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.
Ken Lambert;
We’re into rat hole territory now, without going into greater detail on all the numbers you presented, itz impossible to provide a meaningful response. Your friend is giving you good info, but it is a complicated subject. Does water vapour increase 7% per degree. No, capacity to HOLD water vapour does. What is the actual increase? Dunno but I can tell you the maximum capacity is rarely achieved. He goes on to mention water vapour contribution is highest in the tropics, the point being, it is lowest in the arctic regions where MOST of the temperature increase is. We can go down all the rat holes (had we the time) but it comes down to the same thing over and over again:
CO2 forcing decreases logarithmicaly
Cooling by the planet increases exponentially
The combination of the two factors above means that it would take several centuries of CO2 emissions to equal the warming effect we have seen so far
Measurement of feedbacks has shown them to be much smaller than estimated
Natural processes far overshadow CO2 emissions
Ken Lambert May 10 2010 6.05 am
“The increase in CO2 and water vapor has a much bigger effect in terms of the downwelling radiation than on the radiation to space, which is why it warms.*”
This is comparing apples to oranges and is inappropriate. The extra downwelling IR causes more evaporation and so results in more energy locked up in water vapour as latent heat and not in a warming of the air or anything else and that energy is not then available to increase radiation to space either. The thermal dominance of the ocean surface dictates surface air temperatures not the amount of downwelling IR.
This is effectively admitted here:
“which is what amplifies evaporation and drives an increased hydrological cycle (and thus evaporative cooling).*”
In theory more downwelling IR should just speed up the hydrological cycle for a net cooling effect first of the ocean bulk as more energy is pulled upward and eventually of the air above because evaporation always has a net cooling effect such that it takes more energy out of the surroundings than is required to provoke it.
I went into a thorough analysis of that topic here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4245
Ultimately the faster hydrological cycle sends energy faster to space but there are so many other intervening and variable processes before that can happen that one would never be able to measure a direct causative relationship between variations in the amount of downwelling IR and the rate at which outgoing radiation to space varies.
Variations in cloudiness alone are so large, unpredictable and complex that one could never seperate the downwelling IR variability arising from cloudiness and humidity changes from that miniscule contribution caused by variations in CO2.
The speed of the hydrological cycle changes to neutralise the effect of changes in the energy budget caused by variations in the air alone. The sea surfaces are forever in control until the oceans freeze over or boil dry and extra IR from above cannot warm the oceans to change the basic equilibrium.
Someone elsewhere said that the point of temperature equilibrium is set where the atmosphere becomes opaque to IR.
Well that would be the top few microns of the ocean surface and I contend that for solar energy processing purposes the oceans constitute a far more important component of the ‘atmosphere’ of the Earth than the puny, thin air above.
Ken Lambert says:
May 10, 2010 at 6:05 am
davidmhoffer May 9.
David, I appreciate your detailed comments.
I conducted a Question and Answer with same leading climate scientist re the CO2 doubling sensitivity and S-B and here are the Q&A’s:>>>
Well, well, well… quite by accident I came across a “Ken Lambert” quoting a “leading climate scientist” in another blog. and another. and another. So now my radar is on. bs meter on. search tools at finger tips. So I gotta ask…
Is your “leading climate scientist” Dr Kevin Tremberth?
Of course I meant TreNberth.
“Temperature” is a measurement of “motion”. Keep it simple, only measure the “motion”.
davidmhoffer (May 10)
I have not sought permission to quote ‘leading climate scientist’ by name, but I can confirm that your BS meter will detect nothing and your radar seems operational.
The ratholes to which you refer might turn out to be wormholes to the real story of CO2GHG induced warming. I am an engineer with a passable knowledge of thermodynamics – not a climate scientist, so I try to make sense of the climate arguments in energy conservation terms – as well as basic thermal properties of air water and ice.
I follow Skeptical Science and have contributed to blogs there trying to nut out some of the energy arguments – and of course have studied Dr Trenbeth’s Aug09 paper and others of his papers on the Earth’s energy balance. I also get more political in approriate blogs where alarmists coagulate.
I have argued your points elsewhere about S-B outgoing radiation (rising at T^4) and CO2 forcing rising at logarithmic rate meaning that any warming will be arrested quickly; and have been countered by others claiming that CO2 and other GHG change the S-B emission spectrum and introduce a reduction factor. This involves the complexities of water vapour behaviour etc ie. one of your ratholes.
AGW proponents also argue (and Dr Trenberth now quotes vS himself to Pielke) that von Schukmann has found the ‘missing heat’ down to 2000m from Argo analysis. Skeptical Science make great play of the von Schukmann paper as finding the missing link. The bumps in von Schukmann’s global OHC time series chart have attracted criticism as not being feasible changes in energy content over such short time periods.
Sea level rise is also used by AGW proponents as a consistent indicator of steady rise in OHC which means that the energy flux imbalance at TOA (Dr Trenberth’s 0.9 W/sq,m) is hiding in the oceans. No convincing mechanism for getting it down there seems to be widely accepted.
Also I have never been convinced that we know the ‘equilibrium’ TSI of the Earth system as the satellite data is high precision (year to year) but low accuracy (not good for absolute numbers). There is still (after 5 years) no explanation of the SORCE TIMS monitors having a -4.5W/sq.m lower TSI than the earlier satellites. Solar forcing is quoted by IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 as 0.12 W/sq.m referenced to 1750AD, this overrides earlier proxy data which suggest 0.3-0.5 W/sq.m. Without a baseline ‘equilibrium’ TSI and OLR for the Earth, then how is an accurate Solar forcing number obtained?
You know my argument on OHC. I would expect that grid ’tiling’ of the oceans (down to av. depth 3700m with tethered buoys measuring the column would be the ideal accurate system. At Time 1 – all buoys would need to report from all tiles, and the same at Time 2 to get an accurate OHC difference. ie. a snapshot at Time 1 and Time 2. How you correct for drifting buoys (moving with cool or warm currents at 4-5 knots), not reporting all at the same time or tile or from above or below 60 deg latitudes…. I don’t know. I suspect that is why OHC analyses have been conflicting and lumpy.
Much appreciate your and Stephen Wilde’s comments.
Stephen Wilde
What is meant by “downwelling IR” – is this IR radiation from sky to land/sea surface? If so the use of the word downwelling would seem a little confusing, more appropriate for downward movement of water in the ocean. Could they use instead “down-radiating” or “down-diffusing” or something? (sorry to be pedantic!)
In general the recent and continuing decline of OHC provides an interesting “experiment”, I find your arguments for the dominance of the oceans in climate heat persuasive and the following months and years will clarify the effects of OHC on climate. (Of course its more complex than a single factor but I’m sure there will be some signal.)
Ken,
I’m not sure where your expert gets his water vapor forcing info from but it’s probably from a defect in a gcm. 7% increase might be reasonable for a 1 deg. C rise as I did a 5 deg C rise calculation once. Absolute humidity increases by about 30% in that situation and a detailed one dimensional absorption calculation indicates around 3.1 W/m^2 additional forcing from the h2o vapor from a 1976 standard atmosphere configuration. Like the co2, h2o vapor is a log function with a doubling effect. It provides a relatively small increase in forcing per doubling. A serious ‘hint’ of trouble is that somehow one achieves 3 deg C rise with a 7% increase. Note that if co2 delivers 0.7 deg. rise for a doubling (3.7W/m^2 increase) that a 3.1 W/m^2 increase in h2o forcing (or feedback) results in less than an additional 0.7 deg. and also that with 1.5 deg C total rise, we are short by 3 1/2 deg C for my assumed 5 deg C rise. A less than 2 deg C rise total means that the co2 0.7 rise has only a tiny fraction of that in available h2o vapor feedback.
This is also assuming the relative humidity stays constant which is a common warmer assumption. It is also before any increases in water vapor cycle, convection, conduction, or cloud cover are figured in. In short, the h2o vapor can’t function as claimed.
phlogiston,
Downwelling IR always seems to refer to IR radiating back downward from the air to the surface. Where possible I use the terminology of those whom I am addressing but I agree that the terms ‘downwelling’ and ‘upwelling’ are best reserved for internal ocean behaviour.
I’ll probably use ‘downward IR radiation’ or something similar in future.
Anyway it’s interesting to see how much debate there is nowadays about the oceans and the hydrological cycle. I’m sure that’s where most of the answers lie and I’ve been pushing it for over two years now.
Henry@cba et all
I see you continuously ignore (totally) the increase of ozone since 1995 and the effect and influence this has – don’t you people think the cooling forcing of the extra ozone (because it deflects sunlight in the UV region where the sun’s intensity is very high) sort of at least neutralizes any warming effect from the extra CO2 since 1995? (assuming the warming effect of Co2 is indeed greater than its cooling effect – I have not seen any test results of experiments on this).
Henry,
Regarding ozone:
My understanding is that more ozone warms the stratosphere because it is the presence of ozone reacting with solar uv that creates the temperature inversion within the stratosphere. Warmer with height instead of cooler with height.
Logic then suggests that the weakening or strengthening of that inversion at the tropopause influences the size and position of the polar high pressure cells and thus the strength of the oscillations in the atmosphere above the poles.
The important observation in relation to the stratosphere is that we had falling ozone quantities and a cooling stratosphere when the sun was active and now a warming stratosphere and rising ozone quantities with the sun less active.
One has to ask why and it turns out that positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations such as we had during the period of active sun destroy ozone whereas negative Oscillations allow ozone quantities to recover.
To provide a natural process giving rise to all those phenomena one only needs to propose that it is the changing solar influence on the stratosphere and the layers above that controls the atmospheric oscillations at the poles.
All else follows logically from that and if it is true that solar activity levels influence those oscillations then you no longer need to propose either a CO2 effect on the radiation budget or a CFC effect on ozone quantities.
The absence of a consistent CO2 signal since the mid 90’s is thus explained and the correlation with CFCs may just have been a coincidence too.
I’m almost ready to put money on it. Real world observations for just a little longer will resolve the issue.
An active sun allows a faster energy flux to space which cools the stratosphere reducing the inversion and making the polar oscillations more positive which reduces ozone.
A less active sun reduces the energy flux to space which warms the stratosphere increasing the inversion and making the polar oscillations more negative which increases ozone.
All entirely consistent with real world observations over the past 60 years.
Ken Lambert says:
May 11, 2010 at 6:28 am
davidmhoffer (May 10)
I have not sought permission to quote ‘leading climate scientist’ by name, but I can confirm that your BS meter will detect nothing and your radar seems operational>>
LOL. Thanks for the diplomatic and detailed response.
The problem with going down the rat holes is every last one of them take more time to document the assumptions, units and so on than each issue is worth. See some of the responses after your last post to see what I mean! The answers you detailed from your climate scientist all have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb… this number here, are you measuring TOA or surface? These negative feedbacks were they raw or adjusted for x and y and z. for z, was researcher A’s method used? or B? or C? It just goes on and on, and in the meantime, the big picture gets lost.
I’m trying to put together some simple graphs showing logarithmic forcing from CO2 versus radiance to make it dead simple. This requires that I remember how to do natural log functions properly again so may take a while, but I will post here when the graphs are ready.
Ken Lambert;
Hope you are still following this thread. As promised, I put the actual graphs together so it is easy to see why I keep harping on the logarithmic effects of CO2 and the exponential cooling response of the planet making the whole argument seem oddly surreal, and why the nitpicking over rat hole details is just odd. For trying to figure out was is actually happening in our climate, those details are necessary. For putting to rest any notion that CO2 increases are a major factor, I think you will be able to see why I say that just these two factors are all one needs to consider:
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/
davidmhoffer (May11)
Thanks David. I read your link and graphs. I made similar points in a thread on Skeptical Science (SS for short) here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=110&&n=136
This was a response from GFW, which I did not have the knowledge to question:
Quote:
95.GFW at 19:27 PM on 27 March, 2010
Ken L.
What you’re missing is that the way greenhouse gasses work is to “take a chunk out” of the S-B emission curve. The OLR at two different temperatures can only be related by (T1/T2)^4 if both emission spectra have the same shape relative to the ideal S-B spectrum.
In this case, the entire mechanism by which the temperature is changed is a widening and deepening of the absorption lines so that, in equilibrium the OLR at the higher temperature but with more absorption lines is actually the same as it would be at the lower temperature and a pre-industrial atmosphere.
96.GFW at 19:31 PM on 27 March, 2010
Well, not the “entire” mechanism of course. Albedo changes scale the entire spectra relative to the S-B spectra, and any change in solar input dictates what “equilibrium” means. But right now greenhouse gasses are the dominant mechanism.” endquote
There is also the argument put up by warmists that the Earth’s feedbacks in geological time reinforce a 3 degC warming for a doubling of CO2.
The claim is that S-B does not apply because ‘greenhouse gases’ take a chunk out of the S-B emission curve ie: “The OLR at two different temperatures can only be related by (T1/T2)^4 if both emission spectra have the same shape relative to the ideal S-B spectrum.”
It that true or not??
davidmhoffer May11 and my above comment:
Interestingly enough, relevant responses of ‘leading climate scientist’ on the matter of the applicability of S-B:
Observation:
“However the observed surface warming of 0.75 degC if added to the
> radiative equilibrium temperature of the planet would result in a
> compensating increase in longwave radiation of 2.8W/sq.m (although this
> does not translate into OLR)”
Answer:
“This refers to the Stefan_Boltzman law of Planck function radiation
sigma*T^4. If the planet warms up by the observed sfc T amount then this
is how much extra radiation would be emitted. {What was used was} the
radiative equilibrium temp of the planet (about 255K) as the baseline
value. The problems are of course that this is the sfc T increase;
although it seems to apply fairly well to the troposphere also (maybe the
latter is a bit higher), but also any emissions would be trapped by clouds
and greenhouse gases and would not go directly to space, so all kinds of
other feedbacks come into play. So it does not translate directly into
OLR. One can estimate the OLR using regressions with sfc T from works
such as Murphy et al in JGR last year.
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster,
and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth
since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
They suggest:
net radiatove feedback = 1.25 ± 0.5 W m2 K1 as an estimate for the
response of net radiation to temperature variations between the 1950 and
2004. ”
So it seems that S-B applies to the first 0.75 degC of warming since pre-indistrial times; but not to the next tranch of warming up to doubling of Co2.
This seems the critical point to resolve.
Ken Lambert;
The claim is that S-B does not apply because ‘greenhouse gases’ take a chunk out of the S-B emission curve ie: “The OLR at two different temperatures can only be related by (T1/T2)^4 if both emission spectra have the same shape relative to the ideal S-B spectrum.”
It that true or not??>>
Completely true and a total rat hole. The argument being that as the planet warms, the amount of radiance increases, but the wave length at which peak radiance occurs also changes, which means that there may be a resulting change in what percentage of OLR gets absorbed by things other than CO2. Here’s the absorption spectrum from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
The blue upward graph in the 10 to 12 micron range is called the “atmospheric window” because that is the range of wave lengths where OLR can escape pretty much unubstructed. Now have a gander at the three peak radiance graphs over the window. They are calculated over a temperature range of -63C to +37C, and the ALL straddle the atmospheric window. So radiance goes up up 5.5 watts for 1 degree and the argument becomes that the peak shifts left, resulting in a different area under the curve, so efficiency of OLR escsape through the atmospheric window changes. Look at the three curves, spanning a 100 degree range, and consider the following 4 points:
1. How much difference to OLR would moving any of those curve peaks 1/100 of their range cause?
2. Cold stuff warms up more per watt than hot stuff. So… for really warm areas of the planet, very little change to OLR occurs in either wavelength or intensity. The cold areas (arctic regions, think -40 -60 as normal) see the largest change for a given forcing and OOOPS! they move up in intensity and their wavelength moves INTO the atmospheric window.
3. Look at the absortion spectrum over 12 microns. Pretty much 100% and pretty much all water vapour. OOOPS! Almost no water vapour below freezing so the window is open all the way to the right anyway. OOOPS! Temperature declines with height so even in the tropics the clouds etc at a few kilometers up are ALSO cold and not much water vapour (clouds are water droplets not vapour)
and point number 4:
Go back and look at the graphs again. Look at the stupendous amount of CO2 required to get a tiny amount of CO2 forcing, which results in an even tinier change to temperature which results in an even tinier shift in OLR peak in comparison to the atmospheric window.
This is what I mean about rat holes. The comment was entirely accurate and entirely meaningless once you dig into it.
Ken Lambert;
So it seems that S-B applies to the first 0.75 degC of warming since pre-indistrial times; but not to the next tranch of warming up to doubling of Co2.
This seems the critical point to resolve.>>
No. Rat hole. S-B applies ALL the time. The thousands of factors that govern climate determine the final temperature of the earth at any given time. Cloud cover, ocean oscillations, cosmic rays, aerosols, blah blah blah blah. Of all those factors, CO2 is one, S-B applies, logarithmic effects apply, significance is almost zero. There are thousands of factors, many of which are not as directly integrated with S-B as others, so they wave their arms. Are we talking climate and all the factors, or CO2? Because I thought the argument was CO2 is the driving factor in global warming. In which case:
Forcing from CO2 declines logarithmicaly
Cooling increases exponentially.
Dont let them suck you into rat holes.
Henry@Stephen Fisher
I think you are bringing in processes that can play a role but that do not have much to do with this graph
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
I am sure you are familiar with it? Now that graph is apparently on a cloudless day (or so I understand). So without the combined effects of oxygen/ozone, carbondioxide and water vapor, we would get at least 25-30% more radiation on top of us. It seems they measured the radiation on top of the atmosphere and at sea level and report the difference. Now, carefully go to left and and the bottom to see the influence of ozone. Do you not see how much sunshine is cut away by the ozone? Can you not see that percentage wise this must be biggest player in the field, because the sun’s intensity is there the highest?
R Gates: Sorry for the delay in replying.
Thanks for the link to the source of your comment, “No instruments yet to measure this, but Trenberth et. al. are working on that.”
But “Trenberth and Fasullo call[ing] for additional ocean sensors, along with more systematic data analysis and new approaches to calibrating satellite instruments, to help resolve the mystery,” are not “working on that.” There have been discussions of increasing ARGO depths and numbers for a number of years, well before Trenberth and Fasullo (2009). Take what you read in press releases with a grain of salt.
You concluded with, “I know it’s lots of fun to make fun of Kevin Trenberth…”
Have I in this thread or in others made fun of Trenberth? I cite Trenberth’s work all the time in my posts.
davidmhoffer (12May)
S-B applies all the time. Well I thought so too – but did not have detailed knowledge which you claim to have with which to counter the argument that S-B does not apply because CO2 largely changes the emission spectrum.
I think we have already agreed that for an OLR of about 240W/sq.m, only a 1 degK rise in the Earth’s ’emitting temperature’ is required to increase the S-B outgoing radiation by the 3.7W/sq.m of CO2 forcing from a doubling of CO2.
The emitting temperature used by climate scientists is quoted as around 255 degK.
To get to 3 degK surface rise from doubling CO2 requires the ‘enhanced greenhouse’ effect of an extra 2 degK across the atmospheric column (on average), and this theory relies on positive feedbacks from increased water vapour absorption etc etc which you say does not happen as claimed by the IPCC ‘concensus’.
So what is the surface temperature rise according to your theory for a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm?
Ken Lambert;
So what is the surface temperature rise according to your theory for a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm?>>
I don’t have a theory. In fact, I don’t have a clue what it should be. My point is that according to THEIR theory, once you get past about 400 PPM, the amount of additional CO2 required to make a significant difference… according to THEIR theory, is so large that we can’t possibly make it happen. That’s why when you point this out they start dragging the discussion into rat holes.
Since CO2 is logarithmic (which they agree to), almost everything that is ever going to happen to the planet because of fossil fuel emissions is already happening, it doesn’t matter if itz 1 degree per doubling or 10 or 100, itz already happening. Since we’ve seen temp increases over the last century commensurate with natural warming from the previous, I may have no theory as to what the number should be, but I have a guestimate. Not much.
Henry@ur momisugly Stephen et all
I am not getting a response on my assertion that the increase in ozone may neutralize any warming effect from the CO2 and indeed may cause considerable cooling by cutting away a large portion of the sunshine where the sun’s intensity is the highest. See my post May 12 2010 08H54. Are there any newer measurements on earth’s albedo? The last I can find is 2007. e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
Henry:
More ozone means a warming of the stratosphere due to impacts from uv hence the stratospheric temperature inversion.
However uv is only a tiny part of solar input so the effect on energy arriving at the surface is negligible.
If CO2 were causing any warming in the troposphere then in theory that causes cooling in the stratosphere which was observed during the late 20th century.
However it seems that a more positive polar oscillation reduces ozone to also cause a cooling stratosphere and those oscillations were highly positive during the late 20th century.
The killer fact then is that CO2 continues to increase so the stratospheric cooling should still be ongoing but it isn’t.
In fact the stratosphere is now warming a bit with recovering ozone and at the same time the polar oscillations have gone negative.
That also exposes the CFC idea to question as well as the CO2 theory.
Henry:
“measurements on earth’s albedo? The last I can find is 2007. e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/”
That link is highly pertinent.
The apparent increase in albedo coincides with the shift in the cloud masses equatorward which started around 2000.
My view is that the greatest effect on albedo is the latitudinal positioning of the three main cloud bands namely the ITCZ and the two mid latitude jets.
Because the ITCZ is north of the equator all three move towards or away from the equator in unison and because solar insolation is greatest at the equator the effect of their shifts on albedo probably is greater than any other factor.
davidmhoffer (May13)
“Since CO2 is logarithmic (which they agree to), almost everything that is ever going to happen to the planet because of fossil fuel emissions is already happening, it doesn’t matter if itz 1 degree per doubling or 10 or 100, itz already happening.”
I think you have to be a bit more precise than this David. After all the 3 degK rise with doubling CO2 is predicted by AGW proponents to cause sea level rise ‘at the upper end of IPCC estimates’ (over 1m) and other nasties – Mexican lizard extinctions, Super hurricanes etc etc.
Sea level rise is supposed to be 3.2mm per year globally (could be 1.7-2.5mm and flattening by some recent measures) indicating increasing OHC. Land ice loss from glaciers and Antarctica is supposed to be measurable and confirming AG warming.
You need a convincing explanation for these issues.