrimination between the LWIR warming of a thin surface layer versus the tens to hundreds of metres penetration of the spectral irradiance peak solar energy, must be one of the most overlooked factors of some people who simply think in terms of “forcings”.
Thanks for all that data Bob.

Fishead: In the context of climate, anything (temp data) from 1980 to 2010 means nothing. Fortunately it seems the skeptics show all data such as this incredible warming. Next year could be cooling who knows? The current incredible arctic ice increase as well means nothing, as the 2007 ice decrease (in climate terms). The warmistas will ALWAYS promote the ups and hide the downs LOL We don’t as you can see.

Ascending descending
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/ascension-decending/#comment-4167

R. Gates (16:49:41) :
“fortuately many dedicated scientists are studying this very thing as we speak…”
Right, dedicated scientists like Richard Lindzen for example:
Climate Change is simply Natural and disaster isn’t imminent!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-change-is-simply-natural-and.html

George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
“””
Seems to me that discrimination between the LWIR warming of a thin surface layer versus the tens to hundreds of metres penetration of the spectral irradiance peak solar energy, must be one of the most overlooked factors of some people who simply think in terms of “forcings”.
This is fasinating to me, especially considering the possible influence of decadal changes in insolation and cloud cover possibly due to long term trends in the sun.

The ocean’s are warming because I like to have very hot baths!
🙂

” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.

oh yeah… and since they’re floats it could also be that to provide a daily plot they would have to map all the float temps to locations and that doing this every day vs. once a month would require too much effort.

Bob, Anthony, All,
I put up a new page on “60 year” cycles, not to defend them, but rather to help folks who might not necessarily be handy at translating “talk” (some might say “fast-talk”) into calculations & curves:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm

R. Gates (16:49:41) :
And fortunately enough stations survived with records long enough to show the current warming as nothing to write home about.
Pipe dreams of the Arctic warming 165 years ago being a ‘trend’ led to dashed hopes and death in the barren wastes of ice.

I’m a fairly ignorant fellow so may be that this comment amounts to nothing more than noise, but seems to me that long wave radiation can influence SSTs in two ways – through direct absorption of LWR by sea water and through oceanic absorption of CO2 that has already absorbed LWR. Wave action stands to churn surface water layers to some extent and mix that surface water with water from deeper levels. So it seems reasonable to me that incoming LWR heats more than just the top few cm of ocean surface.

mike roddy (16:01:38) : “December 2009 saw the second warmest ocean temperatures recorded since 1880. ”
Unfortunately, we have the usual problem of a change in data collection methods leading to a potential use of data splicing.
The ARGO network provides a consistent method for measuring one facet of oceanic energy content; i.e. temperature sampling at a range of depths, spread across the world’s oceans. Assuming calibration is standardised this gives an accurate reflection of the same measurement over time; albeit a smaller time-frame than would be desirable when investigating climactic shifts, oscillations and so forth.
In 1880 it was a case of bunging a bucket over the side, hauling it back in and sticking a thermometer into it.
Now, are you really going to claim that you can compare those temperature samples…
Cheers
Mark

Harry Lu,
Thanks for the Argo info and link – I’ll have to check the video tomorrow, just calling it a hunch that it wouldn’t work so well from my mobile 🙂
Regarding ocean heating, I’m not too familiar with the subject but in complex situations like this sometimes it helps to seperate the mechanisms and behaviors to more manageable chunks – which in this case might look something like this:
1.) Ocean heating from the sun – primarily through visible spectrum which can penetrate very well and transmits energy through the first few hundreds of feet
2.) Ocean heating from atmosphere through radiation – appears to be quickly exhausted at the boundary layer (first few cm if even that)
3.) Transmission of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere – conduction and radiation (i.e. temperature), and evaporative effect (humidity) – facilitated by waves through increased surface area
4.) Transmission of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean by conduction – also facilitated by waves
5.) Transmission of heat inside the ocean – this is really, for me at least, the least understood. In general terms, because of convection, it would be expected that the ocean would be like a pond or lake in that it cools much more easily than it warms. Heating from the top down is very innefficient. With any type of wave activity at the top layer (which is the rule, not the exception) this would be expected to help facilitate the mixing and transmission of heat from conduction and atmospheric radiation (assuming it only affects the top layer). That said, the internal workings of the ocean seem to be very complex with circulations, currents and salinity levels playing a very big role.
There may be some confusion/debate on item 2 (i.e. how far can this radiation really penetrate, and what does that mean). Because of convection inside the water (which tends to hold heat at the top) it is an important question to get cleared up IMO.
In regards to 5, I can’t seem to tell if this has not been well studied, if there are contradictory theories, or if there is someone who really understands this stuff but it just hasn’t been made accessible on layman’s terms. Ocean currents and circulations are amazingly powerful, but what they do in regards to the levels in play for 1, 2 and 4 I can’t even begin to say.

This animation of SST anomalies is enlightening.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif

Smokey, jorgekafkazar, Invariant:
Regarding ARGO: There are no mentions of the use of ARGO data in any of the papers associated with SST datasets (OI,v2, ERSST.v3, HADISST, HADSST2, Kaplan). But they also do not say ARGO data are excluded. However, they are mentioned in Rayner et al (2009), “Evaluating climate variability and change from modern and historical SST observations.”
https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1662927-1-Rayneretal_OceanObs09_draft4.pdf
Rayner et al discuss the many methods used to measure SST in section 2.1. Then in section 3.1 they go onto to mention ARGO: “As previously discussed, SST observations are collected from many different in situ platforms, including surface observations from ships (both VOS and research vessels), moored and drifting buoys. In addition, measurements of the temperature of the ocean skin are made by a range of infrared and microwave satellite instruments, and near surface temperatures are obtained from oceanographic profiles. Near surface temperatures (within the first few metres) from profiles measured by mechanical and expendable bathythermographs (MBTs and XBTs), conductivity temperature-depth instruments (CTDs), Argo floats and gliders, are beginning to be augmented by higher vertical resolution SST measurements from a subset of Argo floats. This information on near surface temperature structure will allow us to better reconcile SST from in situ and satellite platforms. We note though, that while Argo is essential for studies of ocean heat content, understanding sea level changes and the vertical profile of the near-surface ocean, it could not be a substitute for other in situ SST measurements with its current, relatively low, sampling frequency. A combination of VOS, drifting buoys (with and without thermistor chains) and Argo floats is needed.”
In other words, because ARGO floats spend so little time on the surface, they provide little input to SST measurement.

Bob, I appreciate that some months ago you drew my attention to Southern Ocean patterns. Have you ever noticed that 60°S – 90°S sea surface temperature (SST) appears related to SAOT?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SO20a.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SO1a.png
Context here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm

Re: Harry Lu (Apr 5 20:25),
I keep harping on the difference between energy, heat, watts/m^2, temperature and temperature anomalies.
A graph like the trenberth graph you linked to, is a distorted representation of what energy is doing, and it is energy that is the conserved quantity: i.e. the budget should add up like the budget of input output in money for a household or a business. All the other representations, heat, watts/m^2 and par excellence temperature and temperature anomalies half sources and sinks that destroy any realistic budgeting.
Heat is a form of energy, it is scalar, but it is not conserved because it can be changed into kinetic energy ( winds, sea currents, evaporation, precipitation, biological take ups which are really chemistry etc which maybe I do not remember).
So already when we are speaking of heat, we cannot make a “heat budget”.
When we go to radiation in watts/m^2, we leave the realm of scalars, which at least can be added and subtracted one dimensionally, and we enter the realm of vectors. Thus any “radiation budget” has a directionality also. It only makes sense to speak of a radiation budget at the top of the troposphere where the only ( dominant, gravity also transfers energy but the values are too low in this game) way energy can leave the planet is by radiation. At that imaginary sphere, one can identify the radiation per meter square with energy without double counting or missing chunks of energy.
On and near the surface of the planet where the atmosphere has enough mass and heat capacity adding and subtracting radiation is a fool’s game, in my physicist’s opinion, because radiation is not conserved. It is like trying to find the content of a reservoir with water when one does not know how many holes and how many inputs there are.
Energy near the surface and in the oceans and on the ground can take other forms than radiation: currents, precipitation, evaporation, winds, biological cycle, conduction, etc if I have forgotten something. All these are not vectors described perpendicular to the surface to be made equal to watts/m^2. There are enormous transfers of energy with storms and hurricanes and all the pressure systems that are tangential to the ground.
Now to go to the ocean surface: It is fractal, so its dimensions are variable but certainly larger than 2. The surface few microns, as George said, absorb all the infrared ( long wave radiation) and either reflect it or use it in evaporation . It is true that the waves will mix a bit from the surface heat, when there are no waves the heat in the sea is stratified, when there are waves it is more uniform. But the few microns of distance that the infrared can go in water still holds . It is only the fractal surface that will give off whatever long wave energy has not been taken up by evaporation.
Go to http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
and find the “near surface layer” ( at the bottom of the panel)
The variations through the year are less than 0.5C, in contrast to the higher channels. The sea is very stable because of its enormous heat capacity.
I do not want to start on back radiation, which I believe is double counting riders and horses.

‘Major’ La Nina event confidently predicted to commence late boreal spring into summer and well beyond. A generally cooling of the entire Pacific, and much of the Atlantic – forecast by the usually quite accurate JAMSTEC.
Will be interesting to see how global temperatures respond to the worlds largest ocean cooling by several degrees, and cooling quite rapidly.

Cam (06:16:31) : YOu wrote, “‘Major’ La Nina event confidently predicted to commence late boreal spring into summer and well beyond. A generally cooling of the entire Pacific, and much of the Atlantic – forecast by the usually quite accurate JAMSTEC.”
Do you have a link?

jack morrow (06:06:34) :
Kadaka
I have no website
Heh. That’s okay, and thanks for reading my post.
For your case, just in case, I was thinking of a possible “exception” in my post. Such linking amounts to advertising a site, and some people may want to promote a site that’s not their own but they like, as with someone who works with sea ice numbers a lot and links to an info page they use and they want others to see.
With you, “google” at least is something on the internet, and maybe you were trying to link to them, for a good reason. For all I know, in your “day job” you could work for them, or perhaps you just own their stock!

Re: Bob Tisdale (Apr 6 07:09),
Thanks Bob, I am fine with comments but would feel that a lot more work is necessary for a coherent full post. In addition it would not be fair not to use my full name in a post , and for personal reasons I would rather not.

Re: Sphaerica (Apr 6 08:27),
Actually, no, heat is really a “symptom” or a perception of kinetic energy. That is, heat/temperature is merely a measure of the vibrational and translational kinetic energy
That statistical mechanics exists, and the molecular structure of matter, and mass behavior can be described by it, does not make classical mechanics and thermodynamics wrong.
The first law of thermodynamics defines heat:
du=dq-dw, where u is the internal energy of the system, q the heat and w the work done.
The atmosphere and the earth are macroscopic systems and classical mechanics and thermodynamics are sufficient for macroscopic systems, unless there are coherent phenomena.
I believe that the idea of sitting on top of the troposphere and playing games with watts/m^2 is wrong.

Re: A C Osborn (Apr 6 08:48),
If you watch the dates come up sequentially, every week from december . It makes a small breathing stop on the current data.
Do not confuse anomalies with heat.
The temperature animation is closer to heat through the T^4 connection,
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_loop.gif
but a lot more energy is released at the high tropical temperatures than at the poles.

And then there’s this from today’s AcuWeather: <];o)
Rouge Wave Warnings For Oil Rigs From New Buoys
Apr 6, 2010; 11:18 AM ET
A system of smart buoys has been developed to give a 10-hour warning to oil platforms before rogue waves strike.
Do rouge waves reflect more IR radiation? Are they warmer or cooler?
Sorry for the cheap shot.
Tom

Re: lgl (Apr 6 09:42),
says who?
I call it prestidigitation with watts/m^2

“A C Osborn (08:48:03) :
The Northern Atlantic and Arctic Ocean are both way down on their highest points, so where does the heat come from for the Highest March Satellite temperatures?
Previously for Jan & Feb Dr Roy has said it came from the Oceans.
anna v (02:41:29) :
This animation of SST anomalies is enlightening.
Is that animation from past to present?
If so it looks like a lot of heat has gone somewhere.”
No.
The usage of change from some arbitrary normal as an indicator is highly misleading.
Possibly what has happened is exactly nothing at all, no change in actual heat or energy but that is being shown as a change from what has been assumed. Unfortunately that is all we are being shown.
Some fun for SST folks.
Why does this show a warm band across Africa and the middle East where there is _no_ ocean yet the pattern is there in the SST image where there is ocean? Chicken and egg.
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/channel_tlt_tb_anom_v03_2_201003.png

anna v (05:32:22) :
Loved your post about the energy balance – Richard Feynman would have been impressed!
…it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/FacHome/swp/courses/PHY110/Feynman.html

PeterB said:
“The main difference is that I believe it is a bit of noise that is insignificant compared to all other naturally occurring signals, and you believe it is a significant signal compared to the naturally occurring ones.”
——–
As a 75/25 “warmist” where I’m 75% convinced that AGWT is likely correct, but 25% sceptical, if asked to place a bet, I’d put my money AGW as being a bigger signal than just insignificant background noise. But I find an great deal of freedom in my 25% scepticism, where I can truly consider alternative thoughts without great emotional or political attachments. Far too many people let the politics rule their scientific reasoning…i.e. those who are 100% certain that AGW is right or wrong are equally blind as far as I’m concerned. Even a 1% room for doubt keeps your mind much more open. Those who make a big deal about any short term event such as a snow storm in Florida, or a cold winter here or there, or even one season where more arctic ice melts (or doesn’t melt) are both tipping their hand that they are being closed to the bigger picture. Climate is all about long term trends…however, we have to be open to the possibilty that the climate can shift very rapidly into a new long term trend, such as happened during the Younger Dryas period 13,000 years ago…

“”” David A (19:13:19) :
George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
“””
Seems to me that discrimination between the LWIR warming of a thin surface layer versus the tens to hundreds of metres penetration of the spectral irradiance peak solar energy, must be one of the most overlooked factors of some people who simply think in terms of “forcings”.
This is fasinating to me, especially considering the possible influence of decadal changes in insolation and cloud cover possibly due to long term trends in the sun. “””
“”” Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions! “””
Haven’t forgotten a thing Larry; you obviously didn’t read my post very closely; or alternatively I didn’t write it very well.
My post dealt with one very simple 8th grade high school science concept.
# 1 the incidence of solar spectrum radiation (UV to IR) on the deep ocean surface; at approximately 1000 W/m^2 max (sun directly overhead no clouds).
#2 the incidence of LWIR thermal radiation from the atmosphere (or from cloud reflections) in the range of perhaps 6-100 micorns on that same ocean surface at 324 W/m^2 according to Trenberth.
That is ALL that my post was about; those two electromagnetic radiation sorces of energy; both of which are treated by “climatologists” as “forcings”; so many Watts per square metre. As if somehow they are the same thing and produce the same results given their relative surface irradiances.
Of course they are NOT the same thing because of the things I clealy stated in my original post.
Nothing in my post suggested that there were NO OTHER physical processes of any kind going on as well; so my post contained nothing about quantum chromodynamics, or starlight, or backside thermal radiation from the moon, or anything else.
If you wish to contribute something about conduction (why didn’t you include convection) to the discussion; please do so; but don’t go thinking that I didn’t include that in my post because I forgot about it.
Obviously you didn’t understand the nature of the difference between solar spectrum radiation and its water absorption curve, and LWIR thermal radiation and its very differnet water absorption curve. That alone is what my post was about; not a complete treatise on global thermal physics.
And for David, we have to be careful as to what we ascribe to changes in the sun.
As Leif Svaalgard has constantly reminded us; the Total Solar irradiance (outside the atmosphere) only changes by about 0.1% peak to peak, over an 11 or 22 year sunspot cycle. That translates via the Stefan Boltzmann 4th power law, to only a 0.025% change in equilibrium temperature, and 0.025% of 288 K is only 0.072 deg C. The sun may have other effects due to its magnetic field changes; which may influence earth mean temperature more via the Svensmark Cosmic Ray cloud formation hypothesis.
I’m a believer that cloud cover modulation negative feedback is the overriding regulator of earth’s comfortable temperature range; so I’m generally favorable to Svensmark’s hypothesis; but I don’t have a strong opinion on just how big an effect that is; but I do beleive it is an effect to be examined.
But ultimately, the solar irradiation, and the attenuating effect of cloud cover, must be the biggest influence on heat content of the ocean.
Losses through the surface by Radiation, evaporation, conduction, convection, is obviously a complex array of thermal processes that also vary geographically.
But I beleive the “forcings” crowd greatly overestimate the significance of returned thermal radiation from the atmosphere; because they simply ignore the different spectral absorption coefficient of water over that range of wavelengths. I’m too busy with other things to worry much about the little bit of land that sticks up here and there above the water.

anna v (09:48:12) :
says who?
Those who have made observations and analyses. Have you?
http://polarmet.osu.edu/class/geog820_2009/trenbert.pdf
And according to Stefan-Boltzmann law the surface will radiate around 390 W/m2 if it’s temperature is 288 K and it’s emissivity is close to unity, so which of the three don’t you believe? S-B law, temp or emissivity? (all three I guess)

Bob Tisdale (09:25:07) “Are you implying the oceans integrate the effects of volcanic eruptions over decadal periods, with the Southern Ocean acting as a hub?”
My instinct is that the coupling might go both ways – and at different timescales. “Hub” might be a good term for quickly putting the SO in context.
Bob Tisdale (09:25:07) “Also consider the possible impact of ENSO on the portion of the Southern Ocean south of the Pacific. Its variability is significantly different than the portions south of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans:
http://i41.tinypic.com/qsjwwp.jpg “
I remember your excellent work on the Southern Ocean.
Bob Tisdale (09:25:07) “The second graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/closer-look-at-ersstv3b-southern-ocean.html “
I suggest that everyone bookmark that post as a classic.
Ninderthana is also looking into shorter-term SO variation at ~90 year timescale. I invite you to put some of your excellent knowledge of datasets to work in the choir giving the mainstream scientists some competition in advancing understanding of SO (& SAOT). I encourage Anthony to carry at WUWT any related posts which you develop.
anna v & lgl, I hope you will keep an eye on this as it evolves:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Best Regards,
Paul.

anna v (12:55:46) :
So how much is the surface radiating on average in your opinion?

lgl (09:03:56) : I believe in my earlier reply I asked for calculations regarding the oceans. Maybe I wasn’t specific in that regard. Now I am being specific in my request. That way we could see where you’re coming up with the “sun only” temperature of the oceans of 234 deg k or -38 deg C.

anna v (13:06:51) :
Thanks for the links – I haven’t had a chance to dig into them yet but will do soon!
Emissivity alone doesn’t explain it as best as I can tell. Willis sent me emissivities for a variety of natural surfaces and they were, for the most part, not too far off the from grass, leaves, etc. They were referenced from “Climate Near the Ground, sixth edition” by Rudolf Geiger. Emissivities for a deciduous forest, for example, are .95 while asphalt is .94 and concrete is .90 – there are differences there, but they don’t seem to be drastic enough to explain the differences.
As best as I can tell the best explanation for the difference in behavior (setting aside for the moment differences in emissivity, albedo, and evaporative effect) is surface area. Assuming blackbody behavior for both, 1m2 of grass (topographical) is not 1m2 of grass from an atmospheric standpoint (think little tiny radiator fins) and you would expect it to behave quite differently than blackbody asphalt where 1m2 is 1m2.
The real question I have is how much energy gets sunk into the earth when pavement gets heated by the sun (i.e. through the bottom side of the road, parking lot, or sidewalk)? Plants essentially shield most of the energy from sunlight from ever getting to the ground, which is why the soil temps at a reasonable depth (say 6ft in a non geothermal active zone) will match the average air surface temps. I’ve got a hunch, and I don’t think it’s too outrageous of a claim, that soil temps under pavement would be somewhat higher. Properly describing that is, I think, my biggest challenge right now to finishing my write-up. Maybe I could have Willis forward it over to you once I clean it up a bit more.
The idea is to provide an accessible foundational explanation as to why, for example, concrete and a lawn of the same albedo behave so differently and why doing it on the scale we’re doing it on might explain a lot of what is currently being attributed to CO2.

“”” NickB. (16:10:32) :
anna v (13:06:51) :
Thanks for the links – I haven’t had a chance to dig into them yet but will do soon! “””
Nick, I would be a little bit careful when dealing with the emissivities of say grass or similar botanical surfaces.
I doubt that anyone points a radiometer at a lawn, and focusses in on an actual surface spot on a grass ‘leaf’ or whatever the correct botanical name is. They look at a larger are of grass, that already possesses that complicated structure and surface area you referred to; so it already contributes to the “emissivity” of the grass; likewise for a conifer forest in the sub arctic.
These botanical structures are in fact crafted by Gaia to maximize the anechoic chamber effect, so as to increase the absorptance of incoming solar radiation from whatever angle it strikes the surface. So these are light trapping structures which are architected to be efficient solar absorbers which is why they also exhibit a high emissivity.
In fact if you look closely at the very first emerging “shoot” of anewly sprouted seed; say a bean, as it brekas through the soil, you will see, it often has a sort of inverted somewhat parboloidal looking end. That end isn’t just accident; they closely approximate the non-imaging optical structures known as compound Parabolic Concentrators. In this case they are a refractive form of those geometries rather than the reflective types used as solar collectors, and they achieve the theoretical maximum collection and concentration of incident light. In the case of the shoot, to pipe it down to where the seed is.
So plants are engineered to be efficient soalr collectors for both beam and diffuse radiation from a variety of directions. Sunflowers and others actually rotate to point their face at the sun, to maximise solar collection.
so that high grass emissivity is no accident; same goes for the shape of pine trees, desiggned to let light propagate down to the lower parts of the tree, but not reflect and escape from the light trap.
Arboreal conifer forests need all the solar energy they can trap.

George,
You’re implying that the emissivity references I cited were incorrect?
TBH, I’ve been of the mindset that if we’re talking less than 10% change in emissivity we’re not talking the end of the world. If you have any other references I’d be curious to see them, and if there are large differences in emissivity to be considered then they should be discussed.
The effects you describe – in fascinating detail I might add – is still majority retained in the canopy and does not translate to the real surface of the earth as solar gain. When you bulldoze it and replace it with concrete, then it actually starts to behave like the gray body physics equations indicate.
So help me out here, where is it that we seem to be disagreeing?

Re: lgl (Apr 6 13:42),
Guess.
if the 15C average is used F=5.67X10^-8XT^4, the SB
F=385watts/m^2
If 15 is the average result of temperature
maximum +minimum/2 average
____30C__________ 0C ______ 15C
F= 478_________315________396watts/m^2
a difference of 11 watts/m^2 from the averaging of temperatures.
If 15 comes from
maximum +minimum/2 average
______ 20C____10C__________ 15
F=____418______364_________391watts/m^2
A difference of 6watts/m^2. Keep in mind that the whole CO2 “forcing” is of order 4watts/m^2
This needs an integration over the globe to be estimated correctly, but there are so many unknowns and unknowables that it is not possible to do it.
Another estimate would be the oceans, which are very stable
Go to http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
the last in the panel is sea surface, around 21C all year. If there were no land this would be the average temperature of the earth.
SB gives:423watts/m^2
even this has the play I showed above for 15C, because if you look at
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
you will see that this average of 21 goes from -2C in the poles to 31C in the tropics.
All this to say that the uncertainties in the radiation from the surface are such as to make a mockery the tiny contribution of the trace element CO2 in the atmosphere.

mike roddy (16:01:38) :
The global temperature upward march is more consistent in the oceans. NOAA has established a .97F increase in the last century in global ocean surface temperatures. December 2009 saw the second warmest ocean temperatures recorded since 1880.
References here to spikes caused by El Nino or even a claim of ocean cooling are therefore a bit puzzling.
REPLY:
The sea surface temp is just that the SURFACE temp… Smokey was referring to the REST of the ocean where the bulk of the earth’s heat is store. THAT is the area that is cooling.
The whole thing is very complicated and not well understood by many. For example this from another commenter about the subject at a previous post:
” “The previous post is telling me the ocean heat content is going down. This post tells me near record temperatures are all about SST.”
These two are not contradictory. The ocean pumps energy into the atmosphere via El Nino, El Nino is warm upwelling, thus causing a high SST and warming the atmosphere. {that causes the higher statilite temps} After this phenomenon you end up with a lower OHC.
The sea surface temperature [SST] does not measure the same thing as the ARGO network of 3,300 deep sea buoys. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/lance-endersbee-1925-2009-civil-engineer-academic-scientific-sceptic-mentor/
ARGO shows deep ocean cooling:
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/rey_line_atlas.gif
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg
SST remains very close to its long term trend line: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Lance_Experience-Curve-CO2-and-SST-with-21-moving-average-12May092.jpg
Will someone please make the definite statement that when SST goes higher it is either:
1. due to the release of heat from the oceans and they are cooling
or
2. due to the accumulation of heat in the ocean and they are warming
Which is it?
The first one. I’ve been saying it for a year now. The ocean heat content is dropping, because the amount of solar energy going into it has been falling since 2003, and cloud has been increasing.
The ocean responds by releasing the heat built up over the long run of high solar cycles, keeping the global temperature up. …”
Sorry I did not save the name of the person who posted the above comment but I think it may have been James F. Evans. Who ever it was thank you for a hypothesis that fits the data we are presently seeing.

lgl (09:03:56) :
Bob Tisdale (06:58:56) :
It includes the mixed layer of the oceans as well, several tens of meters down.
Even if you look at 0-2000 m down the avg temp is 5 deg C, and you can’t get anywhere close to that temp with the 169 W direct sunlight.
Reply:
So what are you trying to say? That we are missing all the heat input from the volcanoes under the sea???
“Currently there are over five thousand active volcanoes underwater varying from ones larger than any on the surface to cones no larger than an automobile. The net result of this action is thermal heating of the oceans, at key positions, which in turn reaches the surface to be carried aloft into the atmosphere to become part of our surface weather pattern system….there are estimated to be about 20,000 on the ocean bottoms of the world. “ http://www.crystalinks.com/volcanoesunderwater.html

Re: lgl (Apr 7 06:27),

anna v
I’m not pedaling any CO2 scare here. Just pointing out that the ocean can’t possibly be heated by direct solar alone. There is more energy absorbed by the ocean from DWLW than from solar whether people like it or not.
If you believe the static linear budgeting of the AGW models.

Mr E. Smith, why so angry!?
your comment said:
” so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. ”
I simply suggested that this would also propagate downwards by conduction and would not remain at 10um – and I don’t thinc convection works upside down at temps above 0C approx.?
I then suggested that if there was a hot water layer (even very thin) it would enable the underlying thermal structure heated by SW radiation to heat more since the energy loss is effectively stopped. energy radiated down into layer 10um below 10um surface hot layer is greater than the energy transported from the lower lay to the upper. i.e. there is a net flow downwards.
The fact is the sw radiation looses energy to the water at reducing amounts from the surface down. Each molecular layer absorbs some (say A%*169) energy and the rest passes through to the next layer (169-A%*169). This layer absorbs A% of what it receives (169-A%*169)*A% etc The surface layer therefore absobes most LW and a bigger quantity of the SW than subsequent “layers”. As you say it will be much hotter than layers below without any mixing or conduction.
This must stop the lower layers losing heat??
If you can convince me otherwise I am willing to listen.
/harry

Smokey (11:25:33) :
This article on undersea volcanoes gives this information:
Reply:
Thanks Smokey, that was the article I was actually looking for but the article I referenced also gives the active undersea volcanoes. I wonder if there is a more recent and more accurate count of the active volcanoes.
The sun, clouds & water in all its forms from gas to solid, volcanoes and now trees …. sure is a lot more complicated than I first thought. Too bad there are so many “scientists” hung up on CO2 and blind to the rest.

NickB. (13:47:31) Your Reference above to the NY Times article has the following statement:
“A decrease in water vapor concentrations in parts of the middle atmosphere has contributed to a slowing of Earth’s warming, researchers are reporting”
In actuality the enthalpy of dry air is low and so the same amount of sensible or scattered heat energy will raise its ‘temperature’ many times more than the equivalent volume of humid air. This means that you can have an increase in temperature with less or the same energy.
So the decrease in water vapor in the middle atmosphere may reduce the amount of energy absorbed by water vapor as ghg but it may also lead to a greater increase in middle troposphere temperature than for the normal level of humidity. This appears to match what has been seen from the UAH figures.

Re: Smokey (11:25:33)
That undersea volcano article is interesting reading, thanks for the link.
There’s an interesting bit I’m trying to figure out:
Hiller says he was surprised to find that the density of small volcanoes dropped in the area around Iceland, as Iceland is known to be a hotspot for volcanic activity.
Another surprise was that he found fewer volcanoes on the seabed around Hawaii, another volcanic hotspot. He says his findings may mean that researchers need to re-assess their understanding of how submarine volcanoes are formed.
Now for me, simple-minded fool that I am, I don’t see the problem as there are already places in the local areas where the pressure from under the crust is being relieved during normal volcanic activity, thus locally there would be less pressure to form lots of little undersea volcanoes, with less “need” of them to relieve the pressure anyway.
Perhaps someone here with more education on the subject can explain why I should have been surprised and bewildered instead without any clue as to why they found what they did whatsoever.

Anna,
I cannot shake the thought of the earth’s surface being covered with trillions upon trillions of little tiny machines working to maintain 21.4 +/- 2.2 C through actively controlled transpiration.
On its own a single blade of grass or leaf would have a laughably tiny effect on the climate, but look at all that green in the sat image. Little tiny machines adapted to their local conditions to collect enough light and heat, with thermostats and their own A/C to make sure they don’t get too hot.
Absolutely fascinating!

anna v,
This is not about static linear budgeting or AGW models. If we were talking a few tens of watts discrepancy non-linearity would have been interesting, but not when the surface is emitting (incl. evap. ++) close to three times the direct solar absorbed.
You said physics is not a matter of beliefs. You are a living proof to the contrary, so is the ‘consensus’ of climate science. The AGW crowd do not believe the measurements of cloud cover and net solar radiation, a few examples here: http://virakkraft.com/Pacific.ppt, but they do believe the assumptions behind the climate models.
Until the laws are carved in stone science is very much a matter of beliefs.
Don’t remember where I saw this quote, something like: “I believe in science but only in a multi-decadal time frame” a very good rule IMO.
Bob,
What’s wrong with the calculation I showed you?
Gail,
No, if volcanoes were significant it should have been detected by ARGO.

Anna,
I was out browsing around and stumbled on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Biosphere_model
Apparently a model for this has at least been attempted, I guess the question is… has it actually been incorporated into the GCMs it was intended for? The next question is, and I think I already know the answer so this might be rhetorical but anyway, has the loss of somewhere less (because some amount of pavement and structure replaced bare/desert soil, and assuming my estimate is even in the ballpark) than .58% of this with structures and pavement, or the changes in plant cover types due to deforestation and other land use changes?
Bob,lgl,
Where did that gray body calculation come from? I consider Wiki a pretty reliable source for the “consensus”/IPCC PoV and according to it (Ref):
“The black body temperature of the Earth is 5.5 °C. Since the Earth reflects about 28% of incoming sunlight, in the absence of the greenhouse effect the planet’s mean temperature would be far lower – about -18 or -19 °C instead of the much higher current mean temperature, about 14 °C.”
-19 C is 254 K, not 234 K. Saying that the gray body temp is 234 K would imply the greenhouse effect contribution to temp is 18.75% vs. 11.8% (i.e. overstating it by 59% vs. Wiki).
While neither here nor there, space is not absolute zero (Ref) and I can’t seem to find if that 2.725 K has been accounted for. I’m thinking it’s not, but then again maybe there’s a good reason to exclude it(?)
Ian W
No disagreement with what you’re saying, the way I’ve been looking at is that assuming the same energy in the atmosphere (i.e. no change in energy), a decrease in water vapor content would imply an increase in temperature. From a surface standpoint this implies that a loss of evaporative effect implies an increase in temperatures assuming no significant change in the energy flows (i.e. the surface is more or less exhibiting, on average, equilibrium).
Getting back to Anna’s point about plant behavior, with all other things being equal (which they’re not) this would imply a potentially strong positive feedback- the higher surface temperatures get, the higher the level of transpiration by plant surfaces, which means the higher level of atmospheric water vapor content… but this can be assumed to be balanced out somehow in macro or the world would have gone haywire long ago. I hate bringing up the term positive feedback when the implication always seems to be run-away behavior but anyway.
I’m think this might be getting back to Willis’ work but the implications seem to be that all of our anthropogenic changes pale in comparison to the power of the self regulatory mechanisms that exist… or maybe I’m just reading too much into this and need to go get another cup of coffee instead of rambling on 😀

Re: lgl (Apr 8 09:48),
I should say I do not trust the numbers displayed in the Trenberth graph, instead I do not “believe” them. In other places I have seen 250 average global insolation, for example in calculations for solar panels.
That the earth may radiate more than the incoming on the ground should be a matter of study, yes, but the study should be coherent. Radiation is not conserved. Energy is the conserved quantity. When it ignores all the kinetic energies swirling in the oceans and the atmosphere, I call it a static model. There are also the energies in evaporation sublimation, biological etc. etc. that are hand waved over.

Paul Vaughan (13:31:00) : Thanks

anna v (12:46:04) : Radiation is not conserved. Energy is the conserved quantity. When it ignores all the kinetic energies swirling in the oceans and the atmosphere, I call it a static model. There are also the energies in evaporation sublimation, biological etc. etc. that are hand waved over.
Good point. There are so many forms of energy. In a simplified energy balance:
m c dT/dt = Qin – Qout
Qin and Qout may or may not be partly due to radiation and in general the temperature may or may not change when Qin – Qout is nonzero:
dU = TdS – pdV + µdN

“anna v (21:31:50) :
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. … LW in water can travel less than a micron before being absorbed, so it cannot get out as long wave except from the few microns of the surface. It will reach the surface through conduction.”
If I am understanding you, then 1um below the surface will not radiate to the air but heat will conduct to the surface and then radiate/conduct/evaporate to the air.
This is the same as I understand it.
but I also assume that radiation will go in all directions from each heated molecule. Some will heat the 1um towards surface. some will heat the next 1um down the 1um down will also radiate in all directions but will be at a lower temperature. Hence there will be less radiation to surface than the surface radiates down.
There will be a net frow of energy from surface downwards by radiation.
The conduction I assume is also equal to all connecting molecules so conduction from the surface hot molecules will conduct to the lower cooler molecules and the cooler molecules will conduct to the hot molecules but at a lesser rate.
Hence there will be a net flow of energy downwards.
Convection will cause energy to flow in the direction of the molecular gross movement. At normal (non freezing) sea temperatures the surface will be made up of less dense warm water and the lower layers will be more dense cold water
Hence convection will not occur? there will be mixing by molecular motion but again this will favor heating the cool layers.
TSI SW will penetrate the depths warming them but as I pointed out 198W hits the surface, less hits each succeeding molecule as it passes downward therefore more energy will be absorbed by the surface layers (assuming homogeneous water absorption). the surface 1um will also receive the back radiation (LW) 321W.
As far as I can see the hot layer will control the loss of energy from the depths. Hot surface = hotter depths

Re: Harry Lu (Apr 8 15:01),
Infrared radiation within a non transparent to infrared medium is part of heat conduction macroscopically.
The back scattering illustration is double counting when one tries to deduce macroscopic thermodynamic quantities. It is wrong for the atmosphere and it is wrong here.
One would have to formulate statistical ensembles with hamiltonians and stuff and integrate etc etc to come to thermodynamic quantities, one cannot hand wave microscopic quantities into macroscopic thermodynamic quantities. If one did that, the end result would be to find that infrared radiation is part of heat conduction in a medium.

Bob,
Ok, but I never intended to reproduce the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram without downward LW.
I just wanted to show that the net solar of todays Earth is only capable of keeping the ocean at around 234 K (because it’s emissivity is 0.98)
Which proves the ocean is absorbing at least 220 W/m2 downward LW, to keep the mixed layer at 15 C. If you start adding the other losses like latent you make the ‘problem’ worse because then of course you have to add an equal amount of LW to balance the budget, the emissivity doesn’t change much. So using the K/T numbers of 100 W in other losses you end up with 320 W/m2 downward LW, which must be absorbed by the ocean. That’s the only way to explain a mixed layer at 15C.
This said, I see no reason to doubt that less clouds and thereby more solar is responsible for most of the warming the last decades, because that’s what the measurements are showing, and I see no reason to believe a warmer ocean would give less cloud cover. But again, I only believe in science in a multidecadal time frame…

Bob
1. I’d vote yes, but because of the evaporation it can absorb more radiation than it emits.
2. Again, it doesn’t matter much where the energy is absorbed because of the mixing. The mixing gives a uniform temperature through the mixed layer, from tens to hundreds of meters. (and only 1% or so of the sunlight reaches 100 m) I guess the mixing will also totally override a greenhouse equivalent.
3. You may be right that El Nino events help to release the heat, but it is also true that during 2000-2005 ENSO was positive and everything increased;
net solar, SST and OHC. http://virakkraft.com/Pacific2.png
A puzzling thing OHC apparently leads the whole thing by about one year. Is it all ruled by the trade winds?

Bob,
Ok, your fig.3 confirms the lag, thanks.
But “Higher than normal trade winds decrease cloud cover and increase Downward Shortwave Radiation.”
Data seem to suggest the opposite. http://virakkraft.com/Pacific3.png
(Net solar is for -30 to +30 deg lat. but -60 to 60 is almost identical)
What I read out of this is: trade winds increase > evaporation increase > cloud cover increase > solar decrease > temperature decrease.
(and of course: trade winds decrease >… > temperature increases)
But then again, your fig.3 …
When the OHC increases, perhaps the OHC graph is misleading because of an ‘import’ of heat from west of the area and an ‘export of cold’ in the eastern part of the area because of a deeper thermocline. So what we see is just a energy transport and not a real increase?

lgl (03:18:08) : Please provide a link to the solar radiation data, thanks.

lgl (09:22:30) : I assume you’re referring to the “NCEP/NCAR R1 1948-now” dataset, and that you’re using “surface net solar/longwave radiation”. That’s a very curious dataset. I checked a few areas around the tropical Pacific and the data (not anomalies) are negative. What’s that about? That dataset shows a rise in net solar for the NINO3.4 region during the 1997/98 El Nino, when there should have been a decrease due to the increases in total cloud amount and precipitation. I looked at that dataset a while back but was not pleased with the assumptions (that the data was inverted) I had to make in order to use it.
I’ve been using the “NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 flux data (dswrfsfc)”, downward shortwave radiation flux at the surface, for an upcoming post. Its wiggles go in the right direction. It’s available on the “External data” page…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_external.cgi?someone@somewhere
…which you have to sign in to use. (No big deal about registering)
lgl (09:22:30) : I assume you’re referring to the “NCEP/NCAR R1 1948-now” dataset, and that you’re using “surface net solar/longwave radiation”. That’s a very curious dataset. Note that the data (not anomalies) are negative. What’s that about? That dataset also shows a rise in net solar for the NINO3.4 region during the 1997/98 El Nino, when there should have been a decrease due to the increases in total cloud amount and precipitation. I looked at that dataset a while back but was not pleased with the assumptions (that the data was inverted) I had to make in order to use it.
I’ve been using the “NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 flux data (dswrfsfc)”, downward shortwave radiation flux at the surface, for an upcoming post. Its wiggles go in the right direction. It’s available on the “External data” page…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_external.cgi?someone@somewhere
…which you have to sign in to use. (No big deal about registering)
An example: The following is a comparison of Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation flux anomalies for the tropical Pacific (east of the Pacific Warm Pool) versus NINO3.4 (for timing):
http://i43.tinypic.com/2saaquv.png

Hmm.. so after 1980 the trends are cloud cover decrease, solar decrease and temp increase. This ended like I feared, more confused than ever. Why can’t I ever learn to stay away from these things…
I can’t find any DLR but net LW shows another puzzling thing, the almost exact inverse of net SW. http://virakkraft.com/SH-sw-lw.png I give up.

Bob,
Still ‘NCEP/NCAR R1 1948-now’ and ‘ISCCP’, both from knmi, but now with SW inverted like you suggested (and I have to agree).