March Global Sea Surface Temperatures

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!….
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.”
No, but you forgot some biggies – evaporation not to mention the wind. Anyone who has gone swimming is aware of the gradient in warmth in naturally occurring waters. Mixing due to waves (wind) is another big factor, but that warmth/energy from LWR just does not penetrate very deep.
“…. Within the thermocline, the temperature gradient may be intense; along the northern edge of the North Equatorial Countercurrent this vertical gradient may reach more than 0.5 C-m- 1 , especially in the shallow thermocline of the Costa Rica Dome. Just to the west of the Galapagos Islands, where the thermocline is very shallow immediately to the north and south of the equator, there are zones of relatively large temperature gradient within the thermocline…..” http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/forecaster_handbooks/CentralAmerica/Forecasters%20Handbook%20for%20Central%20America%20and%20Adjacent%20Waters.4.2.pdf
A very complicated subject and trying to say CO2 is THE driver is VERY premature.

anna v (22:30:04) :
IMO t is hubris to think that SB can explain everything.
Absolutely agreed – I think it might explain part of the behavior but not all.
Also, SB only addresses radiative transfer – which gets us back to the whole “why are we only focusing on radiative transport” question – part of the effect, discounting for now the biological aspects, is also conductive transfer. It might only be a small part, but my thinking here is along the lines of wind blowing through the trees. More surface area is important for both radiative and conductive transfer. It’s important for evaporative effect to but, as you mentioned, this is not a consistent effect…
The biological aspects of this are really quite fascinating – especially the link regarding temperature regulation. I guess I never really thought about it before in this regard, but if you look at other living organisms (like us) the internal temperature is, majority speaking, the same if we’re on the beach in Greece or snow skiing in the Colorado. It’s a very good point that plants, just like any living thing, will work to regulate their internal temperature, which means their skin temps will have a tendency towards that same internal temperature. I can’t get to the paper referenced, but in general it appears that there are two variables in play: 1.) that trees in colder environments tend to cluster their leaves tighter, which works to keep heat in, and in comparison trees in hotter environments would tend to cluster their leaves more loosely to allow heat to more easily dissipate. 2.) The short term (active) control mechanism seems to be mostly evaporative effect. Through these mechanisms the skin temps will tend towards the internal equilibrium of 21.4 C +/- 2.2 degrees.
For the record, loss of energy from a climate standpoint due to photosynthesis is also a small part of the equation (I think I read somewhere that photosynthesis converts somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 TW of energy globally on average).
Sorry if I was not clear, but the comment about blackbody plant surfaces was more of a thought experiment aimed at explaining part of the physical behavior, not all of it. In comparison, the passive thermal characteristics (emissivity, surface area, clustering of leaves surfaces, etc) are minor in relation to the active control of evaporative effect is really the driving force for understanding the equilibrium temp behavior of plants.
~~~~~~~~ Switching Gears Here ~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess at this point, a really big question needs to be asked – why this doesn’t seem to be discussed is one of my personal gripes – and that is what is the right/proper/best definition of “surface”? Is it the topographical surface (meaning the top skin temps of tree canopies, for example), is it near surface atmospheric temps which is the current thinking, or is it the actual earth surface (soil) skin temp?
I would argue, perhaps incorrectly, that due to the relative thermal capacities involved it should be considered the actual earth surface temps (i.e. the soil). This is important because the canopy behavior we’ve been discussing in great detail occurs above the earth’s surface and, majority speaking, once the sun goes down whatever spatial bubble of heat that has been formed in the canopy will dissipate. The temperature of the earth’s real surface in a plant cover situation will maintain roughly (specific behavior is dependent on depth) the average atmospheric near surface temperature because the earth is mostly shielded from direct solar gain. In many ways, 2m off the ground is probably a decent proxy for that situation but…
Because pavement exposes the earth’s surface to direct solar gain which, because of the massive heat capacity of the pavement and the earth underneath it in addition to its comparatively very slow release of heat, will be expect to exhibit significantly higher average equilibrium temps than, say, the soil in the field 100 ft away from the road or the atmospheric temperatures.
In this case, where we’re talking about the earth’s surface, on average, heating the air vs. the air heating the earth’s (real) surface the abstraction to 2m is hugely important. Furthermore from this perspective, canopy behavior, is *largely* irrelevant.
I have been trying to understand how this effect could be separated out in the macro from the effects predicted by GHG Theory. Anthropogenic surface changes, for the most part (crop irrigation, in particular being an oddball case), result in: 1.) upward pressure on atmospheric temps, 2.) downward pressure on atmospheric water content, and 3.) a sink of a very significant amount of energy into the earth’s surface. Consensus GHG/CO2-AGW Theory seems to predict 1.) upward pressure on atmospheric temps. 2.) upward pressure on atmospheric water content, and 3.) a sink of some amount of energy into the atmosphere.
I have heard in passing here (so no idea on reliable sources for this information or the validity of what I’m about to say) that the attempts at accounting for net in/out energy have demonstrated a significant and, so far, unaccounted for amount of “missing” energy. I have also heard that atmospheric water content has either been unchanged or has gone down in contradiction to the predictions of CO2-based-AGW Theory. Atmospheric water content seems to be the biggest question mark.

anna v (22:30:04) :
“…. I am hand waving here:
Emissivity equals absorptivity in equilibrium.
Are plants in equilibrium? I would think exactly the opposite. They are grabbing the incoming light and changing it into chemical/biological energy .
The corresponding asphalt area would just keep the energy and melt 🙂 ( summer in Greece)
Also it has recently been found that trees adjust the temperature ( and thus their T^4 behavior, and thus effective emissivity) to within a few degrees of 20C….”
OH WOW what a finding!
It is too bad that in the interests of self protection you can not write an article here under your own name. I quite understand. I have been fired and finally blackballed because I would not falsify data per upper managements orders… A sad comment on the times in which we live.

Also, in case there is any confusion here about what I am implying, when the IPCC says “we can’t find anything other than CO2 to explain the temperature increases” I fully believe it is because they have not properly evaluated anthropogenic surface changes in addition to anthropogenic atmospheric changes.
According to GHG Theory (which is essentially derived by comparing the calculated gray body equilibrium temp of the earth vs. real temps), 11.5% of our temperature is due to the atmosphere and 88.5% of the earth’s temperature is due to the surface. Assuming that’s correct (if it is or not is another conversation) that implies that in general, monkeying around with the surface will have more of an effect on temperature than an equivalent % change to the atmosphere.
By my estimates, we have paved or covered with structures roughly .58% of the earth’s land surface or .17% of the total surface. You cannot, IMO, “correct” that out of the equation and given the potency of the effect (think for a moment about walking barefoot on an asphalt road vs. grass during the summer, or how roads and sidewalks during a snowfall are the last surfaces to hold snow and the first surfaces for it to melt from) it’s not too much of a stretch to think that a .17% surface change could have a bigger effect than that 0.01% change in atmospheric content from anthropogenic CO2 from pre-industrial times to current.
Also, I did find a reference to decreasing atmospheric water vapor content: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/earth/29vapor.html – which indicates an increase in atmospheric water vapor between 1980 and 2000, but an unexplained decrease since.

Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. Why not by LW radiation:? Because 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 we go to quantum statistical mechanics, conduction of heat happens because of the exchange of electromagnetic energy between the molecules (scattering is also an electromagnetic process in molecules). LW is electromagnetic energy and it so happens that it is absorbed by the water molecules which are then heated.

Re: NickB. (Apr 7 13:05),
It is very hard to find atmospheric emissivities. They certainly are much lower than surface emissivities. I had once found a paper which I cannot place my hands on that claimed that atmospheric grey body went like T^6. All the studies I find are behind paywalls to which I have no access.
Certainly when the AGW crowd speaks of black body, they speak of surface, but use 2m atmospheric temperatures in their budgets.
Plants are part of the surface, waves are part of the surface,mountains and crags are part of a surface,etc. This is what fractal means, that the area of the earth is not 4pi*R^2 but R^x where x is a number larger than 2.
It is true that the integration with satellites should be feasible, the fractal nature would become part of the change in emissivity on the image.
Satellites also measure albedo using “brightness”, but I have not been able to lay my hands on a link that describes the method to be sure they are not getting the scale from ground 2m air measurements in the data and plots of
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/browsesurf1.html
It is the famous GISS after all.
Between pay walls and obfuscations it is hard to judge whether the data can be trusted .

lgl (06:27:50) : You replied, “Meaning you think the net solar is much different over the ocean?”
Let me try again. You listed temperatures in your comment, “And I find it interesting that some people continue to believe that the Earth can remain at 288 K if only heated by the 169 W/m2 from the Sun, which alone would give 234 K,” and I asked you for the calculations.

Paul Vaughan (13:00:54) :
Yes, sure, and now since Anthony became barycentrism, cyclomania and even Beck tolerant, all in one go, we can discuss it here, great.
Wonder what medicine he took that weekend. I would like to recommend some to Leif as well, but he will need at least a trippel dose of course.
REPLY: I wouldn’t go that far. Mostly it has to do with less time available to me to spend on sorting out such stuff. -A

Re: lgl (Apr 8 09:48),
Until the laws are carved in stone science is very much a matter of beliefs.
Wrong.
There is a great distinction between a belief and an assumption.
“I believe in God”, is different than “I assume that Newtonian mechanics holds”.
The scientific method is : one posits assumptions, uses mathematics and logic to predictive/descriptive conclusions, and checks results against reality. If the reality says no, then the assumptions are changed and the process is repeated.
The problem with AGW is just that they do not follow this scientific method. Reality invalidates their assumptions, but they do not change them, thus turning them into beliefs.

Bob, an update:
Over here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm I’ve made adjustments to this http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT,DVI,VEI,MSI.PNG graph and added some notes on SST & NAO.
The following appear related to MSI, DVI, &/or SAOT:
1) the integral (cumulative sum) of winter (DJFM) North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).
2) Southern Ocean (60°S – 90°S) sea surface temperature (SST). http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SO.png
3) Southeast Pacific (160°W – 70°W, 45°S – 90°S) SST. http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SEP45.png
The preceding SST patterns draw attention to differences in the relative weighting of MSI & SAOT for 1932, 1947, 1953, & 1956 eruptions.
20 year smoothing draws attention to the envelope:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_20a.png

NickB. (10:25:29) :
A little bit simplified:
5.5 C is Earth without clouds and atmosphere/ghg-effect, P=340 W/m2
-19 C is Earth with clouds but without rest of atmosphere, P=240 W/m2
-39 C is Earth with clouds and atmosphere but without ghg-effect, P=169 W/m2
T=(P/5.67*10^-8)^(1/4)
anna v,
“Energy is the conserved quantity. ”
Exactly. That’s why the surface can’t emit more than it absorbs (+ the 0.1 W from below)

ok, gh-effect