Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
My mind runs to curious things. Today it went to this one of Aesop’s Fables:
A man and a satyr once poured out libations together in token of a bond of alliance being formed between them. One very cold wintry day, as they talked together, the man put his fingers to his mouth and blew on them.
On the satyr inquiring the reason of this, he told him that he did it to warm his hands, they were so cold.
Later on in the day they sat down to eat, the food prepared being quite scalding. The man raised one of the dishes a little towards his mouth and blew in it. On the satyr again inquiring the reason of this, he said that he did it to cool the meat, it was so hot.
“I can no longer consider you as a friend,” said the Satyr, “a fellow who with the same breath blows hot and cold.”
What brought this to mind was looking at the temperature trends for the planet. I’ve always sort of assumed that the temperature trend varied somewhat around the world. But I was surprised to see how much of the world was cooling. Here’s a Pacific and a corresponding Atlantic centered view of the cooling, in degrees C, using the CERES satellite data starting in March of 2000.
Some of this I expected. The Southern Ocean, for example. But I certainly wouldn’t have guessed that most of South America is among the fastest cooling areas of the planet.
Here, the oddity is that almost the entire North Atlantic is cooling … didn’t see that coming. Same thing for the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Intrigued by that, I thought I’d take a corresponding look at the hot spots. Here are the same views, but this time showing the areas which are warming faster than 0.25°/decade.
The entirety of the eastern Pacific is warming fast … as is the center of the southern Indian Ocean. And Australia has it in spades.
Part of Eastern Brazil is warming fast … and western Brazil is cooling fast. Northern Africa is warming … and southern Africa is cooling. And all of Siberia is warming … say what?
I draw no overarching conclusions about this, except that I was surprised to find out that a quarter of the world is cooling …
My best to all. Me, I’m gonna stay up late on New Year’s Eve, but not to welcome 2021 in.
I’m doing it to make sure that 2020 leaves …
w.
The highest surface temperature in tropical oceans must not be higher than 32 degrees C.
Sea water freezes at -2 degrees C. Average (32 + 2)/2 = 17, which is extremely close to the global mean surface temperature.
Ren: “Sea water freezes at -2 degrees C. Average (32 + 2)/2 = 17, which is extremely close to the global mean surface temperature.”
WR: 17 degrees is very close to the average ocean surface temperature. Land cools more during winter time and is overall colder than the oceans. Therefore the average temperature for the Earth as a whole is lower than the average for the oceans. Oceans lead temperatures.
The reason: less water vapor over Land enables more cooling. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.
‘The reason: less water vapor over Land enables more cooling. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.’
This statement is fatally flawed.
The reason that land cools more is that there is much less heat required to be transferred to the atmosphere in order to cool the land compared to the ocean.
Firstly, the amount of energy available to transfer from a unit volume (ρCp) per degree of temperature is twice as high for the ocean as it is for land. Approximately 4 J/cm3 for the ocean vs less than 2 for land.
Secondly, the thermal diffusivity of the oceans (including thermal conduction plus convection) is orders of magnitude higher than for the ocean than for land (which has a relatively low thermal conductivity and no convection).
Quite simply the rate of energy transfer required to cool the land surface is orders of magnitude smaller than that required to cool the ocean surface.
It has nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases!
There are even more reasons why average Land is colder than the average ocean. Land is found more at higher latitudes, resulting in a colder average. I am well aware of more reasons, but all those reasons don’t prove that water vapor does not play its role.
In winter time a lot of people put an extra blanket on their bed to stay warm. ANY delay in heat loss results in more warming or in ‘keeping warm’ of what is below. Water vapor is causing such a delay.
dh-mtl: “This statement is fatally flawed.”
WR: unnecessary remark
Specious sophistry using red herring logical fallacies. Spin and circular illogic.
All of your bafflegab utterly fails to rebut “Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas“.
Less water vapor due to less evaporation over continents results in less CLOUD cover, on average, than over the ocean. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight back into space. CLOUDS control the planet’s temperature. One sq.M of additional cloud for one hour reflects more sunlight than CO2 IR “forcing” for the whole day……If the water cycle was taught in school instead of CO2 warming we would be a lot closer to truth in education…..
No. The reason the oceans are hotter than the land is because oceans are GEOTHERMALLY heated more than land (because they are deeper), and this heated water convects up and stays near the air surface.
Nothing to do with gases.
Zoe did you check average ocean bottom temperatures?
Have you heard of convection? Warm water rises to the top. Water is warmed at the bottom.
Now show us how this water manages to move upwards, without leaving a trace in the waters it passes through. Your hypothesis is as faulty as Trenberth’s “Missing heat”,
Faulty you say?
https://youtu.be/TrLbo_LeAlQ
Funny how the TOP of the water gets hotter first. How’d the coils at the bottom make it hot first at the top?
Another
https://youtu.be/UVeDMu70ezI
Already hotter at the top, further away from the heat source at the bottom.
Hmm…
“Water is warmed at the bottom.”
to 2 to 3ºC at 4 -5km depth.. really warm, hey 😉
Funny how ocean is COLDEST at the bottom,
….. but the atmosphere is WARMEST at the bottom
Your conjecture reminds me of a little ditty……
There’s a hole in your bucket, dear zoe…..
https://youtu.be/TrLbo_LeAlQ
TOP of the water (Air bottom) gets hot first.
Keep in mind this is a cylinder. The actual ocean has fewer deeper hot spots, so it gets diffused. That’s why the bottom never gets hot like the top in this electric kettle example.
Maybe my bucket is fine and people should examine their geothermal denial?
Zoe,
Have you heard of stable inversion layers wherein cold fluids overlay warmer fluids?
Ref: “Occurrence of temperature inversions in the upper layer of the ocean”, Takashi Ichiye (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00880572 )
The hot spots between Madagascar and Africa are exactly where there is massive volcanic activity. Last year, the largest undersea volcano ever erupted there. In less than 6 months it rose almost a km high and 4km wide.
Complete nonsense.
Zoe Phin: “The reason the oceans are hotter than the land is because oceans are GEOTHERMALLY heated more than land (because they are deeper), and this heated water convects up and stays near the air surface.”
WR: Geothermal heat is about 0.1 W/m2. Solar absorption is around 161 W/m2. All solar is lost on a regular basis and heat loss by the surface is very (!) dynamic. Which means that a little bit more energy from below (for example 0.1 W/m2) is easily lost, together with the dynamic 1610 times higher ‘standard heat loss’.
If not aware of the dynamic and temperature dependent surface cooling: read for example this one: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/03/albedic-meanderings/
P.S. when an intelligent person like you continues to repeat the already many times refuted ‘geothermally heated ocean theory’. I have serious doubt about your intentions.
Wim, I agree with everything but your PS. I have no doubt that Zoe’s intentions are good.
The problem is that she has fundamental misunderstandings of physics that she holds on to, no matter how many scientists tell her that she’s wrong.
The issue is best exemplified by a maxim of my mother’s, viz:
Here’s an example from her website about the geothermal heating:
An examination of that reveals that it is missing an important component—Downwelling Longwave. However, Zoe assures us that downwelling longwave is an impossibility, for reasons I’ve never understood. And as a result, she calculates the “geothermal emission” as being 335.643 W/m2 … which, quite unsurprisingly, is close to the generally accepted value for downwelling longwave.
So in addition to being unfamiliar with the concept of “significant digits”, she doesn’t understand the concept of downwelling thermal (longwave) radiation.
Here’s another example. She correctly calculates the earth’s “CHF”, the conductive heat flux, as being on the order of five-hundredths of a W/m2 (or to use her numbers, “0.0489157 W/m²”).
Then, having calculated the CHF, she sails off the edge of the earth:
where k is the conductivity of the earth.
And from that, she deduces that in the absence of the sun, the surface of the earth would be … hang on, let me get the exact number … 13.08 °C.
Now, back before I realized the strength of her curious scientific claims, I tried pointing out that an object at ~13°C loses heat by radiation at a rate on the order of 380W/m2 … no joy.
I tried explaining to her that to remain at a steady-state temperature, the conductive heat flux would have to equal the 380 W/m2 of losses … no joy.
I said that her claim, that the heat flux leaving the ground was thousands of times larger than the heat flux passing through the ground, was physically impossible. I said it was the equivalent of saying that more water could come out of the end of a hose than is flowing through the hose … no joy. She has some complex explanation of how that happens, and she won’t be moved.
So eventually, I did what I would advise you all to do, and what took me too long to do—not try to debate her. I leave her alone, because her misunderstandings are far too fixed for mere mortals to dislodge.
My best to you, and Zoe, I seriously think that your intentions are good, and that you’re not a troll of any kind.
However, please don’t bother trying to refute what I said above. I’m done debating with you. It reminds me of the old joke, viz:
I’d like to think I’m at least as smart as the rat.
w.
Willis,
You still don’t understand that a pyrgeometer measures NET IR. All electronics can only measure NET IR. That’s why 1st LoT is stated as CHANGE in internal energy, not absolute energy.
Your “Downwelling” IR is derived, not measured, and it’s really Upwelling-from-instrument IR.
http://phzoe.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/
Zoe, perhaps you didn’t understand what I said, although I thought it was quite clear. Here it is again:
I am totally serious in that. Discussing things with you is not interesting to me in the slightest, because nothing I or anyone else says makes even the slightest dent in your armor. I could go talk to a rock and have the same effect … so for me, there’s no cheese at the end of the maze.
My best to you,
w.
Thanks Willis. I will take your advice. Time is precious.
Wim, you need to compare like with like.
Simplified:
Temperature is based of energy.
“Heat Flux” is a DIFFERENCE of energies.
Here’s some more info:
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
Zoe Phin posted: “Temperature is based of energy. ‘Heat Flux’ is a DIFFERENCE of energies.”
Hmmm . . . does a kilogram of mass of ice at 0 C have the same internal energy as a kilogram of liquid water at 0 C? And does a kilogram of liquid water at 100 C have the same internal energy as a kilogram of steam at 100 C?
And is there a heat flux between two cars of equal mass, one passing the other going in the same direction, with the passing car having twice the velocity (and hence four times the kinetic energy) of the slower car, relative to a stationary observer?
These are simplified questions, so I expect to receive simplified answers. And, please, nothing linked to phzoe.com .
Of course, three days later and Zoe Phin has not replied regarding her sophomoric misunderstand of basic thermodynamics.
Why am I not surprised?
Currently, as can be seen from the graphic, the maximum ocean surface temperature in the western Pacific is just above 30 degrees C.
By the way, it is worth noting an increase in the SOI index.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
About time – with the deepening La Nina.
Ren, you might be interested in this post of mine called “ARGO and the Maximum Ocean Temperature“.
w.
“Note that there is less of the southern ocean that reaches 30°C, and it is restricted to areas closer to the equator.”
“Orbital variation has minuscule effect on the average TOA insolation but rather the time of the year it reaches its maximum and minimum as well as the difference between those values.”
Florida – a maritime climate, with clouds and rain – is on te same latitude as the rainless and cloudless Sahara desert.
Which is warmer, on average?
The answer is that they are pretty much identical as far as I could gather from an afternoons googling.
You can do the same comparison between say Death Valley and bits of the Eastern seaboard.
Leo, I had better said: in the absence of the Sun the lack of water vapor enables fast cooling, especially being the case for large land surfaces at higher latitudes, there where there is some distance to the sea. When you compare this map:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/?mdl_id=gfs&dm_id=world-ced&wm_id=pwtr
with this map:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/?mdl_id=gfs&dm_id=world-ced&wm_id=t2
you see what I mean. At the same (higher) latitude the water vapor rich places can maintain a higher temperature during winter time (now) than water vapor poor places.
During summer time the availability of plenty of water mitigates temperatures in the higher temperature range, but also diminishes nighttime cooling. See what happens with temperatures in Mumbay/Bombay (at the same latitude as the south Sahara) after the first rains enable large scale evaporation and full formation of clouds. Less daytime heating, less nighttime cooling. Mitigating day and night temperatures.
https://www.buienradar.nl/weer/bombay/in/1275339/klimaat
I should have been more precise.
I spent a summer working in Death Valley in the mid 1970’s when I was a college student. I never traveled anywhere in the valley without a two gallon jug of water and a bottle of salt tablets.
Thirty years later, in the mid 2000’s, I spent a year on the eastern seaboard working project planning exercises for the nuclear renaissance.
A temperature of 90 degrees F in the eastern seaboard’s high humidity feels a whole lot warmer to the senses than does a temperature of 120 degrees F in Death Valley’s very low humidity.
Why not?
The scale does not permit it. And it is true for December but not the case for August in the Persian Gulf.
Open ocean water cannot exceed 32C because the heat rejection rises rapidly once cloudburst occurs, which happens when the ocean surface temperature reaches 26C.
You should use black lines in your graphs Rick.
Because black lines matter.
(sorry, couldn’t resist this)
That makes me smile.
My logic for the green was that the ocean thermostat is not too warm (usually bright red) and not too cold (usually dark blue) but close to balmy 28C; warm for most but cool for some. My grandkids are learning to swim in an indoor pool held at 33C. I can spend all day in water that is 30C with just some waterlogged skin to show for it.
Actually if you looked at the data for August there is one small region of sea surface that is warmer than 32C although you would need to extend the range beyond 32C.to see it.
The graph below explains this: The evaporation pressure is the liquid water vapour pressure and the rate of evaporation depends on the difference between that and the Partial Pressure of water prevailing in the atmosphere. (the humidity). At around 20 to 30C this rate of evaporation rapidly escalates so that the energy being absorbed from radiation is matched and converted to Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature where it rises through buoyancy for dissipation in the clouds and space rather than in warming the ocean. The 32C figure seems in practice to be some form of average equilibrium value here.
Incidentally CO2 has nothing to do with this movement of energy up through the atmosphere for dissipation.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/cJdDT3HOY5rRd2v54tz8LtxagJz3QlRPVZLqZN8Ixb3lrP-ZY-ANY-ht_nDTYXZ284wjehy1VxF7Z7K0Zk0Y6onRerTfvwzPq-3RBgpjlGmaYMITPSAyZsDTTH0QOrqf98Sf7PYx
“What brought this to mind was looking at the temperature trends for the planet.”
Yes, but over what period?
It matters – I show here
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html
the trends for various decade periods. The longer period you choose, the less fraction you see cooling (although there is always some).
Thanks, Nick. My bad for not specifying that. I’ll put a note in the head post. It covers the CERES satellite data, starting in 2000,
w.
We have the Holocene Conundrum where a 10,000 cooling trend is seen in spite of the climate models that insist that shouldn’t be happening.
Where do you find climate models that insist that it shouldn’t be happening?
If they operate over that period, they will take orbital variation into account. And I’m pretty sure they would show cooling.
I’m a bit busy right now. Can I ask you to google Holocene conundrum for yourself.
Oh c’mon now Bob, I am sure the science is all settled really.
<fx hollow laugh>
Orbital variation has minuscule effect on the average TOA insolation but rather the time of the year it reaches its maximum and minimum as well as the difference between those values.
Climate models have sensitivity to only one factor – CO2. The predicted temperature is a simple function of the CO2 concentration.
100%. That is why there are such differences in temperatures in the northern and southern hemispheres.
The hotspot in the south central Pacific appears to occur naturally with La Nina.
Well Nick, they dont even take clouds into account, so why would you think they would take ‘orbitalVariation™’ (Whatever that is, beyind a handwavy way of dismissing data you don’t want to listen to) into account?
Which way does the orbital variation point to, less more, or the same? Is the mechanism variations in insolation or changes in insolation at a particular latitude? I don’t think anyone has shown the mechanism for switching from a glacial to an interglacial, or why it changed from an approximately 40K year cycle to the current 100K year cycle. All these questions have to be answered before your assertion has validity. otherwise, it’s the same complaint a lot of us have – the physics and assumptions in your models are unverified.
Loren, here’s a look at what might answer your question, my post called Greenland Is Way Cool.
w.
Nick writes “If they operate over that period, they will take orbital variation into account. And I’m pretty sure they would show cooling.”
As opposed to coming out of glaciation a couple of thousand years before that?
This is another post-hoc argument. My counter argument is that I’m pretty sure the GCMs aren’t capable of resolving that difference. Nor are they capable of getting us out of glaciation.
Well thanks commieBob, you gave me incentive to search out a paper I hadn’t seen before
The Holocene temperature conundrumhttps://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501
It destroys Nicks argument and puts yet another nail in the coffin of the models. As if they needed any more nails.
For example, its reasonably well established (through proxy measurement) that the holocene has been slowly cooling since coming out of glaciation, however the models find the opposite.
“We analyzed transient climate simulations in three coupled ocean–atmosphere models [Community Climate System Model 3 (CCSM3) (7), Fast Met Office/UK Universities Simulator (FAMOUS) (8), and Loch-Vecode-Ecbilt-Clio-Agism Model (LOVECLIM) (9); Methods] that are subject to realistic climate forcings of orbitally driven insolation variations, GHGs, continental ice sheets, and the associated meltwater fluxes. The three models all simulate a robust annual mean warming (∼0.5 °C) throughout the Holocene (Fig. 1, black and yellow), leaving a model-data inconsistency in global annual temperature of ∼1 °C. This inconsistency affects model-data comparison of the temperature trend mainly for the Holocene, rather than the last millennium (after ∼1 ka) or the early deglaciation (before ∼10 ka).”
AMO on downward trend. In a few years much of the World will be cooling.
And the Warmists will REALLY have to alter the past data to keep AGW alive….
That makes Biden the Great White Hope.
It’s an easy transition for Joe, being already the Great White Dope
In southern hemisphere it’s till winter in stratosphere:
A crucial point: Noctilucent clouds form during summer. And that’s the problem. Although summer officially started in Antarctica one week ago, the southern stratosphere still seems to think it’s winter. In particular, the stratospheric polar vortex, which should be breaking up around now, is stubbornly hanging on. The polar vortex chokes off gravity waves, which would normally carry water vapor into the upper atmosphere. Without water vapor, NLCs cannot form.
“The southern hemisphere stratosphere is very unusual this year,” says Randall. “The ozone hole is exceptionally large, until recently zonal winds have been blowing in the wrong direction, and overall the stratosphere is much more ‘winter-like’ than it should be in December.”
Eventually, the stratosphere will shift into its summer-like state, and NLCs can begin to blossom. But when? Researchers don’t know. If the clouds remain suppressed only one more week, it will break previous records of low NLC activity in the southern hemisphere.
Spaceweather Monday, Dec. 28, 2020 and
Strange Antarctic Weather Extends to the Edge of Space
“The ozone hole is exceptionally large, until recently zonal winds have been blowing in the wrong direction, and overall the stratosphere is much more ‘winter-like’ than it should be in December.”
How can that be? The Montreal Protocol stopped production of CFC’s over 30 years ago!
There is a limit as to how late you can ‘stay up’ on news year’s eve. Hopefully you’ll have enough time to usher out 2020 but be careful what you wish for.
Quote of the day:
“Me, I’m gonna stay up late on New Year’s Eve, but not to welcome 2021 in.
I’m doing it to make sure that 2020 leaves …” – Willis Eschenbach
What kind of year will 2021 be? Average. Better than 2022, and worse than 2020.
Very droll! Please permit me to use these words without reference.
Permission granted. Actually, it is an old Soviet “joke”.
… maybe very troll-ish …
Me, I’m always happy when someone uses what I’ve written, with or without attribution. I learned early on that I can achieve almost anything as long as I don’t care who takes the credit.
w.
I wonder how many readers will recognize the autology? (Willis practices what he preaches.) 😉
Willis,
Letting others take credit for your ideas without rancour is an excellent attribute. I worked for someone who regularly stole the ideas of people who worked for him. I’d go as far as to say he was hated for it. The end result was nobody put forward or discussed ideas in his presence and when problems arose there was not a lot of assistance for him, as everyone was aware how the solution would be presented.
The end result was detrimental to all involved.
Hey Ben I think I worked with the same bloke, actually there were several of them ( in a major mining company in Aus) and when the guys that departed get together for a beer or 2 we still laugh about it
I used to use a trick at work. My ideas were usually reject without consideration. I resorted to mentioning them 3 times, and then waiting a few weeks for them to become someone else’s idea and accepted. Worked like a charm. Always be willing to let other’s get the credit if it allows a good idea to get into practice.
There seems to be a 97% consensus on the point.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2020+%22one+star%22&iax=images&ia=images
We can “thank” Mr. Xi for 2020.
And I don’t imagine he is going to change his ways, so 2021 might be interesting, too, especially if we have a compromised Joe Biden as president. The Bad Guys of the world will be on the move, encouraged by the belief that Biden will not stand in their way.
<blockquote>I’m doing it to make sure that 2020 leaves …</blockquote>
Yeah? Just wait until 2020 turns 21 and starts drinking.
Why do we allow people who are not mature enough to drink to vote?
Democrats think that younger, less experienced, more gullible people are more easily fooled, and will vote for them, so they try to get the voting age as low as possible.
I think the minimum for voting should be 25 years old. That’s about the time the human brain finally matures (if it matures at all; some don’t).
In the US, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1971, lowering the voting age to 18. It was primarily a response to the draft during the Viet Nam war, when the slogan “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” became prevalent, though it had been an issue since WW II. I was in college at the time, and seeing first hand the level of discourse and logic un-abounding, knew it was a mistake, as it has proven to be. The 23rd Amendment giving the city of Washington, D.C. 3 Electoral votes (the same as the smallest state) is another.
Voting is a first class right at 18, as specified, but the right to keep and bear arms defined in the 2nd amendment is a second class right according to the courts. Many states do not allow voters under the age of 21 to buy a handgun because those from 18 to 20 are too irresponsible. Many of these laws have been upheld in multiple federal courts. If the age of majority, as specified by the age to vote, is 18, than all ADULT rights should apply to all adults.
This is so simple but our appointed judges can’t get it right.
Start rant: An appointee to the SCOTUS should be specified as minimum 60 years old, married and never divorced, having raised at least 3 children and in reasonably good health. ALL of his or her children likewise shall meet the following requirements of the appointee: Has never declared bankruptcy, accepted government handouts such as welfare, food stamps or Medicaid or been convicted of any crime less minor traffic violations. He or she shall never have taken any special training in the law or ever held elected position at any level of government. The following requirement shall NOT apply to the candidates children: No one with more than a junior college degree or more than 70 credit hours of secondary education will be allowed. The names of prospective SCOTUS candidates are to be randomly picked from ALL US citizens who have NEVER been registered to vote, qualifications verified, and the first 5 so qualified to be forwarded to POTUS for selection of the nominee. The POTUS shall have 1 hour with each candidate who’s name shall be secret and who all shall be sequestered until nominated. The POTUS to rank the candidates from 1 to 5. The US Senate will have 1 hour to question the first candidate and then immediately vote up or down. If none of the 4 first presented is acceptable to the Senate, the 5th shall automatically be appointed. There shall be no additional candidates selected and no do-over for the Senate.
These people would rule from the COMMON sense reading of the US constitution, End rant.
Willis,
Always look forward to your posts as I always learn something. Respectfully, a couple of clarifications might be warranted. (1) What is the source of the data used for these trends and over what period are these trends calculated? (2) I’m almost certain these are all deg Celsius but it never really says anywhere and maybe should be explicit? I think I know the answers from your previous posts but many others might not.
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but I re-read and didn’t see the data source. Thanks for taking the time to post these.
Bruce
Bruce, Nick Stokes made the same point, and I’ve updated the head post to clarify that.
w.
Hi Willis,
thanks for another great article! I’m grateful and inspired by your writings.
I was looking at the CERES website, but I cannot find any temperature data there.
My question to you:
What’s your methodology to get temperatures from CERES fluxes?
How to you get from TOA fluxes and surface fluxes to temperatures?
There are some 40 different time series to choose from.
Would be great to learn more about exactly which time series are used to construct the surface temperatures!
Or are you using the some calculated net fluxes as proxies for temperatures, and just looking at differences of over time?
(I asked the same question downthread, but maybe you missed it, so try here instead.)
“I’ve always sort of assumed that the temperature trend varied somewhat around the world. But I was surprised to see how much of the world was cooling.”
_______________
I guess that would be influenced by the period under consideration, which I can’t see mentioned here. If it’s only a few years then I would have expected there to be considerable global variation caused by ocean oscillations, etc. Over the longer term, say 30 years, I would expect these to even out and a more uniform pattern to emerge.
For instance, if the trend is run from 2016 then you would expect to see cooling in the mid-Pacific and other regions, because that trend would be strongly influenced by the 2015/16 El Nino warming event. ENSO has now transitioned to its La Nina phase, so of course there’s a cooling trend since 2016. If there wasn’t it would be astonishing. Over a period of several decades, several ENSO cycles, much less trend fluctuation would be expected.
So what period is used here?
As always, very interesting.
Looking at the graphics, dry land areas seem to warm (because of a rising moisture degree I guess, causing less cooling during the nights).
The Eastern Pacific is warming there where oceanic upwelling plays a role. It seems (my guess) that less trade winds cause less upwelling and so warming of the local surface and warming overall. Less cold water from below + less mixing of upper waters by less wind cause a relative warming of ocean surfaces. For some time.
At some locations more rising air may be expected. For example in the Arctic and the ITCZ. For the Arctic: warming subsurface waters cause ice melt and by consequence more water vapor is found in the air, resulting in more low pressure areas, causing more mixing of surface waters with warmer waters below. A cooling mechanism. For the ITCZ: more tropical excess heat has to be transported upward after being transported by the Hadley cells to the central zone for ‘uptake’ of the excess heat to higher elevations.
Because of rising air in the mentioned warmer areas somewhere else air must descend. That somewhere else is in the areas of high pressure: above the Antarctic, spreading to the north and above the tropical gyres in the oceans. The cold(er) air from above (the stratosphere is cooling, probably by more CO2 and by some intrusions of low quantities of water vapor into the stratosphere), that colder air is also drier, enabling more energy loss: regional cooling results.
All systems seem to reflect a well working cooling system, recognizable on the maps. When globally winds will return and more mixing of the ocean surfaces will take place there will be some stabilization, perhaps even an overall cooling of the oceans. Impossible to say when.
All we know is that climate behaves in cycles. Some cycles take up to a century or more before reversing.
Willis, I’m shocked that you’re shocked about cooling in the north Atlantic.
Q: I wonder which 2007 AR4 CMIP 3 model predicted this?
A: none.
So the Cargo Cult modelers just keep tweaking their runway (model) designs and hoping those darn cargo planes (CAGW) will land when they get it right.
”And Australia has it in spades.”
with 2000 as a starting point…but..
https://postlmg.cc/627Cw6sM
Loved your parting shot Willis. How true.
Shouldn’t a global warming caused by a “well mixed greenhouse gas” warm just about everywhere, if we are assuming it is the “control knob” of climate? It would warm more in dryer and cooler areas, but I would not expect the splotches you found.
On the other hand, in a complex system where lots of mechanisms are at play (but a general warming is occurring), we would expect to find seemingly random areas that are cooling versus areas that are warming. (they are not really random, we just can’t account for all of the variables as yet)
So I guess I am not surprised with this result. It seems consistent with a climate system that is more complex then one variable.
My apologies to the alarmist but stories about warming never disrupt my peace of mind. On the other hand stories about the earth cooling… I know what real winter is like. Trust me. You don’t want winter, even a mild winter to be your one season.
It would be most interesting and in formative to see a histogram of these anomalies. 27% cooled sounds “surprising”, but is it? If the cool bits have cooled a lot less than the warm bits have warmed – and a histogram would show that quite nicely – then over such a short period it might actually be unsurprising.
LOL! Wotcha gonna do about it, if it doesn’t, Willis?
Here is much freaking out, going down, because new mutation is more infectious and nastier. And kills young people as well as non-whites.
And we can’t get much more locked down than we are
Willis, thank you for including maps that show the European side of the world too.
Nice to see those change maps, thanks Willis.
Warming oceans are on the face of it the strongest evidence of global warming – a lot of energy needed to warm all that water.
There are two choices as to how to respond, scientifically, to data showing recent ocean warming:
Reaction 1: Assume with zero evidence that before the recent measured warming, ocean temperatures were always static and unchanging. Thus conclude that warming is unusual and alarming and the basis of political action to shut down industry and stop burning things. That the human habit dating from 300,000 years ago of lighting fires is evil and must stop.
Reaction 2: Look for more observational data from the palaeo record of how the whole ocean’s temperature – not just sea surface – has changed or not changed. Find out whether the current warming is normal or unusual in the context of what has happened before.
The approach of the mainstream climate science community is reaction 1.
If you take reaction 2, what you find is that ocean temperature over the Holocene has fluctuated with an amplitude greater than the last century warming. Such that the warming of the last few decades is completely normal and unremarkable.
In the following paper, take a look at figure 2. Not only deep Atlantic temperatures both in the north and the equatorial region, but also the deep flow rates at a sea floor location to measure “ISOW” – Iceland-Scotland overflow water, showing the deep flow rate of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation.) This data shows continual oscillation of Atlantic temperatures at all depths over the whole Holocene. It nicely shows both in the North Atlantic and also the Sargasso sea (tropical) the LIA, the MWP, the dark ages cold and the Roman-Minoan warm periods.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200032692_Holocene_periodicity_in_North_Atlantic_climate_and_deep-ocean_flow_south_of_Iceland
Indeed the only finding that would be unusual and alarming, would be static ocean water temperatures over several decades. That would be bizarre and unphysical.
From the paper: “(…) the Little Ice Age, centred at 400 yr BP, which, in our record, coincides with reduced ISOW flow intensity”
WR: Cold periods: less in- and outflow for the Arctic, warm periods: high in- and outflow.
Always in search for ‘the mechanism’ this probably is the one: in a warmer period, more ice melts, more water vapor over more open seas results in more low pressure areas over the Arctic, those storms break the ice and mix the water below, warmer deep water reaches the surface enhancing ice melt and enhancing the cooling of deep water plus enhancing the deposit of snow on the continents aside of the Arctic.
When the Arctic has lost most of its ‘surplus heat’ and fresher water again covers the Arctic more ice will be formed, less water vapor will fill the air, weather systems change back to high pressure over the Arctic and the inflow of warm Atlantic is [partly] halted. Because of a smaller subsurface inflow the deep outflow from the Arctic is diminished as well. And because less warm water is transported to the Arctic the higher latitudes cool, loose even more water vapor, loose pole ward transport because of fewer and weaker low pressure areas etc. etc. The temporary cooling trend.
Phil Salmon: Indeed the only finding that would be unusual and alarming, would be static ocean water temperatures over several decades. That would be bizarre and unphysical.”
WR: Nothing to add
The Arctic air pressure reciprocal feedback that you describe is no doubt an important part of the system. I had previously thought of strong-weak alternation of the AMOC (i.e. AMO) in terms of the salinity-downwelling (deep water formation) feedback only, i.e. only ocean processes, but it makes sense for there to be an atmospheric component also.
In the paper the relationship holds for most of the Holocene that weaker AMOC (ISOW) flow means colder and stronger means warmer. Less and more poleward heat transport respectively. This breaks down at the early Holocene due to interference from ongoing glacial melt from land stirring things up, which seems reasonable.
Okay, Willis, what if the northern half starts growing big, fat glaciers and nobody believes it except us poor, uninformed plebes down here on the ground?
Just akin’, because we aren’t all THAT far from the last meltback.
Have a very happy New Year!
Very illuminating to read this!
Willis, you say that you use “CERES satellite data starting in March of 2000”
I was looking at the CERES website, but I cannot find any temperature data there.
What’s your methodology?
How to you get from TOA fluxes and surface fluxes to temperatures?
There are some 40 different time series to choose from.
Would be great to learn more about exactly which time series are used to construct the surface temperatures!
**I draw no overarching conclusions about this, except that I was surprised to find out that a quarter of the world is cooling …**
Willis, did you mean a quarter is cooling or a quarter is warming??
A quarter of the world is cooling. Another quarter is warming at > 25°C.
w.
There’s more cooling in the southern hemisphere than the northern.
It looks a little like a bipolar seesaw and interhemispheric heat piracy.
The Atlantic has a way of funneling heat all the way from Antarctica to the Arctic.
There are widespread signs of deep cooling in the southern hemisphere oceans:
Widespread signals of Southern Hemisphere ocean cooling (and AMOC heat piracy) – Odyssey (wordpress.com)
That’s enough blogging – time to offer up a 2020 Christmas libation…
Abstract
[1] Climate changes are driven largely by variations in the distribution of solar insolation associated with changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters. Here we define the rate of solar insolation change (RSIC) as a parameter to evaluate and quantify solar heating changes through time. We propose that RSIC may control the timing of transitions between warm and cold periods through its control on the rate of climate changes. Specifically, the glacial/interglacial transitions took place when the 65°N July insolation experienced the most rapid changes; interglacials start with a maximum positive RSIC and end with a maximum negative RISC. The RSIC curve thus provides a new astronomically tuned method for dating interglacials. The 65°N July RISC curves average a 4.7 ky lead compared to ice sheet changes as indicated by Bassinot et al. [1994] for the last 0.9 Ma, possibly implying a more rapid response of monsoonal climate to the insolation heating.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025401
Do high solar cycles delay cooling in the Northern Hemisphere?
Let’s look at 10 solar cycles.
Timid UK presenters call it the “warming hole” in the north Atlantic so as not to get fired or have their career cut short.
Willis, thank you for your continuing articles, with attendant superb color plots, that give great insight into the reality of today . . . which is often quite different for what theory and computer models say.
In the case of your above article, I must conclude that the famous (infamous?) Kiehl & Trenberth diagram of Earth’s power fluxes is obviously a gross over-simplification of reality.
Have a healthy and happy 2021!
Thanks Willis, I appreciate you presenting complicated data in an easily digestible form. We need more of this, like you I’m a data sort of guy.
Good one Willis! Cheers Sir in the new year.
Willis,
Thanks for another informative article and your continuing work throughout 2020.
Many readers look forward especially to your posts,as I do.
Happy New Year to you and your family and friends.
Thanks, Herbert. In part, it is responses like yours that keep me writing.
The other part, near as I can tell, is ascribable to congenital defects that I inherited from The Captain’s Daughter …
w.
I would really appreciate to get input from Willis on the methodology on how to get from CERES fluxes to temperatures. (Already asked twice, above, without reply)
I found another post by Willis, from 2015, where he investigates the same topic, and he writes: “there is indeed a relationship between the sustained TOA imbalance and the temperature. And as one might also expect, increasing net TOA radiation is associated with increasing temperature. However, the relationship is far from linear. Instead, it varies with the temperature.”
Especially over land, the relationship is not very linear at all, see chart, which is Figure 4 from the 2015 paper.
Willis concludes: “The one solid conclusion is that the relationship between forcing and temperature is both non-linear and temperature dependent, with the temperature response generally diminishing with increasing temperature. My other conclusion is that given the significant lack of linearity, any average value for the relationship between TOA radiation and temperature is bound to be both misleading and meaningless.”
Thus, I think it would be great to get a comment from Willis on what the methodology is, and whether this issue with non-linearities over land has been corrected for (if needed) in the current paper?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/08/temperature-and-toa-forcing/
My apologies, Gabriel, I missed your question.
I used the S-B equation to go from the upwelling surface longwave to temperatures. I’ve checked the results, and they are very close to the Berkeley Earth data. The CERES data is 0.44°C warmer for the globe. Once that difference is adjusted, here is the Berkeley Earth minus CERES.
As you can see, the only regions that are more than 0.4°C different between the two are the poles … where data is scarce. I could get it closer, but it’s plenty close enough for the work I’m doing. And we have no guarantee of the accuracy of the Berkeley Earth data …
I use the CERES data because it is energy balanced with all of the other flows.
Hope this helps,
w.
Thanks Willis,
it helps.
CERES is of course superior to other data.
Thus, it’s pretty fantastic that we have such a close correlation with surface temperatures.
You haven’t mentioned albedo in the article, nor has any of the comments. Wouldn’t local deviations seen in your maps also be due to albedo effects, mainly cloud albedo? Maybe local changes in albedo over time can explain the local differences in temperatures? Could be so for the Arctic due to less ice, and could be so over the Amazones due to changes in forestation.
Some technical questions:
Thanks, Gabriel. Regarding your questions:
1) I use Berkeley Earth because it has the best coverage, and I know a couple of the people on the project. Do I trust it? No more than any of the others.
2) For the purpose of temperature, I use the surface upwelling longwave dataset.
3) Again for temperature purposes, I use the all-sky data.
As to the albedo question, in theory at least, albedo is accounted for in the CERES data … it has six albedo datasets.
Four of them are clear-sky and all-sky versions of the surface reflection and toa reflections.
Then there are the CRE datasets, the “cloud radiation effect”. There are surface and toa versions