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.
Stephen Wild;
That alone could explain the so called ‘missing heat’ because those cloud bands started shifting equatorward around 2000 and have since progressed quite some distance latitudinally.>>
My understanding is that Trenberth is taking incoming measurements from the sun, outgoing measurements from the earth, and then trying to figure out where the difference is being “kept” on earth. So he’s trying to add up the increase in OHC, atmosphere heat content, wind energy, etc etc to come up with a total that matches. So the “missing” heat he is looking for is not the same as the fluctuation in incoming solar, that’s already accounted for (rightly or wrongly) in his math.
On the other hand you might be interested in this paper which shows via some rather crude instrumentation that incoming to earth surface has declined:
http://www.astro.lu.se/~torben/earthshine/Lund_2008_MartinWildshort.ppt
Ken Lambert;
With atmosphere and land holding small amounts of heat compared with the oceans, the integral of any TOA energy flux imbalance (if it exists) should show up in the oceans via a change in OHC.>>
Well maybe. Remember that SW penetrates as much as 300 meters of ocean while LW penetrates a millimeter or less. So you can’t treat the TOA flux as a single number. If TOA stayed the same but LW went down 20 watts and SW went up 20 watys you would get some big changes.
Stephen,
That would be interesting, but I haven’t seen any studies trying to approximate it, let alone measure it in that fashion.
As for
David:
That link about global dimming and radiation imbalances is interesting but in my opinion fatally flawed.
It looks quite clear to me that their data is derived primarily from mid latitudes where the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground would be most affected by the position of the particular recording site in relation to the mid latitude jets.
All the data obtained would more likely be a simple natural result of the jets moving first poleward and then back equatorward across the recording sites used.
I see that the minimal number of sites outside the mid latitudes showed opposite trends because their results depended more on the position of the sub tropical high pressure zones which is entirely consistent with my proposition but fatal for theirs.
Henry:
I have proposed that the latitudinal position of the three main cloud banks ( the two mid latitude jets and the ITCZ ) depends on the interplay between energy being released from the oceans to the air and the level of solar surface activity (probably operating via the solar wind) affecting the rate at which energy is lost to space.
On average over multidecadal timescales the jets move poleward when the sun is active and equatorward when the sun is less active subject in both cases to the opposing force or lack of it from the oceans.
Thus it seems that although a quiet sun reduces energy loss to space and so may well have a net warming effect in the short term the far larger effect is to increase global albedo by shifting the cloudbanks equatorward to reduce solar input to the oceans causing longer term cooling.
That also provides a very neat amplification of the very small solar changes. A small solar variation causes a large albedo effect by shifting the cloud banks latitudinally and in due course that albedo effect is processed via the oceans to then effect the amount of energy released back to the air from the oceans.
I think there are lots of things that could be done to confirm or rebut what I say but no one has ever attended to it.
Some have noticed the latitudinal shifts of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variation and some have linked it to solar surface activity and found that it works just as I say but as far as I know I am the only person so far to explore the implications.
Stephen, you say:
“On average over multidecadal timescales the jets move poleward when the sun is active and equatorward when the sun is less active subject in both cases to the opposing force or lack of it from the oceans”.
if this is true all we have to do is to try to settle the physical process. Why would a less active sun move clouds towards the equator? As far as I know the sun’s actual energy output is the same whether active or quiet. So somehow the clouds must be affected by the sun’s magnetic force or alternatively the sun magnetic force affects earth’s, thereby changing slightly earth’s gravitational pull on the clouds?
Henry:
“Why would a less active sun move clouds towards the equator?”
When the sun is less active the speed of upward energy transfer from the stratosphere seems to slow down giving a warming stratosphere.
That increases the strength of the inversion layer at the tropopause allowing less energy to move from troposphere to stratosphere.
More energy from upward convection is redirected downward in both the polar high pressure cells which intensify and migrate equatorward pushing the mid latitude jets ahead of them.
Since the ITCZ is north of the equator due to the predominance of oceans in the southern hemisphere it too is forced equatorward.
All three cloud bands thus get forced equatorward by the less active sun unless at the same time there is enough opposing pressure from warm ocean surfaces to oppose that movement.
When the sun was more active the polar high pressure cells were generally weaker and the cloud banks moved poleward.
davidmhoffer (May24)
“Well maybe. Remember that SW penetrates as much as 300 meters of ocean while LW penetrates a millimeter or less. So you can’t treat the TOA flux as a single number. If TOA stayed the same but LW went down 20 watts and SW went up 20 watys you would get some big changes.”
Well yes unless the first law (conservation of energy) is not applicable to the Earth system. (S-B applies so does the first law).
I would have thought that a Joule of SW energy is the same as a Joule of LW energy.
I would also expect that the ratio of SW to LW energy hitting the surface of the water would not change much over time.
The mechanism of heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere has always been unconvincing. Try heating your bath with a radiant heater held above the surface or from warm air in a room. An immersion heater is a different story. Undersea volcanoes or geothermal heating would be much more efficient in heat transfer terms.
TOA as a single number. For sure the heat transfer over the tropics is different from that over the cooler latitudes and the polar regions; but I would assume that Dr Trenberth’s 0.9W/sq.m is a total of the energy flux imbalance (Watts) divided by the surface area of the Earth to give an ‘average’ number.
The mechanism of heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere has always been unconvincing. Try heating your bath with a radiant heater held above the surface or from warm air in a room>>
This was essentially my point. Since SW goes 300 meters down, it must heat the whole 300 meters. Think about the time constant for 1 watts to bring 300 meters of ocean to a new equilibrium temperature. LW on the other hand only penetrates a millimeter or so, tiny time constant, and most of goes right back up into the atmosphere through evaporation. So SW is a long term deep heating thing and LW is a short term atmospheric thing. Hence my statement that you have to treat a change in ratio between LW and SW differently than a change in total flux alone.
I have another article almost done that will put the whole logarithmic thing in better perspetive, I’ll ping this thread when it is up.
Henry@Stephen Fisher
We have to find the real proof. Or do you have it? Are there satellite pictures that prove this phenomena? I would say “seems” is not good enough for real science?
But I know you are right. 100%!
I think even the ancients knew about this. Or how else did Joseph (in Egypt) know (predicted) there would be 7 years of abundant crops (rain) followed by 7 years of drought. Do you know the story of Joseph? If your name is David, you must have heard that story before. To make that call, he must have observed this EXACT same thing happening before or heard it from (the experiences of) his father. His (correct) prediction earned him the position of prime minister in Egypt. . …
14 years is the maximum of the (most) usual sun cycle!
Henry@Stephen Fisher
Sorry, you are Stephen. Not David. But Stephen is also a very biblical name to me/ Stephen was the first Christian martyr. Killed for his beliefs. So you must have heard the story of Joseph as well!
Henry:
“We have to find the real proof. Or do you have it? Are there satellite pictures that prove this phenomena?”
We haven’t enough historical records to provide proof but there is evidence.
When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled and the jets moved poleward.
It was assumed that that was the effect of more CO2 reversing what was expected from a more active sun.
Now the sun is less active the stratosphere ia warming and the jets have moved equatorward.
The CO2 assumption is therefore falsified because CO2 continues to increase. Also falsified is the proposition that a more active sun should warm the stratosphere and a less active sun should cool it. By a process of elimination my proposition must be taken seriously because out of the three possibilities it is the only one that fits the facts.
Three factors shifting together approximately in unison is a good indication that something is up. If it is true then a few more years of observation will provide the proof.
Ken Lambert;
Article is done.
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/catastrophic-global-warming-refuted-data-source-ipcc-ar4/
Unless I made a major error somewhere, this should crush the CO2 CAGW debate with the IPCC’s own data. Not that I’ll get many people to read it. But the numbers are there and the silliness of proceeding with mitigation ought to be pretty apparent.
Henry, Stephen,
I’ve only been half following your conversation, been trying to get my article done and frankly my eyes are starting to bleed from all the AR4 reports I’ve been scouring. In any event, you might want6 to search WUWT for articles on solar wind and magnetic field coupling between Sun and earth as both can in theory affect cloud formation. Itz been a while since I read the articles but I think they were related to what you are talking about.
BTW there are 4 theories as to how Joseph got it right:
1. God told him
2. The dream was true and Joseph correctly interpreted it
3. Jospeph made something up on the spot to buy himself some time and fluked out.
4. The story was commited to the scrolls several hundred years after Joseph lived. Good stories get better with age.
Henry@David & Stephen
I think in those days famines were not unusual – so they may have kept some records as to how long they lasted. I am pretty sure the ancients knew about the sunspots – afterall Ra was the God of Egypt and they build the piramids. People like that were not really that stupid and they may have put a link between sunspot activity and drier periods. Might be worthwhile looking a bit up on it.
Stephen,
I think you are on the right on track with the idea of the movements of the major cloud banks (jets) being influenced by the sun. But you have to come up with a mechanism. My idea is magnetism. Namely, the water in the clouds probably does carry (a very) small amount of iron. Could it be that the (magnetic) fields of the sun and earth interact to cause the clouds sometimes to move in the direction of the equator and sometimes towards the poles (when earth’s own magnetic field seems to become the dominant factor). If yes, how come?