March Global Sea Surface Temperatures

“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.