Ocean Surface Temperature Limit-Part 1

By Richard Willoughby

May 2021

(The author appreciates the availability NASA’s Earth Observations satellite data sets used in this analysis.)

This is a three part series that analyses the role of atmospheric water in regulating Earth’s thermal balance.

Part 1 is an analysis of the temperature of tropical ocean warm pools and the temperature limiting processes.

Part 2 discusses the mechanism of deep convection concluding with the persistency of clouds over ocean warm pools.

Part 3 examines the global ocean energy balance over an annual cycle month-by-month to identify the role of atmospheric water in regulating the energy balance.

Part 1:  Observed Ocean Surface Temperature Regulation – Upper Limit

Ocean surface temperature observations show that less than 10% of open ocean surface water exceeds an annual average surface temperature of 30C.  Also less than 1% of the ocean surface exceeds 32C for more than a few days.  The thermostatic upper limit of 30C for ocean warm pools has been observed scientifically since at least the 1970s and is easily observed globally in the current era using satellite measurements.  Each year, warm pools reach their maximum extent of around 9% of the ocean water surface area in April as both Tropical Western Pacific and Indian Ocean reach peak heat uptake.  This is observed with reference to Figure 1.

Figure 1: Global map highlighting tropical warm pools at or above30C shown in red – April 2020.

The Northern Hemisphere continues to warm from April through to August.  The Pacific warm pools contract as they advance northward and the Indian Ocean warm pools dissipate as the northern monsoon sets in over the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal while the Gulf of Mexico becomes a temperature regulating warm pool and the Persian Gulf becomes the warmest ocean surface on the globe.  Figure 2 highlights this transition by comparison with Figure 1.

Figure 2: Extent of warm pools in August 2019 – red above 30C, yellow above 34C

By September, the solar zenith has moved south and the global oceans are in a cooling phase.  The Gulf of Mexico and Persian Gulf cool rapidly.  Ocean warm pools reduce to their minimum extent in September with only 3% of the ocean water surface at or above 30C as depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Warm pool minimum extent in September – September 2019

The surface temperature upper limit of 32C becomes more apparent when the proportion of ocean surface area at any given temperature is charted as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4:  Area of ocean surface at a specific temperature as a proportion of the total ocean surface area and cumulative proportion by area at or below given surface temperature.

More than 50% of the ocean water surface exceeds 22C as shown in Figure 4 right panel while the peak proportion of area is in the range 28C to 29C but falls off sharply above 29C such that there is less than 1% of the ocean surface area warmer than 32C, left panel.

Warm Pool Temperature Limiting Process Control

The response of the temperature limiting process over tropical warm pools can be observed in hourly intervals when the warm pools exist at the tropical moored buoys.  The same temperature limiting process is observed across the three tropical oceans as set out in the series of ocean surface temperature limiting charts in Figure 5.

Figure 5:  Temperature limiting process in the tropical warm pools; top Pacific, middle Atlantic and bottom Indian (Charted data sourced from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory).

With reference to the surface temperature control charts in Figure 5, the temperature limiting process begins when the surface temperature rises above 30C in clear sky conditions before the local convective cycle sets in.  The cycle starts with cloudburst followed by persistent cloud that reduces surface insolation to slow the rate of rise in temperature.  Moist air diverges from cooler adjacent zones to the warm pool resulting in heavy precipitation that increases the cooling rate in the warm pool.  The high level moist air has been cooled over water at 28C to 29C that is absorbing heat at the surface due to predominantly clear sky conditions above.  Convergence of moist air to the warm pool continues until it is no longer the warm pool.  This is particularly apparent in the middle image where the Atlantic warm pool cools below 30C from day 22 and the precipitation drops to zero as the warm pool moves on.

The Annual Cycle of Warm Pools

As previously observed the warmest regions of the tropical oceans can move appreciably throughout the year but the Equator usually observes the highest annual average surface temperature; always close to 30C in all warm pools as observed in the series of south to north transects through warm pools displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6:  Monthly and annual average sea surface temperature south to north transects – top Western Pacific, middle Indian Ocean through the Arabian Sea, bottom Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Pacific

The Persian Gulf becomes the warmest ocean surface in August each year.  It is the only ocean surface that regularly exceeds 34C in any year.  This unique deviation from the temperature regulating feature of the tropical oceans is highlighted in Figure 7.

Figure 7:  Monthly and annual average sea surface temperature south to north transects centred on 53.5W through the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean – August highlighted with red curve.

Performance of Climate Models in predicting Ocean Surface Temperature

The tropical warm pools present a challenge for climate models because the models rely on cloud parameterisation rather than the actual physics of convective instability that limits the maximum ocean surface temperature.  The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provides a high quality data set for sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific that combines ocean water temperature measurements observed at the tropical moored buoys interpolated between buoys using satellite imagery.  Figure 8 demonstrates the poor performance of the CISIRO and Bureau of Meteorology model, Australian Community Climate and Earth Systems (ACCESS) climate model over the Nino34 region in the tropical Pacific.  The Nino34 region is located between latitudes 5N and 5S from longitudes 120W to 170W.  This region is recognised as an important indicator of global weather and particularly the Pacific El Nino and La Nina modes that influence weather conditions across the eastern States of Australia. 

Figure 8:  Comparison of ACCESS climate model prediction and hindcast over five decades with the actual observed ocean surface temperature over four decades.

It is quite apparent that the model has cooled the past to an extreme degree to maintain its warming trend.  According to the ACCESS hindcast, the well-known 1998 El Nino in Australia could not have possibly occurred because the temperature in this region is observed to exceed 28C for El Nino conditions to form as shown in Figure 8 in the measured data.  The model output clearly demonstrates its poor performance over this important weather influencing region.

The uniqueness of the Persian Gulf provides another example of the poor performance of the ACCESS model over this region in a comparison with measured data in Figure 9.

Figure 9:  Comparing measured and modelled surface temperature in the Persian Gulf for the month of August 1960 to 2020.

In August each year, the Persian Gulf becomes the warmest ocean surface on the globe.  The unique conditions of low mid-level moisture prevents the formation of convective instability and the surface temperature regulating phenomena associated with high level convective cloud.  Here the ACCESS model again produces a poor result but in this case up to four degrees Centigrade cooler than the measured data.

Data Sources

https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_Mhttps://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_SWFLUX_Mhttps://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYD28Mhttps://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYD28M

I have used many months from these sets.  All the charts and images are independently produced meaning not copied images from these links.

There is also data from the moored buoys that I refer to:https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/

4.9 17 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 23, 2021 2:06 pm

It is atmospheric pressure that determines maximum ocean surface temperature:

https://www.newclimatemodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 23, 2021 9:47 pm

But where is the supporting math? This is handwaving.

Reply to  Hans Erren
May 24, 2021 12:13 am

The only math required is the observed fall in the boiling point of water with height.
Thus the greater the weight of atmosphere bearing down on the ocean surface the more energy the oceans are able to hold whilst remaining liquid and the higher the surface temperature becomes.

Last edited 27 days ago by Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 24, 2021 1:02 am

It’s true that atmospheric pressure prevents the formation of vapour bubbles (boiling) until the temperature reaches 100C. So that is a maximum SST. But at the surface, evaporation depends on the partial pressure of water vapour, not atmospheric pressure.

KAT
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2021 2:42 am

NS Tell that to Marine Engineers!
Low pressure sea water evaporating and distilling plants are routinely used at aboard ship (at sea level) in order to supplement boiler feed water and also to desalinate sea water for human consumption. Sea water is boiled at relatively low temperatures(+/- 60C) using the circulating cooling water heat of the marine diesel engines as a heat source. Atmospheric pressure in the Fresh Water Generating plant is reduced by means of air ejectors in order to facilitate this process.
The lower the air pressure – the less heat required.

Last edited 27 days ago by KAT
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 4:52 am

Yes KAT, atmospheric pressure suppresses the breaking of the bonds of attraction between water molecules. It therefore affects evaporation as well as boiling. The formation of bubbles in boiling is just a more vigorous scenario where the liquid forms vapour faster than the vapour can be convected upwards and out of the liquid.

KAT
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 24, 2021 6:13 am

Hence the powerful low air pressure engine that drives the massive evaporation at the centre of a hurricane!

MarkW
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 5:49 am

I’ve got to side with Nick on this one.
Nick says that the atmospheric pressure regulates the boiling point, while partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere regulates evaporation.
You come back by saying that low pressure changes the boiling point.

Not responsive to Nick’s argument at all.

KAT
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 6:25 am

He does not say that! He says that water boils at 100C which is patent nonsense. The boiling point of water is governed by the absolute atmospheric pressure which in turn influences the partial pressure of all atmospheric gases.
The effective suction lift of hot water is considerably less than that of cold water as any engineer should know.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 6:55 am

You still didn’t address the issue. The issue is the partial pressure of the water vapor, not the partial pressure of all gases.

KAT
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 24, 2021 7:13 am

The issue is the temp of SW vis a vis the atmospheric pressure.

MarkW
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 10:34 am

Why is it that some people have to lie about what others have said.
His statement was that at atmospheric pressure, water boils at 100C. Despite your claims to the contrary, he specified the pressure.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 5:59 pm

Actually, the amount of energy required to boil water is about the same at 60°C and 100°C, as any steam table will show. This property is called the heat of vaporization, and slowly decreases as the temperature rises, until it reaches zero at the liquid-vapor critical point. The reduced pressure allows waste heat from the engines to do some work instead of being un-utilized.

Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2021 11:48 am

“Evaporation depends on the partial pressure of water vapor.” The partial pressure of water vapor is a measure of evaporation and depends on the temperature of the water and the concentration of salts. As for the atmospheric pressure, it does not change significantly at sea level.

KAT
Reply to  Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy
May 24, 2021 12:12 pm

Atmospheric pressure measured in tropical storms can be as low as 885mb. This is the equivalent of >3000ft altitude. Massive rate of evaporation due to this low pressue!

MarkW
Reply to  KAT
May 24, 2021 4:11 pm

If all that was needed was low pressure, then you would be able to have hurricanes all year round. Since the affect you claim is so strong and obvious, you should have no trouble demonstrating it in the lab.
I’m waiting.

KAT
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2021 3:50 am

“I’m waiting.”
Presumably you are waiting at tables? 

The following process takes place daily on numerous ship’s at sea therefore a lab demonstration is NOT required!
1) Sea water is WARMED within apparatus typically making use of the main diesel engine circulating water.
2) The air pressure within this apparatus is lowered by some means – usually an air ejector venturi. 
3) Due to the LOW air pressure – the rate of evaporation of the WARM sea water is greatly increased.
4) The resulting water vapour is CONDENSED and this fresh water condensate is collected for use in ship systems.
5) The salt content of the brine is regulated by adjusting the feed flow rate. The resulting sea water brine is pumped overboard. 
Vigorous boiling of the sea water is not recommended because that would lead to prohibitively large salt deposits within the apparatus and may lead to salt water feedwater carry over into the condensate.

Typical Fresh Water Generating plants operating at low capacity may make up to 24 tonne of fresh water per day.
 

– “If all that was needed was low pressure, then you would be able to have hurricanes all year round. ” –

It appears that you have read – but do not comprehend – what I have written previously upthread. You are required to connect the dots.
The combination of LOW air pressure and WARM sea water leads to increased evaporation.
Typically hurricanes/tropical storms are more frequent in calendar months at or about the equinoxes when tropical sea water is generally at it’s warmest. 

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 25, 2021 1:30 am

But at the surface, evaporation depends on the partial pressure of water vapour, not atmospheric pressure.

You, and all the people screaming at you, deem these two criteria independent and of no consequence to each other?
Strange…

Last edited 26 days ago by paranoid goy
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 24, 2021 3:22 am

In about 1969/70 there was a total eclipse in Mexico. I was working as a technician in a Physics department at a Scottish University. A team of 3 went to make some observations at high altitude.

When they got back the main thing they could remember, and tease each other about, was the discussion they’d had about whether it would take longer or not to boil an egg at the altitude they were at. They put it down to brain fuzz caused by lack of oxygen at altitude. I can’t remeber whether or not the got 4 minute or raw eggs.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 24, 2021 9:50 am

Stephen Wilde: <i>It is atmospheric pressure that determines maximum ocean surface temperature: </i>

No role for rate of evaporation? Or are you saying that atmospheric pressure is the (only?) control of rate of evaporation?

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 24, 2021 9:52 am

From the link: The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature 

What are the implications for a system that is never in equilibrium? None?

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
May 24, 2021 12:13 pm

Atmospheric pressure is the only control of the ENERGY COST of evaporation. The energy cost being related to the latent heat of vaporisation which declines with height (decreasing pressure).The RATE of evaporation is affected by many factors and varies from place to place but overall those variations cancel out to to adjustments in convection.

commieBob
May 23, 2021 2:45 pm

There’s this (Snipped Bad Link) where the tropics are warmer than the equator.

Given the temperature regulation process at the equator, does that mean the heat the tropics get from the equator by convection is therefore similarly regulated?

(Try this LINK instead) SUNMOD

Last edited 27 days ago by Sunsettommy
TonyL
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2021 3:52 pm

???????
commieBob,
Check the link, an advertising agency?

Ozonebust
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2021 4:08 pm

commie
Link does not work

saveenergy
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2021 5:02 pm

We can’t connect to the server at phenomenon. ???

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2021 5:31 pm

Drat, foiled again!

link

Sorry folks.

B Clarke
May 23, 2021 3:50 pm

Thank you for a easily digestible intro ,very interesting.

Joel O'Bryan
May 23, 2021 4:08 pm

For completeness and accuracy, 1998 was an overlap year for ENSO cycling. The “98 El Nino” really peaked in December 1997 using the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) (3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region). La Nina conditions were present in the ONI data by June 1998, with the La Nina declared in OND-98 reading. More of 1997 was an ENSO El Nino state than was 1998. 1997 was the true El Nino year, with 1998 the transition.

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

The 1998 La Nina lasted for 32 overlapping 3 month periods in the .v5 data set. So far that 32 period unbroken run is an unprecedented run of colder La Nina conditions in the dataset going back to 1950.

As Tony Heller has shown repeatedly over at his blog (his plot attached below), starting around 2000 is when NOAA had to up their adjustment game dramatically to the raw surface station data in the USHCN to keep the scam running under the influence of the June1998 to February 2001 La Nina cooling.

It’s all in the adjustments at this point. 2000 was a pivotal year for the Climate Scam in so many ways. It’s no wonder the Democrats went kicking and screaming mad at Bush Jr defeating Al Gore and his climate scam cabal in 2000.

USHCNfakingit.jpg
Last edited 27 days ago by joelobryan
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 23, 2021 4:21 pm

As an aside, I think it is safe to predict the same thing will happen in 2023-24 as happened twice before with Democrats needing to keep the scam running in a cooling La Nina state. 2023-24 is when the Biden Harris Admin will be up for re-election and we’ll probably be seeing more/another globally cooling La Nina between now and then. So as happened in 1999-2000, and 2015 (Karl’s 2015 Pause buster paper anyone?), a massive further set of adjustments to the surface data set to even higher levels will be made then.

Last edited 27 days ago by joelobryan
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 23, 2021 4:39 pm

Do you really think that climate scientists outside the USA really care enough about the US presidential elections to commit scientific fraud on a massive scale? Why for example would the Met office in the UK with a conservative prime minister for the last 10 years be interested in helping the US democratic party?

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 5:28 pm

They don’t really care about our leader, although with Trump, they probably made an exception. They do care about hiding any decline in the temperature data since it gives the non-believers ammunition.

ExCali
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 5:46 pm

I can think of a reason. Governments everywhere are responsible for infrastructure maintenance. With more and more jobs being automated and people living longer and longer, governments around the world don’t have enough tax dollars to provide adequate services including infrastructure maintenance. So climate change is a good excuse for infrastructure failure.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  ExCali
May 23, 2021 8:37 pm

ExCali,
If governments don’t have enough money it would be because they have been conned by neoliberal economists to lower tax cuts. The Laffer curve was a con and successive anglosaxon governments around the world have fallen for it repeatedly over the last 40 odd years.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 8:56 pm

Is there any left wing nonsense you don’t believe in.
The Laffer Curve has been demonstrated over and over again as all tax cuts reduce revenue by much less than you liberals claim, and no tax increase ever brings in more than a fraction of what your greedy minds hope.

If there is one thing leftists world wide agree on, is that it’ evil for people to have more than they do, and it’s governments job to take money from those who have earned it so that it can be used to buy the votes of those who would rather not work.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 12:28 am

Mark,
The claim made by Leffer was that tax cuts would increase revenue. But as you seem to agree tax cuts in fact reduce revenue thus disproving the idea behind the Leffer curve.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 24, 2021 5:52 am

As always, leftists have to lie about what others say in order to refute the lie.
Laffer said that there was a point where tax cuts could bring in more revenue than they cost. He never, not even once, said that all tax cuts would bring in more revenue than they cost.

History has also proven him right.
Kennedy’s tax cuts, from 90% down to about 75% cost very little, perhaps no revenue.
Reagan’s tax cuts from 75% down to around 50%, also goosed the economy so much that in a year, the government was receiving more in revenue than they had before the tax cuts.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 6:59 am

Even Trump’s tax cuts generated more revenue. The problem was that Congress didn’t use the extra revenue to decrease the national debt, they just spent even more than what they got.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 5:52 pm

Izaak,
We may disagree about the “why”, but at least we agree about the “what” they are doing.

Meisha
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 6:32 pm

Izaak, are you serious? They ALL want climate change action NOW and the Democrats are their best bet to make that happen. “Scientists,” really?

dk_
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 7:02 pm

Really didn’t notice the fraud. Thanks for pointing that out. Must be an international conspiracy, as you say, for changing the world economy. I didn’t even make the U,K. -> U.S. political conection until you brought it up. Why would you do that?

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 23, 2021 8:52 pm

The scientists in the US and those funded all or in part by grants from the US, care enough to commit fraud on a massive scale.
Other scientists have other reasons for why the commit fraud on a massive scale.
BTW, the so called Conservative party is only conservative in comparison to the near communist Labor party.
Most “Conservative” politicians are to the left of the average Democrat.

Last edited 27 days ago by MarkW
4 Eyes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 24, 2021 3:54 pm

In Australia your scientific career, and a happy life, is over if you don’t go along with the scam. Self preservation will drive anyone to do not so honorable things, like mess with climate data – that is how the left works. Fear is leftism 101.

DMacKenzie,
May 23, 2021 4:25 pm

Fig. 5 shows that clouds and rain, also clouds and low surface SWR go together. Of course, that is to be expected. Also shows that at a fixed buoy location, neither affect SST in a repeatable way. That’s something to note…the number of molecules of water in the air due to Clausius-Clapeyron equation will try to stay about the same due to that relatively constant SST. The clouds from that water vapor are being generated somewhere else than the buoy location, when the SWR goes back up and the sun shines again after the rain.

CO2isLife
May 23, 2021 4:39 pm

CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18&micro; doesn’t penetrate or warm water. Also, I’ve identified over 500 stations that show no warming with an increase in CO2.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH

MarkW
Reply to  CO2isLife
May 23, 2021 8:58 pm

LWIR doesn’t warm water, shorter wavelengths do that.
Warmer air makes it harder for the heat being put in by the sun to escape.
Why you haven’t noticed any warming as CO2 goes up is because the atmosphere itself hasn’t been warming.

May 23, 2021 4:49 pm

“According to the ACCESS hindcast, the well-known 1998 El Nino in Australia could not have possibly occurred because the temperature in this region is observed to exceed 28C for El Nino conditions to form as shown in Figure 8 in the measured data.”

ACCESS is a climate model. It does not predict the timing of weather, including El Nino. It represents the physics of Earth, so there will be El Nino’s, but their timing is not related to what is observed on Earth.

As to trend, the article doesn’t make clear which GCM variable is being plotted. Is it TOS (SST) or, as I suspect, the more accessible TAS (surface air)? They are different.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 5:56 pm

Fair and valid points Nick.

RickWill
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 6:37 pm

Nick stated:

Is it TOS (SST) or, as I suspect, the more accessible TAS (surface air)? They are different.

The statement is true but not relevant to the NIno34 region because it is usually a divergence zone and evaporation brings the water temperature and air temperature into reasonable alignment as observed at a moored buoy in the region:
overplot0n155w_19790120_20210522_lf__tt_eps211t_eps281t_2021052318.png

Convergence can separate the temperature readings between air and water but not the long term trend. With convergence as occurs in the warm pools, the air temperature is lower than the water temperature. The rain is coming down cold so that cools the air and immediate surface. It takes persistent rain to impact 1m down where the upper probe measures.

Last edited 27 days ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
May 23, 2021 7:08 pm

You’re arguing that GCM TAS might correspond to SST. Why not show TOS, which is their explicit estimate of SST?

RickWill
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 7:41 pm

Did you look at the link. The surface temperature and the air temperature are basically the same in the Nino34 region – buoys have air and water guages; maybe you missed the fact that both measurements are charted because they are mostly on top of each other. I am not going to be concerned if climate models get this detail wrong because there are greater flaws like showing trends where there can be none.

Reply to  RickWill
May 23, 2021 11:18 pm

“Did you look at the link.”
Yes, I did. It shows just one buoy in one location, with a lot of missing data. And in the regions where both have data, SST and air temp are hardly in lockstep.

Still no answer to the question, if the right variable TOS is available, why not use it to compare with SST, instead of handwaving about the equivalence of TAS?

RickWill
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2021 12:38 am

Nick wrote:

Yes, I did. It shows just one buoy in one location, with a lot of missing data. 

You did not look very hard. You assume the data missing because they are on top of each other. To make it easy for you I have attached 30 years of data in separate plots. If you click on the displayed image it will enlarge to enable you to confirm the scales are identical.

This buoy is in the middle of the Nino34 region. If climate models are showing a difference between air and water temperatures in this region then they get that wrong as well.

Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.31.20 pm.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 9:39 pm

It doesn’t matter TOS or TAS nor ENSO timing …. look at the trends. Model trends are significantly higher than measured over long timeframes. Playing with minutia doesn’t alter the fact that UN IPCC CliSciFi models are bunk.

Loren C. Wilson
May 23, 2021 5:26 pm

My poor eyes can’t read the scale or labels of most of your graphs. As I was taught in school on how to present data, make the font much larger than you think you need to because the graph will be reduced in scale when it is printed.

RickWill
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
May 23, 2021 6:39 pm

Appreciate the comment and will correct in the final paper. Other reviewers have made the same observation and I also struggle with Figure 4 that started out as two charts but were placed side-by-side to reduce white space.

May 23, 2021 5:32 pm

I’ve watched this argument developing, and it seems to have a lot of post hoc, propter hoc fallacy about it. Because a phenomenon has in the past stayed between limits, there must be some inexorable enforcement of those limits. And of course it isn’t necessarily so.

If you had looked at ppm CO2 over the last million years to 1850, you might well say that it couldn’t exceed 280 ppm. And indeed, there was a mechanism enforcing that, which was the total amount of carbon in circulation. But starting about then, we changed that, and it is now getting to 420 ppm.

That in turn changes a lot of other historical patterns.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 6:04 pm

“the last million years to 1850”
The last million years of climate should scare the Hell out of any real climate scientist.
The fact we live in an ice age and we are currently just in a small inter-glacial informs us that CO2 is not the problem. But it may be the answer.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 6:29 pm

Nick,
Good point.
And if you had looked at ppm CO2 over the last million years to 1850, you also might well say
that CO2 has not been the primary driver of the planets’ temperature.

Reply to  B ZIpperer
May 23, 2021 7:10 pm

And you’d be right. Nothing was driving CO2, so it could not drive temperature. But now there is.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 8:21 pm

More to the point is that the equatorial water temp. remains stable or capped at worst.
What that means is that we will not fry even if the world warms as a consequence of the CO2 rise.
The point is that the tropics receive the bulk of the solar energy and frantically expel it if in excess.
Given that we evolved in the tropics and the biggest portion of the world suffers from Vit D3 deficiency since we moved to colder regions, one would wonder why, but warmer air means more skin in the sun.
Willis E has been working on this space for a bit and this is another perspective with a similar conclusion.

Drake
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 9:26 pm

C’mon MAN, temperature rise of the “earth” has always LED CO2 rise and vise versa. Current CO2 rise is DRIVEN by temperature rise coming out of the LIA.

Please provide, since YOU have all he numbers your belief system is based on, the TOTAL amount in ppm of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that can be DIRECTLY attributed to combustion of fossil fuels by us humans over the last 170 years. Please do not discount the REQUIRED increase in OCEAN total heat content (that MUST be the place where the magical lost heat is hidden), and the volume of CO2 that, due to that change of heat, has been released from the worlds oceans into the atmosphere. Also don’t forget that portion of fossil fuel CO2 that would be absorbed into the oceans, and into the worldwide biosphere, (CO2 Greening) and into all buildings/structures made of wood and any other human made materials or activities which are sequestering CO2, etc.

Or reference some legitimate scientific document that has already provided the same complete analysis. I would think you would have such document at your fingertips to make your above statement.

I thank you in advance.

Reply to  Drake
May 23, 2021 9:50 pm

“C’mon MAN, temperature rise of the “earth” has always LED CO2 rise and vise versa”
You don’t seem to read very well. Let me say it again:
Nothing was driving CO2, so it could not drive temperature. But now there is.
—-
“Please provide, since YOU have all he numbers your belief system is based on, the TOTAL amount in ppm of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that can be DIRECTLY attributed to combustion of fossil fuels by us humans over the last 170 years.”
Yes, I do have those numbers, here. The growth of mass of C in the air almost exactly matches the rate at which we have burnt it, with a surprisingly stable factor (about 0.5) determining how much goes into the sea. We have burnt about twice as much C as the excess that is now in the air.
comment image

Plus, of course the definitive isotopic analysis.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 25, 2021 8:10 am

OK, let’s play “it must be fossil fuel burning releasing a lot of C12 because we can’t think of anything else causing a light C signal.”

Think better.

The Amazon, Congo etc are not the lungs of the planet. The oceans with their huge biomass of plankton fix more CO2, release more oxygen. Is it possible that plankton growth and metabolism have been changed by pollution, nutrient release , run-off? Let’s speculate.

How to increase the C13 pulldown of a lower overall export to the deep ocean?

1) Increase the turbidity of the nutrient rich zones which lowers light level for growing plankton. Plankton switches to less isotope discriminatory fixation pathways but populations reduce. Less export, more CO2 but pulldown takes relatively more heavy C to the depths. Result light CO2 signal.

2} Reduce ocean stirring by suppressing waves with oil/surfactant pollution, which reduces nutrient levels near the surface, see 1).

3)increase dissolved silica by massive increase of farming. The run-off is welcomed by diatoms* which are silica limited and as their metabolism is ‘C4-like’ their pulldown will be relatively heavier in C13. They don’t export calcareous shells to the deep ocean, more CO2 in the atmosphere.

4) invent the Haber process which now matches natural nitrogen fixation. No idea what this will do to pulldown and isotope fixation.

Etc. Any more?

JF
*Wouldn’t it be exciting to discover that the cod fishery off Newfoundland was affected by the feeding habits of fish fry. And while we’re here I wonder what gyre pollution is doing to elver survival.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2021 9:44 pm

The paleo data and early 20th Century and 21st Century temperature patterns put lie to the CO2 control knob CliSciFi speculation.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2021 10:02 am

I’ve watched this argument developing, and it seems to have a lot of post hoc, propter hoc fallacy about it. Because a phenomenon has in the past stayed between limits, there must be some inexorable enforcement of those limits. And of course it isn’t necessarily so.

A fair point. But some of the physics (e.g. latent heat of evaporation of water) is known and is consistent; in other words, the hypothesis is testable.

May 23, 2021 9:54 pm

I have two questions: 1 what is happening in the persian gulf in high summer, why is the water getting so hot compared to open ocean water.
2 eocene equatorial water exceeded 32 deg, why dud this happen?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0272-2?WT.feed_name=subjects_palaeoclimate
Synchronous tropical and polar temperature evolution in the Eocene

Reply to  Hans Erren
May 23, 2021 10:41 pm

Another paper: The middle to late Eocene greenhouse climate modelled using the CESM 1.0.5
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/2573/2020/

RickWill
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 23, 2021 11:11 pm

Current climate models are based on a myth so of little value.

Reply to  RickWill
May 24, 2021 1:01 am

Rick it’s not the model output that is of interest in the copernicus paper but the calibrates proxy SST’s in supplement S3 which show 34 and 36 degrees for Tanzania and Java. (Equatorial region)

RickWill
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 23, 2021 11:09 pm

Drakes Passage opened about 30 million years ago. That enabled the Southern Ocean circulation that cooled the Pacific.

I would be surprised if any open tropical ocean warm pool reached an average of 32C. I have certainly not seen evidence of this even before Drakes Passage opened.

If you have the paper, can you provide the specific wording of the tropical warm pools with regard to being warmer than 32C. If it is just model output then it is bunkum. There needs to be good temperature proxies to support such a claim.

Reply to  RickWill
May 24, 2021 1:03 am
RickWill
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 24, 2021 11:17 pm

Hans
I looked through this paper and that 36C number comes from Evans. That paper here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322647581_Eocene_greenhouse_climate_revealed_by_coupled_clumped_isotope-MgCa_thermometry/download

Figure 3 is the important bit as it shows the temperature range that Evans established. Much the same as my transects.

The pink band is what comes out of a climate model – clearly way WRONG.

Screen Shot 2021-05-25 at 4.15.16 pm.png
RickWill
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 23, 2021 11:20 pm

On Q1 – The Persian Gulf is discussed in Part 2. This link to null school showing mid level moisture in August last year gives it away:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/08/28/0600Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-298.26,30.93,318/loc=53.430,25.509
Compare that to the tropical region to the south of India.

The uniqueness of the Persian Gulf encouraged me to understand the process of deep convection. Water vapour in the mid level is close to 100% of saturation

Reply to  RickWill
May 24, 2021 1:11 am

Thanks looking forward to it. Last year (just before covid) i attended a talk by Appy Sluijs in Amsterdam where he showed Elevated TEX87 equatorial Eocene SST proxies. The physical SST limit is at odds with the proxy data.

RickWill
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 24, 2021 1:56 am

Hans
I will have a look for details.

As far as I can determine the regulating process is robust. When you go back 60M years there could be a lot of changes. I have looked at atmospheric pressure and it does not alter the limiting conditions ver much. Land can certainly disrupt the process but it is usually limited to small pockets, not the open ocean warm pools.

MarkW
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 24, 2021 10:37 am

Is it possible that since the Red Sea is a narrow gulf, saltiness increases as evaporation increases.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 4:14 pm

What kind of low class troll would downvote that?

RickWill
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 10:27 pm

It is a good question and something I considered. I was surprised to see that it is less salty on the surface than at depth. The evaporation rate is so high that the surface water is constantly being refreshed from the Arabian Sea.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vertical-profiles-of-temperature-salinity-and-sigma-t-for-some-selected-deep-stations-in_fig1_285581886

Julian Flood
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 25, 2021 8:14 am

The ocean broke into a huge oil reservoir. Oil-polluted water can heat up more — lower albedo, less evaporation, less aerosol production.

JF

Julian Flood
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 25, 2021 10:08 am

the persian gulf in high summer, why is the water getting so hot compared to open ocean water.”

Light oil pollution*. Covering water surfaces with oil in order to speed up heating has been used in fish and rice cultivation.

JF
*Better expressed as ‘pollution by light oil’. See Benjamin Franklin Clapham pond.

Waza
May 24, 2021 2:01 am

Rick
thanks for the very informative article.

As I am a layman in this field, can you please explain how this is linked to Hadley Cells.
Alarmist theory states that CO2 leads to an expansion of the Hadley Cell which in turn forces the Sub Tropical Ridge over Australia further south which then causes more droughts and bushfires.
I am interested to know how solid the Alarmist evidence is, that the Hadley Cell will actually expand.
thanks in advance

RickWill
Reply to  Waza
May 24, 2021 3:03 am

Waza
I appreciate your interest.

There are three parts. The second part is more on the process of deep convection. The third covers the observed role of water in the atmosphere. They become more controversial in terms of the common beliefs as I unfold the physics backed with the evidence.

Ultimately the physics is quite simple and I hope I present it in a way that is easily understood.

Once you get through part three you may be able to answer your question without further input from me.

Alasdair Fairbairn
May 24, 2021 5:56 am

The reason for this magic figure of 30C may be found in the Vapour Pressure V Temperature graph of water. Unfortunately I am unable to paste the image here; but maybe the link below may produce it.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/0_zRWobNniQ5N8ScRWc17knKJZyFFD2aI5MYgzXPfb8UA-SSnQ2gMcRZn9R-9x9t5Kbh_mH8bfd15nx5A29Vwz5kM4rofUUeauGcjA83SpA4xfpVtRvISUPmkuzToL-eOuhpJYc
Here the Antoine equation is used.

Presented logarithmically it is quite evident that the Vapour Pressure rapidly increases between 25 to 30 degC and thereafter extremely fast. (almost vertical).

The rate of evaporation is a function of the difference between this Vapour Pressure and the Partial Pressure of the water in the atmosphere. Thus above this 30C temperature the solar energy input absorbed is converted to Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature during the generation of the Vapor/gas phase; hence curtailing any further increase in temperature. The Latent Heat involved more or less matches the solar input and due to the buoyancy of the vapor/gas moves UP through the atmosphere and beyond to space for dissipation. We are dealing here with large energy levels at around the 694 Watthrs per kilogram of water evaporated at the surface.

Evidence for this may be found in our steam generating plants using the Rankine Cycle where an increase in energy input results in an equivalent output merely by increasing the rate of the cycle, but not the overall mass of the working fluid. The whole process taking place at a constant temperature and pressure. (ie: at a Planck sensitivity coefficient of Zero)

It seems here that the Hydrocycle is operating as a Rankine Cycle, albeit at very different temperatures and pressures and variable throughout the atmosphere due to gravity. Indeed very complex at the micro/fractal level in the clouds.

RickWill
Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
May 24, 2021 10:14 pm

Alasdair
It is more involved than just the rapid rise in water vapour pressure with temperature. If you go through the analysis in Part 2 of this work it sheds more light on the process of convective instability. The water vapour partial pressure with temperature is a fundamental but so is the BUOYANCY of water vapour in air.

RickWill
Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
May 24, 2021 10:19 pm

It seems here that the Hydrocycle is operating as a Rankine Cycle,

It is not far removed from this. Water evaporates at the surface through heat input. The water vapour gets catapulted high into the atmosphere through its buoyancy and expansion then is cooled to ice and condensate by OLR emissions.

Creating convective potential energy in the atmosphere is very much like the condenser on a heat engine.

Robert of Ottawa
May 24, 2021 6:22 am

Diving in Darwin Bay one year, I recorded 32C at the surface and also registered 35C but that may have been the result of air temperature. 32 was great, being used to diving in the St. Lawrence.

Drew
May 24, 2021 7:21 am

Figure 4 needs to be a larger resolution image.

RickWill
Reply to  Drew
May 24, 2021 3:31 pm

Noted above – will increase font in final paper.

Radford Neal
May 24, 2021 7:59 am

In Figure 5, the vertical scale is cut off at 1000, but some of the peaks seem to go above that (by some unknown amount). This isn’t good when the point of the figure is to try to show that the peaks are of limited height.

RickWill
Reply to  Radford Neal
May 24, 2021 3:34 pm

Thank you – I noticed that too and will fix.

Matthew R Marler
May 24, 2021 9:48 am

Richard Willoughby

Thank you for the essay.

Tom Abbott
May 24, 2021 11:34 am

What is that warm pool that is located off the east coast of Africa in Figure 3?

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 24, 2021 4:10 pm

Good observation and something I had not taken much notice of. I have made an error in downloading the MODIS data for surface temp. The image is not for September. I will correct it in the final paper. Not sure if it will still be the lowest extent of warm pools in the year.

%d bloggers like this: