Where did the 2016 El Niño's heat come from?

Guest essay by Mike Jonas

1. The basic physics

2016 was claimed as the “hottest year ever”. Well, the hottest for a few centuries, anyway, if the global temperature measures are to be believed. Let’s suppose that they are. It is known that 2016 was an El Niño year, and that the “hottest year ever” was caused by a burst of warm water from the ocean (and we know that CO2 doesn’t act that fast). So – where did the El Niño’s heat come from? Let’s look at some basic physics:

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the atmosphere. From there, the downward Infra-Red (IR) radiation reaches the ocean surface.

IR cannot penetrate more than a fraction of a millimetre into the ocean, so it warms just the surface skin. From there most of its energy goes back into the atmosphere or space, but some of it can convect or conduct into the ocean. From the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in the absence of work, net heat transfer can only occur from a warmer object to a cooler one. So …

  • The atmosphere cannot warm the ocean surface skin to a higher temperature than itself.
  • Water in the ocean surface skin cannot mix with deeper water to create water of a higher temperature than itself.
  • Water from the ocean cannot warm the atmosphere to a higher temperature than itself.

This means that none of the extra warmth from the ocean which caused the “hottest year ever” can have come from GHGs within the last few centuries. It’s not a question of how much came from GHGs and how much from natural causes. The proportion of the extra heat that actually came from GHGs (within the last few years at the very least) has to be precisely zero.

The basic physics tells us: The atmosphere cannot heat itself !



Figure 1. Can the Atmosphere heat itself?

So where did the extra heat come from; what could have provided the energy to cause a part of the ocean to be hotter than it “ever” had been before?

The argument that GHGs slow down the ocean’s rate of heat loss isn’t the answer. That can cause the temperature to be higher than it otherwise might have been, but, as above, it can’t provide the energy to cause a new high temperature.

A lot of solar radiation is absorbed into the ocean’s surface skin, but this could not have been the source of the extra heat. For that, the ocean’s surface skin would have had to be as warm or warmer than the later El Niño, but it wasn’t.

“Natural variation” won’t cut it as an answer either. The heat has to have physically come from somewhere. We need to know where.

And remember, whatever the process was, it was all going on at a time when temperatures were lower than 2016’s. GHGs were higher than they had been before, but their influence can only be slow and steady. They can’t act as fast as an El Niño.

The only candidate for providing the extra heat appears to be the ITO (“Into The Ocean”), that is, the band of solar radiation with wavelengths from about 200-1000nm which is absorbed below the ocean surface, some of it many metres below the surface. For more on the ITO, see [1] below.

So let’s have a look at the ITO, and see how it stacks up against the IPCC’s favourite pet, CO2.

NB. This is a general comparison between ITO and CO2, it’s not specific to the 2016 El Niño. It also has some pretty rough back-of-envelope calcs that could turn out to be a health hazard. But at this stage, I’m just looking for ball-park figures.


2. ITO vs CO2

[Supporting calcs are in Appendices A, B]

The ITO is controlled by clouds, ie. by changes in cloud cover. The sun has been shown to influence cloud cover [1], so the sun is a factor too, but much more for its effect on clouds than for its TSI.

Over the period 1983-2009 (the only period for which I have the data needed), the IPCC estimate for the increase in CO2 forcing – including feedbacks – was ~0.54 Wm-2 (global average). As I explained in [1] Part 2, this figure was arrived at by the modellers by tuning the climate computer models to match the 20th century warming. In other words, the figure of 0.54 Wm-2 (or its equivalent over some other period) was calculated as the amount that was needed to deliver the observed warming, and then parameterised into the models.

Looking at the ITO over the Pacific tropics, and arbitrarily using only the portion of the ITO that is absorbed from 10 to 100m below the surface, the change in cloud cover from 1983-2009 delivered an extra 0.55 Wm-2 on a global basis. ie, the extra energy delivered into the Pacific tropical ocean 10-100m below the surface was equivalent to 0.55 Wm-2 over the whole of Earth’s surface.

Don’t read anything into the closeness between the IPCC’s 0.54 Wm-2 and the ITO’s 0.55 Wm-2. My ITO calculations were done using some arbitrary numbers, simply to arrive at a ball-park figure, in order to check whether the ITO could have delivered enough energy into the ocean to explain the global warming that the IPCC attributed to CO2. It did.

In a way, it had to. Think of it this way: The warming from CO2 could not have produced the El Niño warming that gave us the “warmest year ever”, as I explained in 1 above. It also for example could not have produced the El Niño warming in 1998, for the same reason. Even with CO2 warming, the only actual source of energy that could have produced those El Niños had to have come from ITO, regardless of where the IPCC thought it came from. So when the modellers were tuning their models to the 20th century warming, they were actually tuning them to the ITO (though they didn’t know that). This means that the ITO must have already delivered the amount of energy that the models assumed had come from CO2.

Now, let’s briefly re-visit the theoretical basis.

3. SCO vs IPCC

The IPCC’s view of climate is CO2-centric. In their version, Earth’s climate is basically stable, with variations caused by varying levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration and by little else. They think that until man-made CO2 came along, there wasn’t a lot that changed CO2 concentration, so Earth’s climate was pretty stable. Various dubious techniques were used to promote this idea, such as the infamoous “hockey-stick” graph produced by Michael Mann in which proxy temperature series that did not support the narrative were truncated. See here.

In the SCO hypothesis (Sun-Cloud-Ocean [1]), the key factor is the solar radiation that penetrates many metres into the ocean – the ITO. The ITO is affected by cloud cover.. Over the longer term (decades to centuries) cloud cover is driven by solar activity, as described by Henrik Svensmark here, and later successfully tested. Cloud cover is affected by solar activity in the short term too, eg as described here, but these short term variations probably have little effect on climate, because it takes time for clouds’ effect to accumulate. Cloud cover does vary naturally for other reasons, but little is known about it.

Clouds have a minor overall effect on average atmospheric temperature [“clouds exert two competing effects .. The balance between these two components depends on many factors” AR4], but they have a significant effect on the ITO and hence on the rate of absorption of energy by the ocean. The ocean can accumulate some of this energy over many years before releasing it. The ocean then acts like a giant heat-pump. Accumulated energy in the ocean is pumped in short (months, years) or long (years, decades) bursts by the ocean into the atmosphere, typically because of an ocean oscillation such as El Niño, AMO, PDO, etc. In the short term, or even over decades, the release of energy might bear little relation to its acquisition.

The global temperature pattern over the 20th century bears little resemblance to the supposed warming by CO2, but it does have a very good correlation with ocean oscillations (see here), and El Niño’s influence is easily seen.

4. Conclusion

I need to re-work everything carefully, and there are still a few gaps in the SCO hypothesis to fill in, but I am confident that I have found the mechanism of the 20th century global warming. It involved the sun, the clouds, and the ocean. SCO fits the evidence, CO2 does not.

Very important: The statement made in 2 above – ” the change in cloud cover from 1983-2009 delivered an extra 0.55 Wm-2 on a global basis” – is a statement that does not rely on the SCO hypothesis. It is what actually happened (apart from any arithmetic error), based only on published data and a straightforward calculation. It is valid regardless of the IPCC or anyone’s hypotheses or CO2 or anything else that might affect the climate.


Figure 2. Absorption by wavelength, depth. The longer wavelengths (over 700nm) are almost completely absorbed in the first metre. Only wavelengths 300-600nm get past 10m depth. Little gets past 100m depth. [Note: Wavelengths 200-300nm are all scattered in the atmosphere and don’t reach the ocean.].Visible light wavelengths very approximately are 400-500nm Blue, 500-600nm Green, 600-700nm Red.


Appendix A. CO2

The IPCC says:

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.” – AR4 TS.2.1.1.

The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.)

[..] Using the global average value of 379 ppm for atmospheric CO2 in 2005 gives an RF of 1.66 ± 0.17 W m–2; a contribution that dominates that of all other forcing agents considered in this chapter.” – AR4 2.3.1.

[RF = Radiative Forcing, LLGHG = Long-Lived GreenHouse Gases]

At 3.7 Wm-2 per doubling of CO2, the RF increase from 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005 is +3.7*(log2(379)-log2(280)) = +1.62 Wm-2

I’m not sure why IPCC put it at 1.66 Wm-2. I think they used 277 as the 1750 CO2 concentration, but maybe the allowances made for “clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption” made a difference. To be on the safe side, I’ll adjust following calcs up to match.

I only have cloud data for 1983-2009, so I need to work within that period so that I can do comparisons. Mauna Loa CO2 in 1983 averaged 342.7ppm, in 2009 averaged 387.2 (Data downloaded from here in Feb 2012). That gives an RF increase of +3.7*(log2(387.2)-log2(342.7)) * (1.66/1.62) = +0.20 Wm-2.

I have to be careful here, because the IPCC claim “feedbacks” to CO2 warming that increase the ECS from 1.2 to 3.2. So the +0.20 Wm-2 RF increase from 19983-2009 becomes something like +0.20 * 3.2/1.2 = +0.54 Wm-2.

How does the ITO stack up against that RF increase? See Appendix B.

Appendix B. The ITO

About 168 Wm-2 of solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface directly:


.Figure A.1. Global annual average energy budget, from here).

Of this, about 3/4 is in the ITO band of wavelengths. This is calculated from SORCE data, with the longer wavelengths (missing in the SORCE data) estimated from this chart provided by davidmhoffer:


Figure A.2. Radiation absorption chart.

We’re looking for the total Wm-2 represented by the red area from wavelength 0.2-1µm (200-1000nm). This comes to 133 Wm-2 (about 3/4 of the 168 Wm-2 in Figure A.1).

The oceans are 3/5 of Earth’s surface, so the ITO, which is ocean-only, works out at 133 * 3/5 = 80 Wm-2 over the globe. But what we need is the change from 1983-2009.


Figure A.3. Global cloud cover 1983-2009, ocean only.

Global cloud cover over the ocean dropped by about 4 percentage points from 1983 to 2009, based on the linear trend. Note that we are not concerned here with the exact amount, we’re just getting an idea of what it is like.

The average cloud cover over the period is about 71%, and the ITO is about 80 Wm-2 on a global basis. So the change in the ITO’s RF from 1983-2009 is about 80 * 4/(100-71) = 11 Wm-2 on a global basis.

Of that, about 45% is absorbed in the first metre of ocean, 30% from 1-10m, 22½% from 10-100m, and about 2½% goes further down. The part we are interested in is probably the 22½% from 10-100m, which is about 2.5 Wm-2 on a global basis.

Check: The ocean area we’re interested in is the one that feeds El Niño. That’s basically the Pacific tropics, so we need to check the cloud pattern over the Pacific tropical ocean:


Figure A.4. Pacific tropics 20S-20N cloud cover 1983-2009.

The pattern there is even stronger, with a cloud cover decline of about 6 percentage points, but the Pacific tropics is a smaller part of Earth’s surface. It also has a slightly lower average cloud cover, 61%. Its area is about 20% of Earth’s surface, so the equation for 10-100m depth in the Pacific Tropics becomes 80 * (6/(100-61)) * 20% * 22.5% = 0.55 Wm-2 on a global basis. That’s similar to the global warming capability that the IPCC claims for CO2. And bear in mind that for CO2’s 0.54 Wm-2, that’s spread around the whole globe and they need all of it for El Niño, whereas for ITO’s Pacific tropics 0.55 Wm-2 there’s another global 1.95 Wm-2 (2.5 – 0.55) going into the rest of the ocean to feed the other ocean oscillations.

Note: I need to re-work the Pacific Tropics chart, using the El Niño ocean areas. The fact that the Pacific tropics comes out at almost exactly the IPCC figure for CO2 is simply a fluke. I chose 20S-20N arbitrarily, and I chose depths 10-100m arbitrarily, just to get a ball-park figure. A more detailed calculation is needed, using the ENSO areas and water depths.


[1] SCO information is on WUWT:

· Part 1 describes how climate works.

· Part 2 explains how mainstream climate science went wrong.

· Part 3 looks at the scientific process.


Data and Calcs

Absorption data and calcs are in spreadsheet AbsorptionCalcs.xlsx (7mb)

See the spreadsheetabsorptioncalcs (.xlsx)

Cloud data and calcs spreadsheet (37mb) is too large to post at this stage.


AMO – Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

AR4 – IPCC’s fourth report

CO2 – Carbon Dioxide

ECS – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

GHG – GreenHouse Gas

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IR – Infra-Red radiation

ITO – Into The Ocean [Band of Wavelengths approx 200nm to 1000nm]

LLGHG – Long-Lived GreenHouse Gases

PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation

RF – Radiative Forcing

SCO – The Sun-Cloud-Ocean hypothesis

TAR – IPCC’s third report

TSI – Total Solar Irradiance

WUWT – wattsupwiththat.com

Mike Jonas (MA Maths Oxford UK) retired some years ago after nearly 40 years in I.T.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 8, 2017 10:28 am

Zonal jet stream tracks = less clouds = more energy into the oceans
Meridional jet stream tracks = more clouds = less energy into the oceans.
To switch between zonal and meridional requires a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
I have explained elsewhere how that comes about and it is not caused by cosmic rays although cosmic rays, along with other solar indices, serve as an adequate proxy for the actual cause which is variations in the ozone creation / destruction balance in the stratosphere acting differently above equator and poles.
Ozone amounts just above the tropopause affect the temperature just above the tropopause and thus affect tropopause heioght.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 6:54 pm

Stephen Wilde – While I was going through the cloud data, I was thinking that some of it demonstrated what you had been saying for a long time, but I was concentrating on other aspects. ie, I think the data supports your views. Regarding the sun and cosmic rays, I think the long term patterns of global temperature show that Svensmark is correct, but that other factors are in play over lesser periods (multi-decadal or less, perhaps). It would be very helpful if you could provide an analysis of cloud cover changes over the last few decades, showing what caused them.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 9, 2017 12:11 am

I use the same data that you have produced. I don’t think there is anything more detailed. The key observation for me was that there is an inflection point around the year 2000 when decreasing cloudiness levelled off. That coincided with my observation that the jet stream tracks were becoming more meridional, similar to the cooling period of the 50s and 60s but not as pronounced.
I have been pointing that out in the blogs since 2007.
Svensmark can only be correct if cosmic rays cause that change in jetstream behaviour. Thus cosmic rays would have to alter not only cloud condensation rates per se but also the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles. Only ozone will do that because the amount of ozone above the tropopause affects temperature and thus tropopause height.
The more recent observations that solar variations change ozone differently below 45km and above the equator as compared to above 45km and over the poles gives the tropopause height seesaw effect that I require for my hypothesis which is set out in detail here:
I have pointed out the implications of the observations to Joanna Haigh but thus far she has declined to either rebut or confirm my hypothesis.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 9, 2017 9:10 am

And 2000 is when the step took over after the last el nino, this is the area it affected.comment image
And, it’s affect is on the seasonal transition of Oct to Mar, from losing the most energy per day to gaining the most energy per day.
Both min and max temp did they same thing, and there was little change in the cooling cycle of max warming per day to max cooling per day, and that, the one which should change due to co2, did not change.

Ian Cooper
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 12:19 am

Can’t agree less with your statement about zonal jet stream and what it delivers. In New Zealand for the past five months we have been under repetitive “Ground Hog Day” attacks from a zonal jet stream delivering nothing but cloud to those of us who receive the prevailing westerly winds. We would love some ‘meridional jet stream,’ favourable of course, that locks a ‘high’ over us.
All we see on the global SST map is a pool of blue around us in those five months. We wait with abated breath for our own beloved NIWA to explain what or why the ‘blue pool’ is there.The problem with holding your breath too long is that you can turn blue! Not a good look. In the mean time NIWA trot out the old mantra of “Global Warming,” to explain it all away! Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Reply to  Ian Cooper
February 9, 2017 12:25 am

You get a west to east flow in various positions around the globe even when the jets are more meridional. It just depends on your position relative to the loops in the jet stream tracks.
The southern hemisphere has been just as ‘loopy’ as the northern hemisphere over recent years.
Furthermore, such loopiness can produce extended warmth in some locations and extended cold in others because the loops tend to stick in place for periods of time.
That fits your New Zealand situation.

Reply to  Ian Cooper
February 9, 2017 9:12 am

And I think those loops, loop around high pressure zones, which tend to be clear, getting lots of solar, making them warm, and make high pressure zones………

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Ian Cooper
February 9, 2017 4:05 pm

Please read:
Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the
Southern Hemisphere, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal,
2013, 7, 51-76

Reply to  Ian Wilson
February 10, 2017 11:48 am

The only way I can see a lunar influence is via different mixing ratios of the top layers of the ocean.

Bill Marsh
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 3:56 am

variations in ozone destruction — is that due to variations in ultra-violet radiation intensity from the sun?

Reply to  Bill Marsh
February 9, 2017 4:02 am

I prefer to hedge my bets by referring to wavelength and particle variations because there are many possible reactions involving ozone above the tropopause

February 8, 2017 10:31 am

Soory, what a bullshit
Try basics of ENSO before talking about things you dont understand. El-Nino is a Interplay between Atmosphere (Wind-Force) and Ozean (reduced Upwelling and higher OHC by Kelvinwaves caused by Windbursts). The Tropics in Pacific are always a net heat sink and El-Nino is in a simple way, just the bjerknes feedback loop.
So your Question is simple, the internal climate can generate itself this heat and this heat is not really a heat, its more a warming to state in pacific if cold upwelling would not exist.
Everyday the same with the so called “skeptics” all arround the world

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 10:39 am

Windforce in the ENSO region is part of a continuum with the global air circulation and cloudiness is an inherent feature of the global air circulation. Over long periods of time the balance between El Nino events and La Nina events shifts as a direct result of solar induced (IMHO) changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which affects global winds and cloudiness and thus the amount of solar energy entering the oceans.
Mike is on the right track.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:44 am

El-Nino isnt solar heating, its the opposite, cloudcover over the El-Nino Basin is increased : https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
OLR becomes negativ, because of more Cloud by more convection

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:50 am

Energy gets into the oceans when cloudiness is reduced, energy leaves the oceans when El Nino begins and clouds increase as a result of the extra heat from the El Nino but the primary cause of changes in the amount of energy entering the oceans in the first place is a change in the entire global air circulation over multidecadal periods of time.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:53 am

Its also effect the cloud cover which is shown in this essay, because the beginning is more el-nino-like and the end more la-nina like, so the Cloud Cover have to decrease because la-nina-states decrase cloud and therefore heat uptakte to the ocean increase but not on the upper but to the deeper ocean and that is, because la nina is a sign of increased upwelling of cold water and this means increased mixing

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:59 am

“El-Nino isnt solar heating, its the opposite”
The heat released during El Nino is solar in origin. However OHC rises and stores this energy during La Nina events. So El Nino is the time when this stored heat is released and causes warming in the global surface record.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:06 am

Stephen again,
So say:
“Energy gets into the oceans when cloudiness is reduced, energy leaves the oceans when El Nino begins and clouds increase as a result of the extra heat from the El Nino but the primary cause of changes in the amount of energy entering the oceans in the first place is a change in the entire global air circulation over multidecadal periods of time.”
That not true at all, because of trade winds which cause upwelling, the tropics in pacific are always a heat sink, the cloud cover can be stabile, the ocean will alway take energy in as long as upwelling of colder water is there. Also the heat cant leave at the beginn of el nino, the heat will build up at the first place, because with decrease upwelling, the tropical divergence also decrease, its an feedback loop. But to the End of El-Nino, the heat which was build up before now beginns to leave, but not all away, since then upwelling beginns to be normal, the divergence increase and we get much warming in the residual areas (outside the inner tropics), also some heat get in to the deeper ocean and another part is going to leave the earth. Thats also why, the warming signal from El-Nino is delayed and someof that heat exists although el nino is gone.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:18 am

“The heat released during El Nino is solar in origin. However OHC rises and stores this energy during La Nina events. So El Nino is the time when this stored heat is released and causes warming in the global surface record.”
Heat is always come from the sun, its the only source, but there is some factors, which can cause that the earth is less able to cool like cloud or GHGs. During La-Nina, the Ocean-Heat-Content of the upper ocean is decreased, the first few 100 metre becomes cooler as a consequence of upwelling of cold water. If El-Nino come in to progress the heat is build up from the fact, that upwelling is less and upwelled water is warmer then in normal state. The heat which was sink before is mixed, and alway colder as the surface.
So this stored Energy isnt able to warm the planet direct, but it help to build up the el-nino because the upwelled water is less cooler

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:33 am

The oceanic crust heat flux is about 100 Wm-2, so the sun is most certainly not the only source of energy. The global average is about 83 Wm-2.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:44 am

RWturner, you are three orders of magnitude off. You said: “The global average is about 83 Wm-2.” The correct figure is 83 mWm-2 (milli-watts)

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:53 am

Thanks for the correction on the oversight.

Reply to  RWturner
February 8, 2017 12:06 pm

I doubt the result…..
Go one km down into a goldmine here, and feel the elephant in the room?\
the movement of earth’s inner core explain a lot of my own results, showing no warming in the SH and significant warming in the NH, especially north pole.

george e. smith
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 12:36 pm

So whatever happened to the evaporation that is promoted by the downward LWIR from the atmosphere getting absorbed in the top 5-5o microns of ocean water ??
So the conduction and convection of heat at the surface from down welling LWIR actually creates the el nino warm spot ??
If the SST is the highest Temperature; where is it going to conduct and convect to, in a normal universe where heat moves from hot to cold ??

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:03 pm

I doubt the result as well Henry. I think I found the main source of error in Davies estimates:
“The global heat flux map consists of three major components. First, since young ocean crust data is affected by hydrothermal circulation [Lister, 1980] a model estimate is used in such regions rather than the raw data measurements. Second, in other regions of the world with measurements, those provide the estimate. Third, in all other regions the estimate is developed by assuming that there is a correlation between heat flow and geology, and the estimate is based on a weighted area estimate of the heat flow. I will now briefly describe these component data sets.”
Of course hydrothermal circulation has an effect on heat flux, it’s the primary source of heat!

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:36 pm

Global map of the difference between the heat flow estimate in a cell based on data and the geology correlation (where both exist—excluding young ocean crust). Classification is based on Natural Breaks (Jenks).
The raw data minus model estimate clearly tends to underestimate heat flow (underestimating up to 1 W/m2 vs overestimating just 70 mW/m2), and this doesn’t even cover the young oceanic crust where the vast majority of heat flow exists. The raw data shows a scale up to 500Wm-2 http://www.heatflow.und.edu/marine.jpg, in areas of young crust whereas the final map averages it down to 150-450 mW-2. It could be a good average but I am skeptical since 1) the estimate has traditionally increased as more data is collected and 2) entirely new types of hydrothermal vent fields have been discovered on the flanks of the ridges as well as far from them on abyssal planes since the latest global estimate was done.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 9:16 am

but there is some factors, which can cause that the earth is less able to cool like cloud or GHGs.

The only one that has an affect is water vapor, min temps follow dew point.comment image

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 10:39 am

And by the Way
El-Nino increases the cloud cover over the tropic, OLR becomes negativ over the El-Nino Basin

Reply to  christianjo
February 8, 2017 11:10 am

christianjo, you must look at the global scenario, not the regional one only and over multiple ENSO periods, preferably from one 30 year oscillation to the next.

Reply to  christianjo
February 8, 2017 11:21 am

If we look global, then its a question of where and when decrease the cloud cover and important, which kind of cloud decrease.
Less Cloud Cover in Winter can also make things cooler because if solar insolation is low, the temperature can be lower (in the mean) because of less clouds

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 12:47 pm

No mention in the discussion that we now know that there is quite a bit of heat being released from eh ocean’s bottom in the West Pacific, which heats the water even more and then it sloshes Westward. The Blob in the Northeast Pacific was also largely created by sea floor heat releases.

Reply to  higley7
February 9, 2017 7:50 am

does anyone know the actual temperatures,at say 1km depth of the ocean

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 5:20 pm

Hmm. The first version of this comment seems to have disappeared.
Mike Jonas, IF only you had a basic understanding of the processes that drive ENSO.
Since you obviously don’t, you wasted your time writing this post and you’ve wasted the time of everyone else who read it.
Here’s a book for you to read…been available for over 4 years…the free edition that follows has been available for about a year.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 8, 2017 6:35 pm

Thank you, Bob, for this work. (i have bookmarked your “preview” edition from a couple years back) Some of us need visuals and the cartoons at the end are priceless. i also had the good fortune of living on maui back in the eighties, so your imagery really brought my experiences to life. Thanks so much…
i do have a question or two for you. As the trades slacken and an el nino is about to begin, yes, the piled high waters roll back due to gravity. BUT, doesn’t also the warm water (that’s forced down into the western pacific by trades) spring back up (and eastward) simply because it is less dense than other ocean waters? And if so, how much of the eastward moving waters can be attributed to this mechanism verses the water rolling back east due to gravity?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 8, 2017 6:42 pm

(the reason i ask these questions is that it seems to me that the waters “shoot” back east rather quickly -also in larger amounts- and i was thus wondering if there was something more to it than just gravity)

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 9, 2017 12:18 am

Please could you help by specifying what portion of your work suggests that Mike does not adequately understand ENSO processes ?

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 9, 2017 5:26 am

There is literally a current that flows back East under the Pacific called the Cromwell Current or the Pacific Equatorial Under-Current.
This is shown here as a tiny ribbon at the Pacific equator in this image and animation from the Global RTOFS ocean model. Just a small ribbon her but it still moving a lot of water. 200 metres depth flowing West to East. I bet you have never seen this before.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 9, 2017 4:12 pm

Bob Tisdale said: “Mike Jonas, IF only you had a basic understanding of the processes that drive ENSO”
I have been telling you for years now that the ENSO’s are triggered by Proxegian lunar tidal events which influence the propagation of Madden-Julian events into the Western Pacific ocean.The evidence for this model is now overwhelming.
I am not criticising your excellent explanations of the processes that drive ENSO events however, I am claiming that you do not have basic understanding of the mechanisms that initiate ENSO events.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 9, 2017 4:56 pm

Bob, you need to contemplate tthis paraphrase of what you just said about Mike Jonas: “Bob Tisdale, IF only you had a basic understanding of the processes that drive ENSO.
Since you obviously don’t, you wasted your time writing this post and you’ve wasted the time of everyone else who read it.”
You did that by pushing your belief that El Nino is capable of warming the world. The title of your e-book says it, so the case must be closed. That of course is just abject nonsense. El Ninos and La Ninas are created in pairs and whatever heat the El Nino seems to bring is taken back by the La Nina that follows in its footsteps. You will find a short outline of the real El Nino theory in the comment I left in this blog down the line. It shows you the ways in which you have erred. Not only is your science wrong, you also have no scientific ethics. I am still waiting for your apology for the libelous comment that I manufactured data in figure 15 of my book.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 9, 2017 5:35 pm

Sorry, astroclimateconnection February 9, 2017 at 4:12 pm , the evidence or your Poxegian cum Madden-Julian events triggering ENSO is the same as that for Bob’s theory – exactly zero.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 6:12 pm

@ Christian
February 8, 2017 at 10:31 am : We already know those things, contemptuous one. So, what do you think CO2 does?

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 6:19 pm

the internal climate can generate itself this heat … wow thats your science … fail …

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 6:59 pm

Christian – your “the internal climate can generate itself this heat” doesn’t cut it. Heat can’t just magically appear, there has to be a mechanism. Stephen Wilde explains the mechanism succinctly, though I think there are other factors operating over longer timescales. If you have a different mechanism in mind, please explain it.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 9, 2017 9:24 am

Warm pools of water self organize, and influence currents, which is also tied in to wind patterns, as the equator is moving about 1,000mph, and the poles, one turn a day.
These warm cools, of collected solar, out gas large volumes of water vapor, which is carried towards to poles eventually to cool, and return to the water table.
Minimum Surface temp, follows dew point, as air temps near 100% rel humidity at night under clear skies, condensing water vapor emit large amounts of latent heat as ir, slowing cooling by maybe 2/3rds.
Active temperature regulation by water.
Co2 only matters after it’s already cooled as much as it’s going to, it is ineffective.comment imagecomment image

Reply to  Christian
February 8, 2017 10:17 pm

Kelvin (and Rossby) waves are reaction waves.They bounce off the land masses that bound the Pacific, and reflect back. Ultimately the trade winds control, and when they flag (QBO?), they release an avalanche of warm water stacked vertically in the Pacific Warm Pool. The avalanche travels incognito in the downwelling mode below the surface until it reflects back from South America in the upwelling mode and spreads all that warm water horizontally across the surface.
Now you get the warming.
The internal climate cannot “generate itself this heat”. That energy comes from the sun warming the ocean to the depth of the mixed layer in the less cloudy skies the trade winds foster.
Carbon dioxide helps warm the “skin” of the atmosphere by absorbing IR radiation emitted from surface (~70% ocean). The skin of the atmosphere is measured in a few meters rather than a few microns, but the combined efforts of water vapor and CO2 in these few meters extinguish surface radiation in all but the inconsequential absorption bands of CO2. The net effect of the water/CO2 absorption overlap is NEGATIVE (Staley and Jurica, 1972).
The bottom line is that IR radiation warms the atmosphere from below far more efficiently than it warms the ocean from the top.
Let’s keep talking. You show a far deeper understanding than most Carbon harpies.

Jimmy Haigh
February 8, 2017 10:31 am

There’s a planet sized nuclear power station made of rock below us. Maybe the heat comes from there.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 8, 2017 10:33 am

Too little gets out.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:56 am

Doesn’t thermodynamics require that all the heat get out?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:01 am

Not if it stays hot.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:18 pm

@ Stephen Wilde, How much is too little?. Look I am not a scientist just follow this site as a learner. But volcanic activity such as Bogoslov in recent months has regularly exploded very 2-3 days. with plumes 30,000 ft high, as you know there is continuous activity that releases energy all the time all over the world. Is there somewhere I can find a number of the amount of energy this on an average basis , lets say the past 50 years? (And there have been some really large long lasting ones as well, Iceland FI and one on Kamchatka that went on for weeks) Where does all this energy tie in ? I just wonder, Thanks for any links or explanations beforehand.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:27 pm

Just saw a partial explanation below from RWturner. but that one goes way beyond my paygrade!

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 12:23 am

It all gets out. It can’t not get out. The hotter the planet gets the faster it loses heat.

Reply to  dp
February 9, 2017 12:31 am

inter alia:
“~4500 times more energy from Sun than from Earth’s interior!”
“The average heat flow from the Earth gives a q of approximately 0.08Wm-2 (equivalent to 80mWm-2).”

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 8, 2017 11:20 am

if there is an inner core reactor, it is currently in a far-from-critical state, as there is not the anti-neutrino flux such fissions would produce and be detected at present.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 8, 2017 11:27 am

“Too little gets out”
Maybe that’s why the planet is in a 20+ million year old ice age, because the planet is currently in a quiet state of tectonism. Maybe that’s why there are paradoxes in early Earth climate models and observations, and now the same paradox exists for Mars, because the science is wrong and is too stuck in conventional wisdom to budge.
It just so happens that the heat flow from the Earth is not constant, and ‘coincedently’ the hot house/ice house conditions on Earth generally correlate to this flux.
Unless you think the climate controls tectonics, there is a litany of observational data that suggests a mantle convection flux/climate link.

Reply to  RWturner
February 8, 2017 1:29 pm

RW…love the tectonic chart.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 9, 2017 3:19 am

Can I go now? I need to cry aloud.

The argument that GHGs slow down the ocean’s rate of heat loss isn’t the answer. That can cause the temperature to be higher than it otherwise might have been, but, as above, it can’t provide the energy to cause a new high temperature.

The energy, of course, came from the Sun. Everything else is just details about how it dissipates.
GHG’s really by theory basically just let the sunshine in and then they raise the temperature at which the surface stays. not much, say maybe 2C / 2xCO2, but anyway, the ocean may do tricks by cyclic changes and upwelling.
Frankly there are moments I wonder what I’m doing here. Of course, I know you’re more civil than people at RC or the Conversation.

Reply to  Hugs
February 9, 2017 9:37 am

But it doesn’t actually add, it’s nonlinear.
Water vapor basically lets it leave to space, before it slows down night time cooling. It’s maybe 10% the value you listed.

Reply to  Hugs
February 9, 2017 11:31 am

I know you say it’s smaller but I’ll go with more an IPCC’ish number.
2C does not kill us. But we will die, anyway.

Reply to  Hugs
February 9, 2017 12:14 pm

I know you say it’s smaller but I’ll go with more an IPCC’ish number.

this explains it.comment image

Reply to  Hugs
February 9, 2017 10:42 pm

Hugs: After you finish crying, ask yourself how fast the sun can warm the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during an El Nino event. Let pick a nice round number and say that the peak rate of warming is 10 K/yr or a little less than 1 K/month for the months of most rapid SST warming. For global warming, I previously calculated that a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m2 is capable of warming a 50 m mixed layer of ocean over 70% of the surface (plus a meter depth of land and the atmosphere) at an initial rate of 0.2 K/yr. The Equatorial Pacific is all ocean, but the mixed layer is shallower there, so let’s say that 1 W/m2 can warm at a rate of 0.2 K/yr. Turbulence caused by winds spreads distributes heat through the mixed layer.
If the sun were the source of El Nino warming, it needs to be delivering 50 W/m2 of extra solar radiation to the Eastern Equatorial Pacific to make it warm at a rate of 1 K/month. On the average, clouds reflect 100 W/m2 of SWR back to space, so half of normal cloud cover could provide 50 W/m2 to the surface – more actually since the tropics receive more SWR/m2 than average. However, if the sun were the cause of the warming of the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during an El Nino, then it must be caused by a very easily detected change in cloud cover in this region. Such a decrease in cloud cover is not observed.
(Furthermore, the extra heat absorbed due to a lack of cloud cover wouldn’t remain in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. The ocean warms the atmosphere and trade winds move the atmosphere plus latent heat of evaporation overhead hundreds of miles every day. Heat from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific is spread around the world, which is why global temperature rises. When you think about “global” warming during an El Nino event, it is easy to see that the sun is not the source of this heat.)
If you read Bob Tisdale’s book or read his posts, you will find that El Nino is associated with a slowing down of the upwelling of cold deep water off the coast of South America (that makes the tropical ocean 5 K cooler here) and a slowing of the downwelling of warm water in the Western Pacific Warm Pool. This is an example of “unforced warming” typical of chaotic behavior/internal variability associated with fluid flow, not warming that is forced by a lack of clouds, CO2, or other external factors.

February 8, 2017 10:34 am

El Nino and La NIna (ENSO) happens during a very short period. Each of them takes only from 1 to 2 years. The first conclusion is that it has nothing to do with the climate change, because climate change takes a much longer time. ENSO happens in the very limited area in the Pacific. If the ITO effect is the reason, we should find sharp and great changes in the cloudiness over that limited area. TSI changes very little over 1 or 2 years.

Reply to  aveollila
February 8, 2017 10:45 am

One must consider long multidecadal periods of time. A single ENSO period tells us very little about climate change, as you say. However, the net balance between El Nino and La Nina over several successive ENSO periods can be a diagnostic indicator for long term warming or long term cooling.
As can global cloudiness.
As can net jet stream zonality / meridionality.
It is no coincidence that the current temperature pause occurs during a period of flat global cloudiness. If global cloudiness increases due to increased jet stream meridionality then we will see global cooling.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:59 am

Yes, I fully agree that cloudiness may have an important role in the climate change, because the Earth is very sensitive of the albedo changes. My point was in ENSO events: where the heat comes from. As I wrote I do not know any evidence about local cloudiness changes during ENSO events.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 6:32 pm

@ Stephen Wilde February 8, 2017 at 10:45 am: The gravito-thermal effect seems very similar between Earth and a ‘dry’-surfaced planet such as Venus (making due allowances). I can see there must be lags from ocean effects, but I wonder if the water cycle, starting with diurnality, still brings temperatures back to the ‘universal’ rates. In spite of absorbing short waves. Though those would be absorbed and converted elsewhere on a dry planet……

Reply to  Brett Keane
February 9, 2017 12:15 am

The effect of the water cycle is to shift large amounts of energy up and down more quickly than would be possible without it. Thus convective overturning within an atmosphere need be less vigorous than would otherwise be necessary to retain hydrostatic equilibrium.
A good illustration is Mars which is a dry planet. When it periodically gets out of thermal equilibrium vast planet wide dust clouds are thrown up by increased windiness until the increased albedo from those clouds restores the original thermal equilibrium.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 7:23 pm

Is it possible the alternation of cloudy-not cloudy conditions is just the same heat content reflected in two different ways? It always bugs me that discussion of global “warming”is exclusively represented by temperature when phase change in the water cycle has such massive effect on heat content and transportation. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the el Nino-La nina cycle or Indian monsoon. The temperature rise associated with el Nino is actually heat moving away from the equator in the form of water vapour and warming higher latitudes.

John Shotsky
Reply to  aveollila
February 8, 2017 11:18 am

Actually, there is already a pool of warmed water which migrates between the west pacific and the east pacific. When we have an El Nino, west Pacific has a La Nina and vice versa. Read Brian Fagan’s “Floods, Famines and Emperors, El Nino and the fate of civilizations” for a full understanding of how our current civilization is fully defined by past El Ninos and La Ninas. Nothing has changed, except our attempt to take credit for something that is as natural as rain.

February 8, 2017 10:40 am

Well, CO2 has to be in the equation somewhere. C’mon!
I put it in the reduction of cloud cover. CO2 grabs an incoming photon and shoots it into a cloud water droplet immediately vaporizing it.
Please note I did take a college quantum mechanics physics class once and both a physical and organic chemistry class and passed all three, so I (kinda) know what I’m talking about.

Reply to  rbabcock
February 8, 2017 11:36 am

Does CO2 “grabbing” a photon and shooting it out change the energy of that photon and does is the photon transparent to the cloud water droplet unless CO2 is involved?

Reply to  RWturner
February 8, 2017 11:47 am

CO2 is ‘magic’? secret source of unending energy…
agree that rbacock is wrong
obviously there is no man made warming
don’t need any big qualifications
just look in your own back yard, like I did
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:comment image
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:comment image
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 97% of all scientists disagree with me is useless. You cannot have an “election” about science.
You only need one man to get it right.

Reply to  RWturner
February 8, 2017 12:54 pm

I like your work.
Obviously many things can happen simultaneously. CO2 rise in as a percentage of atmosphere would dilute the atmosphere of elements/compounds that hold heat a greater rates, like H2O vapor. thicker atmosphere is slower to lose surface heat than a thinner atmosphere. The earth orbit radius affects surface temperature. The sun, our ultimate source of surface temperatures increases and decreases in activity that over the period of the last 100s of years significantly over laps other factors. The other significant heat source is magma rising to the surface and the resulting magma flows at the surface. Then the Urban Heat Island is just what it implies, an island with borders.
But…the number one cause of AGW is fraud, thus all this hoopla over nothing.

Reply to  RWturner
February 8, 2017 1:37 pm

HenryP, nice work following the minimas and observing…..same as Erl happ does. https://wordpress348.com. 40 odd chapters worth of Southwest Australia data.

Reply to  RWturner
February 9, 2017 9:48 am

Henry nice work

The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.

It’s water, two parts, one is absolute amount (I’m pretty sure on this), the second is rel humidity (which I’m sure of). so you have a quadratic with a max cooling rate under clear calm skies at rel humidity<~70% has a slight variance due to water vapor, but once water vapor starts condensing in the atm column, the cooling rate slows, until it nears 100% where the rate has dropped by 2/3rds for the rest of the night.
Cooling at night is regulated to dew point temp.comment image

Reply to  RWturner
February 9, 2017 9:50 am

It’s a transistor between earth and space that is regulated by dew point.

Reply to  rbabcock
February 8, 2017 12:45 pm

rbabcock: CO2 grabs an incoming photon and shoots it into a cloud water droplet immediately vaporizing it.
Or, CO2 grabs an incoming photon and collides with an cloud water droplet, vaporizing it? or collides with something else slightly raising the ambient temp and reducing the rate of cloud formation?

February 8, 2017 10:44 am

As long as the gravitational energy difference between the top and bottom of the atmosphere is not included in Kiehl & Trenberth’s ubiquitous Figure A.1 accounting , it cannot be correct . The computation should be fairly easy and appears to have been done by a number of people including notably HockeySchtick .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
February 8, 2017 10:52 am

Best not to go there in this thread 🙂
But I do know what you are getting at though I have described it differently elsewhere.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 11:39 am

Stephen ,
I keep seeking more compelling , common sense , ways of pointing out that the entire GHG paradigm is conspicuously leaving out the other macroscopic force and its concomitant energy . That energy must be accounted for .
I only came to that realization after working out the general computations for radiative balance of arbitrary spectra and seeing an unfilled ( other than by endless recursive verbiage ) gap between surface temperatures and radiative equilibrium temperatures . It was exchanges here on WUWT , including with you , that finally got it thru to me .
But this relationship between gravity and heat is a very deep thing . It is obviously seen everywhere but somehow seen as a remnant of initial accretion with the expectation that it will dissipate ala Lord Kelvin .
But this relationship explains your observation “too little gets out” . To be in radiative balance with external heat sources would require some increasing temperature gradient down to the core of any massive object .
The only counterexample I know to this relationship of depth with heat are oceans which apparently are about 4c at their bottoms , coincidentally close to the gray body temperature in our orbit .
Anybody interested in working on these problems quantitatively , get 4th.CoSy and we’ll work on it together as a step towards an open model of Earth physics while advancing the language and the business as well .

Sun Spot
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
February 8, 2017 2:20 pm

Yup and what RWturner mentioned about the mantle heat

February 8, 2017 10:48 am

This makes good sense. The atmospheric temperature at the peak of the El Nino almost matched what the models predicted, and since they were actually tuned to ITO, the models only work when that heat manifests in atmospheric temperatures but then disappears quickly because the CO2 is not “trapping” the heat they purport it does.
The only thing I see that I think I disagree with is the claim that CO2 warming acts slowly over 100s of years. There is no slow build up of kinetic energy from the molecular reaction to IR, it is immediate and does not retain this energy over time as the loss of kinetic energy to heat is also immediate — the vibrational modes are like a simple harmonic oscillator and have a net energy loss if the input energy (IR) source is lost.

February 8, 2017 10:52 am

Water from the ocean cannot warm the atmosphere to a higher temperature than itself.

What is the reasoning for that assertion? Air has a much lower specific heat capacity than water so a given amount of heat transferred from on to the other will cause a greater change in temperature in the air.
The Foehm effect uses the latent heat of evaporation ( which comes from thermal energy in the ocean ) and can raise air temperature by 5 deg C or more.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 10:53 am

Assuming that the marine air temperature was close to the SST at the point of departure than means that the air temp ends up considerably hotter than SST thus contradicting the assertion in the article.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 10:59 am

A given amount of energy from ANOTHER source will heat air more than water but neither air nor water can heat the other to a temperature warmer than its own.
In the Foehn effect the OTHER source is the latent heat released on the lee side by the dry adiabatic lapse rate in descent which is steeper than the moist adiabatic lapse rate in ascent on the windward side. Thus, due to the lapse rate difference, air at the same height on both sides will be at different temperatures

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 11:25 am

I agree. But as I pointed out and you missed, that “latent heat” is latent heat of water vapour and that heat comes from sensible heat in the ocean.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 11:31 am

The warming of the Antarctic peninsula which Stieg et al 2009 managed to smear across the entire continent, was due to Foehn effect and reflects heat which came from the surrounding ocean.
Sea can make air warmer than the surrounding SST.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 11:53 am

Greg, the heat may have come from the ocean but what does the warming on the lee side of high ground is the different lapse rate. It is not a case of the ocean making air in contact with the ocean warmer than the ocean.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 2:07 pm

Yes, and why is the lapse rate different ? Because of the difference in SHC of dry and moist air.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot make generalities like these kind of 2nd statements in a complex system like climate. Making assertions like “ocean can’t make the air hotter than itself” is derived from basic laws which have very stringent conditions. Making sweeping statements based upon naive misapplication of basic physical laws without observing all the caveats will lead to spurious conclusions.

george e. smith
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 7:36 pm

What is jet stream meridionality ??
Or just ordinary merdionality ??
Some of us would really like to know what it is.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 9, 2017 12:01 am

The extent to which the jet streams loop north and south rather than progressing more directly west to east. The former produces more clouds than the latter.

george e. smith
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 7:52 pm

Well leave out the “assuming”
If the marine air is close to the SS, as in it’s the next layer of molecules not a part of the ocean surface, then the temperatures have to be the same; or you have one hell of a Temperature gradient.
Those two molecular layers, one water and one air must talk to each other by conduction, with the higher temperature one doing the heating.
The water molecules that leave the ocean surface and head into the atmosphere are the higher energy tail end of the Maxwell Boltzmann temperature distribution. So that would seem to represent higher Temperature for the water molecules in the air. But the energy distribution in the evaporated water molecules is NOT a M=?B distribution so it is not any sort of equilibrium Temperature, and within nano-seconds it must renormalize its energy distribution to conform to the equilibrium Temperature.
The water surface layer, having lost some of its highest energy molecules, must necessarily be colder than it was, but it too will renormalize to an equilibrium distribution.
If the air temperature above the surface is hotter than the water surface, it didn’t get that way by heat flow from the colder water.
And the latent heat of vaporization isn’t going to heat diddley squat.
That water vapor, will remain in the vapor phase, UNTIL it gets cooled down by collision contact with the air, and only then after having lost the latent heat to a cooler surrounding, will it revert to the liquid phase.
The Temperature NEVER goes up above the water (vapor) Temperature, when it condenses.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 9, 2017 12:25 am

“The Temperature NEVER goes up above the water (vapor) Temperature, when it condenses .”
Correct. It is the heat energy being removed which causes the condensation, not the condensation causing a temperature change. However, if the air then descends, it ends up warmer than the water and/or water vapour which transmitted the heat to it.
In the case of Foehn effect, like Chinook winds other climate processes are involved, like winds, but it is not the wind which provides the energy, it is the oceans.
This is why I challenged basing the logic of one’s argument of simplistic application of basic laws to a complex system where the conditions of the basic law are not met.
This is the same error as CAGW. The “basic physics” tells us CO2 will cause warming but the magnitude of that warming cannot be worked out from basic radiation laws in a complex, non linear system.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 3:00 pm

If the ocean was the only energy input into the air above, no it couldn’t warm the atmosphere above its own temperature. In the real world we have the sun which also adds energy to the atmosphere, so of course a 20C ocean can help push the atmosphere above to 21C or much higher.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 7:39 pm

No. but it can prevent it from cooling down as quickly as cooler water can.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 9, 2017 12:33 am

“Greg, do you believe that water at 20C can warm the air above to 21C?”
The air directly above it no. But there is something called wind. It is all about air moving around. I explained how the Foehn effect will cause the oceans to give up heat to the air and for that air to end up warmer than the SST from where the heat came.
This involves movement of the air, changes in terrain, condensation, lapse rates etc. ie several elements of a complex weather system. This is why simplistic application of abstract thermodynamic laws will lead to false or unreliable conclusions.

February 8, 2017 10:53 am

This is a prime example of why you can’t just make up your own science.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 12:47 pm

Where else does science come from? Sound science has to be discovered by someone, usually in response to previous, failed science.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 9, 2017 4:55 pm

Yes, it’s not like Einstein just made up relativity purely by thinking about it …. oh, wait ….. Well at least he was a working, published and well-regarded scientist working in this area at the time …. oh, wait … Damn.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:18 pm

Hi Griff,
Completely off topic and I rely on the good grace of the mods but have you had time to consider a response to my question to you on when harm to children ceases to be so?
Remember, we are not trying to influence each others views, just those of the audience.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:21 pm

The IPCC is very guilty of this, where the science they make up is the preposterous causality between CO2 concentrations and the surface temperature.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 8, 2017 1:35 pm

Exactly! If there were some causality, you’d think that by measuring the Mars’ atmosphere which is 95% CO2 they could find some ‘trapped’ heat. Alas, the Mars’ surface sheds over 200F degrees of heat overnight (roughly the same day length as Earth). When, where, and for how long, is any heat being ‘trapped’? That ‘blanket’ of a ‘greenhouse gas’ sure lets a lot of heat escape.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 8, 2017 2:11 pm

Yes, CO2 is like a blanket with a lot of holes in it representing the transparent regions of the spectrum. The glass in an actual greenhouse has no transparent regions in the LWIR transmission spectrum and all of the energy emitted by the greenhouse originates as broad band BB emissions from the glass itself.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:54 pm

Dismissive statements of authority are never helpful. Please explain what it is you object to. I followed a couple of disagreements initiated by this post back up-thread, and they were filled with misunderstandings. So, kindly explain yourself.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 6:47 pm

While Griff and I part ways on anthropogenic CO2 as the agent of change in the modern warming trend, I have to agree on his statement. Pet theories, even mine, provided by those with, and especially without, post graduate chops in climate science, are best subdued to comments and certainly not trotted out as a post on such a large stage, unless the argumentative style is supremely carried out. Which does not describe this post at all. Word to the wise, don’t even try a re-write.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 8, 2017 7:09 pm

Hi Pamela . Please note that the warming by Blue and Green light (and some UV) that I describe does NOT come from my pet theory at all. It comes from analysis of the data, and the analysis is pretty straightforward. I am a mathematician by training, and I think that makes me perfectly well qualified to do the analysis.
What the analysis does do, however, is to demonstrate that all of the warming that the IPCC claims came from CO2 actually came from those wavelengths (Blue, some Green, some UV) of direct solar radiation. That, in turn, supports my hypothesis. I think it would be worth your while to look at it all a bit more carefjully.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 9, 2017 8:14 pm

If “97%” of accredited climate scientists can come up with a piece of crap like AGW then I’m ok with Mike having a go

Ron Clutz
February 8, 2017 10:54 am
February 8, 2017 10:58 am

A given amount of energy from ANOTHER source will heat air more than water but neither air nor water can heat the other to a temperature warmer than its own.
In the Foehn effect the OTHER source is the latent heat released on the lee side by the dry adiabatic lapse rate in descent which is steeper than the moist adiabatic lapse rate in ascent on the windward side. Thus, due to the lapse rate difference, air at the same height on both sides will be at different temperatures.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:23 pm

It would be more accurate to say that the latent heat is released at higher altitudes by condensation leading to precipitation. This then means that the, now dryer, air has been warmed before being compressed in descending the leeside. It is not the lapse rate which releases latent heat.
It is the difference in lapse rate, due the the different SHC when leads to the net warming of air once it is back near sea level. That energy came from OHC.
This is one example of why you cannot reliably make sweeping statements based on simple physical laws in a complex system.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 9, 2017 2:16 am

I’d actually say that most of the energy in the atmosphere comes via conduction from both water AND land surfaces.
Latent heat of evaporation does play a role but is not the primary source of atmospheric energy. Even with a dry world you get convective overturning.

February 8, 2017 11:01 am

There have been 3 El Nino events from 1996 to 2017, and by your hypothesis there must have been 3 regular oscillations of cloud cover/Sun penetration to ocean depths. Does this agree with observations? I don’t have the info (maybe someone can correct me). Here is another possibility: Incoming Sunlight warms the equatorial waters which expand and become less dense. The rotating Earth is a huge centrifuge, driving more dense stuff toward the Equator (outward), which means less dense stuff is driven toward the poles. In the Northern Hemisphere, the Coriolis Effect drives these currents to the right, creating clockwise circulations. This explains the NE movement of the warm Gulf Stream and the Japan Current, as well as the SE movement of the upwelling cold California Current and the Canary Current. Upwelling currents bring nutrients to the surface, enabling plankton to bloom, feeding fish and seals, etc. In the Southern Hemisphere, warm currents are driven from the Equator toward the poles, and the Coriolis force deflects them to the left (e.g. the Brazil current). Upwelling cold currents are driven toward the Equator, but deflected to the left by the Coriolis Effect, creating counterclockwise rotation of surface currents. The cold Humboldt (Peru) and Benguela currents again bring up nutrients to the surface, feeding plankton, fish, seals, etc.
So why does the Southern Pacific circulation reverse itself in El Nino events? I am guessing that the Peru Current drives warm equatorial waters from East to West where they pile up in a funnel-shaped region bordered by island chains from New Guinea to French Polynesia. The ocean water level rises slightly, but eventually gravity drives the water from west to east, just like a pendulum reversing itself. This would explain a rough regularity in El Nino events. The warm equatorial water on reaching South American then piles up and prevents the upwelling of the cold Peru Current, depriving fish of the plankton needed for food, resulting in a crash in the anchovy population. Reducing the patch of cold surface water means a rise in the mean surface temperature of the Earth. Because ocean waters can also circulate in the vertical direction, the real picture is more complicated. For example, cold, dense (salty) Arctic water by the centrifuge effect would be drive Southward toward the Equator, with the Coriolis Effect deflecting it toward the right. So we expect a cold dense current moving southward at depth, hugging the Eastern coast of North America, to partially balance the mass driven northeastward in the Gulf Stream. This fundamental centrifuge + Coriolis Effect explains the path of low-density hurricane air masses northeastward from Florida along the coast until driven into the mid-Atlantic. Also low density tornadoes in the flat central plains of the USA, along Tornado Alley.

Reply to  rogertaguchi
February 8, 2017 11:07 am

Since there are more oceans in the southern hemisphere there is an imbalance in the amount of solar energy entering the oceans in each hemisphere.
The Earth’s rotation smears the excess solar energy entering the southern Pacific in parallel with the equator from South America to Indonesia.
When the imbalance becomes large enough the excess energy is discharged across the equator both in ocean currents and air circulation changes until the balance is approximately restored and the El Nino ceases.

Reply to  rogertaguchi
February 8, 2017 12:14 pm

You seem to be the only commentator here that recognises the ocean currents. I have experienced rates of up to 2 knots in the open Pacific, and 5 knots close to the east of the Phillipines. This represents a massive displacement of very large quantities of water, and submariners report thermoclines at all sorts of depths.
More needs to be explored regarding the transport of heat from here to there, from the surface to depths and vice versa.
Try looking over the parapet of a river bridge with a visible current in the water and observe the swirling of the water. Then transpose that many thousands of times and you might have an idea about how the ocean currents churn, very slowly, the water column.

Reply to  Oldseadog
February 8, 2017 1:46 pm

Some people have made electrical generators from these fast flowing under water wind tunnels… This is not a comment on viability, just existence.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 8, 2017 6:32 pm

actually they don’t … they report one temperature boundary layer … yes there are some big currents … they don’t mix very much …

Reply to  rogertaguchi
February 8, 2017 7:15 pm

rogertaguchi – Please read my earlier “This is How Climate Works” posts. Your “There have been 3 El Nino events from 1996 to 2017, and by your hypothesis there must have been 3 regular oscillations of cloud cover/Sun penetration to ocean depths.” comment is incorrect.

February 8, 2017 11:06 am

Over the longer term (decades to centuries) cloud cover is driven by solar activity, as described by Henrik Svensmark here, and later successfully tested.

Svensmark’s work studied very short term changes. It is totally no justified to confound this with “longer term” changes in cloud. AFAICR, he neither studied that, nor suggested it was implied from what he did.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 9:42 pm

Greg – Your comment is absolutely wrong. Viz, eg. “Figure 5 takes the climate record back 300 years, using rates of beryllium-10 production in the atmosphere as long-accepted proxies for cosmic-ray intensities. The high level at AD 1700 corresponds with the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) when sunspots were extremely scarce and the solar magnetic field was exceptionally weak. This coincided with the coldest phase of what historians of climate call the Little Ice Age (Eddy 1976). Also plain is the Dalton Minimum of the early 19th century, another cold phase. The wobbles and the overall trend seen in figure 5, between cold 1700 and warm 2000, are just a high-resolution view of a climate-related switch between high and low cosmic-ray counts, of a kind that has occurred repeatedly in the past.“.

Mark Burnell
February 8, 2017 11:10 am

When I made my first post not a single one had appeared yet mine hasn’t. I don’t know why, but I can re-do if necessary

February 8, 2017 11:12 am

According to ERBE top of atmosphere data, the reaction of the climate system to the cooling caused by Mt Pinatubo carried on long after the initial cooling effects had subsided.comment image
Failure to account for this warming effect of volcanoes as well as the initial cooling is why models tuned to the volcanically active 1960-1995 period falsely attribute this warming to something else: our good friend CO2.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2017 11:16 am

This strong negative feedback means that the hypothesised strength of the volcanic forcing is overstated and needs to be countered by a stronger AGW.
Now we have had over 25 y with minimal volcanic activity, the models are left with an exaggerated AGW, not exaggerated volcanic cooling to balance the books. Hence models are all running too warm.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 11:17 am

of course this is all about OHC so , yes “in the ocean”.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 11:19 am

My favourite TLS graph shows how stratosphere was cooled to persistently lower temperatures by the last two major eruptions. This implies changes to stratospheric composition and likely cloud cover as well.comment image

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 11:22 am

Late 20th c. global warming was largely caused by volcanic induced changes to the stratosphere, leading to more solar energy making it into the lower climate system.

February 8, 2017 11:19 am

From there, the downward Infra-Red (IR) radiation reaches the ocean surface.

That’s seven sentences into the article, and that’s where I stopped.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 8, 2017 11:21 am

Do you think that gases only radiation in one direction then?

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 1:26 pm

To be precise, gases like N2 and O2 do not radiate much radiation, if any at all, in the relevant LWIR spectrum. Only GHG’s radiate any significant amount of LWIR energy as photons emitted from the return to the ground state and these photons are certainly emitted in all directions. The only other significant source of atmospheric radiation comes from the liquid and solid water in clouds which is also radiated in all directions.

February 8, 2017 11:21 am

Why not look at it directly with the time depth temperature diagrams in the North Atlantic?

February 8, 2017 11:24 am

you are right in seeing that cloud cover, especially in the tropics, is a large factor, accelerating warming or cooling.
In its turn of course, cloud cover has initially to do mostly with the amount of UV coming into the oceans, but let us leave that discussion aside, for the mom/
I note you draw a descending linear line for cloud cover forgetting that the trend is in fact non linear.
Clearly, you can see that cloud cover reached its lowest point around the beginning of the millennium and the trend on cloud cover is going up from around 2000. Try to fit a quadratic function on cloud cover?

Reply to  HenryP
February 8, 2017 7:13 pm

HenryP – yes I saw all that, and posted on it some time ago. In this article, I tried to make it clear that I was using the linear trend simply to get a ball-park figure, nothing more, nothing less.

February 8, 2017 11:41 am

Awesome. I have been saying this for years.
THe AMO / PDO are unexplained by climate scientists. Yet they obviously exist. The variations over a 60 year period impart on average a peak upward temperature oscillation of 0.23C and downward of 0.23C for the other 30 years. The amount of energy to do this osciallation of temperature is missing from all computer models or any understanding by the climate scientists.
They could have spent much more time figuring this out rather than making adjustments on the record to enhance global warming but of course that has no political objective only scientific objective.
During the “pause” which John Bates has proven still exists and we knew existed for many many reasons the ARGO buoys were showing that the surface of the ocean was not really getting warmer but the deeper ocean remarkably was getting considerably warmer. In fact, the warming below 300 meters was enough to account for all the energy lost during the pause. The immediate conclusion of climate scientists like Trenberth was “Aha we found the energy from co2. It was in the deep ocean..
This is stupid. No mechanism was explained how energy mostly accumulated at thousands of feet altitude in the atmosphere could be getting to 1000 feet depth in the ocean without going through the 1000 feet of high heat capacity material in between!!!!!
We never had the ARGO buoys before so we have no data on whether this heat in the lower ocean was cyclic and natural variation or was produced by CO2 somehow. It is extremely unlikely in my opinion that it is a good idea to assume this never happened before. I would assume that this was periodic.
It turns out of course that we are in the middle starting around 2000 in a “low part of the cycle” of the PDO and AMO. This heat could easily be associated with the PDO/AMO cycles and could be providing the store needed to produce the 0.23 variations we see over 60 years. This would imply that over the next 10-15 years more heat accumulates in that region. One interesting thing would be to see if heat was lost from that region during this El Niño cycle.
During the up cycle we would expect this heat layer to reverse and actually lose heat similar to how much has been gained. So heat would be released from this store starting in 2030 or so.
This may be a sort of oscillating cycle in the ocean that has no losses or it is much more likely that something feeds energy into this cycle in order to keep the cycle alive. This heat to power the cycle could be provided by variations in cloud cover as described here, variations in underwater valcano heat emissions based on some cyclic phenomenon in the mantle probably the result of some orbital dynamics that would need to be studied.
This must be the case that this heat in the ocean has to be explained. After it was discovered they seemed to give up on studying it preferring instead to hack the land records and theormostats since then they wouldn’t have the anoying problem that they never anticipated AMO/PDO, heat in the ocean or not, pause etc. But could say everything was going according to plan except the magnitude of warming was still Half what they predicted. It is kind of obvious we need to jettison the current cadre of misfits running our climate science because they are nothing but politicized animals seeking to pander alarmism to boost their research grants, make millions and push forward a political agenda. We need real science like this to study what is really not happening not Co2 attacking.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 8, 2017 1:27 pm

The fraud is a means to enslave the populous. The internet with sites like this most likely thwarted this aggressive means to control another aspect of our prosperity. Recall this vile plan began in the 1980’s before we had the instant communications of the internet. Notice the same groups aggressiveness to then control the internet and eventually claim it false news. Notice there is no science argument but heavy violent and defaming aspersions. Notice the 100’s of billions of dollars (our money) spent to take more wealth through CO2, carbon myths. We should be very angry. And why is there never a consequence for the lies and damages?

bit chilly
Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 8, 2017 3:54 pm

we are past the peak of the amo. the heat is already being lost to space with increased exposure of arctic ocean . looking at the stage of the amo we are at just now, there will be another gadoid outburst in the north east atlantic beginning in the next 5 years.

Reply to  bit chilly
February 8, 2017 7:11 pm

I want to correct myself. I use the AMO/PDO on a cycle of time not on ocean temperatures.
My logic is that the world temperatures for several hundred years has varied in a 60 year cycle that has a magnitude of +.23 and -.23. That is the correlation.
Scientists have identified a warming in the Pacific Ocean PDO and the Atlantic AMO. That is the official definition and I am not challenging that.
I’m saying that whatever is causing the variation in world temperatures is now still in a low phase and it has 10-15 years to go. The fact that what we think is related to that phenomenon is out of phase may mean that that ocean temperature may not be the correct indicator of the phase of the curve.
If we see another 10-15 years of basically flat temperatures then I guess it means how we define the AMO may be less useful in helping predict the phase of the cycle.
If on the other hand the actual physical basis of the cycle is related to this ocean variation in the way you suggest then that would mean the cycle was modified in a major way which might mean that co2 is affecting the climate in a major way by modifying the climate cycle.
The fact is that for the last 20 years there is hardly any change in temperature under a massive assault of co2. I therefore would say that we are in the low phase of the cycle. That cycle has historically lasted 30 years so it seems likely that it will continue for 10 years.
I actually made a prediction of the El Niño in 2015 based on a simply extrapolation of similar El Niño’s occurring at the middle ( 15 years ) of the low phase in the last 2 cycles. If I’m right then it says the climate is actually following a very predictable pattern. If we are in the low phase then temperatures will return to pre 2015 El Niño levels and may go lower than even the average of the last 15 years.
I think we may find that the temperature accumulation in the ocean below 300 meters may be a better predictor of temperature than the official AMO.
Because of lack of knowledge of ocean temperatures at the surface or at depth leaves us in a hard spot. I don’t have enough time to study this in enough depth to answer how this cycle works exactly what feeds it and how it exactly works. This is what I hope climate scientists will study instead of fabricating adjustments to justify their juiced models.

Brett Keane
Reply to  bit chilly
February 8, 2017 10:12 pm

@ bit chillyFebruary 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm: I think the cod have been returning in recent years.

February 8, 2017 12:05 pm

Regarding: “IR cannot penetrate more than a fraction of a millimetre into the ocean, so it warms just the surface skin. From there most of its energy goes back into the atmosphere or space, but some of it can convect or conduct into the ocean.”
A fair amount does conduct back into the ocean. Warming just a surface skin causes a steep temperature gradient that causes rapid downward heat conduction. The gradient lessens as a result of heat being conducted downward. Once heat gets a few millimeters down, mixing spreads it out more.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 8, 2017 1:05 pm

If evaporation increases then the gradient from cold surface skin to warm water beneath gets STEEPER because evaporation takes up 5 times as much energy as is required to induce it at 1 bar atmospheric pressure. It is that high energy demand that creates the cooler surface skin in the first place.
So, no, you do not get downward convection or conduction except maybe in very rough conditions that cause mixing before evaporation can take place to its maximum from a given unit of water volume.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 8, 2017 1:39 pm

“Warming just a surface skin causes a steep temperature gradient that causes rapid downward heat conduction.”
Water is fairly poor conductor of heat. That is how immersion water heaters manage to keep the hotter water at the top when cold water enters at the bottom. It’s stratification and there is surprisingly slow loss of temperature from top to bottom.
Mike Jonas: “but some of it can convect or conduct into the ocean”
Likewise, most mixing is wind driven turbulence and splash at the surface then deeper down eddy diffusion. Convection will mainly occur at night when the surface is cooler than the bulk of the mixed layer.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 2:49 pm

It’s interesting the climate models use a 2 layer model of the ocean and concluded that very little energy makes it below the first few feet over many years. Yet we found in 2010 that lots of heat was going to depths below 300 meters. It was accumulating. They then said this was the missing heat from co2 although they originally said that this was impossible. That the heat couldn’t over the 10 years of the pause make it into lower ocean. Complicating the picture was that there was no heat in the upper ocean. So how did the heat get from the sky and atmosphere to the lower ocean without heating the upper ocean? Unanswered. They decided to pursue a different path and jack the heat in through adjustments in the worst quality thermostats that they could fudge. Thus we have the divergence of satellite and land records. Remove the adjustments and the land records look like the satellite records. Hmmm that’s funny.
Do you get the impression they have no idea what’s going on?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 8, 2017 2:04 pm

But is there enough water mass in the micro layer to hold enough heat to influence the mass of the whole atmosphere? Is this a true effect but so minor in enegybthat it can be ignored? Numbers?

February 8, 2017 12:16 pm

The warmest point on the ocean can be warmer than it otherwise would be due to cooler parts of the ocean being warmed, despite the 2nd Law. When other-than-warmest-point waters are warmed, the sun does not have to do as much work to get them to record-tying or record-breaking temperatures if they move to locations where they get warm.
Also, warming something other than the warmest point can reduce cooling of the warmest point, allowing the warmest point to get even warmer.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 8, 2017 10:01 pm

Donald L. Klipstein – What you say is reasonable, but the argument is more subtle. The surface skin, or near-surface, by being warmer, can indeed slow the rate of cooling of the deeper ocean. But, unless it is at a higher temperature (which it was not) it cannot supply any of the heat itself. That means that the heat must have come from somewhere else – remember, the temperature actually went up, it didn’t just cool more slowly. The heat cannot have come from the atmosphere or from any wavelength of solar irradiation outside the UV-Blue-Green range that I identify. That is because all the other wavelengths cannot penetrate the surface skin, which in turn means that they cannot directly or indirectly have supplied the required heat. The only way that heat could have built up in the deeper ocean is if it came from UV-Blue-Green light. But we can calculate how much of that there is, and we know that the amount is directly affected by clouds. I have done those calculations, and have shown that all of the extra warming attributed to CO2 by the IPCC in fact came from UV-Blue-Green light.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 9, 2017 4:14 pm

“I have done those calculations, and have shown that all of the extra warming attributed to CO2 by the IPCC in fact came from UV-Blue-Green light.”
I like that simplified explanation. That boils it down nicely.

charles nelson
February 8, 2017 12:36 pm

I think it’s worth pointing out that when the ‘warmest year ever’ is due mostly to measured temperatures in the winter Arctic ‘soaring’ to minus 20˚C (instead of their normal minus 30˚C) that we are actually witnessing a COOLING event.
How does ‘warmth’ get to Greenland in February? Certainly not through downwelling (or any other kind of) radiation. It can only be transported there as warm moist air…and you don’t need to be a ”climate” scientist to understand that warm moist air entering a frigid zone usually results in snow or ice formation.
Hence the massive gains in Greenland’s ice Mass this year.

Reply to  charles nelson
February 8, 2017 1:06 pm

Hence my emphasis on jet stream meridionality being a useful cooling indicator.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 10:33 pm

@ Stephen Wilde Feruary 8, 2017 at 1:06 pm : Hear, hear, Charles and Stephen above. Dead right, and I wonder if Erl Happ’s warmer ozone is helping the polar uplift. Sure is no heat comes out, except to space. Ask Siberia and Canada. Enormous cooling while the ice gets compressed and thickens, and the water cooled.

Reply to  Brett Keane
February 8, 2017 11:56 pm

Erl is on the right track but I think he follows the conventional wisdom whereby an active sun creates more ozone in the stratosphere generally.
My contention, based on recent evidence, is that an active sun increases stratospheric ozone above the equator and below 45km whereas it decreases stratospheric ozone above the poles and above 45km.
The former idea is why there was panic about the ozone hole when the sun was active but my version accounts for that.
Full explanation here:

Reply to  charles nelson
February 8, 2017 1:08 pm

Absolutely correct. Just look at the Arctic sea ice variations as one indicator during those periods = wind.
There is only two methods for ocean heat to relocate, by ocean circulation or by wind, the latter being the most immediate and effective.

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 8, 2017 1:16 pm

I would think the former moves more heat in total, albeit more slowly.

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 8, 2017 1:31 pm

There is only a certain amount of latent energy (heat etc) stored in earths systems at any given point of time. How much energy, and in what form it is released can vary from year to year and variations within that year. The same applies to adsorbsion of heat.
When it is released – how and where it is transported to varies, but understanding those transport mechanisms is becoming one of the more critical issues to understand, and the many significant wider effects.
The Arctic sea ice minimum for example is controlled by atmospheric circulation. The exact day that the minimum occurs is controlled by other inter-related factors which vary on a year by year basis. But the exact same process applies each year.
Atmospheric circulation for the majority of the year is not smooth and consistant. It comes in a series of pulses, and those pulses have significant outcomes.

February 8, 2017 12:59 pm

The far more important question is where did the heat go !!!
if Green house gases are so good at trapping heat, where did the heat go?
If it went out into space where I think it went, then it should show up in the CERES Data

Reply to  Scott
February 8, 2017 1:11 pm

It went out to space as part of the normal outgoing radiative flow which is approximately the same as that which comes in. The issue is that more meridional jets and more global clouds are not allowing as much back into the oceans as was allowed in during the recent warming spell.
The satellites did show a peak of outgoing as a result of the El Nino and that is now dropping back.
At the moment we are at a level of global cloudiness that keeps things in balance ‘the pause’ but that won’t continue forever.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:52 pm

Hi Stephen, you mentioned
“The satellites did show a peak of outgoing as a result of the El Nino and that is now dropping back.”
Have you got a link to the data that shows this as I have been unable to find it.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 12:08 am

Scott, I would imagine that is referring to CERES outgoing LW , or OLR . Should be easy to locate.

February 8, 2017 1:08 pm

“The atmosphere cannot warm the ocean surface skin to a higher temperature than itself.”
Is that why blankets and coats don’t work? Because they are not warmer than me?

Mark Burnell
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 8, 2017 1:14 pm

Really Skeptical are you claiming you think it’s possible to warm a rock with light, when it’s immersed in cold fluids, and that you can then suspend ever more refractory material between the fire and the rock, using the fluid bath, and make more light come oozing out of the light, that when more light, was oozing in?
Because I can shoot that into little tiny pieces without cracking a book.

Mark Burnell
Reply to  Mark Burnell
February 8, 2017 1:16 pm

Really Skeptical you claim to understand the concept of a coat or a blanket. Firemen wear heavy coats, and people who are trapped in fire, are told to get a blanket.
The reason they’re told to get that blanket is the refractive properties of the blanket: or the firemens’ coats.
Are you telling me you think a refractory insulating blanket is placed between a fireman’s back and a fire, to make the fireman’s back hotter? If you tell me that,
I’ll tell people I’ve identified another one of you clowns who claim you believe in green house gas warming is possible.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 8, 2017 1:19 pm

Clearly sarcasm, but I’ll play 🙂
Your body is constantly producing ‘new’ heat from chemical reactions. The ocean cannot do that.
A better analogy is to point out that your blankets and coats could keep you cool under a hot sun if your body were not producing its own heat.
Why do you think desert dwellers dress in flowing robes ?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 1:45 pm

Why do you think desert dwellers dress in flowing robes ?
To keep the sand out of their butts !

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:00 pm

No, they like the sand in their butts 🙂
Flowing robes allow the sand to blow upwards underneath those robes.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 4:44 pm

“Your body is constantly producing ‘new’ heat from chemical reactions. The ocean cannot do that.”
The ocean is being heated by the sun. Don’t be dumb.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 9, 2017 12:19 am

I did say that. Please engage brain before commenting.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 2:30 am

Stephen: “Your body is constantly producing ‘new’ heat from chemical reactions. The ocean cannot do that.”
The article told us that the ocean was receiving energy from UV and visible light. That is functionally the same as your body producing new heat from chemical reactions. It does not matter to the energy balance where the energy comes from.
How about this for a possibility?
Light from sun warms ocean. Ocean loses heat to atmosphere. IR from atmosphere warms the skin of the ocean (a few microns). Warming the skin reduces the flux of heat from ocean to atmosphere. Ocean is warmer with the IR from the atmosphere than without.
Can you point out what is wrong with this?

Reply to  seaice1
February 9, 2017 3:10 am

Your problem is that the ocean skin is 0.3 C colder than the ocean bulk 3 mm below it so no warming of the skin by downward IR
The net energy deficit is caused by the latent heat of evaporation extracting 5 times as much energy as is required to induce evaporation.
More evaporation from more downward IR makes the skin colder not warmer.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 5:25 am

Wildeco2014. No, that is not it. Say the bulk water is 25C and the skin without IR is 20C. We get a certain amount of heat transfer across the skin from the bulk into the air. Now say the skin temperature is raised to 23C. We now get a lower amount of heat transfer across the skin into the air. Since the bulk is absorbing radiation, the temperature of the bulk with the IR becomes warmer than the bulk without the IR.
“More evaporation from more downward IR makes the skin colder not warmer.” Ate you comparing the IR to moving the air across the surface? Moving air increases evaporation and lowers the temperature. However, the air does not add any energy. This is different from the IR which is adding energy.
What you seem to be saying is that adding energy causes evaporation to increase, evaporation reduces temperature, so adding energy reduces temperature. This is clearly wrong, as my kettle demonstrates.

Reply to  seaice1
February 9, 2017 6:48 am

Your kettle heats from the base whereas the ocean heats from solar energy of the correct wavelength to pass straight through the evaporating layer.
The evaporating layer is only microns thick but such is the energy demand of evaporation the cooler ocean skin descends to about 3 millimetres.
If evaporation increase the top 3 microns become even colder and the depth of the cool layer increases.
My description is correct.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 9:07 am

It doesn’t matter if the atmosphere heats or cools the ocean, or if the ocean heats or cools the atmosphere. All other things being equal, the atmosphere retains heat (due to extra CO2) that should normally go to space. Hence, the atmosphere is warmer than it should be. Henceforth, the atmosphere heats the ocean more or cools it less, what ever you like.
No different than the way a blanket works.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 9, 2017 9:30 am

The largely non radiative atmosphere retains heat primarily due to conduction and convection. The oceans retain heat due to solar shortwave (not IR) getting past the evaporative layer. Completely separate processes and neither is anything like a blanket.
Blankets do not allow radiation through (oceans)and do not allow convection (atmosphere)..

February 8, 2017 1:16 pm

The ‘extra’ heat is not extra at all, but just the consequence of a temporary out of balance condition arising from reduced cooling. The equatorial region has more clouds than the rest of the planet, slowing down surface cooling. When ocean currents concentrate surface heat at the equator (El Nino), it cools more slowly than it would if that heat was distributed across latitudes away from the tropics causing the planet to be slightly out of balance and warmer than it would be otherwise. This temporary heating is always offset by future cooling (La Nino) which ultimately makes the planet cooler than it would be otherwise and the cycle repeats. The main point here is that all heating is the consequence of the Sun and any apparent ‘excess’ heat is the consequence of reduced cooling.
Consensus climate science fails to grasp this because they believe the planet is perpetually out of balance and cooler than it would be otherwise owing to future effects of past CO2 emissions that have not manifested yet. What they fail to recognize is that each hemisphere is always out of balance, half the time warmer than it would be (during winter) and half the time cooler than it would be (during the summer). That is, during the summer months, incoming radiation exceeds outgoing radiation and the planet warms and the opposite is true during winter months. Owing to asymmetries between the hemispheres, the N responds faster owing to a larger fraction of land, thus the planet as a whole exhibits the signature of the N hemisphere.

Mark Burnell
February 8, 2017 1:19 pm

in place of “is” before possible.

February 8, 2017 1:32 pm

I have seen equation 1) below used to calculate the emissivity of a heated surface using the Stefan Boltzmann relationship. The general form being:
0) W = σ * ε * A * T^4
Rearranged algebraically:
1) ε = W / (Asource * σ * (T^4source – T^4sink))
T^4sink is the notorious “back” radiation.
In my opinion this equation is incorrect because it does not account for the radiative area of the sink. The following is what I consider to be the correct form.
2) ε = W / ((Asource * σ * T^4source) – (Asink * σ * T^4sink))
Because of conservation of energy:
3) (Asource * σ * T^4source) = (Asink * σ * T^4sink)
and the denominator goes to zero and the equation becomes indeterminant.
There is no spoon – or “back” radiation.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
February 8, 2017 2:03 pm

So what you are saying by your proposed equation #2, taken to its logical conclusion, is that two objects at the same temperature would transfer heat between them, net heat going to the object with a larger surface area? This violates at least two laws of thermodynamics and perhaps a third.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
February 8, 2017 11:16 pm

@ Nicholas SchroederFebruary 8, 2017 at 1:32 pm: The sink temperature at which SB works needs to be understood before it is used in climastrology. Nor can a gas be a blackbody.

K. Kilty
February 8, 2017 1:43 pm

Point number two
“…Water in the ocean surface skin cannot mix with deeper water to create water of a higher temperature than itself….”
Well, it could if the deeper water were warmer than the surface, but we know it is actually colder. When dealing with any argument involving this topic, one needs to address all contingencies.

February 8, 2017 1:44 pm

Some 2-3 years ago I did a look at ENSO and the tectonic activity in the equatorial Pacific, there it appears to be some association if not a direct correlation of the two sets of events, at least according to the data I collected. If so then the ENSO is simply result of a neutral energy perturbation between ocean’s strata, while the trade winds variability is a direct consequence.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2017 1:50 pm

Interesting comparison Vuk’.
Those two peaks in tectonic data look a lot like 8.85 and 11.86 y , do you have a link to that dataset please?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 1:53 pm

The second highest peak looks to be 8.85/2 as well.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 2:21 pm

I’m sure you also noticed a ~65 year quasi oscillation, ~17 might be the data length effect on a possible 18.5 years, while 11.86 is not open for discussion.
I spent some months researching and assembling data files of the extreme tectonic events along the ‘ring of fire’, the equatorial Pacific (as in the graph above) and the Mid Atlantic ridge ( as in here ).
There is no link to data, just number of files on my PC, hope to publish some day, but without a convincing hypothesis the data files are just bundles of numbers.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 8, 2017 2:42 pm

OK, so you’re saying the data is proprietary since you are intending or would like to publish. That’s fine but disappointing. I love new datasets. I doubt the 16 point something is anything to do with 18.6 .
“but without a convincing hypothesis the data files are just bundles of numbers.”
You do not need a hypothesis of the cause to publish an analysis. Collating and presenting a new dataset is worth while in itself. The periodograms are suggestive of cause even without a specific mechanism.
Did you do a frequency analysis of the N. Atl data or was it too discontinuous?

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 9, 2017 1:32 am

Spectral peaks in the Pacific tectonix are 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 8.7, 11.8 and 16.4 years
errors bars of at least + – 2% to 3% should be added.
16.1 years is one of the prominent periodicities present in the earth’s core magnetic field variability.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
February 9, 2017 4:02 am

In case of N.A. tectonix graph is the ‘previous 30 year integral’ of the events count, data goes back to 1700. Data are contiguous but discontinuities are introduced to achieve a ‘wiggle match’ non-stationary correlation) of the two sets of events (non-stationary correlation).
Periodogram (possibly) for that reason has no AMO’s ~60 year component.
Eliminating noise from periodogram by cutting off lower portion of the graph for the direct data (not the integral) compared to the CET (summer, winter & annual) is shown here

Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2017 1:54 pm

More likely the temperature induced variations in the weight of the water overlying tectonic boundaries has an effect on tectonic activity.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:25 pm

Except, that as the graph shows tectonics precedes ENSO by about 4 or 5 years.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2017 2:29 pm

Interesting, but each ENSO event includes both El Nino and La Nina so the tectonic plates could be responding to either which fits the ‘weight of water’ hypothesis.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:46 pm

Very unlikely. If you look at the link posted in the reply to Greg Goodman, a similar relationship is observed in the N. Atlantic where there is no major see level decadal oscillation.
As said above I have no convincing hypothesis either for the ENSO or the AMO as related to the tectonics, and it appears no one else to anything else.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 3:06 pm

Vuk’, it would be interesting to see the cross-correlation fn and also the spectral analysis of the same.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 3:51 pm

“I have no convincing hypothesis either for the ENSO or the AMO as related to the tectonics,”
Same tidal forces causing tectonic activity could be affecting horizontal ocean heat displacement. El Nino is an atmospheric positive feddback but it needs a trigger. I suspect the trigger is slow multiyear tides at the top of the the thermocline.
In 2015 perigee full moon occurred very close to the equinox ,when sun and moon are over the equator. Similarly 18 years earlier in 1997.

Michael Carter
Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2017 11:25 pm

vukcevic – have you looked for cycles within earthquake activity that may correlate?

Michael Carter
February 8, 2017 1:54 pm

The most logical explanation (IMO) is that it is simply a periodic release of ocean heat. I don’t know of any flux in nature that is linear over time. I agree that it is a cooling event that releases a degree of stored heat. A thermometer over a pot of water being heated is not going to show a lineal increase, is it? (never tried the experiment 🙂 )
What triggers the release once a certain equilibrium is reached is another question. I do agree that we don’t know enough about the tectonic heat influence.

Reply to  Michael Carter
February 8, 2017 1:57 pm

Tectonic heat release might sometimes affect timing but the basic phenomenon arises from the fact that there is more ocean in the southern hemisphere so that more solar energy is stored south of the equator until the imbalance grows large enough for the release to occur in the form of El Nino.

Michael Carter
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:12 pm

Stephan – I believe that those with high budgets are discounting this possibility too easily. While the Atlantic blob was active it would have been oh so easy to get sea samples for chemical analysis – Duuggh! It sat bang over an active tectonic boundary

Brett Keane
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 11:25 pm

We were looking at the moon crossing the ecliptic plane as a possible trigger for Enso Kelvin Waves. Haven’t heard either way yet.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Michael Carter
February 8, 2017 2:10 pm

Someplace on this site a long time ago I showed that heat released from the Earth’s interior on the seafloor is many orders of magnitude too small to have any impact on the heat budget over periods of a few years. I realize those midocean ridges and seafloor volcanoes are very hot, but they represent a very small area of a very vast ocean.

Reply to  K. Kilty
February 9, 2017 9:19 am

Yes, negligently small, that is not what is proposed above, it is the normal tidal forces.
If I was to formulate a hypothesis it would be based on the ‘acoustic-gravity waves’ kind of ‘longitudinal seafloor tsunami’ following a major tectonic event. Such waves transport water at a velocity of only a few cm/sec but move millions of cubic meters of deep water per second.

Reply to  K. Kilty
February 9, 2017 9:22 am

‘negligibly’ (I blame auto-spell check)

Leonard Weinstein
February 8, 2017 2:01 pm

Mike Jonas, your basic misunderstanding of the so called atmospheric greenhouse effect works makes this writeup a mistake. It is true the colder sky can’t directly heat the ocean. However it does slow net radiation up from absorbed sunlight, and the slowing of net radiation is the source of the increased temperature. It is a (T^4 hot -T^4 cold) effect, where the T^4 cold reduces the net radiation, thus slowing trapped heat removal faster than solar absorption accumulates. Conduction, convection, and evaporation partially compensate to balance the radiation up reduction but not fully, so the surface heats some.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 8, 2017 2:15 pm

Since evaporation requires 5 times as much energy as is required to induce it at 1 bar atmospheric pressure how do you think that there is anything left over when downward IR is absorbed into more evaporation ?
There is no problem in having convection whisk it all away because water vapour is lighter than air and so increases the rate of convection proportionately to the increase in evaporation.
You could only inhibit the underlying energy flow from the ocean bulk by reducing the temperature differential between cold skin and warmer bulk but more evaporation actually increases the gradient. That must be so because evaporation caused the cool skin and the accompanying thermal gradient in the first place.

Marcus Facer
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 3:34 am

If GHG’s can add heat to the oceans (they cannot) Then Water vapor dominates over the oceans – CO2 does not get a lookin

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 3:36 am

If GHG’s can add heat to the oceans (they cannot) Then Water vapor dominates over the oceans – CO2 does not get a look in

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 5:33 am

Stephen, I think we have had this discussion before. The only net effect of the radiation partial insulation of the greenhouse gases is to raise the AVERAGE altitude of final radiation to space. the lapse rate changes are much less affected (they only depend on average specific heat of the atmosphere and gravity), so the lapse rate calculated downward from the higher average location of radiation to space to the surface requires a warmer surface for balance. Your comments on water vapor, surface skin effects, etc. are irrelevant.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 7:36 am

I was responding to your comment that “conduction, convection and evaporation only partially compensate to balance the radiation up reduction but not fully so the surface heats some.”
That does involve consideration of the effect of downward IR on the ocean skin.
In my view conduction and convection involve a closed ‘adiabatic’ energy loop that requires a higher surface temperature to sustain it but that is an entirely non radiative process so we can exclude that from current consideration.
That just leaves evaporation induced by downward IR and the huge energy demand of the evaporative phase change prevents any surface warming at all. Indeed, raising downward IR further intensifies the ocean skin effect.
We probably have discussed this before but since then I’ve satisfied myself that my description is indeed correct and have refined the terms of expression.
That probably won’t make it palatable to everyone though 🙂

February 8, 2017 2:05 pm

Educated guess is that the “heat” along the Pacific Equator is the result of the 10,000 or more underwater volcanoes (the “Ring of Fire”) from which the heat trail points to like an arrow.

David L. Hagen
February 8, 2017 2:22 pm

Mike Jonas
Good to see your innovative hypothesis with preliminary evidence supporting it.
PS Re: “Note: Wavelengths 200-300nm are all scattered in the atmosphere and don’t reach the ocean.].”
Don’t overstate your case. While not high, UV below 300 nm is incident, measurable, and can cause sunburn. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#/media/File:Erythemal_action_spectrum.svg>Sunburn effect

February 8, 2017 2:26 pm

To the author Mike Jones , The missing link that is continually left out of the climate change debate is the global electric circuit, the way Earth and the ionosphere exchange energy is the key to understanding the way climate and weather patterns are connected. When salty ocean water flows through the magnetic field, an electric current is generated and this, in turn, induces a magnetic response in the deep region below Earth’s crust – the mantle. Because this response is such a small portion of the overall field, it was always going to be a challenge to measure it from space. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Magnetic_oceans_and_electric_Earth
As time goes by, through observations like SWARM science will come to the conclusion that Earth’s internal processes and resistance that is produced by the charging processes from within, is the main driver that creates resistance (heat) from incoming space charges, whether it be from the sun or cosmic ray’s it’s Earth’s 6000C interior that provides our magnetic shielding.
5.1. Atmospheric circulation, lightning and climate
The global distribution of atmospheric discharges (CG, IC, TLEs)
driven by solar heating and also influenced by land/ocean dis-
tribution on the planet follow the general circulation patterns of
the atmosphere (Williams, 2005). Atmospheric discharges are the
main contributor to the global electric circuit. The electric field and
vertical current near cloud may influence the change in shape,
terminal velocities, collision, coalescence and disruption char-
acteristics of the drops (Coqillat et al., 2003;Bhalwankar and
Kamra, 2008,2013) which may affect precipitation and also sur-
face temperature. It is known that Africa, South America and
Southeast Asia regions rank from the most lightning active and
least rainfall region to least lightning active and most rainfall re-
gion (Williams and Stanfill, 2002;Christian et al., 2003;Siingh
et al., 2011). These regions also dominate the Walker circulation
which clearly support to the fact that the global circulation is
energized by the convective process in the atmosphere

Reply to  jmorpuss
February 8, 2017 5:07 pm

Should read “To the author Mike Jonas ” not Jones , my apologies

K. Kilty
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 8, 2017 3:08 pm

I think this explains why some of my postings disappeared when I used different versions of my name. I have now figured out the version that always works and have put it on all my machines. I am sorry you have to run such a tight filter.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  K. Kilty
February 8, 2017 6:55 pm

What you need is a plain Jane name like mine. Except for the fact that if you google it, you will get everything from Hollywood stars to prostitutes. That said, the less unique you are and the more consistently boring you are, the less trouble you will have getting comments to post. I am pedantically boring. Unless I have too many glasses of red wine. Then all bets are off.

K. Kilty
Reply to  K. Kilty
February 9, 2017 8:54 am

You are far too colorful to be Gray.

joe smith
February 8, 2017 3:02 pm

OT: i saw this odd radar pattern with what looks like a triangle over Sacramento. The right side is interesting, especially the upper part where the line of dry weather continues through rainy area. Is this easily explainable or? I stumbled onto a weather control site a few years ago and they were talking about HAARP iirc and i think it had strange patterns like in this image:
any thoughts?

February 8, 2017 3:09 pm

The answer is really simple. There never was any extra heat. The sun’s radiation does heat the upper surface of the water all the time, but there is a natural up welling along the coasts, warmer water will actually sink down in other spots, caused by the winds pushing the ocean water, and the Coriolis effect. The water welled up is cool and cools the surface. When we have El Nino, the water isn’t circulating the same way because winds change. This prevents the up welling action, so cold water doesn’t go to the surface, The surface then stays at the warmer because cold water isn’t brought up to mix with the warm. This was established long ago – don’t know why we need several paragraphs of head scratching.

Reply to  marque2
February 8, 2017 4:55 pm
Reply to  afonzarelli
February 8, 2017 5:03 pm

(bingo marque… ☺)

Pamela Gray
Reply to  marque2
February 8, 2017 6:57 pm

Awesome reply.

February 8, 2017 3:13 pm

That alone can explain the warming without CO2. More radiation reaching the oceans is all you need to warm the globe, CO2 has nothing to do with it. Even is the sun’s radiation is constant, fewer clouds allows more of that radiation to reach the oceans.comment image

February 8, 2017 3:27 pm

There is a big misunderstanding about what El Niño is, and this article is no exception.
To understand El Niño it is important to look at its paleoclimatology. Essentially there was no or very mild El Niño during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, and El Niño became a common feature during the Neoglacial period, increasing progressively in intensity. So El Niño characterizes a cooling world. But interestingly El Niño disappears during Bond events when the world is suddenly colder.
This is easy to explain when one understands the nature of El Niño. The energy of an El Niño is already within the system when El Niño starts, and originates from the Sun warming the oceans. Before an El Niño, this heat is partially lost to space through Outgoing Long wave Radiation (OLR), and partially transported by the meridional transport through oceanic currents and atmospheric transport towards higher latitude regions where there is a radiation deficit.
But the conditions that give rise to an El Niño mean that too much heat is accumulated in the equatorial Pacific to be transported by the Meridional Transport. El Niño is essentially a short circuit in the Meridional Transport. There is an outburst of heat towards the atmosphere. This produces an increase in tropical OLR detected by satellites, that coincides with El Niño index (MEI).
But most of the heat makes it through atmospheric transport increasing temperatures almost everywhere, producing the record temperatures. But eventually that heat makes it also to space as it has nowhere else to go. So what we record as increased heat and global warming, is actually a loss of heat by the system. The El Niño is therefore like a release valve outburst from a pressure cooker. It burns if you put your hand, but the cooker reduces its energy.
Now we can understand why El Niño is a feature of a cooling world. A cooling world is a world where the Meridional Transport is already working hard taking heat from the tropics towards the poles. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum the world was uniformly warmer and during Bond events colder than it is now, and the Meridional Transport did not saturate.
This also explains why we live in a period that doesn’t have as much El Niño intensity as previous periods. The world is warming and the Arctic amplification is reducing Meridional Transport by reducing the equator-polar gradient.
An El Niño means excess heat needed to get out of the planet. That’s all. It is a symptom, not a cause. Periods of frequent El Niño in the decadal timeframe during modern global warming are periods when the planet is warming and requires more frequent heat releases. When the planet is cooling, like between 1100-1500 AD, frequent El Niños mean faster cooling.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Javier
February 8, 2017 3:38 pm

It used to be thought that the warmer than present Pliocene must have had a near continuous El Nino condition, but such is not the case, based upon paleoproxy data.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 4:00 pm

20,000 years ago the Sun was producing the same amount of energy as today. Precession had almost identical solar irradiance distribution over the planet 20,000 years ago as today, and the axial tilt was at that time almost identical to today. Same amount of energy and near identical distribution over the planet, yet 20,000 years ago the planet was at its coolest in a specially hard glacial maximum, while today it is quite warm during an interglacial. Thermal inertia and heat transport are key to explain why the planet is in such different condition.
El Niño does not depend on temperatures, at least not alone. Meridional transport, as a manifestation of the equator-polar gradient is even more important. There is an interplay of atmospheric phenomena over the tropics that is a direct response to the amount of energy (heat) that needs to be transported, and that includes the quasi-biennial and the Julian-Madden oscillations.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 4:02 pm

Which just goes to show that a few minor parameter changes can produce major climatic shifts.

Reply to  Javier
February 9, 2017 6:00 am

Javier: “So what we record as increased heat and global warming, is actually a loss of heat by the system. ” Certainly heat is lost by the system in an El Nino. However, whether the system is cooling or heating also depends on the energy in as well as the energy out. The pressure cooker in your analogy has energy removed by the release valve, but it can still be getting hotter if we turn up the gas.

Reply to  seaice1
February 9, 2017 9:38 am

not unless the pressure inceases

Reply to  seaice1
February 9, 2017 1:50 pm

However, whether the system is cooling or heating also depends on the energy in as well as the energy out.

That is obviously correct. The important thing is that El Niño is a cooling mechanism. The world will continue warming if in a warming trend, and will cool faster if in a cooling trend. Since we are in a non-warming period (hiatus) those that believe that El Niño ended it are most likely wrong. It increases the chances of the hiatus continuing, specially if it is not followed by a La Niña that increases the energy going into the system.
With the AMO turning negative (or at least not increasing), and the Sun in a centennial minimum it is going to be complicated for the planet to recover the lost energy during El Niño and more to continue warming the planet. The reported death of the Pause has been greatly exaggerated.

February 8, 2017 3:29 pm

Please answer my simple question and you may find an answer to yours.
The Vukcevic correlation makes a lot of sense to me .
Why because every 9 years ( as I understand it ) the moons orbit is along the equator
as it was during this most recent El Nino .
It was also along the equator in 1998 ( as I recall ) , exactly 18 years ago .
Which also occurred close to a solar maximum ( coincidence ??? )
Surely therefore there must have been a massive tidal drag of water and atmosphere
towards the equator at that time . THE HOTTEST PART OF THE GLOBE . The
very place where it would gather the most possible heat both by mixing with warmer
water/air and from solar exposure .
There would also have been strong forces leading to increased volcanic activity
( Solar max + Moon gravitational max ) hence the Vukcevic correlation .
So my question is …… Why is the moon gravitational effect not considered relevant or
is it just ignored unintentionally .

steven f
Reply to  Ross
February 8, 2017 8:28 pm

The has orbital cycles, the moon does, and soda all of the planets. When el Nino was first recognized it appeared to occur about every 20 years. At the time there were no satellites in orbit and no hard data on the ocean to know what happened during an el Nino. If I recall correctly 1982 was the first time satellites were able to follow the an El Nino before and after it started. We now know they occur more frequently than 20years. However the biggest and strongest and most easily recognized ones still appear about every 20years.
Scientist have also recognized ocean currents have an effect on the heat moving around. Tidal currents in the pacific generally move surface water east to west. The editorial winds also generally blow east to west. Look at a map of the pacific. You will notice that was Asia, Australia and Indonesia form a funnel shape with a small outlet around Indonesia.
What appears to be happening is that the the Equatorial currents push warm water west ere it piles up. The hot water in the west pacific is either lost to the air or driven down by the currents. In the East Pacific around central america the warm water is close to the surface and the water gets cold very quickly as you go down. In the west pacific the warm water piles up and goes down and tends to stay there. The ocean currents and the shape of continents has in effect created a giant Thermal battery. As long as everything stays in balance the thermal charge of the battery stays constant. Unfortunately nothing stays constant.
The earths and moons orbital cycles combined withe gravitational pull of the sun cause the tidal current to periodically strengthen and weaken. When the current weakens some of the warm water in the western pacific rises to the top of the ocean and spreads out. The wind then gradually moves it around. This moving warm water will eventually interact with the atmosphere and this can eventually cause the the equatorial winds to weaken and even reverse direction. When the equatorial winds start blowing from east to west most of the warm water in the western pacific is moved east. it hits south and central america and starts to spread out into a thin large area a warm water at the surface. Most of the heat is then quickly dumped into the air. This destabilizes weather around the globe and increases the earths temperature. and the earth starts to cool.
When enough heat is lost the equatorial wind reestablish their normal east to west direction Eventually moving what warm water is left back to the east and recharging the thermal battery. A La Nina may form. During an El Nino Indonesia and Australia are in a drought due to less cloud cover cooler oceans. This extra light reaching the eastern pacific helps recharge the thermal battery. As the battery charges it helps to destabilize the normal weather patterns. Also if the sun is more active than normal it may overheat the ocean after the La Nina resulting in a step increase in temperature. At times when the sun is weak the Earth may take a step down in temperature.
If this description is correct the amount of heat released in each major El Nino will be very close to the amount released in the previous Major El Nino. Which is what appears to have happened between 1998 ad 2016. Most of the small difference appears to have come from the step increase the earth temperature that occurred after 1998. El Nino’s between 1998 and 2016 released less heat and had less impact which agains fits the above explanation. The suns output was in an upward trend between 1980 and 2000 which probably explains the more frequency larger El Nino during that period and the temperature increase of the ocean at that time. The thermal battery was constantly being overcharged and frequently leaked.

Reply to  steven f
February 8, 2017 9:40 pm

Interesting comment!

February 8, 2017 3:36 pm

Is it plausible that activating 1 out of 2,500 molecules can actually change the temperature of the entire atmosphere? The IR spectronomy shows the wavelength, not the temperature. CO2 isn’t a black body, it only represents a small fraction of the black body total energy.comment image

Reply to  co2islife
February 9, 2017 6:05 am

“Is it plausible that activating 1 out of 2,500 molecules can actually change the temperature of the entire atmosphere? ”
Yes, completely plausible. I don’t know why anyone would think otherwise. If I could magically target one in every 2500 water molecules in a swimming pool with a burst of energy it would inevitably increase the temperature of the pool.

Reply to  seaice1
February 9, 2017 6:11 am

The point is the ratio of energy to molecules. 1 degree is 1/300 the energy of a 300 degree body. Activating 1/2500 of the atmosphere to warm 100% means diluting that energy a lot. Those 1 out of 2500 molecules have to contain a whole lot of energy.

Reply to  seaice1
February 10, 2017 12:31 pm

You would change the temperature of your pool by the temperature difference between your 1 hot molecule versus the pool full of molecules times the specific heat factor of your molecule- resulting in an utterly unmeasurable temperature change, probably compensated for by an immeasurable amount of increased evaporation of pool water- probably about one molecule.
Then you would have to start making up temperatures to produce a “proof”. I’m not sure where you are going to park a ship in your yard with the engines running so you can pump pool water through the engine room to a temperature measurement point but, hey, go for it! Meanwhile, can I come and play in your pool? It’s -20C where I am.

Reply to  john harmsworth
February 10, 2017 12:37 pm

Global cooling means less rain at higher latitudes. Go south. I had two swims tonight. Pool is 28. Temp. Is now + 25.
You are so welcome here.
Pretoria. South Africa.
Originally Dutch. Would not be able to take your cold…

Reply to  co2islife
February 9, 2017 11:04 am

So how many air molecules are there per meter at sea level ? How far does a photon have to travel before it’s almost certain to run into a CO2 ? I understand it’s about 100m . That’s the basis of Beer’s law and why adding more makes little difference . The expressions for equilibrium temperature for any arbitrary spectra are on my http://CoSy.com in a downloadable APL .
But that straightforwardly computable spectral equilibrium , radiative balance , temperature does not change as one adds layers . The CO2 transfers heat to ( and from ) the molecules around it , but that does not change the equilibrium .
And in any case you are right : the atmosphere holds damn little total heat in any case .
The issue of why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops is separate and not answered by spectral equations .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
February 9, 2017 1:15 pm

Thanks, that 100 m is a nice jem.

February 8, 2017 4:05 pm

When i reached this line: “Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the atmosphere. From there, the downward Infra-Red (IR) radiation reaches the ocean surface.”
Totally BS!
“Greenhouse gases” doesn’t heat anything!
It doesn’t produce any energy (heat) and it doesn’t prevent energy from leaving the atmosphere, FULL STOP!!
Because the CO2-molecule is “blank” (doesn’t react) to infrared radiation in temperature between 220 – 320 K. (-53.15 to +46.85).
I won’t bother reading the rest when that is the standard ..

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
February 8, 2017 7:01 pm

““Greenhouse gases” doesn’t heat anything!”
Kind of correct, but you are conflating the kinetic temperature of GHG’s with the radiant emissions of GHG’s. The kinetic temperature of any atmospheric gas can not heat the surface, but arises by conduction with the surface and distributed by convection. GHG’s have an additional property, which is to absorb and emit photons of very specific wavelengths which is active in the LWIR related to all of the relevant temperature ranges, although below 0C, water vapor absorption is attenuated and below about 195K (temperature of dry ice), CO2 absorption is significantly attenuated.
The failure of consensus thinking, which unfortunately spills over into the thinking of many skeptics, is considering that most or all of the absorbed energy is converted into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion. This would make the atmosphere hotter than the surface enabling it to further heat the surface, although, the relative heat capacities of the surface and air above means that an atmosphere at T1 and a surface at T2 will will both converge in LTE to a temperature far closer to T2 than to T1.
Of course, this is not how GHG’s make the surface warmer than it would be without them. GHG’s convert very little of the energy absorbed into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion. CO2 specifically converts none. Water vapor converts some as an energized water vapor molecule that is not in the ground state condenses upon a droplet of liquid water. This is observed as slightly more than a 50% reduction in planet emissions in water vapor absorption lines as seen from space which is offset by a slight increase in the power emitted by the water in clouds and passing through the transparent window.
The mechanism that explains how GHG’s make the surface warmer than it would be otherwise is to delay some fraction of surface emissions that they absorb which are then added to new energy arriving from the Sun at a later time. The atmosphere doesn’t create energy, but retains some portion of old surface emissions and returns about half to the surface at a later time as the other half is added to the power passing through the transparent window in order to offset the 240 W/m^2 of average power arriving from the Sun.

richard verney
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 8, 2017 7:16 pm

The mechanism that explains how GHG’s make the surface warmer than it would be otherwise is to delay some fraction of surface emissions that they absorb which are then added to new energy arriving from the Sun at a later time.

And how long is the delay?
The Earth only receives solar for 12 hours a day, but radiates LWIR 24 hours a day.

Reply to  richard verney
February 8, 2017 8:33 pm

“And how long is the delay?”
For GHG’s, the delay between when energy is absorbed by a GHG molecule and ultimately emitted from a different molecule, is from milliseconds to seconds. For the water in clouds, it’s from minutes to hours. The O2 and N2 is irrelevant to the absorption and emission of energy by the atmosphere.
“The Earth only receives solar for 12 hours a day, but radiates LWIR 24 hours a day.”
The input path from solar energy to energy stored by the virtual surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun is orthogonal to the output path emitting LWIR from that surface, so what is the meaning of your statement?
At each point on the surface of the planet, the ‘equilibrium state’ of input power == output power occurs twice per day, once in the morning and again in the late afternoon. Similarly, each average of day/night emissions is equal to the average of its solar input twice per year, once in the Fall and again in the Spring. Mathematically, the planet’s steady state is a hierarchical collection of steady states, each acting with the same periodicity as the change in solar forcing driving it. Since each of these steady state solutions is defined in terms of joules, rather than temperature, superposition applies and they can be trivially summed and averaged to arrive at the total energy response. The energy response can then be converted to an EQUIVALENT temperature by applying the SB Law in reverse.
The EQUIVALENT temperature of the virtual surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun is close enough to the actual temperature of the actual surface we care about, they can be considered the same and often are for the purposes of surface temperatures derived from satellite measurements of LWIR.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 18, 2017 3:03 am

Nonsensical, dishonest word salad!
There’s no such thing as “Greenhouse gases”, and as i said in my previous post, CO2 doesn’t produce any energy. The closest we get a greenhouse gas is water vapor, but that is called latent heat.
“GHG’s have an additional property, which is to absorb and emit photons of very specific wavelengths which is active in the LWIR related to all of the relevant temperature ranges, although ..”
Question: How much more energy (you call it photons) does the CO2 molecule emit than it receive, and – in what temperature range does that magic occur?

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
February 18, 2017 7:20 am

“How much more energy (you call it photons) does the CO2 molecule emit than it receive, and – in what temperature range does that magic occur?”
Obviously, a GHG molecule will not emit more energy than it absorbs. Absorption and emission occurs at ALL temperatures where the GHG is in the gaseous phase, but only at specific wavelengths. It’s not magic, it’s called Quantum Mechanics, although to the untrained mind, Quantum Mechanics may seem like magic ….

Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 18, 2017 4:00 pm

IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2”
Mike Sanicola says:
I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
Even if CO2 actually did absorb energy in the temperature critical for the (now long failed) hypothesis to be valid for absorption, it still wouldn’t make anything warmer. That is why i call it magic. If that magic was in fact a possibility, humans wouldn’t have existed as the internal organs would have heated itself and neighboring organs to the point of self destruction, and that is a closed system, i.e. the effect would be much stronger if such an effect in fact did exist. I am, so it doesn’t – so it’s FAKE!

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
February 18, 2017 8:38 pm

Please stop being silly. There”s no question that water vapor is also a GHG and its effect is about 2/3 of the total GHG effect. The salient point is that water vapor is a GHG and operates in the same way as CO2. You can’t disregard the effect of CO2 just because the effect from water vapor is larger. None the less, the effect from CO2 is small by any metric, but it’s not zero.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 19, 2017 2:52 am

According to the scientific method, we agree we are going to use science and the scientific method, right!?
If so, according to the science and the scientific method, there has never been empirically measured or proven that CO2 does ANYTHING ELSE BUT TO COOL ..
(used to be for example a coolant