Cooling and warming the surface of the Earth without energy loss or energy gain: a natural mechanism
Guest Post by Wim Röst
Abstract
Upwelling is a massive force, well visible on world maps. Data provide evidence that the last century ‘Warming period(s)’ just may be caused by ‘less deep sea cooling’. Data also show that the ‘Pause’ is characterized by ‘more wind’ and therefore by ‘more upwelling’. That upwelling cooled the surface layer of the Oceans and ended the previous warming trend. Effects are visible both on a regional scale (i.e. the North Atlantic) and on the global scale. ‘Upwelling’ together with ‘mixing’ is a massive force. On a scale of decades the mechanism responds quickly to changes and it forms a very active force. The changes in wind speed are enhanced in their effects because ‘wind stress’ on the surface is a quadratic function of wind speed. Preliminary data suggest that the wind-upwelling-mixing mechanism might be a new and important stabilizing feedback mechanism as well. The here described warming/cooling mechanism acts without energy loss / energy gain for the Earth as a whole. The author suggests that because of it’s massive power, the mechanism also plays a main role in Abrupt Climate Changes as are known from the rapid transitions into and out of the Interglacials. Less wind causes accelerated warming of the sea surface and the atmosphere. ‘More wind’ causes a quick and strong cooling by the Deep Sea.
Introduction
In my last post, Warming by [less] Upwelling of Cold Ocean Water *, I explained that the ‘cooling potential’ of the deep sea is enormous. Calculations showed that – if activated – the subsea can and will decide over sea surface temperatures. A one year doubling of the regular ‘upwelling’ diminishes global sea surface temperatures with 0,18 ºC. I stated that ‘wind’ is determining cold upwelling (and ‘mixing’).
So far the theory. Let’s check the facts.
First question: can we see the effect of ‘upwelling’: is upwelling that huge that it is visible?
Answer: sure, the effect of upwelling is very well visible, even on world scale maps. Who looks in ‘horizontal lines’ often sees on the same latitude sea surface temperatures that are lower than elsewhere, especially on the West side of continents. Have a look at fig. 1.
Fig. 1: ** Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) 1985-2015.
We find main upwelling areas West of North Africa, West of South Africa, West of Peru and West of California. Prevailing Eastern winds, the Easterlies, are the cause of big upwelling areas. Less well known are upwelling/mixing areas resulting from Westerlies: the Sea of Okhotsk (East-Siberia) and the seas North and East of Newfoundland. For climate change those areas are important as well.
It is clearly visible: Upwelling is a massive power.
But that is not enough. When changing wind patterns are the cause of temperature differences as I argued in my last post, then we must be able to see those changing patterns between two periods.
Because the last ‘warming period’ is quite different from ‘the Pause’ I selected two different 15 year periods that both included a massive El Nino: 1986-2000 and 2001-2015 (data for 2016 were not available at the moment of plotting the maps).
In ClimateReanalyzer it is possible to subtract the average of the ‘Warming period’ from the average for ‘the Pause’: 2001-2015 minus 1986-2000. The parts of the ocean that cooled down during the Pause (compared to the warming period before) are shown in blue. Relative ‘warming’ during the Pause is shown in red. The sea temperature differences between both periods are well visible in most of the seas: Fig. 2.
Fig. 2:** Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly of ‘The Pause’ minus ‘Warming’ (2001-2015 minus 1986-2000).
During the Pause, most main upwelling area’s show ‘cooling’ (blue). Deep upwelling water was cooling the surface during the Pause more than it did during the Warming period before. Or, reversely, during the Warming period, less upwelling water was cooling the surface layer, resulting in ‘warming’.
Following the theory, the following question was: “Do sea surface temperatures show cooling because of a change in wind patterns? As I argued in the last post, wind drives upwelling. If so, the following map must show stronger winds at the cooling places of fig. 2.
For the same periods the difference in average wind speed was plotted. More wind (in red) means the wind enhanced over that region during the Pause.
The result is astonishing: fig. 3.
Fig. 3:** Wind speed during ‘The Pause’ minus wind speed during ‘Warming’ (2001-2015 minus 1986-2000). ‘Red’ = higher wind speed during the Pause, ‘blue = lower wind speed than in the preceding (warming) period.
Fig. 2 and fig. 3 are nearly the inverse of each other. Where wind speed was enhanced during the Pause, sea surface cooled. Where wind speed diminished, sea surface warmed.
In the Pacific Ocean we see that in the upwelling areas (West of California, West of Peru – blue in fig. 2) the wind was indeed stronger (‘red’ in fig. 3). This stronger wind enhanced the upwelling. And upwelling cooled the surface: blue in fig. 2.
But there is more. In my last post I also stated that ‘Warming’ could have been caused by less upwelling. If so, wind speed must have been diminished in seas that warmed.
Let us have a look at the North Atlantic, the region that warmed the most during the Pause (red in fig. 2). What was the role of wind in the North Atlantic during the Pause? The theory says it should have been diminished. If so, it would be shown as ‘blue’ in fig. 3.
And it is shown in blue. Less wind in the North Atlantic indeed coincided with ‘warming’. Less wind, less upwelling/mixing. And Sea Surfaces in the Atlantic were warming.
But that is not all. In my last post I also stated that ‘the whole period of Warming’ could have been caused by less upwelling.
If ‘Warming’ in general is also caused by less wind (resulting in less upwelling/mixing), than, in the Warming Period the average wind speed must have been lower in 1986-2000 than during 2001 – 2015. Let’s check.
Fig. 4 shows the development of average global wind speed for the whole period (unfortunately wind speed ´for oceans only´ was not available)
Fig. 4:** Development of global wind speed since 1979
(WR: The red line is added to the original graphic)
Less wind + less upwelling = Warming
Wind speed increased from 1979 onwards. During the entire period of warming wind speed on average was lower than during the Pause. Resulting in ‘warming’.
More wind + more upwelling = The Pause
During The Pause wind speed on the average was higher than during the Warming period. Resulting in ‘no warming’. As the theory says.
A ‘phase shift’ in 1997?
Because I was interested in the difference between the distinctive periods before and after 2000, I tried to look at the above graph in a different way: is there something visible like a ‘phase shift’ between the two periods?
Something like a phase shift seems to be the case from the start of the 1997 El Nino. I added the red line to the graph. Looking left and right of the red line, one discovers a different ‘average level’ for the two periods.
A negative feedback mechanism?
After the 1997 El Nino the average surface temperature of the seas was higher as well. See fig. 5
Fig. 5**: Development of Sea Surface Temperatures since 1979
(WR: Again a red line is added to the original graphic at the same moment in time as in fig. 4)
The development of Sea Surface Temperatures shows a pattern that is remarkably the same as the development of Wind Speed. Higher sea surface temperatures coincide with more wind.
As we already saw, more wind results in cooling because of upwelling/mixing. Therefore, the most logical conclusion here is that warming seas enhanced global wind speed and that global wind speed in turn started the cooling process.
This leads to the conclusion that a negative wind/upwelling feedback might be regulating surface temperatures: more warmth > more wind > more upwelling > cooling.
If future observations (and reanalysis results) confirm the pattern, an important new stabilizing feedback might have been discovered.
This feedback could play an important role in explaining the cyclic character of warming/cooling periods as well.
Wind stress is a quadratic function
The difference in wind speed between the two distinctive periods doesn’t seem to be that high in meters per second, but: “Because wind stress is a quadratic function of wind speed, gusty winds produce larger stresses than would steady winds of the same average speed.” *** In other words, a few extra storms will have a much bigger impact on upwelling and mixing of the sea surface than ‘average wind change’ would suggest. A little increase in wind speed results in a lot of extra upwelling and mixing. And a little decrease in wind speed results in much less upwelling and mixing.
Physical processes
Without wind, the sun would heat up the upper surface layer of the oceans, in the tropics more intensely than at the higher latitudes. Without wind, the upper layer will quickly show a stronger stratification in temperature.
As everyone who is visiting a cold lake in summertime can experience, the following happens. Without wind, in three to five sunny days the sun can heat up the toplayer significantly, producing one or two meters of much warmer water. Which, during the heat of summer, often is nice to swim in. Fig. 6.
Fig. 6: Stratification of a lake after warming by the sun – without wind
After the initial situation shown above, the following happens after the wind started to blow. Upwind the warm surface layer will be blown away and cold water will well up. Fig. 7.
Fig. 7: Cooling the surface by upwelling
Cooling without energy loss
Downwind, the wind will mix the upper layers. The warm water at the surface will be mixed with the cooler water below, resulting in an overall lower surface temperature and a thickening of the surface layer itself. By mixing, no energy is lost, however the top surface layer cooled. Wind cools the surface. Also by mixing. See Fig. 8.
Fig. 8: Cooling the top of the surface layer by ‘mixing’. An example.
Oceans are ‘very big lakes’ with their own characteristics. But there, the same wind / upwelling / mixing principles are at work.
Experiences of a submariner confirm that ‘mixing’ in the oceans in some cases can go as deep as 1000 meter. For some first hand observations, scroll down to: **** Submarine Experiences
Abrupt Climate Change
Due to Abrupt Climate Change(s) into an Interglacial, the global climate system changed rapidly. A different climate system with completely other characteristics for major areas established itself in a very short time. Gradual orbital chances can not explain the rapid temperature changes into the Interglacials. Some power must have warmed the surface at moments of a rapid shift into the Interglacial. In a following post I will elaborate on the idea that by a temporary switching off of the Earth Cooling Mechanism it was possible that the surface of the Earth was warmed by several degrees in a century. Or strongly cooled when the cooling mechanism was working in overdrive. It has always been the Sun that warms the Earth year after year, but the Sun can only warm the surface rapidly when the massive (and continuously working) Deep Sea Cooling is diminished substantially.
In a future post I will elaborate on the consequences of upwelling and mixing processes for climate. The consequences are huge. But, given the massive influence on surface temperatures as shown earlier in this post ((fig. 2 and fig. 3) and in the previous one, we can already draw some important conclusions.
Conclusions:
The here described mechanism shows that ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’ of the surface of the Earth is able to happen without ‘energy gain’ or ‘energy loss’ for the Earth as a whole.
Periods of warming or cooling might just be the result of natural variation within the atmosphere/ocean system itself.
‘Weather’ (here: ‘wind’) still controls sea surface temperatures as shown by fig. 2 and fig. 3. The Oceans dominate the Earth’ surface (with a share of 71%) and determine most of the Earth’ temperature. Winds and Oceans are the decisive factor. ‘Upwelling’ and ‘mixing’ are processes that strongly react on relatively small changes in atmospheric conditions. Slight increases in wind speed result in the mixing of a lot of ‘cold’ deep seawater into the surface layer.
In respect to warming/cooling there are three possibilities:
- No wind: no mixing and upwelling, strong warming of the surface layer.
- “Normal wind”: no change in temperature, just the right quantity of ‘cold from the depth’ and ‘sun energy from above’ to keep surface temperatures stable.
- More wind: more mixing and upwelling, cooling of the surface, cooling of the atmosphere.
My guess: both warming periods of the last century were [mainly] the result of diminished ‘wind’. ‘The Pause’ showed a wind level that was just ‘right’ to keep surface temperatures stable. More wind will result in cooling. And less wind in the future will result in another warming period.
One who can not predict ‘wind,’ can not predict climate change.
So far, nobody can predict future winds, not even two weeks ahead. And no one can predict the behaviour of the oceans either.
Wind and oceans do what they do.
With regards to commenting: please adhere to the rules known for this site: quote and react, not personal. Factual information in regard to this topic is welcome.
About the author: Wim Röst studied human geography in Utrecht, the Netherlands. The above is his personal view. He is not connected to firms or foundations nor is he funded by government(s)
Notes:
* https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/26/warming-by-less-upwelling-of-cold-ocean-water/
** Source of fig. 1-3 and fig. 4 and 5:
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_maps/index.php
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Reanalysis_monthly/tseries.php
*** Source: https://marine.rutgers.edu/dmcs/ms501/2004/Notes/Wilkin20041014.htm
**** SUBMARINE EXPERIENCES
I spent the 1980’s on prolonged nuclear submarine submerged deployments (>80 days submerged duration) throughout the North Atlantic Basin. For a variety of operational and tactical reasons, ocean water temperature was of extreme interest. We typically operated below 70 meter submerged depth. We were often in the same area at the same depth repeatedly during a deployment and also from year to year.
Summary:
1) Very large storms will stir up the water column and hence the temperature profile much deeper than 70m.
a) We witnessed one severe winter storm system in 1984 change the temperature profile for at least 1000 m depth.
b) This temperature disruption lasted for at least 60 days after the storm system had abated.
2) All of our temperature measurements were taken by direct readings.
a) Ship board precision sensors
b) Remote wired sensors deployed from the ship.
c) Calibrated accuracy was to +/- .05C (I have a lot of engineering experience with precision temperature measurement systems, accuracies, calibration, etc.)
3) In the absence of storm systems, the temperature profile would change repeatedly when in proximity to the Gulf Stream current in the North Atlantic. Proximity could mean within 200 to 300 km of the main Gulf Stream Current. We would see changes of 1 to 4C in a 30 to 45 day time frame. It depended upon the amount of eddie current and time of year off of the Gulf Stream Current. In summary this is a very powerful mixing agent.
4) In relatively still and deep ocean basins, the changes would not be so dramatic or dynamic. However from year to year (at the same time of the year) we would often see variations of 1 – 2C
The ocean is an incredibly dynamic, constantly changing three dimensional system
(name known by the author of this article)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
……. the Pause is part of continuos 60+ year cycles over centuries….
please fit the wind and the upwelling waters into this cyclic pattern…..
showing that wind and upwelling were drivers (cause) and not simply
effects…….
About a month ago I read remarks on this site or Judy’s to the effect that the average temperature of American lakes had risen over recent decades, but that there was no geographical clumping evident. Instead, the pattern was spotty. This spotty pattern could be explained by variations in wind speed, which is likely spotty. This data should be checked, because it might support Rôst’s thesis.
I must have missed that. Will be interesting to hear more about.
RK,
And others speculated about local cloud changes over different lakes. Plausibly, more than one mechanism can work at a given time. No doubt these are parts of a wicked problem .
I just googled for “warming of lakes in America” and got a longish list. Here’s a link to my search-results page:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=warming+of+American+lakes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Huh. Wasn’t 2014 the “greatest ice extent” of the Great Lakes? What warming?
I ask, of course, with tongue in cheek, as all of the Great Lakes were indeed excavated by advances of glaciers.
At least on continental shelves there are interesting density differences like bottom intrusions at the edge that may not upwell, but one wonders if they contribute by later less spectacular mixing, especially if carried along the shelf and coast. Even more inshore clearer waters pop up in strange places. Maybe more outliers than heat killers, but I like them and they may produce eddies as some you observed. It is much more complicated than your upwelling graphs so it might help if you complicate them a little. Where I live (Texas) the wind has a greater ocean effect than in a lot of areas. Keep it up, Langmuir wasn’t an oceanographer but he gave us great insight about circulation with a simple experiment. Maybe a young one is watching and learning. Lots more out there to sieve.
Hmmmn. Sounds sort of convincing. About 70% of the Earth is covered in a thick layer of a liquid which has a very high specific heat. (Learnt that in High School.) This liquid moves about a bit, and can absorb and emit heat as it goes, so it could have an effect on the climate.
But no mention of CO2, so it must be heresy.
Wim, thanks for your thoughtful article, I love when someone is thinking outside the box.
Wim Röst – Nice post. I’m preparing a new post which goes a lot further, but (if AW publishes it) you will see that what you have described here is a part of the whole.
Mike, how does the change in cloud cover (at the turn of the millenium) fit in to all this? thanx…
New post should be up soon – it explains everything!
Wim Röst – Nice post.
It is a shame that your English is far less accurate than your analysis…e.g.
the subsea can and will decide over sea surface temperatures. A one year doubling of the regular ‘upwelling’ diminishes global sea surface temperatures with 0,18 ºC.
…was fairly incomprehensible to me.
After a bit of thought I decided that you probably meant :”deeper layers of the ocean can and do determine sea surface temperatures. A one year doubling of the regular rate of ‘upwelling’ diminishes global sea surface temperatures by 0.18 ºC”
Thanks Leo. Correct. I think I need someone like you who likes to check my next posts before publishing. So far I don’t have a native speaker volunteer for that.
(I had to learn my English in highschool in total in a 500 lessons, at a moment there was no internet. Passively using another language is easier than using it actively and I didn’t need to use my English actively, except for holidays)
Wim, thank you for your service. Your English is fine.
I assume English was your first language. It wasn’t mine. I agree, great post.
I understood what he wrote. But then, I also understand “Hero, May I Habu Engrish Combasation Wish You?” Don’t ask. The story isn’t that interesting.
Thank you for your service, and your detailed report.
Great post! Thanks for the self explaining graphics! Cheers – Hans
Well done. The deep oceans could well be doing this, so little do we know of them. But what about upwelling from the Coriolis Effect?
==============
Kim: “But what about upwelling from the Coriolis Effect?”
WR: See my comment at January 26, 2017 at 5:59 pm. Furthermore, the Coriolis force is working constantly. It is the changing patterns that make the difference. Like the changing pattern of winds at upwelling sensible places.
Thanks, I’d missed that 5:59 comment, I’m ashamed to admit. Nice that you can see the effect in the swirls near the equator, though the effect works everywhere, diminishing poleward.
=========
Very interesting idea and the submariner anecdotes are handy to have.
One flaw I see is that you are instantly attributing the warmer and cooler regions to upwelling but do not even mention the major oceanic gyres which circulate in all major basins.
Much of the cooler water seen along west coast of S. Am is because to the anticlockwise rotation of surface water. similarly the west Pacific warm pool is because of westward circulation of water along the equator in both hemispheres which gets progressively warmer as it goes across. It then spreads out N and S when it hits the continental barrier of Asia.
The reason the Gulf Stream flows where it does is because to the c/w rotation of the N. Atl gyre.
This is not say that you are wrong but to ignore this and state with certainty that what you show in the maps is due to upwelling is not accurate.
Also if you want to suggest that there is ‘proof’ in the similarity of fig 3 and 5 then you should plot them on top of each other for direct comparison and / or give something like the correlation coeff of the two.
I don’t think they are that similar.
However, interesting and worth looking into more thoroughly .
When the trade winds fail in the Pacific the warm water spreads out causing ‘El Nino’ which is know to cause wide scale warming. This is similar to what you describe.
How much is this influencing the global comparison you are doing here. What does this data look like on a basin by basin basis?
Greg: “you (….) do not even mention the major oceanic gyres which circulate in all major basins.”
You are correct that I did not mention the gyres in the article, but I have had a look at them: see my comment: Wim Röst January 26, 2017 at 4:25 pm. They contribute, but don’t dominate.
Any proof of the theory is best shown at a regional scale. Fig. 2 and 3 give the best result. See my earlier comment: January 27, 2017 at 4:35 am
Thanks for the reply Wim. However, I do not see either of the time stamps you indicate. I think that varies with what time zone the reader is in !
Can I suggest that you hover over the time/date on any comments you wish to refer to and copy the permalink. This uses the unique comment ID and works consistently. Eg you last one links as follows:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warming-and-the-pause-explained-by-wind-upwelling-and-mixing/#comment-2409461
“Any proof of the theory is best shown at a regional scale. Fig. 2 and 3 give the best result. ”
I do not see any results. I see some rather vague speculation based on eyeballing some maps. I’m not sure that even merits being called a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
I like the article, it is thought provoking but I think you need to be a bit more rigorous and scientific. Like I said , if you think there is a correlation in fig 6 and 7 lets see the two data sets together and some correlation stats.
Are you able to plot a graph of those two time series?
Greg January 27, 2017 at 6:07 am “I do not see either of the time stamps you indicate”
WR: when you search for ‘gyre’ you will also find the location. The same for ‘regional scale’.
I can’t thank you enough for doing all the work that went into this post. I have often noticed the effect more-wind or less-wind has on SST, but lack the skill-sets necessary to gather all the facts and figures in the manner you do.
In the past I’ve been involved in debates with Alarmists who wear blinders. When I observe something, and point it out, they distrust my eyesight. They want a “link”, and want facts and figures. I am going to save this post, to use in such situations.
Thanks again.
Thank you Caleb. I like the way you are searching for the essential things as well. Although the essintial things often are simple it is not always simple to find them. The mechanism described in this post and the previous one is an important one. There is more, but we will never be able to understand ‘warming’ when we don’t know everything about ‘cooling’ or ‘the lack of cooling’.
Wim, Excellent!
There is a changing climate sensitivity in the lat band of 20 to 30 or 35 North Lat, at the end of the 97 El Nino, that area warmer more with the calculated amount of solar it was receiving.
What you did gives a visual picture of what the oceans were doing, while at the same time land based surface stations detect these changes as both a change in dew points (which approximately sets daily min temp planet wide). I can show you the effect of these changes.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
This is the change in temp F, based on the varying solar at TOA for the exact location each station. Truely actual sensitivity to the change in solar forcing.
What drives the up-welling? The activity of the Sun!
Yes, Wim is correct. I’ve been beating this drum for years. I even find scientists who do climate research who don’t think about the possibility of a chaotic change in ocean mixing causing climate change.
Thank you Roy.
It was a pleasure to get this link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/ and to see that ‘from another corner’ you came to the same conclusion about the world’s cooling system. You by ENSO, I followed maps and more especially the Thermohaline Circulation, THC. I became fascinated by the sink of icecold water and realized that it had to come up somewhere. A map with the different times the cold water stayed down made me realize that ‘1000 years down’ seemed a lot, but when it is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers, the water coming up had to have an enormous impact of the heat content of the surface layer. And so of the Atmosphere. And so I continued step by step.
Hi, Wim.
Have you ever seen this :
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
from 2008 ?
In other articles over the past ten years I have also been referring to the thermohaline circulation as being 1000 to 1500 years long which, I pointed out, fits well with the approximately 1000 year climate cycle from MWP through LIA to the current warm period.
There’s hardly an oceanic process that leads more non-oceanographers astray than upwelling–especially in connection with the thermohaline circulation. Oceanographers have long recognized that strong wind-driven, horizontal circulation of surface layers of the oceans transport orders of magnitude more water and encapsulated heat than the sluggish, diffusive, gravity-driven adjunct of THC. “Climate science” science, however, has embraced wholly unrealistic notions of a coherent global “conveyor belt,” whose existence and properties have never been empirically established.
Widely varying estimates of the strength and stability of putative THC and its impact upon surface climate depend largely upon bald conjectures and wholly unvalidated model calculations. such as seen in: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/glodap_pdfs/Thermohaline.web.pdf. A more realistic view of THC, however, can be glimpsed in the work of seasoned oceanographers such as Klaus Wyrtki
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146631361900144) and Carl Wunsch
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/thermohaline.pdf), who calls the “conveyor belt” a “fairy tale for adults.” No attributions to THC should ever be made without grasping the physical insights provided by these specialists.
Hello 1sky1, to realize that the THC is NOT a pipeline that transports cold water through all the oceans and after a certain time will deliver that cold water at certain places helped me to get a better image about what is really happening in the oceans.
I realized that the cold water goes down. But, where and when does it come up? Nobody knows this exactly, aside from the fact that patterns are daily changing. Local and well visible upwelling is one part of the process. The invisible ‘replacing’ somewhere down, of surface water that is lead away by currents, is happening is also part of the process. The second part perhaps happens at most of the 360 million square kilometres of the ocean. Important for ‘temperature effects’ but not easy to detect.
In fact the quantity of water that ‘sinks’ at the poles will form part of the mass of very cold water (95% of all ocean water) down in the ocean. More than a billion cubic kilometres that is always ‘on the move’. A tremendous lot of cubic kilometres with often subtle differences from each other, subject to processes we hardly know. And we need to know all that is happening down, to be able to foresee a little bit of what is going to happen within the oceans somewhere in the future. And by doing so, to foresee what is going to happen with climate.
Realizing this all, made me look at the upward movement of the THC and especially the visible upwelling. And realizing the quantities involved, it became clear that this was a process that is fundamental to understand the functioning of present global climates. And their development in time.
Until now nearly everyone seems to be concentrated on ‘warming’ and forgetting that ‘cooling’ is [at least] half of the process.
You can isolate the walls of your house to get it warmer, but when you forget to realize that a little window still is opened, a window that let’s flow in the cold air into your house 24/7, summer and winter, a small window but with a substantial impact on the temperatures in your house, you will never be able to understand why the temperature in your house will not be that what you expected it to be.
This seems to happen in climate world.
Thanks for your links I will surely have a look at them.
Wim (and commenters): Thanks for a most interesting read. It’s a lot to think about!
The average wind speed over the ocean surface can change for various reasons — long term alteration of pressure systems is probably the largest.
Can I put forward my own suggestion — Mosh, look away now.
Low level wind will decrease over a rough surface. Over a smooth surface it will increase. An oil-polluted ocean surface resists wave breaking up to Force 4 because the oil smooths the surface and there is reduced engagement. By disengaging the wind from the upwelling effect one will obviously reduce upwelling and increase SSTs .Is surface smoothing a contributor to global warming? I don’t know.
Give me a few hundred million dollars and I will quantify the effect.
JF
Diminishing the wind stress will make the temperature of the top surface layer rise: into the direction of the no mixing situation fig. 8.
Wim, if i (as a humble layman) were to put it all in an (overly simplistic) nutshell, i would say that wherever those warmer areas (the reds and yellows) are, waters are piling up and subsequnetly sinking. And visa versa, where ever those cooler areas (the blues and purples) are, waters are upwelling. AND the faster the winds blow (warmer SSTs), the more sinking (warm) and upwelling (cool) we get…
“subsequnetly” should read “subsequently”
(and ‘humble layman’ translates as ‘dummy’… ☺)
Afonzarelli, unfortunately it is not that simple. The warm waters you see in fig. 1 as red and yellow are expanded because of their temperature and therefore have a density that is less than the colder water below. Therefore they will continue to float. The total process of sink and upwelling is more complicated, because ‘salt content’ also plays a role. I will come back on this later.
Yes, that was my point. Disengaged wind will be the equivalent of a lower wind speed, so even though the wind is increasing its effect on the upwelling cooling cycle will be less.A surface which is smoothed will also have a lower albedo — more warming — and will have fewer breaking waves. Fewer breaking waves, fewer aerosols. Fewer aerosols, less stratocumulus cloud, more warming.
I have been puzzled about El Nino. I wonder if anyone has studied the phenomenon beyond the purely quantitative. You read things like ‘there are more El Ninos therefore the world is warmer’, but my question is ‘why more El Ninos, what is causing them?’ Maybe I haven’t read enough.
Well… they don’t sink in the conventional sense, being less dense, sure. But, when warm water gets piled up on top of warm water (over and over again), then the whole mass will go down, no? And in the eastern ocean, water will thus rise. In essence the coriolis effect (trade winds) acts as a great big heat pump, pumping warm surface waters into the abyss. Sure, the waters spread out and some simply piles up, but much of it would sink. That’s how (i thought) the THC works. Imagine an open ended test tube in the shape of a “U”. And there is ice cold (blue dyed) water filling up about half of it. And we pour scalding (red dyed) water into one of the openings. The hot water will go downward once added to the tube. And on the other side, the cold water will rise. (if my memory serves me, it’s called ‘conservation of mass’?) What i’m saying here is conventional wisdom or so i thought. Maybe i’m just not understanding you here. (it’s not your english, it’s my thought processes which aren’t the greatest!)
i see that mike jonas’ piece has just come up. If i don’t see you again here, thank you very much for the wonderful post, and for wading in with the peops so thoroughly in the comments. i think this was a very important posting with much to learn and confirm. (my biggest take away was your response to javier where you described the whole process as a “negative feedback”)…
Hi Wim. Greetings from the Big Mango (BKK).
Thanks for this proposal. I think it does explain the self-regulating effect of the ocean wind combination.
What I am more interested in is how does this start a glacial or end an interglacial. what would have to disrupt or unbalanced the self regulating effect to cause an ice age.
1. Do the periods of high winds correspond to peaks in the sunspot cycle.
2. I have read about the Hadley cells, Ferrel cells and the polar . Also I have seen ITCZ move around daily and seasonally. My question is at the end of the last ice age can we know if there was only the Hadley cell operating from equator to the poles. At that time of course course the sea level was about 120 meters lower. This might help explain the sudden change.
Regards,
Pearce M. Schaudies.
Minister of Future
“how does this start a glacial or end an interglacial. what would have to disrupt or unbalanced the self regulating effect to cause an ice age”
WR: The processes on the Earth are diverse and not easy to disentangle. Seldom you can convert them 1:1. Many processes influence other processes and often smaller or bigger time lags are involved. As the sun is directly connected to the Earth, changes in the behaviour of the Sun will have their effect on Earth, but so far it is not easy to detect those effects directly. But the effects of changes in the Sun will influence ‘cycles’ that we can see in processes that are happening on Earth. So far it is not proved that sunspots have a direct effect on things like ‘wind’. We know that the sun/orbit has an influence on wind, think about the seasons, think about day/night differences. Changes in orbit/insolation/season probably will have an influence on wind and upwelling that will help us changes in climates. I probably will come back on this later.
The discovery of Hadley cells and other cells helped to explain the different climates on the Earth. But later we discovered the different stratifications in the air and this complicated the situation. See my comment Wim Röst January 27, 2017 at 2:46 am. Nullschool made me doubt about Hadley cells. See: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=339.17,1.64,508 What is clearly visible is that movements of water vapour don’t stop at places where we expect the air to go down, at around 30N and 30S. This learned me that we must look in another way (at least for a certain percentage) to what is happening in the atmosphere.
What has my attention is the possible change in pressure areas that will result as North Pole ice would continue to shrink. Warmer Poles will result in more low pressure areas over there, which will have big implications. Our Atlantic Ocean will get a kind of a ‘northern extension’. For now we are still thinking about two systems, the Arctic seas and the Atlantic. But think about a situation without summer ice, being the two one system.
The contrary happens during the glacials. Pressure areas change, winds change, wind speed changes, upwelling changes, upwelling areas change, water quantities change, currents change etc. etc. And in time, all systems continuously keep changing. An interesting puzzle.
I like to tell little children that I can always tell what is inside a wrapped gift box. Then I reveal that what is inside is a puzzle.
=================
Does this seem to explain why a hockey stick is really a false for greenhouse warming? Short term surface temperatures gains are offset with periodic deep water mixing.
Bill Heyn, a very funny and a very important question.
We know that graph you mentioned is false in itself: it is not representing reality. But if the graph would have been correct, would that graph have shown greenhouse warming or could it have been something else as well? And in case it would have shown greenhouse warming, what would the cooling system do in reaction to this warming?
First answer: natural variation can fully explain even such a graph. Such a graph could show that our unpredictable chaotic ocean / atmospheric system for a while has chosen a less usual path like what sometimes happens at sea when ‘movements from different directions’ are able to produce a giant wave that ‘normally’ is shown nowhere. But those ‘impossible waves’ do develop from time to time and big ships may even disappear by them. It our climate world something unusual like could easily be a natural variation in a little bit more extreme form. But we have seen much stronger movements in and out the interglacial and also within the glacials. So nothing unnatural. Last century warming – as I have shown above in fig. 2 and 3 – might be nothing else than normal ‘natural variation’, without ANY greenhouse effect involved.
This natural variation is caused by ‘partly putting off the deep sea cooling’. A period of less wind causes less cold upwelling of cold deep sea water that mixes with the rest of the surface layer. The sun is heating the less cooled (so initially already warmer) surface layer with the same energy as usual and the surface layer will become warmer than before. This results in a warming sea surface / atmosphere system for some decades. Therefore all of the present warming might be the result of variations inside the system itself. With no greenhouse effect involved at all.
The same for a cooling world. Nothing has to change in the composition of the atmosphere to get in the present century two 30 year periods of cooling. When our chaotic ocean/atmosphere system decides to enhance wind speed with some percents we can experience two periods of cooling. Just by natural variation. Deep cold upwelling ocean water will cool the surface layer that will cool the atmosphere. With no energy gain nor energy loss for the Earth as a whole.
But what, if there IS a warming effect by greenhouse gases? How will the here described cooling system react?
1. The Antarctic does not cool easily: too much ice. Polar warming therefore will be on the North Pole. Warming results in lower pressure. As the pressure at the Antarctic not will change a lot and the pressure in the Arctic will be lowered substantially, at the surface level the air movement between SP (South Pole) and NP will be enhanced. More wind = more upwelling = cooling.
2. In the above warming system, air will rise at the NP and will be going down at the SP. The area of the South Pole will cool by the in the high pressure area lowering air (as it did) and sea ice will be extended (as it did). At the NP warm air and warmer water will arrive (as it did), sea ice will melt (as it partially did) and warm air will rise to a height where the energy easy can go spaceward (as it did).
3. Land warms faster than Sea. The temperature gradient Land – Sea will be enhanced. At land more warm air will rise and it will have to be replaced by cooler air from the surfaces of the seas. Pressure differences will be enhanced. Wind will be enhanced. And the resulting rising wind speed will in the end result in cooling of the total system by more upwelling of cold water.
4. More wind will result in more mixing of the upper regions of the oceans. This might both cool and thicken the surface layer. The cooling of the seas will enhance temperature differences with the warming land, create even more pressure differences, raise temperature gradients and (again) raise wind speed. Continuing and enhancing the cooling process. Until the system is more balanced.
5. At the North Pole the very salty but less cold (because of warming) Gulf Stream water will be surrounded by warmer other water and will sink down. Bringing more energy into the deep sea. As a result, the surface of the Earth will cool and the deep sea will warm. Because of its enormous capacity to contain energy, the deep sea will only warm a very very little bit.
6. On the long run (think about hundreds of years or a millennium) the uptake of energy by the oceans will warm the oceans as a whole (including the Deep Sea) slowly and will result in a bit warmer upwelling water that will raise the Earth’ temperatures slightly.
Concluding: if there is a Greenhouse effect (which I hope, but more about that in following posts) than the effect of the Greenhouse warming will be measured on a scale of hundreds of years or even millennia. In the short run (decades, a century) warm periods will stimulate the Earth Cooling Motor and the Deep Sea will be activated in such a way that ‘in the next 30 year round’ the eventual warming will be mitigated or even reversed in a cooling pattern as we saw in the fifties and sixties of last century.
My guess for the future:
As soon as a real cooling process will be activated around the North Pole, there might be a switch in roles between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. This will be visible in more sea ice on the NP and less sea ice around the SP. The warming we experienced mostly around the North Atlantic will disappear for a period of at least decades. And possibly will be conversed in real cooling of the North Atlantic area, whatever the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The cooling mechanism (cool deep sea water) is that strong that such a cooling will be ‘peanuts’ for the Earth. As stated above, the uptake of ‘greenhouse gas energy’ from the atmosphere finally might warm the oceans and so the surface of the Earth very slowly on a scale of hundreds of years or millennia from now. And as I later will explain: we might be very glad about that eventual future warming.
Wim, two points here… It’s been said (over and over) that warming at the poles decreases the gradient between the tropics and the poles. Therefor we should expect lower wind speeds going north/south. What is your take on this? AND, if what i’ve stated is true, how would that fit into the bigger picture (of increasing east/west wind speeds)?
Secondly, my thinking is that it is possible that we could reach “peak warming” at some point (in the short term; decades to centuries). If it can be said that ocean temps were at an equilibrium state (LIA) temperature, we are now at about .7C (SSTs) above that equilibrium state temp. So when those upwelling waters hit the sea surface, the temperature differential creates a certain wind speed. The further SSTs get above the equilibrium state temp, the faster the wind speeds (and the greater the “negative feedback” of cooling). At some point the negative feedback would become so powerful as to stall any future warming. (this in much the same way that a sink with the spigot on so high eventually sees the water ceasing to rise, but not falling, in a basin)…
i might add to my second point that, if true, it would spell the end of AGW theory as we know it. (if not scientifically, then certainly politically)…
Afonzarelli, inviting questions. Here my answers.
A. “It’s been said (over and over) that warming at the poles decreases the gradient between the tropics and the poles. Therefor we should expect lower wind speeds going north/south. What is your take on this?”
WR:
1. As the tropics warm, the big mass of ice at the South Pole will stay as cold as it was and the gradient with the tropics will rise: more wind. From the high pressure area at the North Pole all the air that comes down goes (initially) direction equator. More ice cold wind will result in more sea ice and cooling seas. As we have seen.
2. At the North Pole warming will diminish the gradient with the equator and this should result in less wind. But, in the winter half year, the NP will be (much) warmer as we see especially this winter 2016/2017. This year we saw a lot of Low Pressure areas in the Arctic not only during the summer but also in autumn and winter. Cold winters at the land masses South of the Arctic (Canada, Siberia) create high pressure area’s. In between the LP / HP areas from resp. Arctic and Siberia, from autumn 2016 I saw very strong winds blowing direction the Sea of Okhotsk, East of Siberia. In some weeks I saw a ‘Blue Blob’ develop in the Northern Pacific that after some time extended to Canada. That colder North Pacific Ocean has a higher gradient with the tropics and should result in more wind (direction California for example)
3. Both ‘cold’ and high pressure area’s at the Northern land masses this year got an impulse from early autumn snow. The Low Pressure areas at the NP have send a lot of relative warm but still ice cold air to the South with a higher than normal moisture content: a lot of snow. Already early in autumn when the sun lowered a lot at the latitudes of North Siberia the land masses got snow. This resulted in strong early cooling and in high pressure at the land masses. Enhancing the gradient and resulting in wind.
It is my guess that the cooling effect of both early snow and the developing cold North Pacific will have a net cooling effect on the NH. In that case, both Hemispheres will show a cooling pattern as the Arctic continues to warm.
If so, it is worrying that we already got ‘Peak Warming’ six to eight thousand years ago, at the Holocene Optimum. Trees were growing up to where now the Arctic Sea is. The tree stumps still are present in the tundra.
If I am right that a warmer Arctic can result in net cooling……
===
A. “it can be said that ocean temps were at an equilibrium state (LIA) temperature”.
WR: I am not sure about that. 5 Million years ago both surface temperature and Deep Sea temperature were a lot higher. Preventing Glacials. We did not reach that level yet. Therefore it will be easy to fall back into a glacial – as happens every time after a short interglacial.
A: “when those upwelling waters hit the sea surface, the temperature differential creates a certain wind speed”.
WR: Indeed, have a look at fig. 3: at the upwelling area’s in the Pacific wind speed is clearly enhanced. Enough to create a Pause and we will see what the future will bring.
A: “if true, it would spell the end of AGW theory as we know it.”
WR: I think you are right. Who understands fig. 2 and 3 will understand that ALL warming (and cooling) might have been ‘just natural variation’. That it would be more logical to look at the lowering temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum and – I will explain that later – that we should look at the growing variance in temperature movements in the last couple of hundreds years. Therefore I can end as I ended above: “And as I later will explain: we might be very glad about that eventual future warming.”
“1. The Antarctic does not cool easily: too much ice. Polar warming therefore will be on the North Pole. Warming results in lower pressure. As the pressure at the Antarctic not will change a lot and the pressure in the Arctic will be lowered substantially, at the surface level the air movement between SP (South Pole) and NP will be enhanced. More wind = more upwelling = cooling.”
How does an increasing surface temperature result in a decreasing surface pressure?
We can have a low surface pressure at just about any surface temperature.
Surface pressure is NOT caused by surface temperature.
Ben Wouters: January 30, 2017 at 1:35 am
“How does an increasing surface temperature result in a decreasing surface pressure?”
WR: Your question doesn’t reflect my words: please use the words I used. Air pressure reflects the weight of the total air column above a certain point. As air warms, air expands and lowers the weight of the column involved: the pressure lowers.
“As air warms, air expands and lowers the weight of the column involved: the pressure lowers.”
As air warms, the column expands, but this does not change anything to the weight of the entire column, so the surface pressure remains the same.
Increase the surface temperature of the entire earth eg 10C, and the surface pressure will remain the same.
Warmer air expands to leave more space between molecules so the mass density is less for a given height of column and thus lighter with lower surface pressure.
An exception is beneath an inversion layer under a high pressure cell of descending more dense air. In that situation the surface layer can get very hot but is prevented from reducing the density and weight of the air coming down from higher up. Instead the heated surface air flows outward towards any adjacent lower pressure cell.
Wim Röst January 29, 2017 at 1:41 pm
“Cold winters at the land masses South of the Arctic (Canada, Siberia) create high pressure area’s.”
Could you elaborate a bit on the mechanism for the creation of these high pressure areas?
Especially in comparison with the desert belt around 30 N/S, where hot weather also seems to ‘create’ high pressure areas?
Ben Wouters: “Could you elaborate a bit on the mechanism for the creation of these high pressure areas?” Especially in comparison with the desert belt around 30 N/S, where hot weather also seems to ‘create’ high pressure areas?
WR: Cold and/or dry air result in high pressure area. As explained above by Stephen Wilde, low temperatures result in less space between the molecules (the molecules move less) and therefore the same air column consists of more molecules = high weight = High Pressure. This is the reason for the high pressure areas in Siberia. Because of the low temperatures, the air column has but a few light H2O molecules as well: high pressure.
H2O molecules have less weight as O2 and N2 molecules have. H2O molecules push the O2 and N2 out of the air column. The resulting high moisture air column therefore has a lower weight = lower pressure.
For the deserts at 30N/S the reverse. The Hadley cell system explains: around the equator the air (high moisture, light) rises, loses its water vapour (tropical rain) and on a high level in the troposphere the air is transported to 30N/S. There, the dry air descends. Because it is dry (no light H2O molecules) there are more heavy N2 and O2 molecules in the air column. At 30N/S this is the reason for the high pressure. It is still warm, but no H2O in the air column.
I would just add a bit as regards the reason for the position of the Hadley cells. If the Earth were not rotating there would be a large low pressure system containing rising warm less dense air on the sunlit side and a large high pressure cell containing cold more dense falling air on the dark side.
Add rotation and those two basic cells break up and get spread out in the observed pattern of surface pressure distribution. That is what gives us the well recognised climate zones.
The jetstreams then thread their way between the various high and low pressure cells because there are density differentials between the different air masses which creates instability/overturning where they meet and the Earth’s rotation gives horizontal impetus to those jetstreams.
Most clouds are associated with jetstreams because of the temperature and humidity differentials either side of their tracks so longer meridional tracks looping latitudinally will make Earth cloudier whereas shorter straighter zonal tracks will make the Earth less cloudy.
Linking such changes in jetstream tracks to overall global cloudiness is unique to me as far as I know and I think that provides a better explanation than the Svensmark suggestion once it is realised that it is solar variability that makes the tracks of the jetstreams more, or less, meridonal.
Wim Röst January 31, 2017 at 12:08 pm
“WR: Cold and/or dry air result in high pressure area. As explained above by Stephen Wilde, low temperatures result in less space between the molecules (the molecules move less) and therefore the same air column consists of more molecules = high weight = High Pressure. This is the reason for the high pressure areas in Siberia. Because of the low temperatures, the air column has but a few light H2O molecules as well: high pressure.”
Ok, thanks. In the real world:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/anim=off/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=87.25,58.99,401/loc=86.151,74.912
At position ~N85E86 the MSLP is presently ~973hPa, temperature -22C.
How does this fit in your explanation for high pressure areas being created by low temperatures?
Ben Wouters, January 31, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Ben, we are off topic now, but the answer on your question is right now to the east: 63.89° N, 144.61° E✕
250° @ur momisugly 5 km/h, -46.8 °C, 63.89° N, 144.61° E✕ 250° @ur momisugly 5 km/h 1012 hPa https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-243.83,48.25,587/loc=144.609,63.892
Interesting for you: the moving pattern in this forecast which shows that there is also in cold areas a continuous variation in pressure due to the movement of air masses: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.WORLD-CED.T2_anom-MSLP
Wim Röst January 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm
1012 hPa is still low(ish) pressure, but that is besides the point.
Temperature has NO influence on the surface pressure. ONLY thing that decides surface pressure is the weight of the entire column above the surface, whether the surface temperature is +40C or -40C
With a high column temperature the column will be expanded much more than a column with a lower temperature.
We have two areas with on average higher pressure: at the 30 N/S high pressure belt and the at two poles, and also there the pressure varies on a daily basis.
Suggest to read up on the hydrostatic equlibrium the atmosphere is in.
Stephen Wilde January 31, 2017 at 12:38 pm
” If the Earth were not rotating there would be a large low pressure system containing rising warm less dense air on the sunlit side and a large high pressure cell containing cold more dense falling air on the dark side.”
I doubt there will be much of an atmosphere on the dark side with surface temperatures around 30K.
All the action will be on the sunny side. Probably a kind of Hadley cell from the zenith point towards the day/night border, with surface flow towards the zenith point.
Well you could have descending air on the dark side freezing to the ground and then being revapourised when the rotation moves it around to the sunlit side but you would still have ascent on the day side and descent on the dark side.
On Earth the atmosphere has enough mass aided by the water oceans for freezing to the surface not to be an issue.
Excellent work, Wim. The “peers” to review this level of innovative thinking can only be found outside the journals.
Thank you gymnosperm!
>> The here described mechanism shows that ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’ of the surface of the Earth is able to happen without ‘energy gain’ or ‘energy loss’ for the Earth as a whole.
That is part of natural variability and is not modeled that well.
Separate from that of course, we have CO2 increases by man and the net energy gains associated with that atm.
Except there isn’t any.
micro6500, if you didn’t take a lot of physics while in school, you might not understand what I mean. Increasing the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (that’s that 400ppm or such number you might have seen thrown around) retards the speed and facility by which the energy the sun is constantly radiating at us is dissipated by the planet into space. It’s called the greenhouse effect. Adding ghg temporarily disrupts the balance of energy in/ energy out so that there is accumulation of energy. Satellites pick this up, but before satellites we had sound theories of gas radiation/absorption so it was not a surprise. Before global warming became politicized like crazy, way before, in the 1970s, the evidence was really strong and institutions like the US National Academy of Sciences had accepted that basic theory resoundingly based on their survey of the scientific literature.
Except they are wrong, it is a ghg, it’s just the bigger ghg in the atm regulates cooling. Co2 was likely much needed on a frozen earth with little water vapor. But that is not the world we have now.
Nice work Wilm
Please now chart solar activities with wind.
I have a theory and have watched the inverse correlation between solar activities and warming and cooling of sea surface temps in regions. #ssttheory
There is a 3-5 day lag. Region I have seen and Watched the inverse correlation between solar and SST changes is Nino 1+2.
Only can be clearly be seen when weather systems are not causing static.
You can contact me on twitter if any Q @njsnowfsn
Thanks.