Recent Variations In Upper Ocean Heat Content – Information From Phil Klotzbach
By Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
Phil Klotzbach has graciously permitted me to post an update on upper ocean heat content in the equatorial upper ocean. He writes
“The Climate Prediction Center recently released its equatorial upper ocean heat content for April 2010. One of the primary areas that they focus on is the equatorial heat content averaged over the area from 180-100W. The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C, which is the largest decrease in equatorial upper ocean heat content in this area since the CPC began keeping records of this in 1979. The upwelling phase of a Kelvin wave was likely somewhat responsible for this significant cooling. It seems like just about every statistical and dynamical model is calling for ENSO to dissipate over the next month or two as well, so it’s probable that we will see a transition to neutral conditions shortly. I have attached a spreadsheet showing upper ocean heat content data from CPC since 1979. In case you’re interested, the correlation between April upper ocean heat content from 180-100W and August-October Nino 3.4 is an impressive 0.75 over the years from 1979-2009.
He has plotted the data below. An interesting question is to where this heat has gone.
It could have moved north and south in the upper ocean, however, to the extent the sea surface temperature anomalies map to the upper ocean heat content, there is no evidence of large heat transfers except, perhaps, in the tropical Atlantic [see].
The heat could have been transferred deeper into the ocean. However, if this is true, this heat would have been seen moving to lower levels, but, so far, there is no evidence of such a large vertical heat transfer.
The heat could, of course, be lost to space. This appears to be the most likely explanation.
I would not say something to be taken litteraly, but this scenario remembers that of “The Day After Tomorrow” ***not*** for what happens in that film but about the sudden decrease of temperature in Ocean…
Unfortunately this climate debate is not a debate but a mask, a mask of **an ideological fight** and so this are seen falsely by distorting lens…
Anyway it is true that, if temperature increases in Ocean, **then** Gulf Stream decreses and this is only an appearent contradiction…
So what we are seeing now does not necessarily go against the Global Warming…
Ya know buddies, all that red inkjet spent for nothing!, who’s gonna pay the bill?
Next time you should read WUWT first!
Ooops! Dr. Roy Spencer: “Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans…
…A net feedback of 6 operating on the warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 late in this century would correspond to only about 0.5 deg. C of warming. This is well below the 3.0 deg. C best estimate of the IPCC, and even below the lower limit of 1.5 deg. C of warming that the IPCC claims to be 90% certain of…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
I remain a little confused about how heat can be, “transferred deeper into the ocean.” Warmer waters are typically less dense waters, and will rise toward the surface. So, what’s the mechanism for transferring heat against the buoyancy gradient?
This is a chart of the Equatorial Ocean Heat Content numbers above versus the ENSO (updated for April’s figures including the Nino 3.4 anomaly which came in at 0.70C)
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7098/ensovseuoha.png
Where did the heat go? It went into the atmosphere which is why temperatures were going up until recently (it will have now partially escaped into space with more to come later). Some of it has also moved into the Pacific Warm Pool area near Indonesia and it will then be recirculated into the northern Pacific and also downward into the subsurface Pacific counter-current.
Bob Tisdale did this chart awhile ago showing how the upper Pacific ocean circulates over a 18 month to 2 year period.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2rd91m8.jpg
Here is the latest animation of the circulation. Some of the current cool anomalies are actually left-over from the 2007-08 La Nina.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
And all that heat is probably going way down to the next center of gravity: The moon. Surely heating up, it will welcome all mad scientists.
ICE IN A NOSE DIVE, GLOBAL TEMPS START THEIR FALL.
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
The decline in ocean heat content appears to have been caused by two factors acting in concert:
i) As per Bob Tisdale’s work an El Nino discharges heat retained in the oceans from earlier solar input by releasing it to the air from warmer ocean surfaces.
ii) As per my proposals that discharged heat needs to be replaced either from the energy stored in the wider oceans or from fresh solar input. In this instance it could not be replaced by energy from the wider oceans because we are in a negative PDO phase (using the term PDO in the broader sense of periodic warm and cool cycling observed in the ocean surfaces and not in the statistical sense as a by product of ENSO as preferred by Bob). Additionally the two mid latitude jets and the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) with their accompanying cloud banks are closer to the equator than they were during the second half of the 20th century and so having a greater effect on albedo due to their now being situated in regions of more powerful solar irradiation. Thus adequate fresh solar input is not available either.
As per my New Climate Model the combination creates increased energy loss for the system as a whole whilst for a while at least some parts of the troposphere are being warmed by the outgoing energy from the oceans. Due to the negative polar oscillations with the jets more equatorward the mid latitudes do not share in that enhanced warmth.
We face overall net system cooling for as long as the oceans are in an El Nino state and the jets remain equatorward (despite the mixed temperature signals in the troposphere).
The stratosphere has been warming not cooling since the sun started to become less active from the mid 90’s:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
slightly warming since 1996.”
Anybody check for changes in albedo over the oceans for the given period?
The graph is about total heat content, a product of two dynamics – heat in minus heat out. Given the “unprecedented” drop that is described, my first guess would be to look for a drop of heat in coinciding with an increase in heat out.
R. Gates,
“There are currently no instruments to measure this movement to the deeper ocean, so to say there is no evidence misses the true condition which is– we don’t know. ”
Well I disagree. The argo network measures temperature down to 2000 metres. Greenhouse theory predicts that the oceans will warm from the top, not from the bottom. If this extra heat is being sequestered into the deep oceans it will have to transit downwards. As it does the argo bathyscopes will register temperature anomalies at depth. Even if the warm pulse passes below the 2000 metre floor, you will still pick up the anomaly as it passes downwards before the temperature readings return to previous. Then you would have a record of the transit. This is what Dr. Pielke is saying.
Your assertion that it cannot be lost into space is no more than a prayer. Monitoring the earths energy balance is far more complex than ocean heat anomaly. The satellite is a single point in space for one thing, and the heat is radiated in all directions. Pielke has written before on these uncertainties and doesn’t have the same confidence that you seem to have. You always claim on this blog that you are 25% sceptical, but some of your posts, like this one, sound more like a politicians spin.
pgosselin says: Heat moving down? I thought warm water moved up.
Not saying it is relevant to this topic but yes warm water can move down given that max density of water is about 4C. Its why the oceans don’t freeze from the bottom up.
If the heat went deep into the oceans, it would have to go below 2000m, since project argo measures the water column temperature down to that depth. Also, warm water, just like warm air is less dense and rises. Those pesky laws of physics.
That last bloody graph above it’s GORE-SOME!
Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW) have more reason to be alarmed:
One of Minnesota’s Latest May Snowfalls Appears Imminent
I am sure that heat has been lost to evaporation =more clouds=more sunshine deflected & more rain.
here, in Johannesburg, South Africa we have been having 218% more rain this year sofar.
I hear of flooding elswhere as well. Mark my words. The flooding of Europe’s rivers is next when all that extra snow from the Alps starts melting.
I made this summary for myself for future reference. Agreed that our sunshine has been fairly constant at 1360 W/m2/min. Total energy on earth is 1.73 x 10 power 14 kW/day. Let this amount be 100%.
Energy consumed by plant life is ca. 0.023%. This falls below our accepted error and can (probably) be left out of the equation. The amount of direct heat on earth can be given by this equation:
100 – energy deflected(ca. 30%) – energy used for evaporation (ca.23%) = (ca. 47%)
What affects earth’s albedo?
1) Positively: Clouds and cloud formation, mostly
2) Positively: Volcanic activities
3) Positively: more % Water vapor in the atmosphere,
4) Positively or negatively, but % more or less constant: Oxygen, trace gases: ozone, methane &CO2 mostly. (I estimate that the increase in ozone of late cancels out any warming effect from the increase in CO2)
What affects evaporation?
1) Negatively: Clouds and cloud formation, mostly
2) Positively: Shallow waters caused naturally or by human activities such as putting up dams in rivers and making shallow pools & reservoirs for irrigation and water consumption. Shallow water easily heats up causing more evaporation.
3) Negatively: Wind and the sun and moon’s position relative to earth. This causes more wave action which mixes colder water in from deep sea, this will cause less evaporation)
4) Negatively: more % water vapor in the atmosphere
5) Positively: evaporation itself causes more evaporation (difference in pressure causes wind and wind and heat together causes more evaporation)
What causes more heat on earth and/or prevents heat from leaving earth?
1) Decrease in earth’s albedo
2) Decrease in evaporation (i.e negative factors affecting evaporation)
3) Volcanic activities on earth, e.g. hot lava & hot waters
4) Human activities (AHF), creating heat to move or to stay warm or cold
5) Human activities, e.g. any process to produce energy or cooling or heating (including nuclear energy but excluding hydro-, wind-, solar- & tidal energy),
that causes more greenhouse gases: water vapor and carbon dioxide which trap long wave energy leaving earth.
Stephen Wilde: Do those “more equatorwards jets” move just by convection or is it there some electromagnetic phenomenon behind?
At least our friend Vuk thinks so :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Anyway it is a good thing to ask oneself about final causes.
Could the heat be in evaporation and transpiration?
We were predicted to get a long, dry spring like the spring of 1998 when a lot of Florida was on fire.
This year it’s rained quite a bit through the spring.
Do we measure global precipitation?
Interesting post. Indicative of the vast voids in our knowledge and data gathering. Neither side knows how little we know, but at least most on this side are willing to admit the huge gaps in our understanding of the mechanics of climate. That is as it should be, because that is the reality. Posters here understand that mankind is nowhere near being able to say conclusively that Co2 is the cause. Climate science may no longer be in it’s infancy, but we sure aren’t out of the diaper stage yet. Take a big whiff, proponents of CAGW.
Would an increase in solar winds draw heat off our planet quicker? Just curious.
Brian D
May 7 2010 12.54 pm
It really does seem that an active sun causes an increased upward energy flux that is greater in it’s cooling effect than the tiny increase in warming from the raw power output that accompanies it.
A less active sun seems to cause a decrease.
The effects appear to manifest themselves in the size and intensity of the polar oscillations of the atmosphere which in turn affect the latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.
Although this proposition is hotly disputed especially by Leif Svalgaard it really does have the effect of accounting for a good number of observed climate phenomena.
A fuller discussion can be found here :
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/The%20Missing%20Climate%20Link.pdf
stevengoddard says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:32 am
RockyRoad
It snowed along the Front Range again last night, and I nearly froze my fingers off riding my bike this morning. Winter has been going on for so long that I hardly remember what it means to be warm. Ten years ago we typically had eight weeks of winter, now we have closer to eight months of winter.
Seriously Steve? 15 years ago when my daughter was born on April 18th, it snowed for 3 weeks straight in Nederland. It is not at all unusual to have a late spring in Colorado. And I remember another May 1st about 6 years ago when my daughter performed Hula in Denver and it snowed.
I have been having very civil conversations with a young lad who had gone through “environmental studies” over the last year. Two days ago I bumped into him and he was clearly flumoxed. He said he had been thinking alot about our discussions and that he had a question. This is his question. “If the earth is warming, would that not lead to increased evaporation and thereby increase rainfall?” My response was to smile and say, “what an excellant question”, and insisted he try to find the answer for himself. He had been shown the drought scenario as being the result of global warming. It was wonderful to see the beginnings of the “critical thinking process”. He is a very bright young fellow and I never once tried to convince him of my viewpoint. I mearly answered his questions and raised some of my own. I believe that he would have come to the same conclusions on his own given time. My hope for the youth of today has been renewed.
Brian D says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Would an increase in solar winds draw heat off our planet quicker? Just curious
Kind of a connected ground line?, think instead somebody changed from cooking mode to just defrost mode.☺
Regarding the detection of ocean heat “down”…
If your taking a vertical column of the ocean and all of the water is completely still, then yes it should be fairly easy to determine if a loss in heat from high in the column is transferred to the base of the column. And indeed it would be counter-intuitive to think that hot water would suddenly “drop” to the bottom.
But the ocean isn’t static. Yes, the bottom is colder (and denser), but it is perfectly capable of absorbing heat from the top of our imaginary column of water. Keeping things relatively simple, lets assume the upper portion of the column is static, while the lower column has a continuous current that originates outside of and continues beyond our imaginary column.
The lower current, while cold, still absorbs heat from the upper column and carries it away. The less dense warm water does not need to sink to the cold depths for this heat transfer to occur.
An increase in heat loss from the upper column to the lower column can also occur without any upwelling. Upwelling results in more contact between the warm and cold water. Increased contact can also occur by simply increasing the rate of the current of the lower portion of the column. By this method, you wouldn’t even detect an increase in temperature of the lower current within our imaginary column. You might actually detect a decrease in temperature at depth, if the rate of flow increases enough.